Effects of straw polls on group decision making: Sequential voting pattern, timing, and local majorities.

Davis, James H.; Stasson, Mark F.; Ono, Kaoru; Zimmerman, Suzi K.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.918

Cited by 56 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This arrangement is similar to Asch's (1956) classic study on conformity except that we did not use confederates. Group decision making experiments on mock-juries have also used a sequential order procedure (i.e., a straw poll that each person voices out his or her opinion one by one) to foster an impression of a local majority of guilty versus notguilty opinions (e.g., Davis et al 1988). It is plausible that after witnessing preceding players cooperating, succeeding players (albeit their relatively low efficacy) may be more willing to contribute than if no such cooperative priors are present.…”

Section: Order Of Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Order of Contribution in a Sequential Public Goods Dilemma

Chung

2006

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined how order of contribution in a sequential public goods dilemma affected cooperation. Under a sequential protocol of play, players of different levels of efficacy made decisions one after another. We contrasted a High-to-low versus Low-to-high Efficacy order in a nine-person game. Under a High-tolow order, high-efficacy players made decisions in positions 1-3, medium-efficacy players in positions 4-6, and low-efficacy players in positions 7-9. Under a Low-to-high order, the positions of high-and lowefficacy players were reversed. We hypothesized that cooperation rates would be higher in the High-to-low order that high-efficacy players (assigned in early positions), who would likely cooperate, would induce subsequent players to cooperate also. We found the anticipated effect that cooperation rate was higher in the High-to-low than the Low-to-high efficacy order. The efficacy order effect was the most prominent when people perceived that their group was becoming uncooperative. This study illustrates a new type of structural solution to social dilemmas that by systematically assigning people to different sequential positions, a group can be made more or less cooperative.

show abstract

Section: Order Of Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Order of Contribution in a Sequential Public Goods Dilemma

Chung

2006

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In practice, this is not very likely, as individual changes of opinion are extremely rare (Davis et al, 1988). Therefore, in the absence of contacts and exchanges, a population of individuals would tend toward a compromise by making a common choice located exactly at the middle.…”

Section: Aggregate Of Individualsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups

Galam

Moscovici²

1991

Euro J Social Psych

351

238

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents the outline of a model for collective phenomena. A symmetrybreaking model combines a number of well-established social psychology hypotheses PRELIMINARY REMARKSThe finest and most distinctive aspect of our sciences concerns the study of collective phenomena. Yet, in both social and natural sciences, this aspect is most difficult and certainly rather recent. When facing this difficulty, the tendency is either to go back to the individual or to treat groups as collective individuals. Our purpose here is to carry further the study of these phenomena to fill the gap between individual and social descriptions. We will proceed combining established psychological concepts with those from contemporary statistical physics (Haken, 1977; Reif, 1965;

show abstract

“…In the straw-poll study noted above, the fourth-voting jurors who initially believed the defendant was not guilty were very susceptible to early straw polls with three previous guilty votes, but they were not influenced when the straw poll came later in deliberations. 338 In contrast, jurors inclined to vote guilty were about as susceptible to three non-guilty votes but were even more susceptible when the poll took place later in the deliberations. 339 The authors attribute this difference at least partially to the leniency bias, the "socially (and legally) preferred error of acquitting the guilty in contrast to convicting the innocent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%