For tasks of an intellectual nature, groups tend to choose the truth wins rules because there is a demonstrably correct answer. For tasks that are judgemental or tasks that do not have a demonstrably correct answer, then groups are more likely to choose the majority wins rule. Rules tend to differ in two ways. Firstly, they differ in they strictness. This is the degree of agreement needed by the rule. For example, unanimity is very strict and majority is less strict. Secondly, rules differ in the distribution of power among members. For example authoritarian rules concentrate most of the power in a single individual, whereas egalitarian rules do not concentrate the power; it is often spread throughout all members of the group. (Hogg and Vaughn 2002).
Davis (173, cited in Hogg and Vaughn 2002) also argues that the stricter the rule the less likely it is that there will be a concentration of power. For example, unanimity is very strict but has a very low power concentration. On the other hand, two-thirds majority is less strict but the power concentration is higher. The type of rule adopted is very important because it can ultimately have an effect on both the final decision and the member’s preferences. It can also affect the feelings a member has for others in the group. Miller (1989, cited in Hogg and Vaughn 2002) states that stricter rules can make the final agreement between the group members a slower process. However, it can improve an individual’s liking for their fellow group members and can also increase their feeling of satisfaction with the quality of their final decision. (Hogg and Vaughn 2002)
There are a number of factors that could have an influence on the way in which groups make decisions. One such factor is group polarisation. During the 1950s, it was believed that decisions made by groups were more conservative than those made by individuals. For example, businesses that used committees to reach decisions were thought to reach more cautious decisions than businesses that had an individual decision maker. In 1961, James Stoner (cited in Atkinson et al 2000) decided to test this assumption.
In his study, Stoner asked participants to consider a variety of hypothetical dilemmas. For example, in one of the dilemmas, an electrical engineer needs to decide whether to keep his present job, that has a modest but adequate salary or to take a position in a new company, which offers more money and a chance at promotion, but has a low job security. Another of the dilemmas stated that a man with a coronary conditions has been told by his doctor to either change his customary way of life or have an operation that could either be a complete success or cold prove fatal. Stoner asked his participants to decide how high the odds of success would have to be before they would advise the person on which course of action to take. For example, participants could advise that the man should take the risk of the operation if the odds of success were five in ten or if the odds were only one in ten. By using numerical odds, stoner felt that he would be able to compare the riskiness of the decisions made quantitatively. Stoner first asked participants to make decisions individually and then placed them in groups to make decisions. After the group discussions they were then asked to look at the dilemmas again individually. When Stoner compared the decisions made within the groups to those made individually, he found that the group decisions tended to be more risky than the decisions made individually. Furthermore he found that this was caused by a genuine shift in opinion as opposed to a decision made through conformity. He found that the final decisions made by the individual after the group discussion, were substantially riskier than those made in the initial decision. These finding became known as the group polarisation effect. (Atkinson et al 2000)
There have been a number of explanations as to why the group polarisation effect occurs, but the most important of these are informational influence and normative influence. Isenberg (1986, cited in Atkinson et al 2000) states that informational influence occurs when individuals are subjected to new information and novel arguments regarding the decision under discussion. He argues that the more arguments that are brought up in support of a position, the more likely it is that the group will tend to move towards that position. However, this is where the bias enters. An individual is more likely to raise arguments that support their initial decision. Therefore, the discussion will be biased in favour of the group’s initial position and will gravitate towards this position as their final decision as more of the group becomes convinced. (Atkinson et al 2000)
Isenberg (1986, cited in Atkinson et al 2000) also states that normative influence can occur. He argues that this occurs when individuals within the group compare their own views of the dilemma with the norms of the group. For example, during the discussion they may discover that some members of the group share similar opinions as their own, and in some cases that these opinions are more extreme than their own. If the individual feels they need to be seen positively by the group then they are more likely to conform to the majority of the group’s position. However, normative influence is not just a case of conformity. Often the group is able to provide the individual with a frame of reference and a context in which they are able to re-evaluate their initial positions. (Atkinson et al 2000)
Another important factor than can have an influence on group decision making is groupthink. Groupthink is a phenomenon in which members of a group suppress their own opinions of a dilemma in the interest of maintaining group consensus. The notion of groupthink was first devised by Janis in 1972. Janis (1972, cited in Pennington et al 1999) argues that groupthink occurs when the group dynamics are highly cohesive. He argues that the aim of such groups is to create unanimity of opinion, rather than a critical or realistic appraisal of the situation. There are five antecedent conditions that need to be present for group think to occur. Firstly, the group needs to be cohesive. Secondly, the group needs to be isolated from outside influences. There should not be a systematic procedure for weighing up the pros and cons of the different courses of action. There should be one directive leader, who has shown a leaning towards one particular position. Finally there should be a high degree of stress amongst the group. Janis (1972, cited in Pennington 1999) has analysed a number of key historical events in which bad decisions were made, such as the bombing of pearl harbour during the Second World War, the decision to invade Cuba during the John F Kennedy administration and the Watergate Scandal during Nixon’s Administration, and has found evidence that the phenomenon of Group think had occurred in all of these decisions. (Pennington et al 1999)
In conclusion, group decision making plays an important role within society. Decisions made by groups have a dramatic effect on our lives, nearly everyday, from the decisions made by the government to the decisions made by our family. It is clear that when making a decision within a group setting there are a number of rules that are followed, such as unanimity or truth wins. There evidence to suggest that these rules can depend on two factors, strictness and the concentration of power. It is also clear that there are a number of factors that influence the group decision making process. Firstly, a group polarisation effect can occur. The group polarisation effect can result from two main factors: informational influence and normative influence. Another factor that can have an effect on group decision making is groupthink. However, it is more plausible that all these factors are present when individuals make a decision as a group.
