The interaction between perceived procedural fairness and perceived disagreement in deliberation

  • Weiyu ZhangEmail author
  • Tian Yang
Original Article


In this study, we examined one key factor in the process of deliberation, namely, perceived procedural fairness. Another important factor, perceived disagreement, which has played a mixed role in deliberation, was used to test its interactive relationship with perceived procedural fairness. A field study utilizing cross-sectional survey data showed that perceived procedural fairness positively related to both enjoyment and perceived institutional legitimacy of deliberation. Perceived disagreement positively related to perceived institutional legitimacy. Meanwhile, perceived disagreement functioned as a moderator that conditioned the influence of perceived procedural fairness: disagreement strengthened the positive relationship between procedural fairness and enjoyment, while weakened the positive relationship between procedural fairness and perceived institutional legitimacy. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed at the end of the paper.


Deliberation Disagreement Enjoyment Legitimacy Procedural fairness Procedural justice 


  1. Besley, J.C., and K.A. McComas. 2005. Framing Justice: Using the Concept of Procedural Justice to Advance Political Communication Research. Communication Theory 15 (4): 414–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brundidge, J. 2010. Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. Journal of Communication 60 (4): 680–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caluwaerts, D., and M. Reuchamps. 2015. Strengthening Democracy Through Bottom-Up Deliberation: An Assessment of the Internal Legitimacy of the G1000 project. Acta Politica; Basingstoke 50 (2): 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carman, C. 2010. The Process is the Reality: Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Participatory Democracy. Political Studies 58 (4): 731–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang, L., and T. Jacobson. 2010. Measuring Participation as Communicative Action: A Case Study of Citizen Involvement in and Assessment of a City’s Smoking Cessation Policy-Making Process. Journal of Communication 60 (4): 660–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, L., T. Jacobson, and W. Zhang. 2013. A Communicative Action Approach to Evaluating Citizen Support for a Government’s Smoking Policies. Journal of Communication 63 (6): 1153–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. 1997. Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy. In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. J. Bohman and W. Rehg, 407–438. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Curato, N. 2012. A Sequential Analysis of Democratic Deliberation. Acta Politica; Basingstoke 47 (4): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diekmann, K.A., H. Sondak, and Z.I. Barsness. 2007. Does Fairness Matter More to Some than to Others? The Moderating Role of Workplace Status on The Relationship Between Procedural Fairness Perceptions and Job Satisfaction. Social Justice Research 20 (2): 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Easton, D. 1979. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Esterling, K.M., A. Fung, and T. Lee. 2015. How Much Disagreement is Good for Democratic Deliberation? Political Communication 32 (4): 529–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eveland, W.P., A.C. Morey, and M.J. Hutchens. 2011. Beyond Deliberation: New Directions for the Study of. In:formal Political Conversation from a Communication Perspective. Journal of Communication 61 (6): 1082–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrar, C., D.P. Green, J.E. Green, D.W. Nickerson, and S. Shewfelt. 2009. Does Discussion Group Composition Affect Policy Preferences? Results from Three Randomized Experiments. Political Psychology 30 (4): 615–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feldman, L., and V. Price. 2008. Confusion or Enlightenment?: How Exposure to Disagreement Moderates the Effects of Political Discussion and Media Use on Candidate Knowledge. Communication Research 35 (1): 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gangl, A. 2003. Procedural Justice Theory and Evaluations of the Lawmaking Process. Political Behavior 25 (2): 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gastil, J., S. Burkhalter, and L.W. Black. 2007. Do Juries Deliberate? A Study of Deliberation, Individual Difference, and Group Member Satisfaction at a Municipal Courthouse. Small Group Research 38 (3): 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grimes, M. 2006. Organizing Consent: The Role of Procedural Fairness in Political Trust and Compliance. European Journal of Political Research 45 (2): 285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 1995. Moral Disagreement in a Democracy. Social Philosophy and Policy 12 (1): 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Habermas, J. 2006. Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory 16 (4): 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagen, B.J.H., and G. Burch. 1985. The Relationship of Group Process and Group Task Accomplishment To Group Member Satisfaction. Small Group Research 16 (2): 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herian, M.N., J.A. Hamm, A.J. Tomkins, and L.M.P. Zillig. 2012. Public Participation, Procedural Fairness, and Evaluations of Local Governance: The Moderating Role of Uncertainty. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22 (4): 815–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hibbing, J.R., and E. Theiss-Morse. 2008. Voice, Validation, and Legitimacy. In Cooperation: The Political Psychology of Effective Human Interaction, ed. B. Sullivan, J. Sulliva, and M. Snyder, 123–142. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Hu, L.T., and P.M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1): 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huckfeldt, R., P.E. Johnson, and J. Sprague. 2004. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions Within Communication Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobson, T.L., and J.D. Storey. 2004. Development Communication and Participation: Applying Habermas to a Case Study of Population Programs in Nepal. Communication Theory 14 (2): 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, L.A. 2003. Deliberation, Legitimacy, and Multilateral Democracy. Governance 16 (1): 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kramer, M.W., P.J. Benoit, M.A. Dixon, and J. Benoit-Bryan. 2007. Group Processes in a Teaching Renewal Retreat: Communication Functions and Dialectical Tensions. Southern Communication Journal 72 (2): 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levi, M., A. Sacks, and T. Tyler. 2009. Conceptualizing Legitimacy, Measuring Legitimating Beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist 53 (3): 354–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lind, E.A. 2001. Fairness Heuristic Theory: Justice Judgments as Pivotal Cognitions in Organizational Relations. In Advances in Organizational Justice, ed. J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano, 56–88. US: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lind, E.A., R. Kanfer, and P.C. Earley. 1990. Voice, Control, and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and Noninstrumental Concerns in Fairness Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (5): 952–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lind, E.A., and T.R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Linde, J. 2012. Why Feed the Hand that Bites you? Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and System Support in Post-communist Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 51 (3): 410–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manin, B. 1987. On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation. Political Theory 15 (3): 338–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manosevitch, E., N. Steinfeld, and A. Lev-On. 2014. Promoting Online Deliberation Quality: Cognitive Cues Matter. Information, Communication and Society 17 (10): 1177–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marques, Â.C.S., and R.C.M. Maia. 2010. Everyday Conversation in the Deliberative Process: An Analysis of Communicative Exchanges in Discussion Groups and Their Contributions to Civic and Political Socialization. Journal of Communication 60 (4): 611–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mendelberg, T., and J. Oleske. 2000. Race and Public Deliberation. Political Communication 17 (2): 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mutz, D.C. 2002. Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice. American Political Science Review 96 (1): 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mutz, D.C. 2008. Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory? Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 521–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Price, V., J.N. Cappella, and L. Nir. 2002. Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion? Political Communication 19 (1): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramirez, M.D. 2008. Procedural Perceptions and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Psychology 29 (5): 675–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raphael, C., and C.F. Karpowitz. 2013. Good Publicity: The Legitimacy of Public Communication of Deliberation. Political Communication 30 (1): 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robison, J., T.J. Leeper, and J.N. Druckman. 2016. Do Disagreeable Political Discussion Networks Undermine Attitude Strength? Political Psychology. Scholar
  43. Rosenberg, S. 2005. The Empirical Study of Deliberative Democracy: Setting a Research Agenda. Acta Politica; Basingstoke 40 (2): 212–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sprain, L., M. Carcasson, and A.J. Merolla. 2014. Utilizing “On-Tap” Experts in Deliberative Forums: Implications for Design. Journal of Applied Communication Research 42 (2): 150–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sprain, L., and S. Ivancic. 2017. Communicating openness in deliberation. Communication Monographs 84 (2): 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stromer-Galley, J., and P. Muhlberger. 2009. Agreement and Disagreement in Group Deliberation: Effects on Deliberation Satisfaction, Future Engagement, and Decision Legitimacy. Political Communication 26 (2): 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sulkin, T., and A.F. Simon. 2001. Habermas in the Lab: A Study of Deliberation in an Experimental Setting. Political Psychology 22 (4): 809–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sunshine, J., and T.R. Tyler. 2003. The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law and Society Review 37 (3): 513–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Takenishi, A., and M. Takenishi. 1992. Does commitment affect the meaning of fairness?: Commonality and stability of fairness criteria in a political setting. Social Justice Research 5 (4): 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thompson, D.F. 2008. Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Toepfl, F., and E. Piwoni. 2015. Public Spheres in. In:teraction: Comment Sections of News Websites as Counterpublic Spaces. Journal of Communication 65 (3): 465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tyler, T.R. 1994. Governing amid Diversity: The Effect of Fair Decisionmaking Procedures on the Legitimacy of Government. Law and Society Review 28 (4): 809–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tyler, T.R. 2000. Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. International Journal of Psychology 35 (2): 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tyler, T.R. 2006. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Ulbig, S.G. 2008. Voice is Not Enough: The Importance of Influence in Political Trust and Policy Assessments. Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (3): 523–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van den Bos, K., M. Maas, I.E. Waldring, and G.R. Semin. 2003. Toward Understanding the Psychology of Reactions to Perceived Fairness: The Role of Affect Intensity. Social Justice Research 16 (2): 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van den Bos, K., H.A.M. Wilke, and E.A. Lind. 1998. When Do We Need Procedural Fairness? The Role of Trust in Authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (6): 1449–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Dijke, M., and P. Verboon. 2010. Trust in Authorities as a Boundary Condition to Procedural Fairness Effects on Tax Compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology 31 (1): 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Webler, T. 1995. “Right” Discourse in Citizen Participation: An Evaluative Yardstick. In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Technology, Risk, and Society, ed. O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 35–77. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wojcieszak, M. 2011. Deliberation and Attitude Polarization. Journal of Communication 61 (4): 596–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wojcieszak, M.E., and D.C. Mutz. 2009. Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement? Journal of Communication 59 (1): 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wojcieszak, M.E., and V. Price. 2012. Perceived Versus Actual Disagreement: Which Influences Deliberative Experiences? Journal of Communication 62 (3): 418–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wright, S., and J. Street. 2007. Democracy, Deliberation and Design: The Case of Online Discussion Forums. New Media and Society 9 (5): 849–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. You, J.S. 2012. Social Trust: Fairness Matters More Than Homogeneity. Political Psychology 33 (5): 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhang, W. 2010. Technical Capital and Participatory Inequality in eDeliberation: An Actor-Network Analysis. Information, Communication & Society 13 (7): 1019–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhang, W. 2015. Perceived Procedural Fairness in Deliberation: Predictors and Effects. Communication Research 42 (3): 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang, W., and L. Chang. 2014. Perceived Speech Conditions and Disagreement of Everyday Talk: A Proceduralist Perspective of Citizen Deliberation. Communication Theory 24 (2): 124–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations