Deviance in group decision making: Group‐member centrality alleviates negative consequences for the group

Abstract

Research on the effects of deviance during group decision making has shown that although it can lead to increased innovation and creativity within the group, group members often dislike the deviant member and rate group morale as lower because of dissent during the decision‐making process. The current study (N = 101) uses an information processing approach to examine the effect of deviance on decision outcomes as well as investigate how the perceived position of group members can influence whether they are given leeway to voice dissent. Results found that deviance can improve group decision making without incurring social costs when a deviant group member occupies a central position within the group. These findings are novel within the field of deviance research yet are consistent with research on group criticism and idiosyncrasy credit and therefore have significant implications for literature on the effect of group deviance and the application of deviance techniques within organisational and educational settings. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Deviance in organizational decision making: using unanimous decision rules to promote the positive effects and alleviate the negative effects of deviance

“…There was no difference in team identification between the deviance present and deviance absent conditions. This differs from the previous findings demonstrating that deviance can reduce participants' ratings of team identification in group decision‐making tasks (Rijnbout & McKimmie, 2012a) and suggests that participants do not view deviance as damaging their identification with the team when given explicit instructions to work under a unanimous decision rule.…”

Loyal peripherals? The interactive effects of identification and peripheral group membership on deviance from non‐beneficial ingroup norms

“…As prototypical members, due to previous acts of conformity to group expectations, are often awarded more idiosyncrasy credit they should be treated more forgivingly in cases of deviant behavior than peripheral members (Fielding & Hogg, 1997;Randsley de Moura et al, 2011). Such a line of reasoning is supported by more recent empirical findings showing that peripheral members were evaluated more negatively than members who closely matched the ingroup prototype when they expressed disagreement in group decision-making (Rijnbout & McKimmie, 2012) or criticized the ingroup (Tarrant & Campbell, 2007). It is also consistent with research on social identity and leadership (e.g., Haslam, 2001;Hogg, 2001).…”

Individual versus group decision making: Jurors’ reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony

“…In other group-decision-making studies, McKimmie and colleagues specifically manipulated central and peripheral information about a persuasion source (in the context of jury decisions, [ 19 ]; and in the context of organizational decision making, [ 20 – 21 ]). These authors conclude that their work demonstrates the potential for group deliberation to promote reliance on both central and peripheral information—for example, mock jurors were affected by the gender of an expert only after they deliberated as a group [ 19 ].…”

“…These authors conclude that their work demonstrates the potential for group deliberation to promote reliance on both central and peripheral information—for example, mock jurors were affected by the gender of an expert only after they deliberated as a group [ 19 ]. We note, however, that Rijnbout & McKimmie [ 20 – 21 ] operationalized their central factor as the strength of a job applicant’s Curriculum Vitae (CV). It is difficult to apply this specific central factor manipulation to the context of expert witnesses because—although the strength of an applicant’s CV might be central to the argument being made in that context (i.e., that an applicant is the best candidate for a job)—the strength of an expert’s CV would be peripheral to their in-court message (i.e., testimony that is relevant to the case).…”