Abstract
Many if not most political decisions are made by groups. Small group caucuses often help to choose political candidates, legislative bodies (e.g., Congress) decide which laws to enact, and leaders with their advisors (e.g., U.S. Security Council) make strategic and military decisions. Although some groups are just advisory, where responsibility for the final decision falls on a single individual (leader), many group decisions require a group-level response and are based on decision rules that are meant to lead to fair and representative decisions (Grofman & Owen, 1986). For example, many legislative bodies follow majority decision rules—simple majorities decide most decisions and 3/5ths or 2/3rds majorities are required for major or particularly important decisions. Such group decision rules are used to insure that decisions represent the preferences shared by most of the group members (Kameda, Tindale, & Davis, in press; Tindale & Kameda, 2000), and are often perceived as the “fairest” or most just ways of making group decisions (Tindale & Davis, 1983).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abrams, D., Davis, J. H., & Hulbert, L. G. (1996). Social context and group decisions. Informal presentation at the Society for Experimental Social Psychology. Amherst, MA, USA, October 18.
Arrow, K. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole no. 416)
Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bray, R. M, Kerr, N. L., & Atkin, R. S. (1978). Effects of group size, problem difficulty, and sex on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1224–1240.
Coombs, C. H., Cohen, J. L., & Chamberlin, J. R. (1984). An empirical study of some election systems. American Psychologist, 39, 140–157.
Davis, J. H. (1973). A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125.
Davis, J. H. (1996). Group decision making and quantitative judgment: A consensus model. In E. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.) Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davis, J. H., Au, W. T., Hulbert, L., Chen, X., & Zarnoth, P. (1997a). Effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judgments of quantity: The example of damage awards and mock civil juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 703–718.
Davis, J. H., Hulbert, L., & Au, W. T. (1996). Procedural influence on group decision making. The case of straw polls—Observation and simulation. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.) Communication and Group Decision Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, J. H., Kameda, T., Parks, C., Stasson, M., & Zimmerman, S. (1989). Some social mechanics of group decision making: The distribution of opinion, polling sequence, and implications for consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 100–114.
Davis, J. H., Stasson, M., Ono, K., & Zimmerman, S. (1988). Effects of straw polls on group decision making: Sequential voting pattern, timing, and local majorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 918–926.
Davis, J. H., Stasson, M. E, Parks, C. D., Hulbert, L., Kameda, T., Zimmerman, S. K., & Ono, K. (1993). Quantitative decisions by groups and individuals: voting procedures and monetary awards by mock civil juries. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 326–346.
Davis, J. H., Au, W. T., Hulbert, L. G., Chen, X., & Zarnoth, P. (1997a). The effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judgments of quantity: The example of damage awards and mock civil juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 703–718.
Davis, J. H., Zarnoth, P., Hulbert, L., Chen, X., Parks, C., & Nam, K. (1997b). The committee charge, framing interpersonal agreement, and consensus models of group quantitative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 137–157.
Efron, B. E. & Tibshirani, R. (1991). Statistical data analysis in the computer age. Science, 253, 390–395.
Grofman, B. & Owen, G. (Eds.) (1986). Information pooling and group decision making: Proceedings of the second University of California, Irvine, conference on political economy. Greenwich, CO: JAI Press.
Hinsz, V. B. (1999). Group decision making with responses of a quantitative nature: The theory of social decision schemes for quantities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 28–49.
Hulbert, L. G., Parks, C. D., Chen, X. Nam, K., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The plaintiff bias in mock civil jury decision making: Consensus requirements, information format and amount of consensus. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 59–77.
Kameda, T. (1991). Procedural influence in small-group decision making: Deliberation style and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 245–256.
Kameda, T. (1996). Procedural influence in consensus formation: Evaluating group decision making from a social choice perspective. In E. Witte & J. Davis (Eds.) Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 1, pp. 137–164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kameda, T. & Sugimori, S. (1995). Procedural influence in two-step group decision making: Power of local majorities in consensus formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 865–876.
Kameda, T., Tindale, R. S., & Davis, J. H. (in press). Cognitions, preferences, and social sharedness: Past, present and future directions in group decision making. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.) Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kerr, N. L., Niedermeier, K. E., & Kaplan, M. F. (1999). Bias in jurors vs bias injuries: New evidence from the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70–86.
Lamm, H. & Myers, D. G. (1978). Group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 145–195). New York: Academic Press.
Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative, problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 127–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Laughlin, P. R. & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177–189.
Lind, E. A. & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the “deep-pockets” hypothesis. Law and Society Review, 30, 121–132.
Mueller, D. C. (1989). Public choice II. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nadler, J., Irwin, J. R., Davis, J. H., Au, W. T., Zarnoth, P., Rantilla, A., & Koesterer, K. (2001). Order effects in individual and group policy allocations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 99–115.
Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latane, B. (1990). From private attitudes to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97, 362–376.
Ono, K., Tindale, R. S., Davis, J. H., & Hulin, C. L. (1988). Intuition vs. deduction: Some thought experiments concerning Likert’s Linking-Pin Theory of organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 135–154.
Plott, C. R. & Levine, M. E. (1978). A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. The American Economic Review, 68, 146–160.
Stasser, G. & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2001). Collective choice, judgment, and problem solving. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.) Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 31–55). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Tindale, R. S. & Davis, J. H. (1983). Group decision making and jury verdicts. In H. H. Blumberg, A. P. Hare, V Kent, & M. F. Davies (Eds.) Small groups and social interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 9–38). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley & Sons.
Tindale, R. S., Davis, J. H., Vollrath, D. A., Nagao, D. H., & Hinsz, V. (1990). Asymmetrical social influence in freely interacting groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 438–449.
Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2000). Social sharedness as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 123–140.
Tindale, R. S., Nadler, J., Krebel, A., & Davis, J. H. (2001). Procedural mechanisms and jury behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.) Blackwell handbook in social psychology: Group processes (pp. 574–602). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Tindale, R. S., Smith, C. M., Thomas, L. S., Filkins, J., & Sheffey, S. (1996). Shared representations and asymmetric social influence processes in small groups. In E. Witte & J. Davis (Eds.) Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 1, pp. 81–103). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kameda, T., Hulbert, L., Tindale, R.S. (2002). Procedural and Agenda Effects on Political Decisions by Small Groups. In: Ottati, V.C., et al. The Social Psychology of Politics. Social Psychological Applications to Social Issues. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0569-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0569-3_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5136-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-0569-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive