Group Decision Making (chpt.7)

Question 1

Information building

Answer 1

Information Integration more resources to draw on better decision

Question 2

Social decision scheme

Answer 2

Individual preferences
Group composition
Group response
Social decision scheme

Question 3

Group composition

Answer 3

More decision alternatives and larger group size more possible group composition

Question 4

Group composition to group decision

Answer 4

SDS-> decision rule

• majority wins- SDS will augment preferences/biases that the individualgroup members bring with them. If 80% of group member prefer option A over other options and adopts a majority wins proportionality otherwise rule
• proportionality
• truth wins
• majority wins, proportionality otherwise

Question 5

Individuals into groups

Answer 5

Based on group composition and the SDS used, the group’s decision can be predicted

Question 6

Leniency bias/effect (MacCoun & Kerr, 1988)

Answer 6

All else being equal, acquittal factions more influential than conviction factions.
Example: when a majority initially prefers conviction only 47% of juries reach guilty verdict;
however, when a majority initially prefers acquittal, 76% of juries reach non-guilty verdict

Question 7

Group decision making

Answer 7

1.Orientation- Define the problem, set goal, plan the process

Many groups skip this stage (Hackman & Morris, 1975).
Many groups fail to define the problem:Preferring to let the problem worsen No mechanism for identifying problems Minimizing the problem (by group members with power)

2. Discussion-gather information, identify alternatives, Evaluate alternatives
3. Decision making- Choose group solution
4. Implementation-adhere to the decision, evaluate the decision, seek feedback

Question 8

Orientation stage: Problem identification

Answer 8

Problem must be clarified. Need to identify:
the condition of the problem and evidence for it
the fact that the problem needs to change How much is the problem shared among the group? How urgent is it?
Implementation of the decision increase when members see the problem as “their own”

Question 9

Orientation stage:Planning

Answer 9

Groups that discuss or plan strategies and decision-making procedures outperform those that do not .
Engaging in the planning stage is linked to more positive group atmosphere, greater satisfaction with leadership, and flexibility in performing tasks (Hackman & Morris, 1975).
Group members do not consider such planning important as much as engaging in the group task itself (Shure et al., 1962).

Question 10

Discussion stage

Answer 10

Active group discussion of information and options improves group decisions.

Identification of causal factors of the problem, and how the problem needs to change.
Determining the group’s ability to solve the problem and bring about change
How much impact with problem solution will have on the group?

Question 11

Discussion stage: Identifying alternatives

Answer 11

Identify and explore enough alternative solutions (based on specific causal factors of the problem identified earlier).

Beware of formulating solutions before different alternatives (ideas) have been thoroughly examined

Question 12

Discussion stage: Evaluating the alternatives

Answer 12

Once all alternatives have been explored, use a good screening process for selecting a smaller number of potential alternatives

Then, have a period for evaluating and testing those alternative solutions (e.g., a pilot study).

Could there be unanticipated consequences from each alternative solution?

Question 13

Making the Decision

Answer 13

consistently
without self-interest
based on accurate information
with opportunities to correct the decision
with the interests of all parties represented
based on moral and ethical standards

Question 14

Implementation stage

Answer 14

Solution is implemented and its impact is discussed. Often decisions are never implemented.
Group members’ engage in implementation more positively when they have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

Those with power to stop the implementation need to “get in” on the decision process, too.Build in accountability.

Question 15

Poor decision making groups

Answer 15

Decision-making constraints in groups
Poor decision-making/discussion processes
Groupthink
Ineffective pooling of information
Group brainstorming

Question 16

Group Decision-Making Constraints(Burn, 2004; Janis, 1989)

Answer 16

Cognitive constraints:
Members unable to consider all relevant info
b/c lack of access, lack of time, problem too complex

Impedes accurate framing of the problem & generation and evaluation of alternatives

Leads to use of “shortcuts”
Just using what “worked” in the past, or choosing the first decent-sounding solution (“satisficing”).

Question 17

Affiliative constraints

Answer 17

Based on desire to maintain positive relationships among group members:
Especially problematic in cohesive groups
Self-censorship; members withholding ideas
pressure to conform; more concerned with agreeing than evaluating alternatives
members telling leaders what they want to hear and not disagree

Question 18

Egocentric restraints

Answer 18

Based on group members’ desire to control the group decision Putting down others’ ideas; shutting down discussion (defensive comm. climate) Group only considers small # of alternatives

Presenting oneself as the expert on the issue at hand

Question 19

Poor decision making process

Answer 19

Poor communication skills.
Egocentric, overbearing behavior.
Nonparticipation.
Sidetracked.
Interruptions.
Poor leader behavior.
Negative attitudes and emotions.

Question 20

Poor discussion processes

Answer 20

Procrastination.
Bolstering.
Avoid responsibility.
Ignoring alternatives.
Satisficing.
Focusing on trivial, minor issues.

Question 21

Antecedents of Groupthink

Answer 21

Highly cohesive groups group structure having: Homogeneous members
Isolation from outside
“Strong” leader
Unsystematic procedures for making and reviewing decisions.Stressful situations where urgency can overrule accuracy.

Question 22

Symptoms of Groupthink

Answer 22

Overestimation of the ingroup (sense of invulnerability & morality).
Biased perceptions of the outgroup.
Closed-mindedness.
Increased pressures toward uniformity.
“Mindguards” 
Self-censorship
Illusion of unanimity

Question 23

Consequences of Groupthink

Answer 23

Defective decision making processes:
Incomplete consideration of goals and alternative solutions
Failure to reappraise initially rejected alternatives
Poor information search
Selective bias in processing information at hand
Failure to work out contingency plans

High probability of a bad decision

Question 24

Testing the groupthink model Tetlock et al. (1992):

Answer 24

Tetlock et al. (1992):
Examined coded texts from 10 historic events
Found relations between concurrence-seeking and groupthink symptoms
However, could not find relations between high cohesion or stressors and concurrence-seeking

Janis’s theory highlighted the role of cohesion, but some research findings are not supportive

Question 25

Turner, Pratkanis et al., (1992):

Answer 25

Combined effects of high “threat” (made group discussion public) and high cohesion increased groupthink

Question 26

Preventing Groupthink

Answer 26

Avoid isolation by consulting widely with outsiders.
Correct misperceptions and biases.
Leaders should reduce conformity pressures.
Limit premature seeking of consensus.
Leaders should not take a strong stand early in the discussion and encourage criticism.

Question 27

Ineffective Pooling of Information

Answer 27

Biased towards already shared information.
Common Knowledge Effect-General information

Hidden Profiles-members that have information they want to share

Question 28

Ineffective info exchange sampling bias

Answer 28

Group discussions tend to show a “sampling bias”: shared info more likely to be mentioned during discussion than unshared info (Larson et al., 1994)
When this happens, hidden profiles becomes less likely to be found.

Sampling bias is even greater in larger groups.

Question 29

Biased sampling

Answer 29

Easier to validate shared info than unshared info
Shared info seems more credible than unshared info
Members who mention shared info are rated higher on expertise

Question 30

Mutual enhancement effect when both parties have knowledge

Answer 30

Dyads either hand same info (all shared) or different info (all unshared), and then engaged in GDM selecting a “candidate”

Results:
Dyads that shared info rated themselves and their partners more positively (more competent, knowledgeable, and credible) than dyads in the unshared info condition.

Question 31

Common knowledge effect

Answer 31

Shared info has more impact on group choice than unshared info (Gigone & Hastie, 1993, 1997)

Question 32

High and low status

Answer 32

High-status member tend to equally mention shared and unshared info
Low-status member, more shared info (Wittenbaum, 1998)

Unshared info mentioned by high-status member more likely to be remembered by others (Wittenbaum, 2000)

Question 33

Assigning expert roles

Answer 33

(Stewart & Stasser, 1995) more credible…
Establishing a “transactive memory system”
More mentioning and discussion of unshared info

Question 34

Motivated Information Processing in Groups (MIP-G) model (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008)

Answer 34

Extended the Collective Information Processing Model by considering two motivations:
Epistemic motivation
Social motivation (cooperate vs. compete)

Question 35

Epistemic motivation

Answer 35

Group centeredness
deliberate, systematic info seach and processing, Intolerance of dissent comformity pressures, flexibility of thought

Process accountability (+)
Time pressure/decision urgency (-)
External threat (-)
Preference diversity (+)
Directive leaders (-)
Need for cognitive closure (-)

Question 36

Social motivation

Answer 36

Trusting orientation (+)
Prosocial norms or climate (+)
Past cooperation (+)
Shared group identity (+)
Anticipated future interaction (+)

Question 37

Predictions from MIP-G (individual/group motivation of shared info)

Answer 37

Proself values independence, disregarding other ideas, bias in information, exchange, advocacy, deception, spinning, focus on consensus, flexibility of thought

roself SM- Low EM: social loafing, inaction
High EM: arguing, advocacy, deception, spinning, shooting down others’ ideas

Prosocial SM-Low EM: collective bolstering, mutual enhancement, conformity pressure

High EM: problem solving, attention to others’ ideas, collective reasoning

Question 38

Normative Decision Model

Answer 38

Proposes that three situational factors need to be taken into account when deciding how much group leaders should consult the group when making a decision.
Decision quality
Decision acceptance
Time

Question 39

Normative Decision model

Answer 39

The importance of the decision to the functioning of the group.

Question 40

Vroom’s Decision tree

Answer 40

Decision styles and group members’ participation:
Decide
Delegate
Consult (individually)
Consult (group)
Facilitate