Effects of group decision rules on decisions involving continuous alternatives: The unanimity rule and extreme decisions in mock civil juries

Ohtsubo, Yohsuke; Miller, Charles E.; Hayashi, Nakao; Masuchi, Ayumi

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.005

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is possible that different mathematical models provide best fit for different tasks and in different contexts. Miller (1989), for example, suggested that a minority member might be able to induce more compromise from the majority faction under unanimity rule, which endows him or her with a veto power, than majority rule (see Miller, 1985;Ohtsubo et al, 2002, for supportive evidence; see also Davis, Au, Hulbert, Chen, & Zarnoth, 1997, for a contradictory finding). Kaplan and Miller (1987) suggested that intellective vs. judgmental distinction might be relevant to the continuous alternatives tasks, as to the discrete alternatives tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a reason for preferring the SJS model to the Median model other than the relative predictive accuracy, however. As Ohtsubo, Miller, Hayashi, and Masuchi (2002) have noted, the predictive accuracy of the Median model might fluctuate with group size. When a group is composed of an odd number of members, the Median model chooses the most central member's initial judgment.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Majority Influence Process in Group Judgment: Test of the Social Judgment Scheme Model in a Group Polarization Context

Ohtsubo

Masuchi

Nakanishi

2002

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to test Davis’s (1996) Social Judgment Scheme (SJS) model, which was proposed as a predictive model of group decision making with continuous alternatives. The SJS model assumes that individual group members’ influence on the group decision exponentially declines with the distance from other members’ judgments (i.e. majority influence process). Fifty-five 3-person groups engaged in eight group polarization tasks. First, the model fits of the SJS model and the Averaging model were compared in terms of the predictive accuracy. Results indicted that the SJS model yielded accurate predictions more often than the Averaging model. Second, a different analytical approach confirmed the model’s corollary—the skewness of individual judgments distribution was negatively correlated with the direction of group polarization. These findings support the model’s assumption of majority influence process in continuous alternatives tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Majority Influence Process in Group Judgment: Test of the Social Judgment Scheme Model in a Group Polarization Context

Ohtsubo

Masuchi

Nakanishi

2002

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have attempted to evaluate the causes of group failures in making qualified decisions and finding the factors that can affect its dynamics. Some factors studied in relation to this phenomenon include the preference factor, the changing process of a decision when it is decided by one person or by an entire group, cognitive centrality, shared task representation, decision making procedures, groupthink, information processing, the effect of competition and trust between groups, the role of a group leader, the role of cues, an individual's choice to share, time duration, training, the role of task distribution, the effect of group member status, group size, and others (Brodbeck et al, 2007;Cruz et al, 1997;Davis et al, 1997;Frey et al, 2014;Gigone & Hastie, 1993;Insko et al, 2001;Kameda et al, 1997;Kroon et al, 1991;Larson et al, 1996Larson et al, , 1994Mennecke & Valacich, 1998;Ohtsubo et al, 2004;Reimer et al, 2010;Rutledge & Harrell, 1994;Stasser & Titus, 1985;Stewart & Stasser, 1995;Tindale & Kameda, 2000;Whyte, 1989;Winquist & Larson, 1998;Wittenbaum et al, 1999).…”

Section: Group Failure In Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group decision quality, conscientiousness and competition

Hakim¹,

Santoso

Takwin

et al. 2021

Cogent Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experimental study examined the effects of conscientiousness and competition on group decision quality. The participants of this study (240 undergraduate students, 175 females, and 65 males) were divided into 40 groups of Highconscientiousness (HC) traits and 40 groups of Low-conscientiousness (LC) traits. Each group consisted of three people. The task was to make a group decision in two different settings, with and without competition. The exact logistic regression showed that HC personality significantly increased the risk of bad group decisions. It is likely that the inability of the HC group to adapt their strategy in problem-solving inhibits their performance in producing the quality group decision. The competition condition does not affect the quality. Nevertheless, there is an interaction effect of conscientiousness and competition in influencing the quality of group decisions.

show abstract

“…However, Goeree and Yariv (2011) found in an experiment that such differences in jury decisions vanish when deliberation before voting is allowed. Miller (1985) and Ohtsubo et al (2004) showed experimentally that majority group decisions tend to ignore the minority's preferences whereas the unanimity decisions incorporate the minority's preferences when information about each group member's preference is available. Finally, Stasson et al (1991) showed that subjects from majority groups performed marginally better than subjects from unanimity groups in mathematical tasks.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Group decision rules and group rationality under risk

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the rationality of group decisions versus individual decisions under risk. We study two group decision rules, majority and unanimity, in stochastic dominance and Allais paradox tasks. We distinguish communication effects (the effects of group discussions and interactions) from aggregation effects (mere impact of the voting procedure), which makes it possible to better understand the complex dynamics of group decision making. In an experiment, both effects occurred for intellective tasks whereas there were only aggregation effects in judgmental tasks. Communication effects always led to more rational choices; aggregation effects did so sometimes but not always. Groups violated stochastic dominance less often than individuals did, which was due to both aggregation and communication effects. In the Allais paradox tasks, there were almost no communication effects, and aggregation effects made groups deviate more from expected utility than individuals. Keywords Group decisions under risk. Unanimity rule. Majority rule. Allais paradox JEL Classification D81. C91 Many economic decisions-e.g. family financial planning, corporate strategies, national laws-are made by groups. The literature comparing individual and group decision making is rich (Kugler et al. 2012). Groups have been found to attenuate, amplify, or replicate the biases found for individual decisions (Kerr et al. 1996), and these diverse findings highlight the closing remark of a recent review paper: BUltimately, the goal of

show abstract

Effects of group decision rules on decisions involving continuous alternatives: The unanimity rule and extreme decisions in mock civil juries

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

Majority Influence Process in Group Judgment: Test of the Social Judgment Scheme Model in a Group Polarization Context

Majority Influence Process in Group Judgment: Test of the Social Judgment Scheme Model in a Group Polarization Context

Group decision quality, conscientiousness and competition

Group decision rules and group rationality under risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About