Effects of Status Difference and Group Size in Group Decision Making

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to empirically test the finding of Ohtsubo, Fujita, and Kameda’s (in press) thought experiment regarding the relation between the high status member’s influence and the number of low status members in the decision-making groups. Against intuition, the thought experiment showed that increasing low status memberswould not necessarily undermine the high status member’s influence. This study had three-,four-, and five-person groups engage in group decision-making tasks while manipulatingstatus difference by bogus feedback about task-relevant ability. Results showed that the high status members’ overall influence increased when the number of low status membersincreased from three to four. The Social Decision Scheme Model analyses, however,suggested that the observed aggretation process was different from the one assumed inthe thought experiment.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction . American Sociological Review, 37, 241–255 .

Brandstätter, H., Bleckwenn, M., & Kette, G. (1984). Decision-making of industrial tribunals as described by professional and lay judges . International Review of Applied Psychology, 33, 137–159 .

Casper, G., & Zeisel, H. (1972). Lay judges in the German criminal courts . Journal of Legal Studies, 1, 135–191 .

Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision scheme . Psychological Review, 80, 87–125 .

Davis, J. H. (1982). Social interaction as a combinatorial process in group decision. In H. Brandstätter, J. H. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Group decision making (pp. 27–58). London: Academic Press .

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636 .

Hall, J. (1971, November). Decisions, decisions, decisions. Psychology Today, pp. 51–54, 86–86, 88–88.

Hall, J., & Watson, W. H. (1971). The effects of a normative intervention on group decision-making performance . Human Relations, 23, 299–317 .

Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .

10.

Horowitz, I. A., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (1996). A concept in search of a definition: The effects of reasonable doubt instructions on certainty of guilt standards and jury verdicts . Law and Human Behavior, 20, 655–670 .

11.

Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown .

12.

Kaplan, M. F., & Martin, A. M. (1999). Effects of differential status of group members on process and outcome of deliberation . Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 347–364 .

13.

Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 282–294 .

14.

Kirchler, E., & Davis, J. H. (1986). The influence of member status differences and task type on group consensus and member position change . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 83–91 .

15.

Lafferty, J. C., & Pond, A. W. (1974). Desert survival situation. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics .

16.

Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact . American Psychologist, 36, 343–356 .

17.

MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21–33 .

18.

Nemeth, C. (1977). Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs. unanimity decision rules . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 38–56 .

19.

Ohtsubo, Y., Fujita, M., & Kameda, T. (in press). How can psychology contribute to designing a mixed jury system in Japan?: Ongoing debates and a thought experiment. In Y. Kashima, Y. Endo, E. Kashima, C. Leung, & J. McClure (Eds.), Progress in Asian social psychology (Vol. 4). Seoul, Korea: Kyoyook-kwahak-sa .

20.

Saks, M. J., & Marti, M. W. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of jury size . Law and Human Behavior, 21, 451–467 .

21.

Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221–256). New York: Academic Press .

22.

Vollrath, D. A., & Davis, J. H. (1980). Jury size and decision rule. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The jury: Its role in American society (pp. 73–106). Lexington, MA: Heath .

23.

Wilke, H. A. M. (1996). Status congruence in small groups. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 67–91). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .