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.     

Votes Without Power:Procedural Justice as Mutual Control in Majority-Minority Relations1

In an application of procedural justice theory (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989) to the domain of intergroup relations, we investigated justice preferences among members of numerical majority and minority groups as a function of two parameters: the number of representatives allotted to each group, and the decision rule used to determine the outcome (ranging from simple majority vote to unanimity). In the first study, minority group members perceived the combination of proportional representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than all other combinations, and their choices of procedure stressed “mutual control” (when the decision rule exceeds the number of representatives possessed by either group). In a second study, majority group members perceived the combination of equal representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than other procedures, but their choices of procedure did involve a considerable degree of mutual control. These findings suggest that there may be some basis for agreement between majority and minority group members' justice preferences and that both groups may perceive situations of mutual control to be acceptable. A third study involving both majority and minority group members ruled out an interpretation of the previous results in terms of motivation to maintain vs. change the status quo.     

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.     

Discussion and Decision: The Interrelationship between Initial Preference Distribution and Group Discussion Content

Data from an earlier published study were used to test the social decision scheme (SDS) proposition that initial distribution of preferences within a group influences the nature of subsequent discussion. Four-person groups confronted with a three-option decision task began discussion with an initial plurality, majority, or unanimity. We found that the prediscussion distribution of preferences was predictive of eventual group choice; plurality groups introduced the greatest number of facts, followed by majority, and then unanimity; minute-by-minute patterns of discussion were very different across the three initial distributions; dominant factions contributed the most to discussion; and under initial plurality, one minority preference was discussed significantly more heavily than the other. Discussion focuses on the possible role of preference orders in group decision-making processes and on possible explanations for why groups with different intitial preference distributions show different discussion patterns across time.     

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.     

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.     

When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation

Although constituencies often consist of opposing factions, we know little about the way such opposing factions influence the representative’s negotiation strategy. This study addressed this issue: Representatives negotiated as sellers on behalf of a group consisting of hawkish (competitive) and dovish (cooperative) factions. Experiments 1–3 showed that a minority of hawks was sufficient to influence the representatives to acting in a competitive way; only when all constituents unanimously advocated a cooperative strategy were representatives more conciliatory towards their negotiation partner. These tendencies did not differ as a function of the representatives’ pro-social versus pro-self value orientation, or the unanimity versus majority rule putatively used in the constituency to accept of reject the representative’s negotiated agreement. We conclude that hawkish minorities are persuasive and influential because representatives accord more weight to hawkish than to dovish messages.     

Deviance in organizational decision making: using unanimous decision rules to promote the positive effects and alleviate the negative effects of deviance

When deviance occurs during group decision making, it can lead to increased innovation and improved decision outcomes. Group members, however, often rate the group climate as lower for having experienced dissent. The current study used a hidden profile framework to investigate the effects of deviance and decision rule on task outcome and group climate. Results found that working under a unanimous decision rule increases the likelihood of shared information improving the overall decision outcome and also alleviates some of the negative consequences associated with deviance. Results have significant implications for both research on group deviance and the application of deviance techniques within organizational settings.     

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.     

Positive Effects of Within-Group Cooperation on Between-Group Negotiation1

The present study simulated an organizational dispute to test two sets of alternative hypotheses regarding the effects of within-group cooperation and conflict on a subsequent negotiation with an out-group. The first set of hypotheses concerned in-group cooperation. We expected that either (a) in-group cooperation would produce greater cooperation toward an out-group, the result of a carryover effect; or (b) in-group cooperation would increase group cohesiveness and strengthen group boundaries, and thus produce greater competitiveness toward an out-group. The second set of alternative hypotheses concerned in-group conflict. We expected that either (a) in-group conflict would produce greater competitiveness toward an out-group, the result of a carry-over effect; or (b) in-group conflict would decrease group cohesiveness and weaken group boundaries, and thus produce less competitiveness toward an out-group. Subjects in three-person groups negotiated first with one another on a cooperative or competitive task, and then as a group, with another group. The data supported the carryover hypothesis for the effects of both in-group cooperation and conflict. Groups that experienced internal cooperation were more cooperative in the subsequent between-group negotiation and, to a lesser extent, groups that experienced internal conflict were more competitive in the subsequent between-group negotiation, relative to a control condition that had no prior in-group negotiation. Taken together, the results were consistent with recent research on dispute intervention that suggested that mediators in between-group conflict should foster within-group cooperation prior to between-group negotiations.     

Effects of own group success or failure on judgements of task performance by children of different ethnicities

Children in majority groups hold favourable attitudes toward members of their own group, whereas those in minority groups typically hold more favourable attitudes toward majority than own group members. It was expected that when evaluating task outcomes, majority group children would display own group favouritism, and minority children would show other group favouritism or ‘reverse ethnocentrism’. In this study, white and Native Indian elementary school children saw a video of a white and native child listening to sounds and trying to identify them. One-third of subjects saw white models correct more often than Native models, one-third saw Native models more often correct than white models, and the remaining third saw both models correct on an equal number of trials. When white models were successful, children from both groups made more positive evaluations of, optimistic predictions about, and internal attributions for task outcomes. When these models did poorly, negative attributes were deemphasized and task outcomes were attributed to external factors. Success by native models was attributed to external factors and task outcomes had little influence on predictions or evaluations. When native models were unsuccessful subjects accentuated negative attributes of these models and made internal attributions for their failures. Results were discussed in terms of cognitive and motivational theories of social judgements.     

Goal Setting by Groups Performing an Additive Task: A Comparison With Individual Goal Setting1

This article compares goal levels and task performance of groups and individuals that are assigned or self-set goals. Groups performed an additive task that allowed for direct comparison with individuals' i]ndependent performance of the task. Consistent with predictions, groups and individuals selected goals that were less difficult than assigned goals which required only a modest increase in performance. Group members and individuals who were assigned goals attained higher levels of performance than self-set or no goal condition subjects. The prediction that group members and individuals who self-set their goals would have more positive affective reactions to the goal-setting situation than participants in assigned condition was supported. The results of this study are consistent with the existing literature on groups and individuals regarding effects of goals, performance, and affective reactions. Analyses also indicate that the group goal decision process involves a compensatory strategy in which an average of group member preferences for the goal was used to reach a group goal decision. Discussion focuses on the similarities and differences between the findings of self-set and assigned goal-setting situations for groups and individuals, with particular reference to goal choice strategies, goal expectancies, and efficacy.     

The Effects of Decision Outcome Dispersion Upon Organizational Decision Making

The effects of varying decision outcome dispersion on organizational decision making were investigated under individual and group decision making conditions. Thirty-six female and pg]36 male subjects made decisions for organizational decision scenarios in which outcomes affected primarily the decision maker, people other than the decision maker, or a group of which the decision maker was a member. Subjects rated their levels of perceived risk and confidence in their decisions and made decisions within a simulated context of either a small or a large organization. Results indicated that subjects perceived significantly less risk and more confidence in their decisions when outcomes affected primarily themselves rather than others regardless of whether the decisions were made individually or by a group. Males perceived their decisions as significantly more risky than females. Induced organizational size did not significantly influence decision making.

     

Goal congruency without stimulus congruency in bimanual coordination

Two experiments explored the role of stimulus congruency and goal congruency for the generation of object-oriented actions with two hands. Participants had to place two objects into either parallel or opposite orientations by carrying out either symmetrical or asymmetrical forearm rotations. Performance was superior when the required object orientations were identical rather than different, almost independent of the symmetry of the required arm movements. In extending previous research, goal congruency effects ensued even under conditions in which congruency of imperative response signals could not have contributed to goal congruency effects, either because only a single stimulus was used to indicate the required goals in an individual trial (Experiment 1) or such stimuli were absent at all (Experiment 2). The results thus confirm the importance of goal codes for the reconcilableness of bimanual actions, and rule out accounts in terms of stimulus-related processes.     

Group vs Individual Performance in Mixed-Motive Situations: Exploring an Inconsistency

Previous research has shown that groups, as compared to individuals, perform better on integrative bargaining tasks (Thompson, Peterson, & Brodt, 1996), but worse on dilemma tasks (i.e., the “discontinuity effect”; Schopler & Insko, 1992). After reaching agreement on either a cooperative or a competitive integrative bargaining task in one of three formats (three-person group vs three-person group, three-person group vs a single individual, and individual vs individual), participants were given the opportunity to either keep the agreement or defect within a prisoner's dilemma payoff structure. Groups earned more points than individuals in the bargaining task, but continued to show the discontinuity effect even in the cooperative condition. Results are interpreted in terms of shared motives for group defection, which differed depending on whether the opponent was an individual or a group.     

Minority influence in work teams: The impact of newcomers

Although initial work on minority influence was spurred by interest in group processes, relevant research has rarely examined interactions between majority and minority factions. In particular, little is known about how current members of work teams respond to newcomers’ efforts to change existing work practices. In this study, three-person teams (a commander and two subordinates) used a computer-based air-surveillance system to monitor planes flying through a simulated airspace. After either choosing or being assigned a task strategy, teams completed a work shift and received feedback that they had either failed or succeeded. One subordinate was then replaced by a confederate (newcomer) who suggested a new strategy for the next shift. As predicted, newcomers were more influential when teams had been assigned rather than chosen their initial strategy and had subsequently failed rather than succeeded. Although newcomers are often portrayed as passive recipients of influence, this study identifies conditions under which they can function as influence agents.     

Framing Effects: Dynamics and Task Domains

The author examines the mechanisms and dynamics of framing effects in risky choices across three distinct task domains (i.e., life–death, public property, and personal money). The choice outcomes of the problems presented in each of the three task domains had a binary structure of a sure thing vs a gamble of equal expected value; the outcomes differed in their framing conditions and the expected values, raging from 6000, 600, 60, to 6, numerically. It was hypothesized that subjects would become more risk seeking, if the sure outcome was below their aspiration level (the minimum requirement). As predicted, more subjects preferred the gamble when facing the life–death choice problems than facing the counterpart problems presented in the other two task domains. Subjects’ risk preference varied categorically along the group size dimension in the life–death domain but changed more linearly over the expected value dimension in the monetary domain. Framing effects were observed in 7 of 13 pairs of problems, showing a positive frame–risk aversion and negative frame–risk seeking relationship. In addition, two types of framing effects were theoretically defined and empirically identified. Abidirectional framing effectinvolves a reversal in risk preference, and occurs when a decision maker's risk preference is ambiguous or weak. Four bidirectional effects were observed; in each case a majority of subjects preferred the sure outcome under a positive frame but the gamble under a negative frame. In contrast, aunidirectional framing effectrefers to a preference shift due to the framing of choice outcomes: A majority of subjects preferred one choice outcome (either the sure thing or the gamble) under both framing conditions, with positive frame augmented the preference for the sure thing and negative frame augmented the preference for the gamble. These findings revealed some dynamic regularities of framing effects and posed implications for developing predictive and testable models of human decision making.     

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.     

Being distinctive versus being conspicuous: The effects of numeric status and sex-stereotyped tasks on individual performance in groups

Being in the numeric minority (e.g., being a solo woman in a group of men) influences how well a person performs within a work group. But being the solo member is only one way in which people can be atypical in a group; a person can also represent a social or demographic category that has not typically been associated with the task that the group is working on. Using a design with four categories of group composition (minority, balanced, majority, homogeneous) and two categories of tasks (sex-typical, sex-atypical) we found that the sex composition of the group interacted with the sex typicality of the task to influence both positive deferrals by group members and individual performance in groups. But, rather than consistently reducing performance as prior research has suggested, being numerically atypical enhanced individual performance when the task was typical for that person’s sex. Further, positive deferrals mediated between the interaction of numeric composition and task typicality in influencing individual performance suggesting that both majority group members and the solo member affect one another’s performance in groups. We conclude by discussing why understanding the interplay between these two sources of stereotyping, numeric composition and task typicality, is important for understanding the social nature of individual performance in groups.