Chapter11 Decision Making

8/12/2019 Chapter11 Decision Making

1/74

CHAPTER 11:

DECISION MAKING

Castaeda, Catan, Khu, Siayngco, Ubial, Velasco


2/74

GROUPS AND DECISIONS:

THE FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

People turn into groups because in most

cases, groups are better at choosing,

judging, estimating, and problem solving than

do individuals (Stasser & Dietz-Uhler, 2001)

Apparently, none of us alone is as smart as

all of us together (Myers, 2002, p. 317)

VELASCO, CRIZELLE LOIS C.


3/74



Marjorie Shaw (1932): Examined the sagacity (wisdom) of groups

21 individuals & 5 four-person groups

Intellective tasks Missionary-cannibal dilemma

3 missionaries and 3 cannibals are on one side of the river andwant to cross to the other side by means of a boat and can onlyhold 2 persons at a time. The missionaries must never beoutnumbered by the cannibals, under any circumstances or atany time, except where no missionaries are present at all. How

many crossings will be necessary to transport the six peopleacross the river?

When groups and individuals finish their first set ofproblems, Shaw reorganizes them



4/74



5/74



Shaws findings:

groups generated more correct solutions than

individuals

groups made mistakes later than individuals;groups were more proficient at noticing and

correcting errors

groups took longer to complete task



6/74

THE FUNCTION L MODEL OFGROUP DECISION M KING


Orientation

Discussion

Implementation

Defining the problemPlanning the process

Decisio

n

Remembering Information

Exchanging Information

Processing Information

Evaluating

the Decision

Adhering to

the Decision

Decision reachedNo decision

reached


7/74

Skilled decision-making groups are more

likely to make use of group procedures that

enhance the way they gather, analyze, and

weigh information

No two groups reach their decisions

precisely the same way



8/74


9/74

1. ORIENTATION PHASE

The group members must organize the

procedures it will use in its work:

Clarify the groups goals

Identify the resources needed to make the

decision

Enumerate obstacles that must be overcome or

avoidedSpecify procedures to be followed in gathering

information and making the decision

Agree on procedures to follow during the

meeting



10/74

1. ORIENTATION PHASE

A. Defining the Problem

Outcome: development of a shared mentalmodel (agreement)a cognitive schema that

organizes declarative and proceduralinformation pertaining to the problem and thegroup that is held in common by groupmembers

When group members adopt the same generalconceptualization of their tasks, goals, andprocedures, their final choices reflect thegroups preferences rather than personal biases



11/74


12/74

2. DISCUSSION PHASE

Information = lifeblood of decision making; discussionphase must be the heart of the process

Group members gather and process the informationneeded to make a decision

Robert Bales (1995) and his colleagues Watched and recorded groups at work

50% of all comments made by members aresuggestions, expressions of opinion, and attempts atorientation

Members also share information about the problem,express agreement/disagreement, and ask for moreinformation and clarification

In most groups, communication peaks during this phase



13/74


14/74

Collective MemorySachi Khu


15/74

Collective Memory

- Because groups havesuperior memories forinformation relative to

individuals

Two heads are better than

one.


16/74

Collective Memory

Shared reservoir of information held in the memories oftwo or more members of a group

Groups remember more than individuals, becausegroups draw on more memories that contain differenttypes of information

When students are permitted to take examination as agroup, they usually outperform individuals

For a student who is stumped by the question, Namefourcommon phases of group decision making, may besaved by a group member who remembers themnemonic acronym ODD-I: Orientation, Discussion,Decision, and Implementation


17/74


18/74

Collective Memory

Groups are NOT mnemonic marvels

Collaborative Groups VS Nominal (noninteracting

individuals) Groups VS Individuals Collaborative groups outperformed both the average single

individual and the best single individual

Collaborative groups did not perform as well as nominalgroups, and the groups displayed many of the characteristicstypically seen in individual memory

Individuals: better memory for information that they processmore deeply and better memory for pictures than for words

Groups: displayed same tendencies as individuals when theirmemories were tested but they also reported words that werenot on the original list, and their memories were also less wellstructured


19/74

Collective Memory

Groups do not remember as much as they could becausemembers tend to free-ride and loaf

When members know that others will be on hand should they forget

any details, they put less effort into processing and storing information

When factors that produce loafing are eliminated membersare made identifiable, each individual is promised a substantialreward for performing well, and group cohesion is high three-person groups who worked together at a memory task stillremembered less information than three individuals whosememories were tested when alone

The complexity of the group setting disrupts group membersability toorganize information in memory and then retrieve that information =collaborating groups perform particularly poorly when trying toremember badly organized information, but perform the same asnoninteracting (nominal) groups when trying to remember organizedinformation


20/74

Collective Memory

Groups cannot remember their decision unless theykeep a written record of them (minutes)


21/74

Information Exchange

Groups do not merely draw on a larger pool of information thanindividuals

They can also exchange information among the members of the

group = further strengthening their access to information as wellas their recall of that information

Group: multiagent connectionist informational network thatconsists of a collection of individual recurrent networks thatcommunicate with each other and, as such, is a network ofnetworks

Cross-cueing: when group members exchange information,they may give each other cues that help them remember thingsthat they would not recall if working alone

If a group member offers up a misleading cue, then such cueing caninhibit memory retrieval rather than facilitate it


22/74

Information Exchange

Transactive memory (TM)

Enhances the groups capacity to store and quickly

access information by dividing among members Members working in the same group often specialize, to a

degree, in different areas

These individuals not only have more information on agiven topic, but they are also the ones who should beresponsible for storing any new information that is relevant

to their area of expertise

Enriched through practice working as a group snd by trustamong members


23/74


Groups process information more thoroughlythan individuals through discussion

Members ask questions, and others offer answers

Alternative options are discussed, and the strengths and weaknesses of eachoption are considered

Group members analyze each others ideas and offer corrections when theynote errors

Members dialogue with one another, sharing viewpoints and seeking a sharedmeaning

Ideas are debated, with some group members seeking to convince others thattheir position is better

The group members also monitor their work and intervene as necessary tobring the group back on task


24/74


Most group discussions also include an interpersonalelement that complements the focus on the work to bedone

Decision-making groups not only share and evaluateinformation; they also encourage each other, expresscommitment to the group, and help each other

The time spent in active discussion increases the quality ofthe groupsdecision

Groups use of essential information through discussionproved to be the best predictor of success


25/74


Groups working on collective induction problems (tasks that requirea cycle of hypothesis generation and testing) performed best whenmembers discussed the problems actively and focused their analysison evidence rather than on hypotheses

Flight crews that confront sudden emergencies often overcome theproblem if they share information with one another; but those crewsthat do not take advantage of group discussion often make errors in

judgment that are not corrected by the group

Online groups: online format substantially hampers the groupsabilityto make an informed decision if the rate of information exchange istoo low and too slow

Information sharing (talking a great deal, free expression of ideas,thought, and feeling) and critical evaluation of ideas (criticallyevaluating each others ideas or works, differences of opinion,disagreement among group members, disagreements on whoshould do what or how something should be done) were correlatedwithjudgmental accuracy


26/74

DecisionSocial Decision Schemes


27/74

Social Decision Scheme

Groups method for combining individual membersinputs in a single group decision

Implicit one that is taken for granted by group

Not until someone says, Lets take a vote does thegroup realize that a decision must be made abouthow to make decisions


28/74

Common Social DecisionSchemes

Delegating decisions

An individual, subgroup, or external party makes thedecision for the group

Authority scheme: the leader, president, or other individualmakes the final decision with or without input from thegroup members; can leave members feelingdisenfranchised and ignored

Oligarchy: coalition speaks for the entire group

Other forms: asking an expert to answer (the best-informedmember) or forming a subcommittee made up of a fewmembers to study the issue and reach a conclusion

Saves time and is appropriate for less important issues


29/74


Averaging decisions

Each group member makes his or her decision individually(either before or after a group discussion) and these

private recommendations are averaged together to yielda nominal group decision

Do not necessarily require any interaction amongmembers

Cancels out error or extreme opinions since all themembersopinions are considered

Averaging without discussion may make an arbitrarydecision that fails to satisfy any of the group members, allof whom may end up feeling little responsibility forimplementing the decision


30/74


31/74


Unanimous decisions (Consensus)

The group discusses the issue until it reaches unanimousagreement without voting

Involving and often lead to high levels of commitment to thedecision and to the group

Takes a good deal of time, and if rushed, the strategy canmisfire

Preference towards questions that require sensitive judgments,such as issues of morality

Random decisions

The group leaves the final decision by chance like flipping acoin


32/74

ImplementationAfter the decision is made, decision mustbe:

1. Implemented

2. Evaluated (Quality)


33/74

Procedural Justice

Affects implementation

Group members evaluation of the fairness in the processes that thegroup used to make its decisions

Factors affecting the willingness to endorse and support a groupsdecisions

Members sense of control over the process

Involvement in it

Evaluation of the outcome itself

If the group members believe that the procedures that the groupused to make its decisions were fair ones, then they will be morelikely to act in supportive, pro-group ways


34/74

Procedural Justice

People are more likely to regard a decision as a fair one ifthe decisional procedures are implemented:

a) Consistently

b) Without self-interestc) On the basis of accurate information

d) With opportunities to correct the decision

e) With the interests of all concerned parties represented

f) Following moral and ethical standards

The group that uses procedurally just methods formaking decisions will be more successful during theimplementation stage


35/74


36/74

Autonomous Work Groups andSelf-directed Teams

Vary considerably in composition and goals

Charged with identifying problems that are

undermining productivity, efficiency, quality, or jobsatisfaction

Spend considerable time discussing the causes of theproblems and suggesting possible solutions, either withor without a formal leader or supervisor

*If changes do not have the desired effect, the process(implementing and evaluating) is repeated


37/74

Individuals or Groups?


38/74

Decide

The leader solves the problem or makes the decision and announces it tothe group.

Consult (Individual) The leader share the problem with the group members individually.

Consult (Group)

The leader discusses the problem with the group members collectively.

Facilitate

The leader coordinates a collaborative analysis of the problem andaccepts the will of the group.

Delegate

The leader turns the problem onto the group.


39/74

Group Discussion Pitfalls

Some groups intentionally avoid rather than make

decisions and use avoidance topic such as: Procrastination

Bolstering

Denying Responsibility

Muddling Through Satisfying

Trivializing the Dicussion


40/74

Shared Information

Details that two or more group members know in common

These become dangerous when the group must haveaccess to the unshared information in order to make agood decision.


41/74

Groups generate decisions through both

active and complex processes.


42/74

Cognitive Limitations

Group decisions go through active and complex processes.

Sometimes they can demand too much cognitive workfrom members.

Members judgments in demanding situations can bedistorted by cognitive and motivational biases.


43/74

Types of Error

Sins of Commission misuse of information

Ex: Belief perseverance reliance on erroneous information

Sunk cost bias unwillingness to leave a course ofaction once invested in that action

Extra-evidentiary bias use of information that must be

explicitly disregarded

Hindsight bias tendency to overestimate the accuracy of

ones prior knowledge of an outcome


44/74

Types of Error

Sins of Omission overlooking useful information

Ex: Base rate bias failure to focus on information aboutgeneral tendencies

Fundamental attribution error tendency tooverestimate the disposition or personality

in making attributions about the causes of

behavior


45/74

Types of Error Sins of Imprecision overreliance on heuristics that

oversimplify the decision

Ex: Availability heuristic basing decisions on information

that is easily accessibleConjunctive bias failure to realize that the probability of

one event occurring is greater than that of theprobability of two events occurring together

Representativeness heuristic overdependence onprominent aspects of a problem that are confusing


46/74

Cognitive Limitations

Groups amplify these biases.

Groups must keep an eye on these biases as to not usethem in making decisions.

Groups are more prone to confirmation bias thanindividuals.


47/74

Group Polarization

It is the tendency of a group to that are more extreme thanthe initial inclination of its members.

The Risky-Shift Phenomenon finding that groups makeriskier decisions than individuals

Group decisions are riskier than individual decisions.


48/74

What Causes Group Polarization?

Social Comparison evaluation of ones self in relation toothers. In groups, decisions would be made by using others

as reference points in assessing the groups own preferencesand positions


49/74

OTHER CAUSES OF GROUP POLARIZATION

SIAYNGCO, Joselle Martie M.


50/74

PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS

Members change opinions in response to

others arguments and ideas.

*Persuasive-arguments theory- generating

more arguments supporting idea endorsedby the group or consistent with dominant

social values


51/74

SOCIAL IDENTITY

*Persuasive-arguments theory- members

sometimes shift their opinions when the

discover others positions but not their

arguments*Social Identity theory- people are not

persuaded by content of others arguments,

but by consensus of opinion.


52/74

Polarizationmay also result because people

are more likely to respond positively to

arguments offered by ingroup that outgroup

members.


53/74

CONSEQUENCES OF POLARIZATION

Polarization may yield to positive effects

Groups when viewed from an evolutionary

perspective it was designed to monitor risk

Groups collective efficacy may rise asindividually optimistic members join together

and discuss their chances for success.


54/74


55/74

VICTIMS OF GROUPTHINK

Irving Janis was intrigured by the committeeof Presiddent Kennedy.

The ExCom group failed to make the best

decision and Janis wondered if it was caused bysomething more that such common group

difficulties such as faulty communication and

judgmental biases.


56/74

Janis searched for other groups that madesimilar errors

Senior Naval Officers

President Trumans Policy- making staff

President Nixons staff

*THEY SUFFERED FROM GROUPTHINK a modeof thinking that people engage in when they


57/74

GROUPTHINK

It is a mode of thinking that people engage inwhen they are deeply involved in a cohesive

ingroup, when the members strivings for

unanimity to override their motivation to

realistically appraise alternative courses of

actions.


58/74


59/74

SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK

Three categories:

1. Overestimation of the group

2. Close-mindedness

3. Pressures toward uniformity


60/74

OVERESTIMATION OF THE GROUP

Members usually assume that everything isworking perfectly but the truth is, they are

making all the wrong choices.

Janis traced this unwarranted optimism to : Illusions of invulnerability

Illusory thinking becomes so extreme during

groupthink Illusions of morality


61/74

CLOSE-MINDEDNESS

They are not open-minded in searching fornew ideas and perspectives.

Close-minded- rigidly shut off from

alternatives, merely seeking to bolster theirinitial decision through rationalization.

One key element- tendency to view other groups

in biased, simplistic ways.

PRESSURES TOWARD UNIFORMITY


62/74


Struggle for consensus is essential andunavoidable aspect of group life but in

groupthink situations, interpersonal

pressures make agreeing too easy anddisagreeing too hard.



63/74


4 indicators of this pressure:

1. Self- censorship

2. Illusion of unanimity

3. Direct pressure on dissenters

4. Self-appointed mindguards


64/74


65/74

ILLUSION OF UNANIMITY

Members seem to agree with the basic planpresented and sees it as the only solution to

the problem.

Some may have objections to the plan butthese objections never surfaces during

meetings.

DIRECT PRESSURE ON DISSENTERS &


66/74

DIRECT PRESSURE ON DISSENTERS &

SELF-APPOINTED MINDGUARDS

This is applied to dissenters who shields thegroup from information that would shake the

members confidence in themselves or their

leader. The overall goal is to contain dissent before it

reaches the level of group awareness


67/74

DEFECTIVE DECISION MAKING

Groups lose the sight of their overallobjectives as they only entertain specific

alternatives and ignoring all other potential

alternatives.

CAUSES OF


68/74

CAUSES OF

GROUPTHINK

Cohesiveness

Structural Faults of the Group

- Insulation

- Leadership Style

Provocative Situational Context

- Decisional Stress

COHESION, COMBINED WITH ONE OR MORE OF THEPOTENTIAL CAUSES OF GROUPTHINK, WOULD TRIGGERGROUPTHINK

THE EMERGENCE OF


69/74

THE EMERGENCE OF

GROUPTHINK

Cohesion

- Members may refrain from speaking out against decisions,

avoid arguments with others, maintain cordial

relationships.

- If internal disagreements disappear, then the group is

susceptible to groupthink.

THE EMERGENCE OF


70/74

THE EMERGENCE OF

GROUPTHINK

Structural Faults

- Style of Leadership (Closed vs. Open)

- Depends on how much control the leader has over the

groups decisional process.

EMERGENCE OF


71/74

EMERGENCE OF

GROUPTHINK

Provocative Situational Context

- Stress

- Attention on the task leaves the group at risk of

overlooking important contextual information


72/74


73/74

ALTERNATIVE MODEL

Social Identity and the Ubiquity Model (Robert Baron)

1. A threat to a shared social identity that may result,

should the group fail, increases groupthink symptoms.

2. The group must be the one the has developed a set of

norms that constrains members opinions.

3. Groupthink is more likely if group members lack self-

confidence.

PREVENTING


74/74

PREVENTING

GROUPTHINK

1. Limiting premature seeking of concurrence. (Lessening

conformity within the group)

2. Correcting misperceptions and biases. (Need for correct,

accurate information, leads to more definite answers to

problems and opinions)

3. Using effective decision-making techniques. (Careful

deliberation and consideration)

Chapter11 Decision Making

Documents