Group Decision-Making Effectiveness as a Function of Physical Arrangement

1979 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-115
Author(s):  
Hal W. Hendrick
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Male Students ◽  
Conference Room ◽  
Room Design ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Seating Arrangements ◽  
Murder Trial

After viewing the first 28 minutes of the film, Twelve Angry Men, 60 groups of eight male students each were randomly assigned to one of six different physical seating arrangements. Each student first made a private ranking of the order in which he thought the jurors in a murder trial would change their vote from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Group members then worked toward a consensual ranking. The consensual rankings of the groups placed in a circle arrangement with no table were found more accurate (p < .05) than those for groups placed in the other five arrangements, all of which utilized work tables. Potential implications for conference room design and furnishings were noted, along with suggestions for follow-on research.

Nuanced Aggression in Group Decision Making

2017 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Dryden Henningsen ◽  
Mary Lynn Miller Henningsen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Influence ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Influence Tactics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Compliance Gaining ◽  
The Impact

Group decision making in organizations represents an opportunity for group members to seek to exert social influence. Whining and bullying are examined as nonrational influence tactics used by individuals in groups. Both tactics are envisioned as forms of aggression, differing across a dominance—submissiveness continuum. The impact of whining and bullying as compliance gaining tactics for organizational group decision making is examined using 234 individuals whose jobs include group decision making in organizations. The use of bullying and whining tactics are positively correlated indicating dominance complementarity, with increases in one tactic being associated with increases in the other. In addition, bullying and whining are found to have negative effects on cohesiveness and group decision-making effectiveness.

A Formal Approach to Handling Conflicts in Multiattribute Group Decision Making

2005 ◽  
Vol 128 (4) ◽  
pp. 678-688 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tung-King See ◽  
Kemper Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Engineering Design ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Team Leaders ◽  
Formal Approach ◽  
Aggregation Functions ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Problem Data

Supporting the decision of a group in engineering design is a challenging and complicated problem when issues like consensus and compromise must be taken into account. In this paper, we present the foundations of the group hypothetical equivalents and inequivalents method and two fundamental extensions making it applicable to new classes of group decision problems. The first extension focuses on updating the formulation to place unequal importance on the preferences of the group members. The formulation presented in this paper allows team leaders to emphasize the input from certain group members based on experience or other factors. The second extension focuses on the theoretical implications of using a general class of aggregation functions. Illustration and validation of the developments are presented using a vehicle selection problem. Data from ten engineering design groups are used to demonstrate the application of the method.

scholarly journals Learning While Deciding in Groups

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Tindale ◽  
Jeremy R. Winget
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Decision Processes ◽  
Learning Potential ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Actual Learning

Groups are used to make many important societal decisions. Similar to individuals, by paying attention to the information available during the decision processes and the consequences of the decisions, groups can learn from their decisions as well. In addition, group members can learn from each other by exchanging information and being exposed to different perspectives. However, groups make decisions in many different ways and the potential and actual learning that takes place will vary as a function of the manner in which groups reach consensus. This chapter reviews the literature on group decision making with a special emphasis on how and when group decision making leads to learning. We argue that learning is possible in virtually any group decision making environment but freely interacting groups create the greatest potential for learning. We also discuss when and why group may not always take advantage of the learning potential.

Group Decision Making for Advanced Manufacturing Technology Selection Using the Choquet Integral

2011 ◽  
pp. 193-212
Author(s):  
Cengiz Kahraman ◽  
Selçuk Çebi ◽  
Ihsan Kaya
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Choquet Integral ◽  
Manufacturing Technology ◽  
Advanced Manufacturing Technology ◽  
Advanced Manufacturing ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Automated Storage ◽  
Method Of Production

Advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) is defined as a modern method of production incorporating highly automated and sophisticated computerized design and operational systems. Hence, an investment decision to adopt AMT is a strategic decision. A group decision making process is stressful when group members have different views under multiple and conflicting criteria. Satisfying group members’ opinions has a critical impact on a decision. In this chapter, a multiple criteria group decision making problem under a fuzzy environment is used for the selection among AMTs. Choquet integral methodology is used for this selection. A strategic investment problem of a company for a suitable Automated Storage/Retrieval System (AS/RS) is considered and discussed.

A Formal Approach to Handling Conflicts in Multiattribute Group Decision Making

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tung-King See ◽  
Kemper Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Support Group ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Formal Approach ◽  
Attribute Weights ◽  
Decision Methods ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Support Decision Making

The Hypothetical Equivalents and Inequivalents Method (HEIM) has been developed to support decision making in multiattribute problems where one decision maker is making the decision. In this paper HEIM is modified to support group decision making in multiattribute problems, resulting in the Group Hypothetical Equivalents and Inequivalents Method (G-HEIM). Instead of aggregating attribute weights or overall alternative values from each individual as is common in other group decision methods, G-HEIM operates by aggregating individual preferences. It is recognized that in group decision making, common preferences among group members can rarely be guaranteed, unless individual freedom is greatly limited. G-HEIM instead allows individuals to freely express preferences over a number of hypothetical alternatives and then explores the level of conflict or differences from the aggregated group preferences. The relationship between the level of conflicting preferences and the usability of the resulting decision is also directly studied using the G-HEIM. An automotive selection example is used to illustrate the approach.

scholarly journals Influencing the physiology and decisions of groups: Physiological linkage during group decision-making

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-159
Author(s):  
Katherine R. Thorson ◽  
Oana D. Dumitru ◽  
Wendy Berry Mendes ◽  
Tessa V. West
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Physiological Response ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Physiological Responses ◽  
High Status ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Physiological Linkage ◽  
To Come ◽  
Middle Status

Many of the most important decisions in our society are made within groups, yet we know little about how the physiological responses of group members predict the decisions that groups make. In the current work, we examine whether physiological linkage from “senders” to “receivers”—which occurs when a sender’s physiological response predicts a receiver’s physiological response—is associated with senders’ success at persuading the group to make a decision in their favor. We also examine whether experimentally manipulated status—an important predictor of social behavior—is associated with physiological linkage. In groups of 5, we randomly assigned 1 person to be high status, 1 low status, and 3 middle status. Groups completed a collaborative decision-making task that required them to come to a consensus on a decision to hire 1 of 5 firms. Unbeknownst to the 3 middle-status members, high- and low-status members surreptitiously were told to each argue for different firms. We measured cardiac interbeat intervals of all group members throughout the decision-making process to assess physiological linkage. We found that the more receivers were physiologically linked to senders, the more likely groups were to make a decision in favor of the senders. We did not find that people were physiologically linked to their group members as a function of their fellow group members’ status. This work identifies physiological linkage as a novel correlate of persuasion and highlights the need to understand the relationship between group members’ physiological responses during group decision-making.

The Selfish Hero: A Study of the Individual Benefits of Self-Sacrificial Prosocial Behavior

2012 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis T. McAndrew ◽  
Carin Perilloux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Prosocial Behavior ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Individual

Twenty-four same-sex, three-person groups (a confederate plus two naive participants) completed a “group decision-making study” in which the success of the group depended upon the willingness of one of its members (the confederate) to endure pain and inconvenience. The ordeal that the altruistic confederate endured was judged to be more difficult and costly than the experience of other group members, and the altruists were ultimately awarded more money and accorded higher status. In a second study, 334 undergraduates read a description of the procedures used in Study 1 and made judgments and monetary allocations to the hypothetical people described in the scenario. The concordance of the data in the two studies support a costly signaling, rather than a reciprocal altruism explanation for such “heroic” behavior.

Contagion of Self-Interested Behavior: Evidence from Group Dictator Game Experiments

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takehiro Ito ◽  
Akihiro Suzuki ◽  
Toru Takemoto ◽  
Kazuhito Ogawa ◽  
Hiromasa Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Dictator Game ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Recipient Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Other Regarding

Abstract We examine how group decision-making affects other-regarding behavior in experimental dictator games. In particular, we assess whether the effects of iterated games differ for group and individual decision-making and whether the difference in decision-making style (individual or group) changes the perception of social identity. We make two findings on group decision-making. First, group decisions become more selfish when repeating the game after changing group members. Second, a dictator group donates more to a recipient group at the same university than to a recipient group at a different university. These findings are not true for individual decision-making.

scholarly journals Group Decision-Making Based on Artificial Intelligence: A Bibliometric Analysis

Mathematics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 1566
Author(s):  
Ruben Heradio ◽  
David Fernandez-Amoros ◽  
Cristina Cerrada ◽  
Manuel J. Cobo
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Single Person ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Linguistic Approaches ◽  
Fuzzy Linguistic ◽  
The Impact

Decisions concerning crucial and complicated problems are seldom made by a single person. Instead, they require the cooperation of a group of experts in which each participant has their own individual opinions, motivations, background, and interests regarding the existing alternatives. In the last 30 years, much research has been undertaken to provide automated assistance to reach a consensual solution supported by most of the group members. Artificial intelligence techniques are commonly applied to tackle critical group decision-making difficulties. For instance, experts’ preferences are often vague and imprecise; hence, their opinions are combined using fuzzy linguistic approaches. This paper reports a bibliometric analysis of the ample literature published in this regard. In particular, our analysis: (i) shows the impact and upswing publication trend on this topic; (ii) identifies the most productive authors, institutions, and countries; (iii) discusses authors’ and journals’ productivity patterns; and (iv) recognizes the most relevant research topics and how the interest on them has evolved over the years.

scholarly journals Group Decision-Making

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Tindale ◽  
Jeremy R. Winget
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
Group Members

Group decisions are ubiquitous in everyday life. Even when decisions are made individually, decision-makers often receive advice or suggestions from others. Thus, decisions are often social in nature and involve multiple group members. The literature on group decision-making is conceptualized as falling along two dimensions: how much interaction or information exchange is allowed among the group members, and how the final decision is made. On one end, group decisions can be made simply by aggregating member preferences or judgments without any interaction among members, with members having no control or say in the final judgment. One the other end, groups’ decisions can involve extensive member interaction and information exchanges, and the final decision is reached by group consensus. In between these two endpoints, various other strategies are also possible, including prediction markets, Delphi groups, and judge–advisor systems. Research has shown that each dimension has different implications for decision quality and process depending on the decision task and context. Research exploring these two dimension has also helped to illuminate those aspects of group decision-making that can lead to better-quality decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document