Why women's equal representation increases policy losers’ consent: Revisiting the double‐edged sword of procedural fairness

Abstract Studies show that procedural fairness in the form of equal representation has the potential to increase decision legitimacy. At the same time, several studies point to potential adverse effects, where, for instance, the equal inclusion of women in decision‐making bodies might serve to legitimize anti‐feminist decisions in particular. We argue that such conclusions result from a failure to consider the importance of outcome favorability, a factor long recognized to be of crucial importance in other fields of research. We incorporate outcome favorability theoretically and empirically in several experimental studies and show that what has previously been interpreted as a “dark side” of descriptive representation, instead should be viewed as the power of fair procedures to increase losers’ consent. We contribute to the literature on representation and legitimacy and show how appropriate research design and measurement can shape substantive conclusions on high‐stakes issues.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Journal of Political Science
Published
2025-11-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.70021
Primary Topic
Gender Politics and Representation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Why women's equal representation increases policy losers’ consent: Revisiting the double‐edged sword of procedural fairness

Lena Wängnerud
American Journal of Political Science
Gender Politics and Representation
article

Why women's equal representation increases policy losers’ consent: Revisiting the double‐edged sword of procedural fairness

Lena Wängnerud
article en

Abstract

Abstract Studies show that procedural fairness in the form of equal representation has the potential to increase decision legitimacy. At the same time, several studies point to potential adverse effects, where, for instance, the equal inclusion of women in decision‐making bodies might serve to legitimize anti‐feminist decisions in particular. We argue that such conclusions result from a failure to consider the importance of outcome favorability, a factor long recognized to be of crucial importance in other fields of research. We incorporate outcome favorability theoretically and empirically in several experimental studies and show that what has previously been interpreted as a “dark side” of descriptive representation, instead should be viewed as the power of fair procedures to increase losers’ consent. We contribute to the literature on representation and legitimacy and show how appropriate research design and measurement can shape substantive conclusions on high‐stakes issues.

American Journal of Political Science
University of Gothenburg (SE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Gender Politics and Representation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Why women's equal representation increases policy losers’ consent: Revisiting the double‐edged sword of procedural fairness — Lena Wängnerud · American Journal of Political Science (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS