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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Four techniques of group decision making under uncertainty.

4 techniques of group decision-making—authoritarian, leader suggestion, census, and chairman—under risk and uncertainty were compared using a survival situation with 45 aircrews. "1. In a conflict situation, when a group discussion method… is involved, the members' reactions to the alternatives are relatively undifferentiated in contrast to the condition in which the leader alone makes the decision… . 2… . the groups appear to be least favorably disposed toward the authoritarian technique of decision-making… . 3. When the decision-making procedure is group centered the group reaches a decision involving greater personal risk to the members." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Power relationships and group decision making in organizations.

Reviews theory and research on the distribution of power in organizations. Theories stressing power centralization are contrasted with the contemporary emphasis on the sharing of decision-making power. A situational-process approach to power relationships and group decision making integrates previous research and directs future study. This approach views power relationships as intervening processes in organizational development, with multiple determinants and outcomes. The group decision process is characterized as a multiphased process, in which participation, multiple bases of power, and interaction dynamics affect power relationships. Linkages between decision processes and power, and between power and organizational consequences, are mediated by characteristics of the organizational environment, decision tasks, and individual motives. (89 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Information pooling: When it impacts group decision making.

Three-person groups decided which of 2 professors was nominated for a teaching award. Prior to discussion, half of the information available for this decision was given to every group member (shared information), whereas the rest was evenly divided among them (unshared information). Further, this information was distributed in such a way that the correct choice was not obvious to members prior to discussion. As predicted, discussion focused more on members' shared than unshared information. However, decision quality was affected only by the amount of unshared information discussed and by member's prediscussion choice preferences. The amount of shared information discussed did not affect decision quality. These results suggest a dual-process model of how the prediscussion distribution of decision-relevant information impacts group decision-making effectiveness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision making.

Nearly all research on the accuracy of individual versus group decision making has used ad hoc groups, artificial problems, and trivial or nonexistent reward contingencies. These studies have generally concluded that the knowledge base of the most competent group member appears to be the practical upper limit of group performance and that process gains will rarely be achieved. We studied individual versus group decision making by using data from 222 project teams, ranging in size from 3 to 8 members. These teams were engaged in solving contextually relevant and consequential problems and, in direct contrast with previous research, the groups outperformed their most proficient group member 97% of the time. Furthermore, 40% of the process gains could not be explained by either average or most knowledgeable group member scores. Implications for management practice are also discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Signal-detection analysis of recall and recognition memory.

Conducted 3 paired-associate learning studies to compare signal-detection analysis of recall and recognition memory performance. Exp. I with 80 female undergraduates, showed that (a) recall and recognition signal-detection model sensitivity measures (d's) are substantially different in later trials, and (b) a previously suggested correction for guessing does not transform the data to theoretical expectations. Exp. II, with 45 Ss, showed that S's guessing rates change systematically over trials and further supported the inappropriateness of a guessing correction. Exp. III, with 40 Ss, attempted to hold constant the probability of guessing correctly. It is suggested that for purposes of comparing recognition and recall, a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of recall data is inappropriate and that a better approach is the use of the forced-choice or 1-of-M-orthogonal signals model. A possible interpretation of a recall ROC d' is suggested. (French summary) (22 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The stepladder technique: An alternative group structure facilitating effective group decision making.

A new group problem-solving structure entitled the stepladder technique is introduced. The stepladder technique is intended to allay the problems associated with group decision making by structuring the entry of group members into a core group and by ensuring that each member contributes to the decision-making process. Four-person groups, randomly assigned to either the stepladder group condition (15 groups) or the conventional group condition (15 groups), performed D. Johnson and F. Johnson's (1987) winter survival exercise. Stepladder groups produced significantly (p?     

The power motive as an influence on group decision making.

40 groups of 5 undergraduates came together to discuss a business study case; each group member had a different role and a role sheet specifying items of information available only to him/her. The case featured most of the characteristics I. L. Janis (1972) identified as the kinds of policy decisions that produce "groupthink." Need for power was assessed by the TAT. Extreme top and bottom scorers were group leaders, and an attempt was made to create group cohesiveness in 20 groups by offering a reward for best group performance. Groups whose leaders scored low on the power motive brought more factual information from their role sheets into group discussion and considered more action proposals than did leaders who scored high. Group cohesiveness did not affect the quality of the decision-making process. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychological entrapment in group decision making: An assigned decision rule and a groupthink phenomenon.

Addressed interpersonal factors affecting group entrapment and also attempted to delineate a conceptual link between collective entrapment and I. L. Janis's (1972, 1982) notion of groupthink. Two experiments were conducted in which 3-person groups were assigned either majority or unanimity rule as an official consensus requirement for their initial decision. It was expected and confirmed that groups whose initial decision processes were guided by unanimity rule were entrapped more often to the chosen course of action than were groups with majority rule. The results also suggested that homogeneity of members' opinions at the outset of interaction and group's rationalization norm were responsible for the observed difference. Discussion is focused on the implications of these findings for administrative decision contexts and their conceptual link of the notion of groupthink. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Beyond ethical decision making.

The concepts of mandatory vs aspirational ethics, principle vs virtue ethics, and moral responsibleness illustrate the differences between externally and internally based moral and ethical behavior The complex nature of consulting relationships provides an especially rich context for such an examination. Two models are delineated: The 1st reflects a focus on mandatory or principle ethics, and the 2nd focuses on aspirational or virtue ethics. Finally, several questions are posed regarding the role that moral considerations should play in consultation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ignorance- versus evidence-based decision making: A decision time analysis of the recognition heuristic.

According to part of the adaptive toolbox notion of decision making known as the recognition heuristic (RH), the decision process in comparative judgments—and its duration—is determined by whether recognition discriminates between objects. By contrast, some recently proposed alternative models predict that choices largely depend on the amount of evidence speaking for each of the objects and that decision times thus depend on the evidential difference between objects, or the degree of conflict between options. This article presents 3 experiments that tested predictions derived from the RH against those from alternative models. All experiments used naturally recognized objects without teaching participants any information and thus provided optimal conditions for application of the RH. However, results supported the alternative, evidence-based models and often conflicted with the RH. Recognition was not the key determinant of decision times, whereas differences between objects with respect to (both positive and negative) evidence predicted effects well. In sum, alternative models that allow for the integration of different pieces of information may well provide a better account of comparative judgments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of member participation and commitment in group decision making on influence, satisfaction, and decision riskiness.

Divided 120 psychology students into 40 3-member groups assigned to discuss structured decision issues. Participation in only 1 of 3 decision-making phases (generation, evaluation, or choice) constituted partial participation, in contrast to complete participation. Group members were committed or not committed to carrying out the decisions reached. Results indicate that perceived intragroup influence and satisfaction were greatest with complete participation. With partial participation, influence and satisfaction were greatest in the choice phase. Although perceived influence was greater under commitment conditions, satisfaction was greater under noncommitment conditions. Decision riskiness was affected by neither treatment. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of decision making by group members on recall of finished and unfinished tasks.

The hypothesis is suggested that as a result of decision making, motivational energy tends to be channeled into action which may be indexed by the tendency to recall unfinished tasks; and in the absence of decision making, motivational energy tends to be channeled into wish fulfillment which may be indexed by the tendency to recall finished tasks. The data presented tend to support this hypothesis. 20 references. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of dominance on group decision making: Toward a stress-reduction explanation of groupthink.

Investigated the effects of procedural guidelines for decision making and a personality trait (dominance) on state anxiety and decision quality. 112 undergraduate students who served as Ss were administered the EPPS to determine high or low dominance. Ss participated in 28 4-person, mixed-sex groups and were audiorecorded while they completed a group decision-making task. Results indicate that groups composed of highly dominant members made higher quality decisions, exhibited lower state anxiety, and took more time to reach a decision. They also tended to make more statements of disagreement and agreement and to report more group influence on the members. Results provide support for a stress-reduction explanation of I. L. Janis's (1972) "groupthink" hypothesis with respect to groups composed of either high- or low-dominance individuals. Despite the support of the groupthink hypothesis with respect to dominance, the manipulation of decision-making procedures affected only decision time. (10 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion.

Studied 4-member decision-making groups given information about 3 hypothetical candidates for student body president in unshared/consensus or shared or unshared/conflict conditions. 84 undergraduates participated in the unshared consensus condition, and 72 undergraduates participated in the other conditions. Results show that even though groups could have produced unbiased composites of the candidates through discussion, they decided in favor of the candidate initially preferred by a plurality rather than the most favorable candidate. Group members' pre- and postdiscussion recall of candidate attributes indicated that discussion tended to perpetuate, not to correct, members' distorted pictures of the candidates. It is suggested that unstructured discussion in the face of a consensus requirement may fail as a means of combining unique informational resources. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Does the Stepladder Technique improve group decision making? A series of failed replications.

Past research has demonstrated the effectiveness of a structured group decision-making technique, termed the Stepladder Technique, in improving group decisions. The purpose of the present series of studies was to replicate and extend this research. Five studies (three using different tasks than previous studies and two using the same task) compared the decision quality of groups using the self-paced Stepladder Technique to unstructured groups. In all studies, stepladder groups failed to perform better than unstructured groups. This failure to replicate and extend past research suggests that there are definite boundaries, such as the sample or the experimenter, which may limit the overall effectiveness of the Stepladder Technique. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Linear models in decision making.

A review of the literature indicates that linear models are frequently used in situations in which decisions are made on the basis of multiple codable inputs. These models are sometimes used (a) normatively to aid the decision maker, (b) as a contrast with the decision maker in the clinical vs statistical controversy, (c) to represent the decision maker "paramorphically" and (d) to "bootstrap" the decision maker by replacing him with his representation. Examination of the contexts in which linear models have been successfully employed indicates that the contexts have the following structural characteristics in common: each input variable has a conditionally monotone relationship with the output; there is error of measurement; and deviations from optimal weighting do not make much practical difference. These characteristics ensure the success of linear models, which are so appropriate in such contexts that random linear models (i.e., models whose weights are randomly chosen except for sign) may perform quite well. 4 examples involving the prediction of such codable output variables as GPA and psychiatric diagnosis are analyzed in detail. In all 4 examples, random linear models yield predictions that are superior to those of human judges. (52 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Vigilant and hypervigilant decision making.

Recent studies have argued that deficient decision making under stress is due to adoption of a hypervigilant style of decision making, which has been characterized as disorganized and inefficient. However, under the conditions that characterize many real-world or naturalistic tasks, a hypervigilant pattern of decision making may be adaptive, because the decision maker does not have the luxury of implementing a more elaborate analytic procedure. This study examined the effectiveness of vigilant and hypervigilant decision-making strategies on a naturalistic task. Results indicated that participants who used a hypervigilant decision-making strategy performed better than those who used a vigilant strategy. Implications for decision making in naturalistic environments are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)