| What are the consequences of membership in democratic vs. autocratic groups, especially when disagreements arise? Across three studies, group decision rules were said to be democratic, incorporating input from each of three members, or autocratic, purportedly allowing one of the other member to decide for the group. Group decision outcomes were manipulated to be consistent or inconsistent with individual preferences. Decision ownership was higher in---and induced greater belongingness to---democratic groups. Participants reacted to inconsistency between personal preferences and group decisions by changing attitudes in favor of the group decision and by distancing themselves from the group. In two experiments (taking into account participants' level of endorsement of the group decision in Experiment 1), group members in the democratic-inconsistent condition exhibited the greatest pro-group attitude change, suggesting that cognitive dissonance is aroused when ownership is high. In addition, Experiment 1 provided evidence that participants distort other group members' perceived preferences such that perceived disagreement is moderated in democratic vs. autocratic groups, when others' exact preferences are unknown. In Experiment 2, participants were reminded of their initial attitudes as a means of preventing dissonance-induced attitude change. This resulted in identical levels of pro-group attitude change, plus equivalent distancing, in both democratic- and autocratic-inconsistent conditions. In Experiment 3, autocratic-inconsistent condition participants distanced themselves most strongly from the group, suggesting distancing as a preferred response to inconsistency in autocratic groups. |
