Individuals in a group, who repeatedly experience that their group’s policy selection system does not decide in their favor, may feel unheard and increasingly develop system disbelief. System disbelief (i.e., discontent with the performance of the group's policy selection system) may be detrimental to the performance and the welfare of groups in several ways. It may dramatically reduce the psychological well-being of group members, leading to a substantial decrease of their willingness to provide work effort, financial contributions, or cooperative coordination. In extreme cases, system disbelief may lead to anti-social behavior (e.g., arbitrary destruction) and foster the willingness to engage in subversion (e.g., sabotage) or insurgence (e.g., coordinated rebellion). To investigate whether the frequency of system decisions that are against the preferences of an individual increases system disbelief, we conducted a laboratory experiment. In the experiment individuals’ preferences regarding several topics are elicited. A system chooses one out of three options for each topic (the group choice). Individuals experience negative outcomes whenever the group choice does not coincide with the individual’s preferred option. After each round system disbelief is elicited. We implement four policy selection systems as our experimental treatments: Borda, Committee, Dictator, and Random. The findings suggest that repeatedly experiencing negative outcomes results in growing system disbelief, but only when the system can be held accountable. The development of system disbelief is more pronounced for topics in which individuals are more involved. Further, we investigate how positive and negative frames affect the development of system disbelief. Findings suggest that negative framing intensifies the development of system disbelief whereas positive framing decreases the development among individuals. Studying individual characteristics and negative outcomes as environmental parameters that give rise to system disbelief, our study contributes to understanding the dynamics of discontent with group decision processes and the ensuing destructive behaviors. Thus, our study may provide insights valuable for the design of group decision processes that are welfare enhancing by increasing the resilience towards system disbelief.