A valence-based account of group interaction and decision making

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Bonito ◽  
Joann Keyton
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Interaction

Competitive and Cooperative Decision-Making Groups

1980 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy Lenk Krueger
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Group Interaction ◽  
Communication Patterns ◽  
Sample Group ◽  
Lag Sequential Analysis ◽  
Patterns Of Communication ◽  
Two Measures ◽  
Cooperative Decision Making

This study investigates differences among four decision-making groups and describes the patterns of communication unique to two groups. In the first part of the investigation, four decision-making groups are given either competitive or cooperative inducements and are compared on two measures: competition and satisfaction. The two groups given the competitive inducement (Groups I and III) were found to have significantly higher competition and lower satisfaction than the groups given cooperative inducements (Groups II and IV). In the second part of the study a lag sequential analysis is conducted on the coded communicative sequences in the highest and lowest competition groups (I and II, respectively). This analysis yields patterns to decision-making unique to each sample group. Group I's communication is characterized by highly probable (above-chance) sequences of disagreement messages and few probable agreement messages. Group II's communication patterns consist of highly probable sequences of decision development and probable agreement/support messages throughout the group interaction.

scholarly journals Small-Group Interaction among Professional Librarians

1997 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen R. Tower
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Small Group ◽  
Small Groups ◽  
Group Interaction ◽  
Group Processes ◽  
Decision Performance ◽  
Effective Decision ◽  
Effective Decision Making ◽  
Alternative Solutions

Libraries are using small groups to make decisions, and it is important that the decisions these groups make are effective. Small-group scholars argue that group processes and interactions play an important role and influence effective decision-making. Randy Y. Hirokawa developed a theory called Vigilant Interaction Theory which maintains that group interaction affects decision-making performance by directly shaping the quality of vigilance that leads to a final choice. Small groups consisting of professional librarians were used to test Hirokawa’s theory, and the results showed that group decision performance is directly related to the group’s efforts to perform critical vigilant decision-making functions. Specifically, groups that show a pattern generating more alternative solutions are more likely to develop effective decisions.

Not the Desired Outcome: Groupthink Undermines the Work of a Literacy Council

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 517-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Jaeger
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
School Reform ◽  
Work Teams ◽  
Group Interaction ◽  
Important Change ◽  
Literacy Environment ◽  
Stress Levels ◽  
History Of ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Support Work

A history of school reform failure has prompted concern among literacy researchers and practitioners alike. This article considers the case of a school Literacy Council and its unsuccessful efforts to improve the school’s literacy environment. Mobilizing Janis’s notion of groupthink, I examine discourse among group members and suggest that characteristics of groupthink—problematic antecedents cultivating troubling decision-making symptoms—led to unsuccessful outcomes. During times of low stress, Literacy Council members collaborated effectively, but when the principal’s unilateral curricular decision raised stress levels, the group succumbed to groupthink and experienced failure. This study offers implications for other groups which are shaken by a late-emerging threat. I argue that groupthink theory shines light on problems with group interaction. An awareness of precursors to and symptoms of groupthink may support work teams as they propose and enact important change.

Discarding optimality: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Reward Rate ◽  
Perceptual Decision ◽  
Standard Observer ◽  
Rate Maximization ◽  
Reward Rate Maximization ◽  
Descriptive Standard ◽  
Observer Model

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.

LPCD framework: Analytical tool or psychological model?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
Mathematical Framework ◽  
Bayesian Decision ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Psychological Model ◽  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Bayesian Decision Making

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document