Majority and minority influence in group negotiation: the moderating effects of social motivation and decision rules

In organizational groups, often a majority has aligned preferences that oppose those of a minority. Although such situations may give rise to majority coalitions that exclude the minority or to minorities blocking unfavorable agreements, structural and motivational factors may stimulate groups to engage in integrative negotiation, leading to collectively beneficial agreements. An experiment with 97 3-person groups was designed to test hypotheses about the interactions among decision rule, the majority's social motivation, and the minority's social motivation. Results showed that under unanimity rule, minority members block decisions, thus harming the group, but only when the minority has proself motivation. Under majority rule, majority members coalesce at the minority's expense, but only when the majority has a proself motivation. Implications for negotiation research and group decision making are discussed.     

Minority influence: The effect of majority reactionaries and defectors,and minority and majority compromisers,upon majority opinion and attraction

The effects of shifting opinions within a group upon majority opinion, communication between members and perceived attractiveness of other members were studied. Each subject perceived himself to be a member of the majority in a group whose opinion was divided 6–2 on an important issue. But later one to three group members changed their vote. Six conditions of change were established: Control, majority reactionary, majority compromise, majority defection (5-3), minority compromise, minority compromise plus majority reactionary. Only majority compromise or defection affected majority opinion (private and public). Majority members were disliked when they deviated from majority opinion, but particularly so when they shifted toward minority opinion. Minority members were liked most when they induced a majority member to compromise (but not defect). Majority communication to minority occurred most when the minority was compromising, but most disagreement with minority opinion was expressed when a majority member had either compromised or defected.     

The relationship between acculturation preferences and prejudice: Longitudinal evidence from majority and minority groups in three European countries

A longitudinal field survey tested the reciprocal effects of acculturation preferences and prejudice among ethnic minorities and majorities. Data were collected at two points in time from 512 members of ethnic minorities and 1143 majority members in Germany, Belgium and England. Path analyses yielded not only the lagged effects of prejudice on acculturation preferences but also the reverse for both majority and minority members. The mutual longitudinal effects between prejudice and desire for culture maintenance were negative, and the mutual effects between prejudice and desire for culture adoption were positive for majority members. The reverse was the case for minority participants. Moreover, the two acculturation dimensions interacted in their effect on prejudice for majority participants but not for minority participants. The effect of desire for culture adoption on prejudice was moderated by perceived intergroup similarity. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Belief in Majority Determination of Group Decision Outcomes

We proposed and tested a linear model for predicting perceivers' beliefs about the magnitude of popular support for group decision outcomes. Experiment 1 showed that the model performed well when it predicted perceived majority support for group outcomes but poorly when it predicted a belief in minority support. Subjects, in other words, displayed a clear bias toward perceiving group decision outcomes as having been determined by the majority of group members. In Experiment 2, subjects were asked shortly after the November 1992 presidential election to indicate the percentage of the popular vote received on election day by Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Ross Perot. The results showed that Clinton, who actually received less than majority voter support (43%0), was perceived to have attracted majority support (51.8%). Moreover, 7 months after the election, perceived majority support for Clinton on election day grew stronger (to 56.8%) whereas perceived voter support for Bush and Perot declined. These data illustrate a pervasive belief in majority determination of group decision outcomes.     

Biased attributions regarding the origins of preferences in a group decision situation

The current research investigated biases in attributions of the origins of others' preferences in a group decision situation. In two experiments, students indicated their preferred alternative in a decision on an important issue in their school, and then explained the bases for preferences of those agreeing and disagreeing with them. Results showed that participants saw preferences of those who agreed as more rationally and less externally based than of those who disagreed. This effect increased with perceived issue importance, when the decision was made by in‐group representatives, when the decision outcome was concordant with their own preference (Study 1), and, on the externality dimension, when their representatives were in the majority when deciding on an important issue (Study 2). Findings have important implications for our understanding of the tolerance of others and acceptance of group decisions, and ultimately, how group members behave and interact. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Predictors of majority members' acculturation preferences: Experimental evidence

A study was conducted to test experimentally whether majority members' perceptions of which acculturation strategies minority members prefer would causally impact on majority members' own acculturation preferences, especially their preference for integration. Participants (N = 113) were exposed to videos in which actors who posed as Pakistani minority members voiced different acculturation preferences (integration, assimilation, separation or control condition). Their views were presented as representative of their ethnic group. The effect of this on white British majority participants' own acculturation preferences was measured. As expected, perceived acculturation preferences significantly impacted on own acculturation preferences. In line with predictions, participants' level of prejudice significantly moderated these effects.     

Group Performance Depends on the Majority Rule

Some group decisions require a two-thirds or three-quarters majority of the people voting; others require only a simple majority. Does the accuracy of a group's decision making depend on which majority rule is used? A signal detection theory analysis was used to answer this question. Each member of a group was presented with a noisy display of either a signal or a nonsignal, and then each member cast a yes or no vote for the existence of a signal. The group decision was determined by a majority rule of the members' votes. Normative groups and groups of 5 or 7 people exhibited the same behavior: Performance was best when the group used a simple-majority rule and decreased when the group used more stringent rules. The worst performance was produced by a unanimous rule. Some group members adopted more liberal response criteria when the majority rule was made more stringent.     

Effects of group decision rules on decisions involving continuous alternatives: The unanimity rule and extreme decisions in mock civil juries

Two experiments examined the effects of majority and unanimity decision rules on group decisions involving continuous alternatives. Each experiment used mock civil juries to test three hypotheses related to the claim that when the distribution of group members’ initial preferences is skewed, the group’s decision will be influenced more by the presence of outlier members under unanimity rule than under majority rule. Experiment 1 tested the hypotheses using a punitive damages case and positively skewed preference distributions. Experiment 2 tested the hypotheses using a compensatory damages case and manipulating the skewness of preference distributions in a 2 (group decision rule) × 2 (valence of skewness) factorial design. In both experiments, the extreme (outlier) member’s individual preference was significantly correlated with the group decision only under unanimity rule. A simple thought experiment based on the experimental results is suggested regarding the implications of using unanimity or majority rule for making decisions in civil juries.     

A TEST OF THE GROUP VALUES AND CONTROL MODELS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE FROM THE COMPETING PERSPECTIVES OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT

A path model was developed to determine the predictive power of the group values (Lind & Tyler, 1988) and the self-interest/control (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) models in the justice judgments of three state impasse resolution procedures for teacher bargaining disputes. Surveys were returned by 90 school superintendents and 74 union presidents from districts that had used the procedures during the last contract negotiations. The group values variables of perceived neutrality of, and trust in, third parties were most predictive of procedural justice judgments. Process control was also predictive of procedural justice judgments, whereas decision control was not. Neither model was predictive of distributive justice judgments. Further, the path analysis clearly indicates the importance in this context of examining procedural and distributive justice from the competing perspectives of labor and management. Labor/management affiliation was strongly related to trust in third parties, perceptions of relative pay, and overall distributive justice judgments.     

Effects of Consensus Information and Task Demonstrability on Preference-Consistent Information Evaluation and Decision Quality in Group Decision Making

Groups often fail to solve hidden profiles even when all information is exchanged. This is partly due to biased evaluation of information. We examined the effects of consensus information and task demonstrability on preference-consistent information evaluation and decision quality. The results showed that the evaluation of unshared but not shared information was moderated by consensus information and task demonstrability. For unshared information, majority members exhibited a higher evaluation bias favoring preference-consistent information than minority members. Task demonstrability reduced the evaluation bias only when group members received no information about the other members' preferences. Finally, majority members were less likely to solve the hidden profile than minority members, and this was partially mediated by the evaluation bias favoring preference-consistent unshared information.     

The dissemination of critical,unshared information in decision‐making groups: the effects of pre‐discussion dissent

Previous research in group decision making has found that in situations of a hidden profile (i.e. the best choice alternative is hidden from individual members as they consider their pre‐discussion information), unshared information is disproportionately neglected and sub‐optimal group choices are highly likely. In an experimental study, three‐person groups decided which of three candidates to select for a professorial appointment. We hypothesised that minority dissent in pre‐discussion preferences improves the consideration of unshared information in groups and increases the discovery rate of hidden profiles. As predicted, consideration of unshared information increased with minority dissent. The expectation of an improvement of group decision quality was partially supported. In diversity groups (i.e. each member prefers a different alternative) consideration of unshared information and group decision quality was significantly higher than in simple minority groups. Results are discussed in the light of theories of minority influence. The benefits of using the hidden profile paradigm with minority and diversity groups for theory development in the area of group decision making are highlighted. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cognitive Diversity and Consensus in Group Decision Making: The Role of Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes

This study contributes to the new and growing body of research on shared cognition by examining how individuals entering a group decision-making context with different perspectives of the issues to be discussed arrive at cognitive consensus. Cognitive consensus refers to similarity among group members regarding how key matters are conceptualized and was operationalized as shared assumptions underlying decision issues in the present research. Utilizing 37 student groups participating in a multi-issue decision-making exercise, the study investigated antecedents and correlates of cognitive consensus. Results revealed that unanimity decision rule groups achieved more cognitive consensus than majority rule groups. In addition, group members inquiring concerning the reasons underlying others' decision preferences, accepting others' viewpoints as legitimate, and incorporating others' perspectives into their own interpretations of the issues was positively related to arriving at a greater degree of cognitive consensus. Cognitive consensus also positively influenced expectations regarding decision implementation and satisfaction.     

Examining Perceptions of Ambiguous and Unambiguous Threats of Racial Harassment and Managerial Response Strategies1

Scenarios involving ambiguous or unambiguous threats of racial harassment were crossed with four managerial response strategies (taking action, acknowledgment, reframing, denial). Results suggest that minority members are more likely to view repeated racial jokes as severe and are more likely to report the behavior to a manager. For minority group members, racial identification moderated the relationship between type of harassment and perceived severity. For majority group members, blindness to privilege and unawareness of racial issues moderated the relationship between type of harassment and likelihood to report the incident. Taking action was associated with more positive perceptions of organizational justice and a belief that the organization would be less tolerant toward future incidents involving racial harassment. Differences across groups (Whites, African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians) were found, suggesting a perceptual gap based on racial schema.     

Decision performance and diversity structure: Comparing faultlines in convergent,crosscut, and racially homogeneous groups

Group diversity structure (the composition of racial and job-function diversity) and pre-discussion decision effects on group decision accuracy were tested in three-person groups. Evidence supported the social categorization model and the notion of multiple faultlines (i.e., subgroup boundaries). Crosscut diversity structure, where racial and job-function subgroup boundaries are crossed, weakened faultlines, enhanced information sharing and improved decision-making. Our data also supported the common knowledge effect. Groups in which members made pre-discussion choices arrived at incorrect decisions consistent with majority members’ pre-discussion preferences, based on a biased subset of information. Crosscut groups in which members did not make pre-discussion choices performed the best. Analyses of video taped interactions and attitudes toward the group help to explain these differences. We discuss the implications for managing demographically diverse groups and for future research on the impact of various attributes of diversity in groups.     

Group size,controllability of group membership,and comparative dimension as determinants of intergroup discrimination

We expected that, when group members cannot control their group membership, majority members show ingroup favouritism on task-relevant dimension, whereas minority members were expected to show ingroup favouritism on task-irrelevant dimension (hypothesis I) In addition, it was expected that intergroup comparisons will change when group membership changes from uncontrollable to controllable. Based on Social Identity Theory, two alternative hypotheses were explored: Compared with uncontrollable settings, ingroup bias will decrease (2a) or increase (2b) in controllable settings. Ninety-two subjects were divided into four groups (minority versus majority, controllable versus uncontrollable group membership), allegedly on the basis of their essay writing style. The results supported the first hypothesis. Hypothesis 2a received support among the majority members and hypothesis 2b among the minority members. The findings are discussed in terms of Social Identity Theory and the effect the perceived control of group membership and the dimension may have on intergroup comparisons.     

The Influence of Decision Makers' Goals on Their Concerns About Procedural Justice1

Two studies examine how decision makers' goals of enhancing organizational effectiveness and promoting positive interpersonal relations shape their decision making when they are allocating scarce resources among group members. Past research has conceptualized this problem as one of balancing between the use of two distributive justice principles: equity and equality. The studies reported examine the degree to which authorities are also concerned about issues of procedural justice. The results suggest that experienced decision makers—both managerial and administrative—believe that when trying to maintain positive interpersonal relations it is as important to use decision-making procedures that will be regarded as fair (procedural justice) as it is to allocate outcomes in ways which will be regarded as fair (distributive justice). Decision makers' definitions of procedural justice are also examined.     

The Relationship Between Group Identity and Intergroup Prejudice Is Moderated by Sociostructural Variation1

A theoretical model is developed that predicts a stronger relationship between group identity and intergroup prejudice for majority‐group members compared to minority‐group members. This model takes into consideration the sociostructural characteristics of the groups, the differential functions of group identity for majority versus minority‐group members, and the role of perceived intergroup conflict. The model is tested by examining the magnitude of group identity, perceived conflict, and ethnic prejudice expressed by White Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans. Predictions derived from the model were largely supported. Theoretical implications are discussed and directions for future research are offered.     

Are intertemporal preferences contagious? Evidence from collaborative decision making

Prior research has provided substantial insight into individuals’ intertemporal preferences (i.e., preferences about delayed rewards). In the present study, we instead investigated the preferences of small groups of individuals asked to express collective intertemporal decisions. The paradigm consisted of three phases. During the precollaboration and postcollaboration phases, participants completed an intertemporal decision task individually. During the collaboration phase, participants completed a similar task in small groups, reaching mutually-agreed-upon decisions. The results suggest that group preferences were systematically related to the mean of the group members’ precollaboration preferences. In addition, collaborative decision making altered the group members’ intertemporal preferences. Specifically, individuals’ postcollaboration preferences converged toward the preferences of their respective groups. Furthermore, we found that individuals’ postcollaboration preferences were independently related to both their precollaboration preferences and the preferences of the other group members, suggesting that individuals’ postcollaboration preferences represented a revision of their precollaboration preferences based on the preferences observed in other group members. In Experiment 2, we demonstrated that similar patterns of results were found whether participants were making matching judgments or binary choices.     

Group status drives majority and minority integration preferences

This research examined preferences for national- and campus-level assimilative and pluralistic policies among Black and White students under different contexts, as majority- and minority-group members. We targeted attitudes at two universities, one where 85% of the student body is White, and another where 76% of students are Black. The results revealed that when a group constituted the majority, its members generally preferred assimilationist policies, and when a group constituted the minority, its members generally preferred pluralistic policies. The results support a functional perspective: Both majority and minority groups seek to protect and enhance their collective identities.     

Examining differences in minority versus majority preschoolers on social categorization and perceived intergroup distance

We examined the differences between majority and minority children (i.e., group membership) on racial categorization and perceived cultural distance, among 4‐ to 6‐year‐old children, in low diversified schools. We used a spontaneous social categorization task using pictures of children from three different racial groups broadly represented in France (Europeans, Black‐, and North‐Africans), and an evaluation of the perceived cultural distance between participants' in‐group and the racial group represented in the picture, adapted to children and based on three factors (language, eating habits, and music). Results revealed an effect of age on racial categorization: the older the children, the more successful they are in this task. They showed a significant effect of the racial group represented in the photos on perceived cultural distance: members of minority groups (i.e., Black‐ and North‐Africans) were evaluated as more different compared to those of the majority group on each of the factors. Finally, we got an interaction between participants' in‐group and the racial group represented in the pictures, for the language factor: members of the majority group perceived as more different photographs representing minorities peers than those representing majority peers, while participants belonging to minority groups perceived no differences between photographs, according to the racial criteria.