Deviance in group decision making: Group‐member centrality alleviates negative consequences for the group

Research on the effects of deviance during group decision making has shown that although it can lead to increased innovation and creativity within the group, group members often dislike the deviant member and rate group morale as lower because of dissent during the decision‐making process. The current study (N = 101) uses an information processing approach to examine the effect of deviance on decision outcomes as well as investigate how the perceived position of group members can influence whether they are given leeway to voice dissent. Results found that deviance can improve group decision making without incurring social costs when a deviant group member occupies a central position within the group. These findings are novel within the field of deviance research yet are consistent with research on group criticism and idiosyncrasy credit and therefore have significant implications for literature on the effect of group deviance and the application of deviance techniques within organisational and educational settings. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Further evaluating the conditional decision rule for comparing two independent means

Many books on statistical methods advocate a ‘conditional decision rule’ when comparing two independent group means. This rule states that the decision as to whether to use a ‘pooled variance’ test that assumes equality of variance or a ‘separate variance’ Welch t test that does not should be based on the outcome of a variance equality test. In this paper, we empirically examine the Type I error rate of the conditional decision rule using four variance equality tests and compare this error rate to the unconditional use of either of the t tests (i.e. irrespective of the outcome of a variance homogeneity test) as well as several resampling‐based alternatives when sampling from 49 distributions varying in skewness and kurtosis. Several unconditional tests including the separate variance test performed as well as or better than the conditional decision rule across situations. These results extend and generalize the findings of previous researchers who have argued that the conditional decision rule should be abandoned.     

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.     

The effects of organizational frames and problem ambiguity on decision making

This paper investigates how organizational climate and information quantity influences choice of decision making strategies. A simulated company with an organizational climate was manipulated to be either supportive or non-supportive of participative decision making methods. Subjects then solved problems in which information available to make a decision was manipulated. Results indicated that climate has an effect on choice of decision making strategies independent of information quantity. A second study was then conducted to assess how the climate manipulation affected subjects' decision-making. Organizational climate information appears to affect decisions in a manner analogous to Tversky and Kahneman's (1981) decision framing model.The contribution of each author is equal for this paper. The order of authorship was determined by a coin flip. This research was supported by Ohio Board of Regents and University of Akron Faculty Research grants to the second author. Portions of this paper were presented at the 1989 Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology Meetings and the 1991 Association of Management Meetings.     

Influences of sex composition,decision rule,and decision consequences in small group policy making

Previous research has indicated sex differences in style of interaction for members in small groups. It was assumed that some of these sex differences could be attributed to demand characteristics in relation to specific topics discussed by group members in earlier investigations. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relative importance of two such demand characteristics, decision rule (consensus rule vs. majority rule), and decision consequence (high vs. low consequences), in addition to the sex composition of the group membership. Adherence to the group decision was also studied. On a topic previously rated as important, 16 four-person groups of males and the same number of female groups met and deliberated on a decision regarding an academic policy. Later these undergraduate students indicated their preference on the decision topic. The results showed male—female differences not accounted for by decision rule, decision consequence, or group decision post-test change. Explanation of the sex differences was offered in terms of varying academic aspiration levels and incongruency with attained academic achievement. The results also lend partial support for the importance of some operating demand characteristics, as yet unidentified.     

When authorities' commands backfire: attributions about consensus and effects on deviant decision making

The perception of consensus typically produces conformity, but specific attributional circumstances may produce deviance instead. Ironically, the command of an authority figure may create one such circumstance. Participants were presented with scenarios in which they had to make a choice between 2 options. Prior to their decision, they observed others all making a single choice. In some conditions, this consensus occurred following an authority's explicit command to make that choice. Results revealed the hypothesized effect--the authority's command led participants to make deviant decisions-and revealed that this effect was moderated by the authority's continued presence, expertise, the target(s) of the command, and the ability of perceivers to use their cognitive resources.     

Analysis of proposed three-class classification decision rules in terms of the ideal observer decision rule

We analyze recently proposed decision rules for three-class classification from the point of view of ideal observer decision theory. We consider three-class decision rules proposed by Scurfield, by Chan et al., and by Mossman. Scurfield's decision rule is shown to be a special case of the three-class ideal observer decision rule in three different situations. Chan et al. start with an ideal observer model and specify its decision-consequence utility structure in a way that causes two of the decision lines used by the ideal observer to overlap and the third line to become undefined. Finally, we show that, for a particular and obvious choice of ideal-observer-related decision variables, the Mossman decision rule cannot be a special case of the ideal observer decision rule. Despite the considerable difficulties presented by the three-class classification task, the three-class ideal observer provides a useful framework for analyzing a variety of three-class decision strategies.     

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.     

Information sampling and group decision making: the effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task experience

Group discussions tend to focus on information that was previously known by all members (shared information) rather than information known by only 1 member (unshared information). If the shared information implies a suboptimal alternative, this sampling bias is associated with inaccurate group decisions. The present study examines the impact of 2 factors on information exchange and decision quality: (a) an advocacy group decision procedure versus unstructured discussion and (b) task experience. Results show that advocacy groups discussed both more shared and unshared information than free-discussion groups. Further, with increasing experience, more unshared information was mentioned in advocacy groups. In contrast, there was no such increase in unstructured discussions. Yet advocacy groups did not significantly improve their decision quality with experience.     

Information search and decision making: The effects of information displays

Information display boards may be used to test assumptions about underlying cognitive processes in decision situations. However, the question may be raised whether information processing in a complex decision situation is indepemdent of the structure of the information display board used. In a study employing 96 subjects, the design of the information display board, the number of alternatives, and the number of attributes were varied. Twelve groups of eight subjects were presented with one hypothetical choice among riskless multiattribute decision alternatives (apartments). Results showed that information search patterns were not influenced by the design of the information display board, but that the relative number of attributes included in the decision process was. The number of available attributes appeared to be the strongest determinant of information search patterns. A higher number of attributes induced information search patterns consistent with the noncompensatory conjunctive decision rule. It is suggested that the decision situation employed, which forced the decision maker to remember each piece of information acquired, underlies the difference between the results in the present study and previous findings.     

Moral disagreement and procedural justice: Moral mandates as constraints to voice effects

Procedural voice is a widely used and effective means to reduce or eliminate conflict. Moral disagreements, however, are particularly inflammatory, divisive, and difficult to manage. The current article reports two studies that demonstrated the unique challenge that moral disagreements pose. Specifically, the studies tested the extent to which procedural voice affected justice judgements, group climate, and decision acceptance when people perceived decisions to have moral implications. Results indicated that when people's outcome preferences represent strong moral convictions, outcomes were the primary determinant of perceived fairness and related judgements, irrespective of whether people had voice in the decision‐making process.     

Outcome effects: The impact of decision process and outcome controllability

An ‘outcome effect’ refers to the phenomenon whereby performance evaluations of decision makers are affected by the outcomes of those decisions. Although some consider such an effect to be a judgmental error, judgment by outcomes may not be dysfunctional when the evaluator does not know how the decision maker chose his or her action. In such situations, outcomes may provide some noisy information about decision quality. We test whether an outcome effect will still occur when the decision methodology and quality are more explicitly identified. Further, we test whether outcome controllability, a previously unexplored moderator variable, will have an impact on the outcome effect. Our first experiment, using undergraduates as subjects, shows that decision quality and controllability have an impact on performance evaluations but that the ubiquitous outcome effect still obtains. These results were replicated with experienced business people, except that controllability only affected their judgments in the case of negative outcomes. Implications of these results are discussed. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The optimum decision rules for the oddity task

This paper presents the optimum decision rule for an m-interval oddity task in whichm-1 intervals contain the same signal and one is different or odd. The optimum decision rule depends on the degree of correlation among observations. The present approach unifies the different strategies that occur with “roved” or “fixed” experiments (Macmillan & Creelman, 1991, p. 147). It is shown that the commonly used decision rule for anm-interval oddity task corresponds to the special case of highly correlated observations. However, as is also true for thesame-different paradigm, there exists a different optimum decision rule when the observations are independent. The relation between the probability of a correct response andd’ is derived for the three-interval oddity task. Tables are presented of this relation for the three-, four-, and five-interval oddity task. Finally, an experimental method is proposed that allows one to determine the decision rule used by the observer in an oddity experiment.     

Fitting decisions: Mood and intuitive versus deliberative decision strategies

We investigated the influence of the compatibility between mood and decision strategies on the subjective value of a decision outcome. Several studies have provided evidence for the idea that a sad mood induces people to analyse information carefully, probably fitting well with a deliberative decision strategy. In a happy mood, people tend to act more strongly on their feelings, probably fitting well with an intuitive decision strategy. However, sometimes the situation demands the use of decision strategies that seem incompatible with mood states. We expected that decision makers would value a decision outcome higher in the case of a fit between mood and decision strategy than in the case of a non-fit. After a mood manipulation, participants were instructed to decide either based on their first affective reaction or after deliberation. Results confirmed our expectations: fitting decisions enhanced the subjective value of a decision outcome.     

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.     

Group vs individual information processing: The effects of outcome feedback on decision making

Recent theories of individual decision making have emphasized the role of environmental feedback on decision performance and confidence. However, in relation to group decision making, feedback has received only minor attention. This study compared individual and group decision performance and confidence on a multicue personnel decision task under three different feedback conditions. Individuals and five-person groups decided whether to promote 48 different job candidates, and rated how confident they were in each of their decisions. Feedback as to the correctness of their decisions was provided after (a) every decision (Total Feedback), (b) only those decisions to promote the candidate (Partial Feedback), or (c) after none of the decisions (No Feedback). Results indicated that groups performed best under total feedback, while individuals performed best under partial feedback. In addition, greater amounts of feedback reduced individuals' confidence but had little effect on group member confidence. Implications for both current theory in decision making and group vs individual information processing are discussed.     

Integrative and Distributive Negotiation in Small Groups: Effects of Task Structure, Decision Rule, and Social Motive

This study examined the interactive effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive on small-group negotiation processes and outcomes. Three-person groups negotiated either within an asymmetrical task structure (in which a majority of group members have compatible interests) or within a symmetrical task structure (in which no such majority exists). Groups negotiated either under unanimity rule or under majority rule, and group members were either egoistically or prosocially motivated. Results revealed cumulative main effects and the predicted three-way interaction: Groups in an asymmetrical task structure engaged in more distributive and less integrative behavior, reached lower joint outcomes, and experienced a less positive group climate especially when they had an egoistic rather than prosocial motivation and unanimity rather than majority rule applied. Theoretical implications and avenues for future research are discussed.     

Quality of decision making and group norms.

Two studies investigated the impact of group norms for maintaining consensus versus norms for critical thought on group decisions in a modification of the biased sampling paradigm (G. Stasser & W. Titus, 1985). Both studies showed that critical norms improved the quality of decisions, whereas consensus norms did not. This effect appeared to be mediated by the perceived value of shared and unshared information: Consensus norm groups valued shared information more highly than critical groups did, and valence was a good predictor of decision outcome. In addition, the 2nd study showed that the group norm manipulation has no impact on individual decisions, consistent with the assumption that this is a group effect. Results suggest that the content of group norms is an important factor influencing the quality of group decision-making processes and that the content of group norms may be related to the group's proneness for groupthink.     

Realpolitik versus fair process: moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions

Three studies examined the effects of perceived procedural justice and the favorability of a group-level outcome on the endorsement of a group-level decision and the evaluation of the authority responsible for the decision. Results showed that, contrary to findings usually seen with individual-level decisions, collective outcome favorability was more important than procedural justice in influencing the endorsement of the decision. Furthermore, increased identification with the group reduced the importance of procedural justice but accentuated the importance of collective outcome favorability. With regard to the evaluation of the authority, the results were similar to those obtained in individual-level decisions: Procedural fairness mattered more than collective outcome favorability.     

Taking the easy way out: preference diversity, decision strategies, and decision refusal in groups

It has often been argued and found that preference diversity is beneficial for the quality of group decisions. However, this literature has neglected the fact that in many situations, it is also possible not to choose. Further, preference diversity can be based on attractions, aversions, or both. The authors argue that some types of preference diversity can lead to biased discussions and choice refusal (i.e., the group refuses to choose any of the available options). In a laboratory experiment, three different patterns were observed. When group members held different aversions before discussion, discussions were aversion driven and group members quickly agreed to refuse all alternatives. When each alternative had both a proponent and an adversary, discussions were longer and unbiased but still often led to refusal, which was accompanied by relatively low levels of outcome satisfaction. Only when preference diversity was based only on attractions did it lead to unbiased discussion, low prevalence of refusal, and high outcome satisfaction. Implications for group decision making are discussed.