The Committee Charge, Framing Interpersonal Agreement, and Consensus Models of Group Quantitative Judgment

Davis, James H.; Zarnoth, Paul; Hulbert, Lorne G.; Chen, Xiaoping; Parks, Craig D.; Nam, Kidok

doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2773

Cited by 5 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to expectations, however, greater perception of knowledge did not mediate the effect of shared information on actual influence for divergent members, and confidence and participation were not significantly related to influence. Furthermore, the findings reveal that divergent members were less influential than other members; this finding supports previous research (Davis et al, 1997;Ohtsubo et al, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…As groups discuss information and attempt to reach consensus on a task with a continuum of alternatives (Ohtsubo, Masuchi, & Nakanishi, 2002), low divergent members (group members who hold similar opinions on the topic and are greater in number than members who hold highly divergent opinions) exert substantial influence, especially in cases of judgmental tasks, tasks that do not have a correct answer (Davis, Kerr, Sussmann, & Rissman, 1974;Laughlin, 2011;Laughlin & Ellis, 1986). Highly divergent opinion holders (group members whose opinions are most different from other group members on a continuous ordered scale) often have their views excluded (Davis et al, 1997;Ohtsubo et al, 2002). The linear discrepancy model (Boster, Mayer, Hunter, & Hale, 1980) posits a reason for this.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Discussion of Shared Information Can Increase the Influence of Divergent Members

Swol

Braun

Lewis

et al. 2015

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the theoretical frameworks of information-sharing in groups and the linear discrepancy model, this study highlights the importance of communicating shared information for a divergent member to influence a group. Participants received information concerning whether "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance. After stating individual opinions, they discussed the issue in small groups and came to a group decision on a continuous, ordered scale. Low divergent members, who had opinions closer to the average of other group members, had more influence than high divergent members. Group members with high divergence were more confident and talked more than others. However, there was no relationship between the amount divergent members talked or their confidence level and their amount of influence. Highly divergent group members who mentioned more shared information were more influential and came across as more knowledgeable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discussion of Shared Information Can Increase the Influence of Divergent Members

Swol

Braun

Lewis

et al. 2015

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover studies of the process of combining opinions show that judges give greater weight to consensus opinions while discounting outlier opinions (Yaniv, 1997). Finally, studies of group decision-making suggest that a discrepant opinion's impact on the group's final decision declines as the discrepancy increases (Davis et al, 1997). In the foregoing studies an opinion (or cue) is discounted due to its distance from the consensus.…”

Section: The Effect Of Advice Distance On the Revision Of Opinionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Whereas advising per se has received little attention in the study of decision making, several important lines of research form the basis for the present investigation. These include theories in the following domains: (a) processes of attitude change, belief revision and perseverance (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991), (b) the literature on combining expert opinions and linear models of judgment (Armstrong, 2001;Blattberg & Hoch, 1990), (c) models of information integration (Anderson, 1968), and (d) interactive group judgment (Davis, Zarnoth, Hulbert, Chen, Parks, & Nam, 1997;Sniezek & Henry, 1989). Research in these areas highlights the processes by which information is combined and opinions are revised.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Receiving other people’s advice: Influence and benefit

Yaniv

2004

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

512

506

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seeking advice is a basic practice in making real life decisions. Until recently, however, little attention has been given to it in either empirical studies or theories of decision making. The studies reported here investigate the influence of advice on judgment and the consequences of advice use for judgment accuracy. Respondents were asked to provide final judgments on the basis of their initial opinions and advice presented to them. The respondents' weighting policies were inferred. Analysis of the these policies show that (a) the respondents tended to place a higher weight on their own opinion than on the advisor's opinion (the self/other effect); (b) more knowledgeable individuals discounted the advice more; (c) the weight of advice decreased as its distance from the initial opinion increased; and (d) the use of advice improved accuracy significantly, though not optimally. A theoretical framework is introduced which draws in part on insights from the study of attitude change to explain the influence of advice. Finally the usefulness of advice for improving judgment accuracy is considered.

show abstract

“…With this dependence may come enhanced emotional support such as loyalty, trust, intimacy, and fun (Hartup & Stevens, 1997). To build relationships, group members must make contributions to each other's welfare (Davis, Zarnoth, Hulbert, Chen, Parks, & Nam, 1997) as well as to performance objectives (Walton & Hackman, 1986). In our research, we focus on whether emotional investment mediates the effects of rewards and costs on outcomes or whether exchanges influence outcomes directly (Clark & Mills, 1993;Lydon et al, 1997).…”

Section: Emotional Investmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

Saavedra

Dyne²

1999

Motivation and Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study applied a social exchange perspective to examine three related aspects of work group behavior: individuals' assessment of the personal costs and rewards of group membership, the overall level of emotional investment in a group, and the external evaluation of group performance. Regression analyses of survey data from 28 ongoing student work groups (134 individuals) indicated that perceptions of personal rewards resulting from interaction over a ten-week period are an important precursor of emotional investment, defined as a relational orientation that encourages mutual caring, group loyalty, and commitment to the group as a whole. Consistent with our expectations, personal costs influenced neither emotional investment nor group performance after considering the effects of personal rewards. Emotional investment mediated the effects of personal rewards on externally rated group performance. Thus, emotional investment was a pivotal dimension of group effectiveness. Results extend our understanding of group behavior by acknowledging the relationship between personal and group development while confirming the compelling role of emotions in social exchange. Work groups answer to three masters: (1) the organization and its emphasis on output (group performance), (2) the group and it's need for relational development, and (3) group members and their personal interests (costs and rewards of group membership) (Hackman, 1990; McGrath, 1991). Although these three masters (organization, group, and individual) often make conflicting demands, work groups must acknowledge all three perspectives and must consider the demands made by each to perform effectively over time (Hackman, 1990). 1 We thank Peggy Thoits for her substantive suggestions and editorial guidance on this manuscript. We thank Lance Sandelands for advice on the focus and contributions of this research.

show abstract

The Committee Charge, Framing Interpersonal Agreement, and Consensus Models of Group Quantitative Judgment

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Discussion of Shared Information Can Increase the Influence of Divergent Members

Discussion of Shared Information Can Increase the Influence of Divergent Members

Receiving other people’s advice: Influence and benefit

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About