Biased information search in group decision making

Research has shown that people prefer supporting to conflicting information when making decisions. Whether this biased information search also occurs in group decision making was examined in three experiments. Experiment 1 indicated that groups as well as individuals prefer supporting information and that the strength of this bias depends on the distribution of the group members' initial decision preferences. The more group members had chosen the same alternative prior to the group discussion (group homogeneity), the more strongly the group preferred information supporting that alternative. Experiment 2 replicated these results with managers. Experiment 3 showed that the differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups reflect group-level processes. Higher commitment and confidence in homogeneous groups mediated this effect. Functional and dysfunctional aspects of biased information seeking in group decision making are discussed.     

Groups, group members and individual decision processes: the effects of decision strategy, social interaction style and reception of decision-threatening information on post-decision processes

In two experiments, one conducted at an individual level and one at a group level, it was investigated how decision strategies and the reception of decision-threatening information affect the degree of post-decision consolidation for both individual and group decision-makers. In Experiment 1, roughly half the 55 participants made decisions in three-person groups and the other half individually. The type of decision strategies subjects employed (compensatory, non-compensatory, other) was assessed by questionnaire. In two post-decision sessions, consolidation was assessed using a memory task, either decision-supporting or decision-threatening information being provided at the start of the last post-decision session. In Experiment 2, the same design and procedure were used at a group level. In both experiments, the groups (and the single group members) were analyzed with the SYMLOG instrument. The results indicated that individual decision-makers consolidated their own decisions more than members of decision-making groups. There was also greater post-decision consolidation with the use of non-compensatory decision strategies as well as with reception of decision-threatening information, this latter result being seen as providing an explanation for the greater consolidation that individual decision-makers showed. Furthermore, single task-oriented group members and groups with a task-oriented leader consolidated the decision made by their group.     

Improving group decisions by better pooling information: a comparative advantage of group decision support systems

This study compared a group decision support system (GDSS) with face-to-face (FTF) group discussion on characteristics of information exchange and decision quality. Participants given conflicting information tended to share more of their unique data and engaged in more critical argumentation when using the GDSS than when meeting FTF. Conversely, when information was consistent among members, there were no such differences between FTF and GDSS groups. The GDSS groups significantly outperformed the FTF groups in agreeing on the superior hidden profile candidate, especially when there was a lack of prediscussion consensus. Individual-level analyses revealed that members of GDSS groups that did not have a prediscussion consensus tended to experience stronger preference shifts toward the group's consensus decision.     

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.     

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.     

Group Members’ Decision Rule Orientations and Consensus

Recent speculation and research concerning the achievement of unanimous agreement in small groups underscores the importance of consensus, implicit or explicit, regarding the criteria for selecting an option from the pool of alternative decisions. Moreover, an emerging stream of research indicates that individuals vary in their tendency to make choices that are indicative of specific decision rule orientations. Although many individuals do not demonstrate consistent orientations, many others display tendencies to select options congruent with assumptions underlying maximax, maximin, and maximum expected utility decision rules. In the present study, participants were assigned to groups composed of members who were either identical (matched) or different (mixed) with respect to decision rule orientation. The results indicated that, for interacting groups, consensus was more likely in matched than in mixed groups. However, the hypothesis did not hold for noninteracting groups. Implications for group consensus and the decision rule orientation construct arc discussed.     

Information Suppression and Status Persistence in Group Decision Making The Effects of Communication Media

This experiment investigated the conditions under which a member with information critical for making the best group decision will positively influence the group's final choice. The impact of two factors on group decision quality, information exchange, and perceptions of influence was examined: (a) status differences among members (equal-status vs. mixed-status groups) and (b) communication media (face-to-face vs. computer-mediated communication). Three-person groups were composed such that the critical information required to make the best decision was given only to the low-status member in the mixed-status groups and randomly assigned to one member in the equal-status groups. The results indicated that the mixed-status groups made poorer decisions and made fewer references to critical information than equal-status groups, regardless of the communication medium. Computer-mediated communication suppressed information exchange and the perceived influence of group members, suggesting that the relation between status and communication media is more complex than proposed in past research.     

Participation,influence, and satisfaction in group decision making

The hypothesis that attitudinal effects of participation depend on individual differences in motivation was tested in a laboratory experiment with 56 three-man groups (leader and two members). Measures of the attractiveness of power and social acceptance were obtained prior to a group decision task, after which members described their perceived participation, influence, and satisfaction. Results showed that: (a) influence was more strongly related to satisfaction for members with strong, as opposed to weak, power motives; (b) for members with strong affiliation motives, participation was more strongly related to satisfaction than was influence. Relationships varied across satisfaction aspects. It was concluded that participation may be associated with favorable role attitudes through different motive-attainment mechanisms in the group decision-making process.     

Signal-detection analysis of group decision making

How effectively can groups of people make yes-or-no decisions? To answer this question, we used signal-detection theory to model the behavior of groups of human participants in a visual detection task. The detection model specifies how performance depends on the group's size, the competence of the members, the correlation among members' judgments, the constraints on member interaction, and the group's decision rule. The model also allows specification of performance efficiency, which is a measure of how closely a group's performance matches the statistically optimal group. The performance of our groups was consistent with the theoretical predictions, but efficiency decreased as group size increased. This result was attributable to a decrease in the effort that members gave to their individual tasks rather than to an inefficiency in combining the information in the members' judgments.     

The effects of subordinate sex,pay equity,and strength of demand on compensation decisions

A decision-making simulation concerning a hypothetical subordinate was used to investigate the effects of subordinate sex, pay equity, and strength of demand on compensation decisions in an organizational setting. Results indicated that subjects recommended higher raises for underpaid subordinates than for equitably paid subordinates. A triple interaction of all three variables was also found. When subordinates were equitably paid, sex and strength of demand had no effect on the compensation decision. However, when subordinates were underpaid, strong-demand females received the largest raise and females making no demand received the smallest. Underpaid males in both demand conditions received a raise less than that of the strong-demand female but greater than that of the nodemand female.     

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.     

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.     

Separating the confident from the correct: Leveraging member knowledge in groups to improve decision making and performance

Groups often struggle to distinguish expert members from others who stand out for various reasons but may not be particularly knowledgeable (Littlepage & Mueller, 1997). We examined an intervention designed to improve group decision making and performance through instructing group members to search for information they already possessed that was relevant to a problem. Participants estimated values and expressed their confidence in their estimates individually and then a second time either individually or in a group. This was done with or without the intervention. Results indicated that: (1) groups were more confident than, and out-performed, individuals, (2) group decision making was best captured by models predicting more influence for more accurate members when the intervention was used and more influence for more confident members in its absence, and (3) groups that received the intervention out-performed groups that did not.     

Who’s bringing the donuts: The role of affective patterns in group decision making

Two studies examined how intragroup affective patterns influence groups’ pervasive tendency to ignore the unique expertise of their members. Using a hidden profile task, Study 1 provided evidence that groups with at least one member experiencing positive affect shared more unique information than groups composed entirely of members experiencing neutral affect. This occurred because group members experiencing positive affect were more likely to initiate unique information sharing, as well as information seeking. Study 2 built upon this base by showing that confidence mediates the relationship between positive affect and the initiation of unique information sharing. Additionally, Study 2 investigated the role of negative affect in group decision making and how negative and positive affect concurrently influence decision making when groups are composed of members experiencing each. The results are discussed in terms of the role affect plays in influencing group behavior and the resultant importance of investigating specific affective patterns.     

Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality

The effect of diversity in individual prediscussion preferences on group decision quality was examined in an experiment in which 135 three-person groups worked on a personnel selection case with 4 alternatives. The information distribution among group members constituted a hidden profile (i.e., the correct solution was not identifiable on the basis of the members' individual information and could be detected only by pooling and integrating the members' unique information). Whereas groups with homogeneous suboptimal prediscussion preferences (no dissent) hardly ever solved the hidden profile, solution rates were significantly higher in groups with prediscussion dissent, even if none of these individual prediscussion preferences were correct. If dissent came from a proponent of the correct solution, solution rates were even higher than in dissent groups without such a proponent. The magnitude of dissent (i.e., minority dissent or full diversity of individual preferences) did not affect decision quality. The beneficial effect of dissent on group decision quality was mediated primarily by greater discussion intensity and to some extent also by less discussion bias in dissent groups.     

Accounting and convincing: the effect of two types of justification on the decision process

The effect of two types of justification pressure on the decision process was investigated. Three groups of 15 subjects each had to choose the head of a corrective home for criminal adolescents out of six candidates, who were described on 16 attributes. Two groups worked under justification pressure: subjects in the Accounting group were informed that they had to explain their decision afterwards, subjects in the Convincing group that they had to convince the other members of the executive board to vote for their selected candidate. From the third group, no justification was requested. It was found that justification pressure leads to a distinct increase in the amount of utilized information and to a more elaborate choice process, while the global decision heuristics do not seem to change. The two justification groups did not differ in the amount of information utilized, but the Convincing group employed a more elaborate process. This result shows that justification pressure is one of the task characteristics affecting the decision process, and proves that a latent justification pressure as assumed in some decision theories does not have the same effect as an explicit one. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Gender,sex role,and career decision making of certified management accountants

The relationships of gender and sex role with career decision making of Certified Management Accountants (CMAs) were investigated. A questionnaire that included the Bem Sex Role Inventory was mailed to a matched group of women and men CMAs. The responses of 87 women CMAs and 87 men CMAs indicated that both gender and sex role were significantly related to various aspects of career decision making. Implications of this study are discussed.I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of an anonymous reviewer.     

任务重要性对决策策略有效性的影响

研究以选择决策中决策任务的主观性为关注点,通过现场和实验室两项实验考察决策任务重要性对启发式和分析式策略有效性的影响。结果发现,在感知任务重要的情况下,采用分析式策略的被试决策后满意度高于采用启发式策略的被试;在感知任务不重要情况下,采用启发式策略的被试决策后满意度高于采用分析式策略的被试。研究表明,决策者感知到的任务重要与否会影响启发式和分析式两种决策策略的效果。     

Distribution of the cost of maintaining common resources

In an experiment simulating management of a common forest, members of four-person groups planted seedlings and harvested trees as they grew. Half of the 36 groups was assigned the equality rule according to which costs for planting seedlings were equally assigned to all members, and the other half was assigned the punishment rule according to which costs were assigned only to the member who harvested the largest number of trees. This rule factor was crossed with the voting factor (voting vs. no-voting). In the voting condition, group members could vote during the latter half of the experiment for one of the above two rules. It was predicted that equality-assigned groups would experience the devastating consequences of defective actions so that they would vote for the punishment rule more than would punishment-assigned groups which would not experience such devastating consequences. Results for the experiment supported this prediction. Results also indicated that adoption of the punishment rule improved post-voting profits of equality-assigned groups.     

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.