Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-j4qg9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-10T02:36:28.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Should the Majority Rule? Experimental Evidence for Madisonian Judgments in Five Cultures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2020

Alexander Bor Open the ORCID record for Alexander Bor [Opens in a new window] ,
Honorata Mazepus ,
Scott E. Bokemper  and
Peter DeScioli
Alexander Bor*
Affiliation:
Aarhus University, Department of Political Science, Bartholins allé 7, Aarhus C, 8000, Denmark
Honorata Mazepus
Affiliation:
Leiden University, Institute of Security and Global Affairs, The Hague, The Netherlands
Scott E. Bokemper
Affiliation:
Yale University, Center for the Study of American Politics, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, New Haven, CT, USA
Peter DeScioli
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook, NY, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: alexander.bor@ps.au.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In democracies, majority-rule voting is an esteemed rule for collective decisions, but its hazards have recently become apparent after a series of controversial referendums and ascendant populist leaders. Here, we investigate people’s judgments about when voting is appropriate for collective decisions across five countries with diverse cultures and political institutions (Denmark, Hungary, India, Russia, and USA). Participants read scenarios in which individuals with conflicting preferences need to make a collective decision. They judged whether the group should decide by voting, consensus, leadership, or chance. We experimentally manipulated whether the group contains a vulnerable minority – a smaller number of people with more at stake than the majority. In all five countries, participants generally preferred voting without a vulnerable minority, with relatively greater support for voting in more democratic countries. But, when the group included a vulnerable minority, participants in all countries reduced their support for voting and instead preferred consensus.

Keywords

decision-makingminority groupsvotingpolitical psychology
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Spring 2021 , pp. 41 - 50
Copyright
© The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Citation of data: The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: doi: 10.7910/DVN/JNMDCO.

References

Acemoglu, D., and Robinson, J. A.. 2012. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Balliet, D., Parks, C., and Joireman, J.. 2009. Social Value Orientation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 12(4), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochsler, D., and Hug, S.. 2015. How Minorities Fare Under Referendums: A Cross-national Study. Electoral Studies 38, 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bor, A., Mazepus, H., Bokemper, S., and DeScioli, P.. 2020. Replication Data for: When Should the Majority Rule? Experimental Evidence for Madisonian Judgments in Five Cultures. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JNMDCO CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovard, J. 1995. Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty. New York: St Martin’s Griffin.Google Scholar
Boyer, P., and Petersen, M. B.. 2012. The Naturalness of (many) Social Institutions: Evolved Cognition as their Foundation. Journal of Institutional Economics 8(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137411000300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S., and Gelman, R.. 2014. The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology and Cognition. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., and Rabin, M.. 2002. Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 117(3), 817–869. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302760193904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, A., O’Brien, D. Z., and Piscopo, J. M.. 2019. All Male Panels? Representation and Democratic Legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science 63(1), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delton, A. W., Petersen, M. B., DeScioli, P., and Robertson, T. E.. 2018. Need, Compassion, and Support for Social Welfare. Political Psychology 39(4), 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delton, A. W., and Robertson, T. E.. 2016. How the Mind Makes Welfare Tradeoffs: Evolution, Computation, and Emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology 7, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeScioli, P., and Bokemper, S. E.. 2019. Intuitive Political Theory: People’s Judgments about How Groups Should Decide. Political Psychology 40, 617–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeScioli, P., Massenkoff, M., Shaw, A., Petersen, M. B., and Kurzban, R.. 2014. Equity or Equality? Moral Judgments Follow the Money. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1797). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2112 Google ScholarPubMed
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., and Persson, M.. 2012. Which Decision-Making Arrangements Generate the Strongest Legitimacy Beliefs? Evidence from a Randomised Field Experiment. European Journal of Political Research 51(6), 785–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02052.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, B. S. 1997. Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote. American Journal of Political Science 41(1), 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, D. P., Querze, A., and Lindaman, K.. 2007. Lose, Win, or Draw? A Reexamination of Direct Democracy and Minority Rights. Political Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907301984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Hajnal, Z. L., Gerber, E. R., and Louch, H.. 2002. Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections. The Journal of Politics 64(1), 154–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, M., and Hibbing, M. V.. 2017. The Symbolic Benefits of Descriptive and Substantive Representation. Political Behavior 39(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9345-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, J. R., and Alford, J. R.. 2004. Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators. American Journal of Political Science 48(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, S. B. 2016. The Brexit Vote: A Divided Nation, a Divided Continent. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, S., and Tsebelis, G.. 2002. Veto Players and Referendums around the World. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14(4), 465–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/095162902774006831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpowitz, C. F., Mendelberg, T., and Shaker, L.. 2012. Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review 106(3), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madison, J. 1787. Federalist No. 10. In The Federalist, eds. Dawson, H. B. New York: Charles Scribner, 55–64.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1869. On Liberty. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.Google Scholar
Norris, P., and Inglehart, R.. 2018. Understanding Brexit: Cultural Resentment Versus Economic Grievances. In Paper for presentation at the American Political Science Association’s annual convention, Boston.; HKS Working Paper No. RWP18-021. Available at SSRN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, M. B., and Aarøe, L.. 2013. Politics in the Mind’s Eye: Imagination as a Link between Social and Political Cognition. American Political Science Review 107(2), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055413000026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, M. B., Sell, A., Tooby, J., and Cosmides, L.. 2012. To Punish or Repair? Evolutionary Psychology and Lay Intuitions about Modern Criminal Justice. Evolution and Human Behavior 33(6), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pietraszewski, D., and Shaw, A.. 2015. Not by Strength Alone. Human Nature 26(1), 44–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-015-9220-0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popper, K. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A., and Teune, H.. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094059 Google Scholar
Repacholi, B. M., and Gopnik, A.. 1997. Early Reasoning about Desires: Evidence from 14- and 18-Month-Olds. Developmental Psychology 33(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.1.12 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruffman, T., Aitken, J., Wilson, A., Puri, A., and Taumoepeau, M.. 2018. A Re-examination of the Broccoli Task: Implications for Children’s Understanding of Subjective Desire. Cognitive Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2017.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M. F. H., Svetlova, M., Johe, J., and Tomasello, M.. 2016. Children’s Developing Understanding of Legitimate Reasons for Allocating Resources Unequally. Cognitive Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sell, A., Tooby, J., and Cosmides, L.. 2009. Formidability and the Logic of Human Anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(35), 15073–15078. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0904312106 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sen, A. K. 1977. Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs 6(4), 317–344.Google Scholar
Sulkin, T., and Simon, A. F.. 2001. Habermas in the Lab: A Study of Deliberation in an Experimental Setting. Political Psychology 22(4), 809–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullock, G. 1959. Problems of Majority Voting. Journal of Political Economy 67(6), 571–579. https://doi.org/10.1086/258244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Bor et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JNMDCO
Link
Supplementary material: File

Bor et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Bor et al. supplementary material(File)
File 905.9 KB