group decisions
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

320
(FIVE YEARS 56)

H-INDEX

32
(FIVE YEARS 3)

2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-64
Author(s):  
Nur Fitriyadi

This study aims to enhance the cooperation of 5’th grade students in Kledokan Elementary School. To achieve that goal, Classroom Action Research (CAR) is carried out by learning on the mathematics course of data presentation materials using the Papan Pinball Penyajian Data (Papeda) media. The subjects of this study are 19 students of fifth grade in Kledokan Elementary School. Student cooperation data is obtained using an observation sheet. The indicators in this study are (1) helping each other in a group; (2) contributing to create a close group atmosphere; (3) acknowledge the strengths of friends in groups; (4) accepting the group decisions; and (5) actively participate in group assignments. This studies indicate an increase in student cooperation can be seen from the percentage increase in those indicators. Student's level of cooperation increase from 63,95% on cycle I to 90.79% on cycle II. It is concluded that the use of Papeda learning media able to enhance the coorperation of fifth grade in Kledokan Elementary School.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hung T. Nguyen ◽  
Olga Kosheleva ◽  
Vladik Kreinovich

PurposeIn 1951, Kenneth Arrow proved that it is not possible to have a group decision-making procedure that satisfies reasonable requirements like fairness. From the theoretical viewpoint, this is a great result – well-deserving the Nobel Prize that was awarded to Professor Arrow. However, from the practical viewpoint, the question remains – so how should we make group decisions? A usual way to solve this problem is to provide some reasonable heuristic ideas, but the problem is that different seemingly reasonable idea often lead to different group decision – this is known, e.g. for different voting schemes.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper we analyze this problem from the viewpoint of decision theory, the basic theory underlying all our activities – including economic ones.FindingsWe show how from the first-principles decision theory, we can extract explicit recommendations for group decision making.Originality/valueMost of the resulting recommendations have been proposed earlier. The main novelty of this paper is that it provides a unified coherent narrative that leads from the fundamental first principles to practical recommendations.


Energy Policy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 156 ◽  
pp. 112306
Author(s):  
Graciela-del-Carmen Nava-Guerrero ◽  
Helle Hvid Hansen ◽  
Gijsbert Korevaar ◽  
Zofia Lukszo
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer E. Smith ◽  
Christopher R. von Rueden ◽  
Mark van Vugt ◽  
Claudia Fichtel ◽  
Peter M. Kappeler

Social influence is distributed unequally between males and females in many mammalian societies. In human societies, gender inequality is particularly evident in access to leadership positions. Understanding why women historically and cross-culturally have tended to be under-represented as leaders within human groups and organizations represents a paradox because we lack evidence that women leaders consistently perform worse than men. We also know that women exercise overt influence in collective group-decisions within small-scale human societies, and that female leadership is pervasive in particular contexts across non-human mammalian societies. Here, we offer a transdisciplinary perspective on this female leadership paradox. Synthesis of social science and biological literatures suggests that females and males, on average, differ in why and how they compete for access to political leadership in mixed-gender groups. These differences are influenced by sexual selection and are moderated by socioecological variation across development and, particularly in human societies, by culturally transmitted norms and institutions. The interplay of these forces contributes to the emergence of female leaders within and across species. Furthermore, females may regularly exercise influence on group decisions in less conspicuous ways and different domains than males, and these underappreciated forms of leadership require more study. We offer a comprehensive framework for studying inequality between females and males in access to leadership positions, and we discuss the implications of this approach for understanding the female leadership paradox and for redressing gender inequality in leadership in humans.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 625-645
Author(s):  
Mingzhu Yao ◽  
Donggen Wang

Accompanying the rapid urban expansion and fast population growth is a progressive trend of residential relocation in developing countries, which necessitates a thorough understanding of households’ relocation decisions. Previous studies generally treated home relocation as an individual or unitary household decision, ignoring the interactive and collaborative decision-making mechanisms that household members may adopt when making group decisions. In view of this research gap, this study examines the feasibility of applying the egalitarian bargaining approach to simulating households’ group decisions concerning residential relocation and further compares its performance with the Nash bargaining and the conventional utilitarian approach. Moreover, the study experiments with the possibility of accommodating three possible group decision-making mechanisms using the latent class modeling framework. The proposed modeling approaches are applied to an empirical case study in Beijing. Results show that models based on the egalitarian and Nash bargaining principles have better model fits than the utilitarian principle, suggesting the importance of considering egalitarianism when modeling household members’ collaborative choice on residential relocation. Moreover, the model based on Nash bargaining has the best model fit, indicating that instead of merely seeking egalitarianism or utilitarianism, household members are more likely to strike a balance between fairness and efficiency.


2021 ◽  
pp. 32-41
Author(s):  
Charles E. Phelps ◽  
Guru Madhavan

Group decisions are driven by rules—constitutions, bylaws, contracts. Often the set of choices voted on by the group has been winnowed down by a committee or a backroom process that can strongly control the outcome by determining what choices are offered (and how they are described). This prescreening is often filled with obscure rules and processes. Organizations that come to crucial decision points (sometimes vital to the organization’s future) may find themselves suddenly looking at their bylaws (or whatever controls these processes) to find out how things should be done, but when those rules are poorly constructed (or give immense power to a few select people within the group), bad decisions can emerge that please very few people. The time to review organizational bylaws and rules is before crucial votes appear, not in the midst of major decisions themselves.


2021 ◽  
pp. 136843022098560
Author(s):  
Young-Jae Yoon ◽  
James R. Larson ◽  
Jeffrey R. Huntsinger

Positive and negative affect are often thought to influence the quality of group decision-making by prompting different cognitive processing styles: a less effortful heuristic style in the case of positive affect, and a more detail-oriented systematic style in the case of negative affect, with the latter yielding better group decisions than the former. By contrast, we argue that rather than prompting a specific cognitive processing style, positive affect encourages the maintenance of whatever style is currently in use, while negative affect encourages a change in style. Consequently, both positive and negative affect can result in either better or worse group decisions, depending on which cognitive processing style was at play just prior to the affect’s arousal. To test this idea, we conducted three experiments, and found that when heuristic processing was initially primed, subsequently inducing a sad mood resulted in better decisions by both individuals and groups than did subsequently inducing a happy mood. The reverse occurred when systematic processing was initially primed. In groups, these effects were mediated by the relative focus, during group discussion, on critical decision-relevant information. Implications of these findings and future directions for research are discussed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (13) ◽  
pp. 38-55
Author(s):  
Tessa Coffeng ◽  
Elianne F. Van Steenbergen ◽  
Femke De Vries ◽  
Naomi Ellemers

PurposeReaching decisions in a deliberative manner is of utmost importance for boards, as their decision-making impacts entire organisations. The current study aims to investigate (1) the quality of group decisions made by board members, (2) their confidence in, satisfaction with, and reflection on the decision-making, and (3) the effect of two discussion procedures on objective decision quality and subjective evaluations of the decision-making.Design/methodology/approachBoard members of various Dutch non-profit organisations (N = 141) participated in a group decision-making task and a brief questionnaire. According to the hidden-profile paradigm, information was asymmetrically distributed among group members and should have been pooled to reach the objectively best decision. Half of the groups received one of two discussion procedures (i.e. advocacy decision or decisional balance sheet), while the other half received none.FindingsOnly a fifth of the groups successfully chose the best decision alternative. The initial majority preference strongly influenced the decision, which indicates that discussion was irrelevant to the outcome. Nevertheless, board members were satisfied with their decision-making. Using a discussion procedure enhanced participants' perception that they adequately weighed the pros and cons, but did not improve objective decision quality or other aspects of the subjective evaluation. These findings suggest that board members are unaware of their biased decision-making, which might hinder improvement.Originality/valueRather than using student samples, this study was the first to have board members participating in a hidden-profile task.


Author(s):  
Sascha Meyen ◽  
Dorothee M. B. Sigg ◽  
Ulrike von Luxburg ◽  
Volker H. Franz

Abstract Background It has repeatedly been reported that, when making decisions under uncertainty, groups outperform individuals. Real groups are often replaced by simulated groups: Instead of performing an actual group discussion, individual responses are aggregated by a numerical computation. While studies have typically used unweighted majority voting (MV) for this aggregation, the theoretically optimal method is confidence weighted majority voting (CWMV)—if independent and accurate confidence ratings from the individual group members are available. To determine which simulations (MV vs. CWMV) reflect real group processes better, we applied formal cognitive modeling and compared simulated group responses to real group responses. Results Simulated group decisions based on CWMV matched the accuracy of real group decisions, while simulated group decisions based on MV showed lower accuracy. CWMV predicted the confidence that groups put into their group decisions well. However, real groups treated individual votes to some extent more equally weighted than suggested by CWMV. Additionally, real groups tend to put lower confidence into their decisions compared to CWMV simulations. Conclusion Our results highlight the importance of taking individual confidences into account when simulating group decisions: We found that real groups can aggregate individual confidences in a way that matches statistical aggregations given by CWMV to some extent. This implies that research using simulated group decisions should use CWMV instead of MV as a benchmark to compare real groups to.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document