The article reminded me of an
experiment. Unfortunately, I've previously written about it, but it's particularly a propos here. Let me explain.
Social psychologists study two types of
justice norms. Distributive justice refers to the fair
allocation of social outcomes (rewards and punishments). Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the processes for arriving at
those outcomes. For example, in a classroom, the distributive
justice question is whether the grades fair. Procedural
justice refers to questions like whether the tests are relevant to the course, or whether the teacher is free of bias. Even a good decision doesn't feel right
if it was not arrived at by fair procedures.
One variable that influences people's
procedural justice judgements is voice—the
opportunity to express yourself or present your views. People who
have some input into the decision process are more satisfied with a
decision than others in the same circumstances who are not given a
voice. This is especially true when the outcome goes against their
self-interest. But this raises the possibility that authorities will
attempt to manipulate citizens' satisfaction with a decision by
trying to convince them that they have more influence than they
actually do.
All rights reserved by BBurnie82 |
How often have you
heard this scenario? The county (or city, or state, or federal)
government is about to make an important decision affecting all of
our lives. But before they decide, they will travel around and hold
several public hearings on the issue. Citizens who have an opinion
on the question are invited to attend one of the meetings and present
their views. The question of course is this: Are the
decision-makers really listening to your views, or have they already
made up their minds, and are they simply going through the motions of
soliciting public input? Maybe public hearings are just another way
of “cooling the mark out.” The right to be heard is, after all,
not the right to be heeded.
Social
psychologists Allan Lind and Tom Tyler have found that voice makes a
difference in satisfaction even when it's objectively unlikely that
the speakers will have much influence on the decision. To test the
limits of this “voice effect,” Lind, Kanfer and Earley did a study in 1990 in which student participants were allowed to present
evidence to a decision maker. For some of them, their presentation
was delivered before authorities had decided what to do—the usual
situation. But other participants were told that the
decision had already been made,
and then invited to present their views. A third group was given no
voice. The results showed that people who got to speak before the
decision were more satisfied than those who didn't speak until after
the decision. But even under the absurd circumstance of presenting
evidence after it was too late, participants with voice were more
satisfied with the decision than those who were not given an
opportunity to express their views. The authors had speculated that
there might be a frustration effect leading to more dissatisfaction with the decision in the after condition, but there was
not.
Before
this study, the accepted explanation for the voice effect was that
people optimistically believed they might persuade decision makers to
accept their point of view. The Lind study suggests that people also
value voice for self-expressive reasons. Maybe getting to present
your views is an indication that you are respected by the community,
although you might think that self-respect would be reduced by the
knowledge that the intended audience is not paying any attention.
Are people really that easily fooled by manipulations of
voice? Maybe all authorities have to do is pretend
to listen to our views and we are more satisfied with their
decisions.
Even a
casual newspaper reader can't help but notice that the timing of this
announcement was a rude and arrogant gesture on Fitzgerald's part.
His statement was followed by pro-fracking speeches by three Consol
executives and a parade of elected officials. I'm told that those
people who came to present the case against fracking were furious.
To their credit, they resisted the impulse to fling feces at
Fitzgerald. Even though it took more than an hour before the first
citizen got to speak, they politely played their part in this theatre
of the absurd, delivering their prepared speeches even though it was
futile. This can be partially justified by the fact that the county
council has not yet ratified the decision, although approval is
almost certain.
I
don't mean to imply that the members of Marcellus Protest were ever naïve
enough to think they could convince the county not to drill
on airport land. I also don't mean to suggest that they are in any
way “satisfied” with the decision. These are well-informed,
committed activists, whose views are not going to be turned around by one incident. They are more likely to show a frustration effect
than Lind's participants. In fact, I'd be surprised if this experience
doesn't have some effect on their cynicism about government and their
willingness to participate in future public hearings.
Judging
from my email box, the Pittsburgh area is awash in public hearings.
Does all of this activity translate into more democratic
decision-making? One way of looking Thursday's events is that Rich
Fitzgerald let his side down—his side being his fellow
politicians. He has laid bare their guilty secret for everyone to
see. Public hearings are a sham. They are just
a way of keeping the suckers occupied, while the real decisions are
made behind closed doors.
I was there and couldn't agree with your analysis of the situation more. In fact, as I stood squashed in the back for over an hour, trapped listening to the seemingly endless shilling of one after another hand-selected Consol & Cronies speakers, my immediate thoughts were that Fitzgerald really HAD taken it too far. Despite being the 9th registered speaker, I didn't speak until well over 90 minutes in to the "hearing" -- or more aptly, the "telling", as it were...
ReplyDeletei ALSO WAS AT THE DOG AND PONY SHOW. mY FIRST REACTION WAS TO POLITE AND I DONT THINK ANYONE EXCEPT Frackgerald and his moneymongers knew what was going to happen. I agree with the article and will say this, we not only have a drilling problem, we also have a bigger democracy problem. We are seeing state run corporate facsism. The people are nothing but sheep being led to the shearer and in the end we will probably get what we deserve.
ReplyDeleteGreat comments and article. I think we all want to believe that Democracy is alive here in the good ol USA but I am old enough to know better. I wish it could be a democratic process and our rights were respected. That some politicians still have integrity and are not bought. That taxpaying citizens have more rights than corporations but I must wake up from my dream now and get back to the reality of this nightmare.
ReplyDeleteOne thing for sure, there are those who complain, there are those who are complacent, and there are we the people who will fight for what is right, until the end!