Some social psychological effects of group decision rules.

Abstract

This study examined the effects of group decision rules and decision outcomes on satisfaction with the outcomes, perceived fairness of the rules, and amount of rejection between majority members and deviates. Two hundred and seventy male subjects were led to believe that they belonged to groups, each of which consisted of a four-person majority and a lone deviate. The groups ostensibly made decisions by using a majority, dictatorial, or unanimity rule. Principal findings of the study were as follows: Subjects were more satisfied with decisions with which they agreed than with decisions with which they disagreed. The perceived fairness of the decision rules was primarily a function of the representativeness of the decision. Subjects felt the rule was fairer when it resulted in a decision that was representative of the preferences of most group members than when it resulted in a decision that was unrepresentative. Finally, mutual rejection occurred between majority members and the lone deviate. The strongest rejection, however, was by majority members toward the deviate in instances when, under the dictatorship and unanimity rules, the deviate was able to impose an unrepresentative decision on the majority. Findings are discussed partly in terms of the effects of outcomes on the perceived legitimacy of decision rules and the resulting feelings toward group members held to be responsible for implementation of the rules.

Consensual qualitative research: An update.

“…Similar to both feminist and multicultural approaches to psychology, a diversity of viewpoints is valued, honored, and protected (Williams & Barber, 2004). In fact, the use of consensus has been shown to improve decision quality (Michaelsen, Watson, & Black, 1989;Sundstrom, Busby, & Bobrow, 1997) by taking into account both commonly held and minority views (Miller, 1989). Because subtle meanings may be conveyed through the interview process in CQR, this variety of viewpoints and experiences among the team members may help unravel the complexities and ambiguities of the data.…”

The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors.

“…For nominal categories, the major focus is on how groups achieve consensus for one alternative (Hinsz, 1990). For responses with continuous scales, the major focus becomes one of how compromise among the different members' preferences is achieved (Hinsz, 1989;Miller, 1989). For nominal response categories, the group decision process is conceptually similar to choice.…”

“…Group interaction metacognition relates to the knowledge group members have about the way groups interact while processing information. Implicit decision schemes (Miller, 1989 ) and shared mental models (Cannon-Bowers et al, 1993) are just some examples. Further conceptual development of the metacognition in groups notion could make a substantial contribution toward understanding information processing in groups.…”

“…Research indicates that face-to-face interacting groups often appear to rely on implicit decision rules (e.g., majority rules) when reaching consensus (Davis, 1982;Filkins et al, 1991;Miller, 1989); however, the nature of the decision task (e.g., intellective vs. judgmental task, seriousness, member confidence, and importance of the issue) appears to play a substantial role on the group decision processes that arise (Davis, 1980(Davis, , 1982Hinsz, 1990;Kerr, 1992;Laughlin, 1980;Tindale & Davis, 1983). These implicit decision rules often involve features of information processing.…”

Personnel Turnover and Team Performance

“…Kameda & Sugimori, 1993) and satisfaction with it (cf. Miller, 1989), participants in our choice condition may have experienced especially strong commitment to their strategy. In contrast, if choice teams use a more lenient decision rule, such as the majority rule, they may experience less commitment to their strategy.…”