Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

My Life for A Voice: The Influence of Voice on Health-Care Decisions

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Are people willing to give up affordable healthcare and future years of their lives in exchange for having a voice in healthcare decision-making? Drawing upon research on the psychology of justice, we claim that the fairness of healthcare decision-making procedures, expressed by the availability of voice, can be more important than critical health-related outcomes. We examined this proposition using a forced-choice paradigm that required participants to choose between voice and better healthcare outcomes (affordable healthcare and greater life expectancy). Findings from three studies revealed that people maintain a strong preference for voice even at the expense of tangible healthcare outcomes. In study 1, participants preferred a healthcare plan that offered them a voice when it was $3,000–$12,000 more costly than a plan that did not offer such voice privileges. In study 2, participants preferred a voice plan to a no-voice plan when the no-voice plan was 5–20 years greater in its average life expectancy compared with the voice plan. In study 3, which used a more demographically diverse, non-student sample, the preference for the voice plan persisted across all conditions, even when the no-voice plan was 25 years greater in its life expectancy, and even when participants’ expected to personally live longer under the no-voice plan. These results are explained by participants’ expectation to enjoy better personal healthcare outcomes and greater autonomy when afforded voice. These findings demonstrate the importance of voice in hypothetical decision-making relevant to policy-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motive. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, M. H. (1974). The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Education Monographs, 2, 324–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Siegel, P. A., Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., Grover, S., et al. (1998). The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 394–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D. (2007). Advances in the psychology of justice and affect. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & Alberts, H. J. E. M. (2004). When procedural fairness does not influence how positive I feel: The effects of voice and leader selection as a function of belongingness need. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., Cornelis, I., & van Hiel, A. (2008). To whom does voice in groups matter? Effects of voice on affect and procedural fairness judgments as a function of social dominance orientation. Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 61–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J., & Corkran, L. (1979). Effects of “voice” and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2253–2261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilliland, S. W., & Beckstein, B. A. (1996). Procedural and distributive justice in the editorial review process. Personnel Psychology, 49, 669–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 235–256). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, P. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Procedural justice, outcome favorability, and emotion. Social Justice Research, 13, 339–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langendijk, G., van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2009). How power and trust explain procedural fairness effects on self-esteem. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 65, 118–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Procedural context and culture: Variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 767–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T., & Ratner, R. K. (1996). The power of the myth of self-interest. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Current societal issues about justice (pp. 25–48). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2009). Disentangling reasons and rationalizations: Exploring perceived fairness in hypothetical societies. In J. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 126–157). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P. E., Mellers, B. A., & Ordonez, L. D. (1993). Judgments of social justice: compromises between equality and efficiency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 629–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16, 309–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1996). The relationship of the outcome and procedural fairness: How does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure? Social Justice Research, 9, 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R., & Lind, E.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115 - 191).

  • Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6, 1138–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T., Mentovich, A., & Satyavada, S. (2013). What motivates adherence to medical recommendations? The procedural justice approach to gaining deference in the medical arena. Regulation & Governance,. doi:10.1111/rego.12043.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Bos, K. (1999). What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 560–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Prooijen, J. W. (2009). Procedural justice as autonomy regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1166–1180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 641–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of California, 4582 Franz Hall, Los Angeles, CA, 90069, USA

    Avital Mentovich

  2. Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Eunho Rhee

  3. Department of Psychology/Law School, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Tom R. Tyler

Authors
  1. Avital Mentovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eunho Rhee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tom R. Tyler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Avital Mentovich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mentovich, A., Rhee, E. & Tyler, T.R. My Life for A Voice: The Influence of Voice on Health-Care Decisions. Soc Just Res 27, 99–117 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0201-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0201-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation