Group Dynamics: Test 3

Front 1

What did Triplett’s 1898 study of social facilitation
confirm?

Back 1

that people work more efficiently when other people are present.

Front 2

Social Facilitation occurs for both ____ coaction tasks and ____ tasks.

Back 2

coaction; audience

Front 3

As Zajonc noted, social facilitation usually occurs only for ___tasks that require ___ responses.

Back 3

simple; nondominant

Front 4

Social Interference or imparment occurs for ___ tasks that require ___ reponses.

Back 4

complex tasks; nondominant responses

Front 5

Researchers have linked social facilitation to several personal and interpersonal processes that includes:

Back 5

1. arousal
2. Evaluation apprehension
3. Distraction
4. personality differences

Front 6

____theory argues that the mere presence of a member of the same species raises the performer's arousal level by touching off a basic alertness response

Back 6

Zajonc's Drive Theory

Front 7

Group performance is

Back 7

- individual performance in a social setting
- interactive group performance
- interactive group performance involves elements of individual performance

Front 8

Improvement in task performance that occurs when people work in the presence of other people

Back 8

Social Facilitation

Front 9

Performing a task or other type of goaloriented activity in the pesence of one or mroe other individuals who are performing a similar type of activity.

Back 9

coaction

Front 10

What did Allport find out?

Back 10

He found that people in groups produced more than isolated individuals, but that their products were often lower in quality.

Front 11

How did Robert Zajonc (1965( explain why different studies yielded such divergent results?

Back 11

some behaviors, he noted, are easier to elarn and perform than others.

Front 12

_______are located at the top of the organism's response hierarchy, so theydominate all other potential responses.

Back 12

Dominant Responses

Front 13

Behaviors that are part of the organism's behavioral repertoire but are less likely to be performed are _____?

Back 13

nondominant responses

Front 14

Zajonc's theory states that if the ___ response is appropriate in the situation, the presence of others is facillitating. If, however, the situation calls for a ___ response, the presence of others will interfere with performance.

Back 14

Dominant response; nondominant response

Front 15

Zajonc's analysis explained ___ social facilitation occurs.

Back 15

When

Front 16

Zajonc coined the word ____ to describe the state of responding in the rpesence of others.

Back 16

compresence

Front 17

Zajonc's ___ theoy uniquely predicted that social facilitation will occur even when all forms of social interaction, communication, and evaluation between the individual and the observer are blocked.

Back 17

Drive theory

Front 18

Drive theory

Back 18

Drive Theory: In general, an analysis of human motivation that stresses the impact of psychological or physiological needs or desires on individuals' thoughts, feelings, and actions; also and explanation of social facilitation proposed by Robert Zajonc, which maintains that the presence of others envokes a generalized drive state characterized by inceased readiness and arousal.

Front 19

An analysis of performance gains in groups arguing that individuals working in the presence of others experiences a general concern for how these others are evaluating them, and that this apprehension facilitates their performance on simple, well-lerned tasks.

Back 19

Evaluation Apprehension theory

Front 20

An analysis of performance gains in groups assuming that social facilitation is caused by individuals striving to make a good impression when they work in the presence of others.

Back 20

Self-presentation theory.

Front 21

An analysis of performance gains in groups assuming that social facilitation is caused by individuals striving to make a good impression when they work in the presenc of others

Back 21

self-presentation theory

Front 22

an analysis of performance gains in groups assuming that when others are present, attention is divided between the other people and the task; this attional conflict increases motivation, and so it facilitates performance on simple, well-learned tasks.

Back 22

distraction-conflict theory

Front 23

An analysis of performance gains in groups suggesting individual differences in social orientation (the tendency to approach social situations apprehensively or with enthusiasm) predict when social facilitation will occur.

Back 23

social orientation theory.

Front 24

The tendency to approach social situations apprehensively or with enthusiasm

Back 24

social orientation

Front 25

The use of information technologyies, such as computer networks, to track, analyze, and report information about workers performance

Back 25

electronic performance monitoring (EPM)

Front 26

S self-organized, self-driective group formed by student for the purpose of studyin course material.

Back 26

study group

Front 27

Reduction in performance effectiveness or efficiency caused by actions, operations, or dynamics that prevent the group from reaching its full potential, including reduced effort, faulty group processes, coordination problems, and ineffective leadership.

Back 27

process loss

Front 28

The tendency, first documented by Max Ringelmann, for people to become less productive when they work with others; this loss of efficiency increases as group size increases, but at a gradually decreasing rate.

Back 28

Ringelmann effect

Front 29

Social Loafing

Back 29

The reduction of individual effort exerted when people work in groups compared to when they work alone.

Front 30

Individual Performance in a social setting

Back 30

- Social facilitation
- tripplet study
- Social impairment
- Stage fright, bad golfer
- easy or well-learned tasks are facilitated
- Inhibition occurs for new or difficult tasks

Front 31

Social Facilitation

Back 31

improvement in task performance that occurs when people work in the presence of other people

Front 32

Triplet study

Back 32

Triplett's 1898 study of social failitation confirmed that people work more efficiently when other people are present. Social Facilitation occurs for both coaction tasks and audience tasks.

Front 33

Social Impairment (interference)

Back 33

occurs for complex tasks that require nondominant responses.
- studies conducted in a variety of settings, such as classrooms and jogging trails, have confirmed the effect, which also holds for a variety of species- including cockroaches.

Front 34

Four General Explanations for Facilitation-Impairment

Back 34

1. Arousal- Drive Theory
2. Evaluation Apprehension theory
3. Distraction- Conflict Theory
4. Social Orientation Theory

Front 35

Drive Theory: Creater

Back 35

Zajonc- 1965

Front 36

Drive Theory

Back 36

Unlearned drive: the meare presence of others elevates drive levels; this drive triggers social facilitation when tasks are so easy that only dominant responses are needed to perform them.

Front 37

What are these Evidence of?
- People show signs of physological arousal when others are present.
many species perform basic tasks more efficiently in the rpesence of other species members
Facilitative arousal occurs primarily for simple tasks

Back 37

Drive Theory

Front 38

Evaluation Apprehension Theory: Creater

Back 38

Cottrell, 1972

Front 39

Evaluation Apprehension Theory

Back 39

Motivational Process: through experience, people leaern to associate the presence of others with evaluation; this concern for evaluation facilitates performance on well-learned tasks.

Front 40

These are evidence of:
- The presence of others is facilitative only when the observers can evaluate the quality of the performance
- Facilitative effects are strongest when individuals are striving to make a good impression.

Back 40

Evaluation Apprehension Theory

Front 41

Distraction-Conflict Theory: Creator

Back 41

Baron, 1986; Sanders, 1981

Front 42

Distraction-Conflict theory

Back 42

Cognitive process: when others are present, attention is divided between the other people and the task; attentional conflict increases motivation, which facilitates performance so long as the task is a simple one.

Front 43

These are evidence of:
- Recall is poorer when stimulus is presented in presence of others, suggesting others are distracting
- Facilitation is reduced if the others in the situation are not noticed.
- presence of others improves performance on interference tasks

Back 43

Distraction- Conflict theory

Front 44

Who created Social orientation Theory

Back 44

Uziel, 2007

Front 45

Social Orientation Theory

Back 45

Personality process: individuals who display a positive interpersonal orientation are more likely to display social facilitation effect.

Front 46

These are evidence of:
- presence of others improves performance among individuals with high self-esteem and low anxiety
- those with an attention-seeking tendency (exhibitionisms) perform better than self-conscious individuals in coaction settings

Back 46

social orientation theory

Front 47

What does Steiner's "law" of group productivity predict?

Back 47

Actual Productivity = Potential productivity - Losses owing to faulty process

Front 48

Even when a group includes skiled members who prossess all the resources they need to accomplish their task, ______ may prevent them from succeeding.

Back 48

Faulty group processes

Front 49

process loss

Back 49

reduction in performance effectiveness or efficiency caused by actions, operations, or dynamics that prevent the group from reaching its full potential, including reduced effort, faulty group processes, coordination problems, and ineffective leadership.

Front 50

Potential Productivity depends on

Back 50

1. Members (knowledge, skills)
2. Task
- determines which knowledge and skills are relevant
- determines how individual contributions can be combined
3. support (supplies, equipment, information, etc.)

Front 51

Ringelmann effect

Back 51

The tendency, first documented by Max Ringelmann, for people to become less productive when they work with others; this loss of efficiency increases as group size increases, but at a gradually decreasing rate.

Front 52

Ringelmann Identified Two Key Sources of Process Losses when people worked together.

Back 52

1. Motivation Losses
2. Coordination Losses

Front 53

Motivation Losses

Back 53

People may not work so hard when they are in groups
- Social Loafing

Front 54

Coordination Losses

Back 54

Caused by "the lack of stimulaneity of their efforts", also interfere with performance.

Front 55

process loss

Back 55

reduction in performance effectiveness or efficiency caused by actions, operations, or dynamics that prevent the group from reaching its full potential, including reduced effort, faulty group processes, coordination problems, and ineffective leadership.

Front 56

Teamwork Knowledge and Skills

Back 56

-Interpersonal KSAs
- Self-Management KSAs

Front 57

Interpersonal KSAs

Back 57

- Conflict Resolution
- Collaborative Problem-solving
- Communication

Front 58

Self-Management KSAs

Back 58

- Goal setting/ Performance Management
- Planning and Task Coordination

Front 59

Group composition

Back 59

- Task relevant diversity of knowledge and skills may affect performance
- can lead to more or less potential depending on the nature of the task
- but for most tasks increases potential
- Can affect group processes and the importance of Utilizing member expertises.

Front 60

What are the Task Types?

Back 60

1. Additive
2. Divisible
3. Disjunctive
4. Conjunctive

Front 61

What are advantages that groups have?

Back 61

1. more resources (knowledge, skills, abilities)
2. more perspectives
3. More Commitment /acceptance
4. but groups usually fail to fully reach potential

Front 62

Divisible task types are?

Back 62

the task has subcomponents that can be identified and assigned to specific members

Front 63

Unitary Task types are?

Back 63

the task does not have sub-components

Front 64

What are advantages that groups have?

Back 64

1. more resources (knowledge, skills, abilities)
2. more perspectives
3. More Commitment /acceptance
4. but groups usually fail to fully reach potential

Front 65

Maximizing Task Types are?

Back 65

Quantity: the more produced the better the performance

- Quantity versus Quantity: is the quantity produced more important than quality of performance?

Front 66

Divisible task types are?

Back 66

the task has subcomponents that can be identified and assigned to specific members

Front 67

Optimizing Task types

Back 67

Quality: a correct or optimal solution is needed

Front 68

Unitary Task types are?

Back 68

the task does not have sub-components

Front 69

Additive Task types are?

Back 69

Individual inputs are added together
- Interdependence: how are individual inputs combined to yield a group product?

Front 70

Compensatory Task types are?

Back 70

A decision is made by averaging together individual decisions.

Front 71

Maximizing Task Types are?

Back 71

Quantity: the more produced the better the performance

- Quantity versus Quantity: is the quantity produced more important than quality of performance?

Front 72

Disjunctive task types are

Back 72

the group select one soluction or product from a pool of members' solutions or products

Front 73

Optimizing Task types

Back 73

Quality: a correct or optimal solution is needed

Front 74

Conjunctive Task types are?

Back 74

all group members must contribute to the product for it to be completed

Front 75

Additive Task types are?

Back 75

Individual inputs are added together
- Interdependence: how are individual inputs combined to yield a group product?

Front 76

Discretionary task types.

Back 76

the group decides how individual inputs relate to group product.

Front 77

Compensatory Task types are?

Back 77

A decision is made by averaging together individual decisions.

Front 78

Disjunctive task types are

Back 78

the group select one soluction or product from a pool of members' solutions or products

Front 79

Conjunctive Task types are?

Back 79

all group members must contribute to the product for it to be completed

Front 80

Discretionary task types.

Back 80

the group decides how individual inputs relate to group product.

Front 81

Task Demands

Back 81

the effect that a problem or tak's features, including its dividibility and difficulty, have on the procedures the group can use to complete the task.

Front 82

Dividible task

Back 82

a task that can be broken down into subcomponents that can then be assigned to individuals or to subgroups within the group

Front 83

unitary task

Back 83

a task that cannot be performed piecemeal because it does not break down into any subcomponents.

Front 84

maximizing task

Back 84

a task or project that calls for a high rate of production.

Front 85

optimizing task

Back 85

a task or project that has a best solution and outcome, thuse the quality of the group's performance can be judge by comparing the product to a quality-defining standard.

Front 86

Additive Task

Back 86

a task or project that a group can complete by cumulatively combining individual members' inputs.

Front 87

Compensatory Task

Back 87

a task or project that a group can complete by literally averaging together (mathematically combining) individual members' solutions or recommendations.

Front 88

Disjunctive Task

Back 88

a task or project that is completed when a single solution, decision, or recommendation is adopted by the group.

Front 89

Intellective task

Back 89

a project, problem, or other type of task with results that can be evaluated objectively using some normative criterion, such as a mathematics problem wit ha known solution or the spelling of a word.

Front 90

judgmental task

Back 90

A project, problem, or other type of task with results that cannot be evaluated objectively because there are no clear criteria to judge them against.

Front 91

conjunctine task

Back 91

a task that can be completed successfully only if all group members contribute

Front 92

How do you reduce Social Loafting?

Back 92

1. Evaluation portential- people know that they are being evaluated.
2. Task Meaningfullness or importance
3. Cohesion
4. Group-Level Comparision Standards
5. Uniqueness of personal Contribution
6. Task difficulty
7. Smaller Group Size
8. Females Loaf Less
9. Eastern Cultures Loaft Less

Front 93

Social loafing and coordination losses in groups.

Back 93

Latané and his colleagues disentangled the two
major causes of productivity losses in groups working on additive tasks by leading people to think they were working
in groups when they actually were not. The people in these "groups" (labeled the "pseudogroups") suffered from
motivation loss, but not from coordination loss since they were actually working alone. The unshaded portion represents
motivation loss (social loafing), and the lightly shaded portion represents coordination loss. They combine to create the Ringelmann effect.

Front 94

free riding

Back 94

Contributing less to a collective task when
one believes that other group members will compensate
for this lack of effort.

Front 95

sucker effect

Back 95

The tendency for individuals to contribute
less to a group endeavor when they expect that others
will think negatively of someone who works too hard or
contributes too much (considering them to be a
“sucker”).

Front 96

social compensation

Back 96

The tendency for group members
to expend greater effort on important collective tasks to
offset the anticipated insufficiencies in the efforts and
abilities of their co-members.

Front 97

collective effort model (CEM)

Back 97

A theoretical explanation
of group productivity developed by Steven Karau
and Kipling Williams that traces losses of productivity
in groups to diminished expectations about successful
goal attainment and the diminished value of group goals.

Front 98

task demands

Back 98

The effect that a problem or task’s features,
including its divisibility and difficulty, have on the
procedures the group can use to complete the task.

Front 99

Steiner (1972) describes five basic combinatorial
strategies:

Back 99

additive, compensatory, disjunctive, conjunctive,
and discretionary.

Front 100

disjunctive task

Back 100

A task or project that is completed when a single solution, decision, or recommendation is adopted by the group.

Front 101

intellective task

Back 101

A project, problem, or other type of
task with results that can be evaluated objectively using
some normative criterion, such as a mathematics problem
with a known solution or the spelling of a word.

Front 102

judgmental task

Back 102

A project, problem, or other type of
task with results that cannot be evaluated objectively because
there are no clear criteria to judge them against.

Front 103

conjunctive task

Back 103

A task that can be completed successfully
only if all group members contribute.

Front 104

synergy

Back 104

The combining of two or more independent
systems that yields an effect that is greater than the sum
of the individual effects.

Front 105

assembly bonus effect

Back 105

Producing an outcome as a
group that is superior to the results that could have
been achieved by a simple aggregation or accumulation
of group members’ individual efforts; a gain in performance
that is caused by the way the members fit together
to form the work group.

Front 106

Köhler effect

Back 106

An increase in performance by groups
working on conjunctive tasks that require persistence
but little coordination of effort and is likely due to the
increased effort expended by the less capable members.

Front 107

Summary of the Potential Productivity of Groups Working on Various Tasks

Back 107

Additive
Compensatory
Disjunctive
Conjunctive: Unitary
Conjunctive: Divisible
Discretionary

Front 108

Additive

Back 108

Better than the best: The group exceeds the performance of even the best individual
member.

Front 109

Compensatory

Back 109

Better than most: The group exceeds the performance of a substantial number of the
individual members.

Front 110

Disjunctive

Back 110

Better than average and sometimes equal to the best: The group performs best if it
accepts the most capable member’s input as the group solution; groups rarely perform
better than the best member (synergy, or assembly bonus effect).

Front 111

Conjunctive: Unitary

Back 111

Equal to the worst: The group equals the performance of its least capable member.

Front 112

Conjunctive: Divisible

Back 112

Better than the worst: Performance will be superior if subtasks are matched to
members’ capabilities.

Front 113

Discretionary

Back 113

Variable: Performance depends on the combination rules adopted by the group.

Front 114

discretionary task

Back 114

A relatively unstructured task that
can be completed by using a variety of socialcombination
procedures, thus leaving the methods used
in its completion to the discretion of the group or group
leader.

Front 115

truth-wins rule.

Back 115

In
some cases, once someone in the group mentions
the correct answer, the group adopts it as the group
solution

Front 116

truth-supported-wins rule

Back 116

Ringelmann is the
correct answer, but this truth will not win out over
error unless someone in the group supports Rosa
and her answer

Front 117

Eureka problems

Back 117

The truth-wins rule usually holds for groups
working on Eureka problems

- When we are told the answer to a Eureka problem, we are very certain that the answer
offered is correct. It fits so well, we react with an
“Aha!” or “Eureka!”

Front 118

non-Eureka problems.

Back 118

the truthsupported-
wins rule holds for groups working on

- The answers to non-Eureka problems,
in contrast, are not so satisfying. Even after
arguing about them, we often wonder if the recommended
answer is the correct one.

Front 119

Brainstorming: The technique requires an open discussion of ideas, and is guided by the four
basic rules:

Back 119

Be expressive, Postpone evaluation, Seek quantity, Piggyback ideas.

Front 120

brainstorming

Back 120

A method for enhancing creativity in
groups that calls for heightened expressiveness, postponed
evaluation, quantity rather than quality, and deliberate
attempts to build on earlier ideas.

- developed
by Alex Osborn (1957), an advertising executive, to
help his colleagues identify novel, unusual, and
imaginative solutions.

Front 121

nominal group

Back 121

A collection of individuals that meets
only the most minimal of requirements to be considered
a group, and so is a group in name only; in studies of
performance, a control or baseline group created by having individuals work alone and then pooling their
products.

Front 122

production blocking

Back 122

A loss of productivity that occurs when group and procedural factors obstruct the group’s progress toward its goals, particularly when individuals in a brainstorming session are delayed in stating their ideas until they can gain the floor and when group members are distracted by others’ ideas and so generate fewer of their own.

Front 123

social matching effect

Back 123

The tendency for individuals in brainstorming groups to match the level of productivity
displayed by others in the group.

Front 124

illusion of group productivity

Back 124

The tendency for
members to believe that their groups are performing
effectively.

Front 125

Improving Brainstorming Sessions

Back 125

1. Stick to the rules
2. Pay attention to everyone’s ideas
3. Mix individual and group approaches
4. Take breaks
5. Do not rush
6. Persist
7. Facilitate the session

Front 126

brainwriting

Back 126

Brainstorming sessions that involve generating
new ideas in writing rather than orally, usually by
asking members to add their own ideas to a circulating list.

Front 127

nominal group technique (NGT)

Back 127

A group performance
method wherein a face-to-face group session is
prefaced by a nominal-group phase during which individuals work alone to generate ideas.

minimizes
blocking and loafing by reducing interdependence
among members; it achieves this by starting with a
nominal group phase before turning to a group session

Front 128

Delphi technique

Back 128

A group performance method that involves repeated assessment of members’ opinions via surveys and questionnaires as opposed to face-to-face
meetings.
eliminates the grouplevel
discussion altogether.

Front 129

electronic brainstorming (EBS)

Back 129

Generating ideas and
solving problems using computer-based communication
methods such as online discussions and real-time e-mail
rather than face-to-face sessions.

Front 130

A functional theory of group decision making suggests that skilled decision-making
groups are more likely to make use of group procedures that enhance the way they gather, analyze, and weigh information.

Back 130

The group defines the problem, sets goals,
and develops a strategy in the orientation phase. Next,
during the discussion phase, the group gathers information about the situation and, if a decision must be made, identifies and considers options. In the decision phase, the group chooses its solution by reaching consensus, voting, or using some other social decision process. In the implementation phase, the decision must be put into action and the impact of the decision assessed. Groups that follow these four stages are more likely to make better decisions than those who sidestep or mishandle information at any particular stage

Front 131

functional theory of group decision making

Back 131

A conceptual
analysis of the steps or processes that groups
generally follow when making a decision, with a focus
on the intended purpose of each step or process in the
overall decision-making sequence.

Front 132

shared mental model

Back 132

Knowledge, expectations, conceptualizations,
and other cognitive representations that
members of a group have in common pertaining to the
group and its members, tasks, procedures, and resources.

Front 133

Parkinson’s first law; Parkinson’s law

Back 133

he modestly named Parkinson’s law, states that
a task will expand so as to fill the time available for its
completion. Hence, if a group gathers at 1 PM for a
one-hour meeting to discuss five items of business, the
group will likely adjourn at 2 PM no matter how simple
or routine the issues.

Front 134

Parkinson’s second law, law of triviality

Back 134

the law of triviality,
states that the time a group spends on discussing any issue will be in inverse proportion to the consequentiality
of the issue

Front 135

collective information processing model

Back 135

A general
theoretical explanation of group decision making assuming
that groups use communication and discussion
among members to gather and process the information
needed to formulate decisions, choices, and judgments.

Front 136

Three information processing gains that result from discussion

Back 136

1. improved memory for information,
2. increased information exchange, and
3. more thorough processing of information

Front 137

collective memory

Back 137

A group’s combined memories, including each member’s memories, the group’s shared mental models, and transactive memory systems.

Front 138

cross-cueing

Back 138

The enhancement of recall that occurs during group discussion when the statements made by group members serve as cues for the retrieval of information from the memories of other group members.

Front 139

transactive memory system

Back 139

A process by which information to be remembered is distributed to various members of the group who can then be relied upon to provide that information when it is needed.

Front 140

social decision scheme

Back 140

A strategy or rule used in a group to select a single alternative from among various alternatives proposed and discussed during the group’s deliberations, including explicitly acknowledged decision rules (e.g., the group accepts the alternative favored by the majority) and implicit decisional procedures (e.g., the group accepts the alternative favored by the most powerful
members).

Front 141

Processing Information

Back 141

Groups not only recall
and exchange information more effectively than
individuals, they also process that information
more thoroughly through discussion.

Front 142

Common social decision schemes

Back 142

delegation, averaging, voting, consensus (discussion to unanimity),
and random choice

Front 143

Delegating decisions:

Back 143

An individual, subgroup, or external party makes the decision for the group. Under an authority scheme, the leader, president, or other individual makes the final
decision with or without input from the group members. When an oligarchy operates in the group, a coalition speaks for the entire group.
Other forms of delegation include asking an expert to answer (the best-informed member) or forming a subcommittee made up of a few members to study the issue and reach a conclusion.

Front 144

Averaging decisions:

Back 144

Each group member makes
his or her decision individually (either before or
after a group discussion) and these private recommendations are averaged together to yield a nominal group decision.
Such decisions do not necessarily require any interaction among members. For example, to choose among five possible candidates for a job
opening each member could rank the candidates from 1 to 5 and the group could then
average these rankings.

Front 145

Plurality decisions:

Back 145

Members express their individual preferences by voting, either publicly or
by secret ballot. In most cases, the group selects
the alternative favored by the majority of the members (the very common majority-rules
scheme), but in some cases, a more substantial plurality (such as a two-thirds majority scheme) is needed before a decision becomes final. Some groups also use ranking methods, with more points awarded to alternatives that are ranked
higher than others (the Borda count method).

Front 146

Unanimous decisions (consensus)

Back 146

The group discusses the issue until it reaches unanimous agreement without voting. As noted in
Chapter 7, this decision rule is imposed on many juries in the United States.

Front 147

Random decisions:

Back 147

The group leaves the final
decision to chance by, say, flipping a coin.

Front 148

procedural justice

Back 148

Perception of the fairness and legitimacy of the methods used to make decisions, resolve disputes, and allocate resources; also, in judicial contexts, the use of fair and impartial procedures.

Front 149

People are more likely to regard a decision as a fair
one if the decisional procedures are implemented

Back 149

(a) consistently,
(b) without self-interest,
(c) on the basis of accurate information,
(d) with opportunities to correct the decision,
(e) with the interests of all concerned parties represented, and
(f ) following moral and ethical standards

Front 150

Making a decision in a group offers a number of advantages over making a decision alone.

Back 150

- greater informational resources and capacity to process that information, able to identify better solutions and to detect errors
in reasoning.
Members may also find a group’s decision more satisfying than that of a single individual, particularly if the group uses a consensusbuilding decision process.

Front 151

Group decision making liabilities

Back 151

can take more time than people wish to give to them, and so groups too often sacrifice quality for timeliness.
Some issues, too, are so trivial, so convoluted, or so contentious that a group approach may end in failure.

Front 152

Victor Vroom’s:
normative model of decision making

Back 152

theory of decision making and leadership developed by Victor Vroom that predicts the effectiveness of group-centered, consultative, and autocratic decisional procedures across a number of group settings.

- suggests that different types of situations call for different types of decision-making methods

- In some cases, the decision maker should not even consult with others before he or she makes a choice.

- In other cases, however, the leader should seek input from the group or even turn the decision over to the group entirely.

Front 153

Vroom’s (2003) five basic types of decision-making process:

Back 153

1. Decide
2. Consult (Individual)
3. Consult (Group)
4. Facilitate
5. Delegate

Front 154

1. Decide

Back 154

The leader solves the problem or makes
the decision and announces it to the group.
The leader may rely on information available
to him or her at that time, but may also obtain
information from group members. The members
only provide information to the leader and

Front 155

2. Consult (Individual)

Back 155

The leader shares the
problem with the group members individually,
getting their ideas and suggestions one-on-one
without meeting as a full group. The leader
then makes the decision, which may not reflect
the group members’ influence.

Front 156

3.Consult (Group):

Back 156

The leader discusses the
problem with the members as a group, collectively
obtaining their input. Then the leader makes the decision, which may not reflect the group members’ influence.

Front 157

4.Facilitate:

Back 157

The leader coordinates a collaborative analysis of the problem, helping the group
reach consensus on the issue. The leader is active in the processes, but does not try to influence the group to adopt a particular solution.
The leader accepts the will of the group and implements any decision that is supported
by the entire group.

Front 158

5.Delegate:

Back 158

If the group already functions independently of the leader, then he or she can turn the problem over to the group. The group reaches a decision without the leader’s direct involvement, but the leader provides support,
direction, clarification, and resources as the group deliberates.

Front 159

individual-focused approach,

Back 159

In general, when problems are simple
ones, the leader is well-informed, and the consequences
for a poor decision are relatively minor,
then in the interest of time the leader should decide.

Front 160

group-focused approach

Back 160

A group-focused approach, in contrast, is best
whenever a high quality solution is needed, along
with support from the group to implement it.

Front 161

inaccuracies also arise from the informationprocessing
limitations and faulty listening habits of
human beings.

Back 161

Listeners tend to level (simplify and shorten), sharpen (embellish distinctions made by
the speaker), and assimilate (interpret messages so
that they match personal expectations and beliefs)information offered by others during a discussion

Front 162

Group Members’ Descriptions of Problems Experienced When Trying
to Make a Group Decision

Back 162

communication skills, egocentric
behavior, nonparticipation, failure to stay focused
(tendency to become sidetracked), interruptions,
negative leader behaviors, and negative attitudes
and emotions.

Front 163

Communication
skills

Back 163

Poor listening skills, ineffective voice, poor nonverbal communication,
lack of effective visual aids, misunderstands or does not clearly identify
topic, is repetitive, uses jargon

Front 164

Egocentric
behavior

Back 164

Dominates conversation and group; behaviors are loud, overbearing;
one-upmanship, show of power, manipulation, intimidation, filibustering;
talks to hear self talk; followers or brown-nosers; clowns and goof-offs

Front 165

Nonparticipation

Back 165

Not all participate, do not speak up, do not volunteer, are passive, lack
discussion, silent starts

Front 166

Sidetracking

Back 166

Leaves main topic

Front 167

Interruptions

Back 167

Members interrupt speaker; talk over others; socialize; allow phone calls,
messages from customers/clients

Front 168

Negative leader
behavior

Back 168

Unorganized and unfocused, not prepared, late, has no control, gets sidetracked, makes no decisions

Front 169

Attitudes and
emotions

Back 169

Poor attitude, defensive or evasive, argumentative, personal accusations, no
courtesy or respect, complain or gripe, lack of control of emotions

Front 170

shared information bias

Back 170

The tendency for groups to
spend more time discussing information that all members
know (shared information) and less time examining information
that only a few members know (unshared).

Front 171

group decision support systems

Back 171

A set of integrated
tools groups use to structure and facilitate their decision
making, including computer programs that expedite data
acquisition, communication among group members,
document sharing, and the systematic review of alternative
actions and outcomes.

Front 172

The improvement in performance when groups use a decision support system (GDSS).

Back 172

The improvement in performance
when groups use a decision support system (GDSS).
Groups that met in a traditional face-to-face group session
fell prey to the shared information bias, for very
few of them solved a hidden-profile problem correctly.
But groups that met via computer, and could access a
shared list of discussion items, were more likely to select the best solution to the problem.

Front 173

mental glitches in decision making; three general categories of
potential bias

Back 173

1. sins of commission: the misuse of information
2. sins of omission: overlooking useful information
3. sins of imprecision: relying inappropriately on
mental rules of thumb, or heuristics, that
oversimplify the decision

Front 174

Sins of Commission

Back 174

Belief perseverance: reliance on information that has already been reviewed and found
to be inaccurate
Sunk cost bias: reluctance to abandon a course of action once an investment has been made in that action

Extra-evidentiary bias: the use of information that one has been told explicitly to ignore

Hindsight bias: the tendency to overestimate the accuracy of one’s prior knowledge of an outcome

Front 175

Sins of Omission

Back 175

Base rate bias: failure to pay attention to information about general tendencies

Fundamental attribution error: stressing dispositional causes when making attributions about
the cause of people’s behaviors

Front 176

Sins of Imprecision

Back 176

Availability heuristic: basing decisions on information that is readily available

Conjunctive bias: failing to recognize that the probability of two events occurring together will always be less than the probability of just one of the events occurring

Representativeness heuristic: excessive reliance on salient but misleading aspects of a problem

Front 177

confirmation bias

Back 177

The tendency to seek out information
that confirms one’s inferences rather than disconfirms
them.

Front 178

Choice-Dilemmas Questionnaire

Back 178

A self-report measure
of willingness to make risky decisions that asks respondents to read a series of scenarios involving a course of action that may or may not yield financial, interpersonal,
or educational benefits, then indicate what the odds of success would have to be before they would
recommend the course of action.

Front 179

risky-shift phenomenon

Back 179

The tendency for groups to
make riskier decisions than individuals.

Front 180

group polarization

Back 180

The tendency for members of a deliberating
group to move to a more extreme position, with
the direction of the shift determined by the majority or
average of the members’ predeliberation preferences.

Front 181

What Causes Group Polarization?

Back 181

polarization results from social influence processes that operate routinely in groups,
including social comparison, persuasion, and social identity

Front 182

persuasive-arguments theory

Back 182

An explanation of polarization
in groups assuming that group members change
their opinions during group discussion, generally adopting
the position favored by the majority of the members,
because the group can generate more arguments favoring
that position.

Front 183

groupdrink

Back 183

Imbibing alcoholic drinks in a group context;
also, the psychological and group-level changes that
occur when groups become inebriated.

Front 184

ecurring patterns that occur in groupthink situations.

Back 184

overestimation of the group, closed-mindedness, and
pressures toward uniformity

Front 185

groupthink—

Back 185

a mode of thinking that
people engage in when they are deeply involved in a
cohesive ingroup, when the members’ strivings for
unanimity override their motivation to realistically
appraise alternative courses of actions” (Janis, 1982,
p. 9).
During groupthink, members try so hard to agree with one another that they make mistakes and commit errors that could easily be avoided.

Front 186

illusion of invulnerability

Back 186

Feelings of assurance and confidence engulfed the
group.

Front 187

mindguard

Back 187

A group member who shields the group
from negative or controversial information by gatekeeping
and suppressing dissent.

Front 188

Abilene paradox

Back 188

The counterintuitive tendency for a group to decide on a course of action that none of the members of the group individually endorses, resulting from the group’s failure to recognize and manage its agreement on key issues.

Front 189

pluralistic ignorance

Back 189

When members of a group hold a wide range of opinions, beliefs, or judgments but express similar opinions, beliefs, or judgments publicly because
each member believes that his or her personal view is
different from that of the others in the group.

Front 190

entrapment

Back 190

A form of escalating investment in which
individuals expend more of their resources in pursuing a
chosen course of action than seems appropriate or justifiable by external standards.

Front 191

sunk cost

Back 191

An investment or loss of resources that cannot
be recouped by current or future actions.

Front 192

Groupthink: symptoms of this disease

Back 192

conformity pressures, illusions, misperceptions, and
faulty decision-making strategies

Front 193

Groupthink causes:

Back 193

cohesiveness, structural faults of the group or
organization, and provocative situational factors

Front 194

group-centrism

Back 194

A group-level syndrome caused by
members’ excessive strivings to maintain and support their
group’s unity that results in perturbations in a group’s
decision-making capability and intergroup relations.

Front 195

cognitive closure

Back 195

The psychological desire to reach a final decision swiftly and completely; also, the relative strength of this tendency, as indicated by a preference for order, predictability, decisiveness, and closed-mindedness.

Front 196

Using Effective Decision-Making Techniques

Back 196

Members analyzed a wide range of alternative courses of action, deliberately considered and then
reconsidered the potential effects of their actions,
consulted experts, and made detailed contingency
plans in case the blockade failed to stop the
Russians.