IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jexpos/v11y2024i2p224-236_9.html

Discussion and Fairness in a Laboratory Voting Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Woon, Jonathan
  • Jang, Minsu
  • Pronin, Kira
  • Schiller, Jacob

Abstract

We conduct a laboratory experiment to investigate whether public discussion before a majority vote increases the saliency of minority interests and results in more egalitarian outcomes or whether voters use discussion to form majorities that benefit at the expense of minorities. When there are two alternatives, we find that public discussion increases the likelihood that individuals vote for equal allocations, but has little to no impact on the group outcomes. When participants choose among one equal and several unequal options, the multitude of unequal options creates a coordination problem, and we find that discussion decreases the frequency of egalitarian decisions. Our findings suggest that the effect of public communication on the fairness of majority voting outcomes depends on the strategic environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Woon, Jonathan & Jang, Minsu & Pronin, Kira & Schiller, Jacob, 2024. "Discussion and Fairness in a Laboratory Voting Experiment," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 224-236, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jexpos:v:11:y:2024:i:2:p:224-236_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2052263023000295/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jexpos:v:11:y:2024:i:2:p:224-236_9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/xps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.