Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators

John R Hibbing, John R. Alford

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

64 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Why are people more willing to accept some governmental decisions than others? In this article, we present results from a series of original experiments showing that people's reactions to a given outcome are heavily influenced by the procedure employed to produce the outcome. We find that subjects react much less favorably when a decision maker intentionally keeps a large payoff, thereby leaving the subject with a small payoff, than when that same payoff results from a procedure based on chance or on desert. Moreover, subjects react less favorably to outcomes rendered by decision makers who want to be decision makers than they do to identical outcomes selected by reluctant decision makers. Our results are consistent with increasingly prominent theories of behavior emphasizing people's aversion to being played for a "sucker," an attitude that makes perfect sense if people's main goal is not to acquire as many tangible goods as possible but to make sure they are a valued part of a viable group composed of cooperative individuals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)62-76
Number of pages15
JournalAmerican Journal of Political Science
Volume48
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2004

Fingerprint

decision maker
desert
experiment
Group

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

Accepting Authoritative Decisions : Humans as Wary Cooperators. / Hibbing, John R; Alford, John R.

In: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 48, No. 1, 01.01.2004, p. 62-76.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{2db033c41ac14ec3bdad422788b1de0c,
title = "Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators",
abstract = "Why are people more willing to accept some governmental decisions than others? In this article, we present results from a series of original experiments showing that people's reactions to a given outcome are heavily influenced by the procedure employed to produce the outcome. We find that subjects react much less favorably when a decision maker intentionally keeps a large payoff, thereby leaving the subject with a small payoff, than when that same payoff results from a procedure based on chance or on desert. Moreover, subjects react less favorably to outcomes rendered by decision makers who want to be decision makers than they do to identical outcomes selected by reluctant decision makers. Our results are consistent with increasingly prominent theories of behavior emphasizing people's aversion to being played for a {"}sucker,{"} an attitude that makes perfect sense if people's main goal is not to acquire as many tangible goods as possible but to make sure they are a valued part of a viable group composed of cooperative individuals.",
author = "Hibbing, {John R} and Alford, {John R.}",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00056.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "62--76",
journal = "American Journal of Political Science",
issn = "0092-5853",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accepting Authoritative Decisions

T2 - Humans as Wary Cooperators

AU - Hibbing, John R

AU - Alford, John R.

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - Why are people more willing to accept some governmental decisions than others? In this article, we present results from a series of original experiments showing that people's reactions to a given outcome are heavily influenced by the procedure employed to produce the outcome. We find that subjects react much less favorably when a decision maker intentionally keeps a large payoff, thereby leaving the subject with a small payoff, than when that same payoff results from a procedure based on chance or on desert. Moreover, subjects react less favorably to outcomes rendered by decision makers who want to be decision makers than they do to identical outcomes selected by reluctant decision makers. Our results are consistent with increasingly prominent theories of behavior emphasizing people's aversion to being played for a "sucker," an attitude that makes perfect sense if people's main goal is not to acquire as many tangible goods as possible but to make sure they are a valued part of a viable group composed of cooperative individuals.

AB - Why are people more willing to accept some governmental decisions than others? In this article, we present results from a series of original experiments showing that people's reactions to a given outcome are heavily influenced by the procedure employed to produce the outcome. We find that subjects react much less favorably when a decision maker intentionally keeps a large payoff, thereby leaving the subject with a small payoff, than when that same payoff results from a procedure based on chance or on desert. Moreover, subjects react less favorably to outcomes rendered by decision makers who want to be decision makers than they do to identical outcomes selected by reluctant decision makers. Our results are consistent with increasingly prominent theories of behavior emphasizing people's aversion to being played for a "sucker," an attitude that makes perfect sense if people's main goal is not to acquire as many tangible goods as possible but to make sure they are a valued part of a viable group composed of cooperative individuals.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1442304118&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1442304118&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00056.x

DO - 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00056.x

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:1442304118

VL - 48

SP - 62

EP - 76

JO - American Journal of Political Science

JF - American Journal of Political Science

SN - 0092-5853

IS - 1

ER -