Effects of two procedural factors on group decision-making: Deliberation style and assigned decision rule
Kameda, Tatsuya
This item is only available for download by members of the University of Illinois community. Students, faculty, and staff at the U of I may log in with your NetID and password to view the item. If you are trying to access an Illinois-restricted dissertation or thesis, you can request a copy through your library's Inter-Library Loan office or purchase a copy directly from ProQuest.
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2142/21912
Description
Title
Effects of two procedural factors on group decision-making: Deliberation style and assigned decision rule
Author(s)
Kameda, Tatsuya
Issue Date
1989
Doctoral Committee Chair(s)
Davis, James H.
Department of Study
Psychology
Discipline
Psychology
Degree Granting Institution
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Degree Name
Ph.D.
Degree Level
Dissertation
Keyword(s)
Psychology, Social
Political Science, General
Sociology, Public and Social Welfare
Language
eng
Abstract
"Many important decision making groups in our society are guided, formally or informally, by a variety of procedures that serve to facilitate the consensus process (e.g., quorum rules, voting procedures, fixed agenda). Despite abundant anecdotes concerning the procedural effects on group decisions and sophisticated formal developments by welfare economists, the number of relevant empirical studies on this issue is quite limited. This study examined procedural influences in a legal context. Six-person mock juries discussed two civil cases in which applicable law required either a conjunctive or disjunctive assessment of key evidence (i.e., proving either all or at least one legal criterion) to render a verdict of liability. Under these task requirements, jury deliberation style, analogous to the verdict-driven/evidence-driven distinction by Hastie, Penrod, and Pennington (1983), and official decision rule were manipulated. Consistent with predictions derived from Grofman's (1985) conceptual framework, deliberation style was found to interact with the task environment in affecting jury verdicts: the ""elemental"" (cf., evidence-driven) deliberation style yielded a liable verdict more often than the ""compound"" (cf., verdict-driven) deliberation style in the conjunctive case, whereas this pattern was reversed when the case required a disjunctive judgment. Although the decision rule factor (i.e., majority/unanimity) revealed no significant effect on group decisions, it affected members' postdecision responses (e.g., acceptance of the group decision, opinion change). Implications of these procedural influences for legal/administrative decision contexts were discussed."
Use this login method if you
don't
have an
@illinois.edu
email address.
(Oops, I do have one)
IDEALS migrated to a new platform on June 23, 2022. If you created
your account prior to this date, you will have to reset your password
using the forgot-password link below.
