Abstract Group decision making is imperative for deciding what action a group should take. This paper aims to define the process of group decision making and examine the discipline, theory, paradigm, and methodology that dominate approaches to group decision-making research. Furthermore, it provides an outline of the research’s perceptual process and endeavors to address an appropriate alternative approach to this research problem, and an evaluation of qualitative and quantitative research designs for this area of research.
These are discussed in connection with selected empirical data. Critical Review of Group Decision Making Research Group decision making is one of the most significant and methodological ways of overcoming and/or resolving certain conflicts with the aid of other individuals. It becomes a more controversial in deciding what action a group should take due to the varieties of systems, which are acknowledged in order to solve a particular conflict.
Decision making in a certain group is frequently evaluated in a separate manner, as the issue with regard to the process and outcome is concerned. While such a process of group decision making refers to how every member of a group interacts with the others, the outcome is the result of preferred method or action that the entire group has taken. A number of masters from prestigious universities have been arguing with regard to the critical review of group decision-making research since the 19th century.
One of the world-renown masters of that time was James Stoner who observed that group decisions are more speculative than the earlier exclusive decisions of the members of a particular group or organization (Stoner, 1961). During the period subsequent to the time when he released his masters’ thesis and scholarly articles concerning the critical review of group decision-making research, numerous researched studies with empirical bases have shown that such a perilous modification is omnipresent or ubiquitous occurrence.
Moreover, there is the presence of judiciousness on certain group decisions than the members (Moscovici & Zavalloni. 1969; Myers & Lamm, 1976). However, the tendency of people to make decisions, which is extreme when they are in a group as opposed to a decision made alone or independently, will take place as a commencing disposition of an individual group members toward a specified way is increased subsequent to the given group decision. For instance, a group of pro-feminist women will be more powerfully pro-feminist subsequent to the given group decision (Myers.
1975). Therefore, on decisions that present to every individual group and/or member, a reasonable disposition in a specified way comes along with a group decision, which belongs to a more reasonable disposition in the same way. Critical Review on a Group Decision Some other conceptualization with regard to the tendency of people to make decisions, which is extreme when they are in a group as opposed to a decision made alone or independently, will be superfluous due the number of outstanding reviews and/or conceptualization until 1970s (Myers & Lamm, 1976).
Throughout this time, the arguments concerning such a conceptualization have become remarkable. Hence, numerous researchers contributed various ideologies and significant contributions to produce group decisions, which are more speculative than the earlier exclusive decisions of the members of a particular group or organization. In latter years, vehemence for group research with regard to disposition has begun to lessen; it has believed that a thorough retrospective view or survey will contribute to the reorientation of research in such a field.
In addition to this view, reassessment will also incorporate the tendency of people to make decisions, which is extreme when they are in a group as opposed to a decision made alone or independently, with other gregarious or communal imaginary and cognitive phenomena. Thus, this research concludes by proposing a few significant matters of desegregation.
Moreover, basic cognitive process will be involved in obtaining and storing more knowledge and insights upon demonstrating convincing disputation and communal distinction intervening the doctrine that all natural phenomena are explicable by material causes and mechanical principles within the bounds of group decision making. Study of this consequence shows that subsequent in time of taking part in a discussion group, every member tends to propose greater whereabouts; the demand for more perilous procedures of exploit than individuals who do not take part in any such discourse becomes inevitable.
This incident has given birth to the perilous modification of group decision making. Moreover, the tendency of people to make decisions, which is extreme when they are in a group as opposed to a decision made alone or independently, is used in order to explicate and give light to the decision making of a panel or a group of people legally selected to hear a case and to decide what are the facts.
Contemporary studies of world-renown scholars and savants show that subsequent in time to meditating into a single group, simulated panel of experts frequently determines retaliatory impairment prior to deliberation. Hence, the studies showed that when the favor of the panel of experts is given to an individual that bears insufficient facts and/or explications with regard to the extant issues, matters of argumentation might lead to a more compassionate outcome.
While the panel of experts is influenced to ordain an efficacious or disastrous treatment, such contemporary discourse could yield severe and arduous circumstances to cope with. Progress in Analysis of Group Decision Making Brown’s (1965) innovative discourse of such a perilous modification, one of the vital vindications of selected changes, has been a communal juxtaposition. Based on the entire view of this conceptualization, people are regularly encouraged both to identify and to introduce themselves in a gregarious suitable illumination.
To do this, every individual should be constantly preparing knowledge and insights with regard to how other groups of people introduce themselves, and changing his/her personal investiture. Some adaptations of social comparison theory shows that the number of people wishes to be understood as more advantageous than what other groups of people comprehend to be the standard movement. In one case that every individual distinguishes how most other people demonstrate and/or introduce themselves, he or she present him/herself in a reasonable illumination or awareness.
Whenever all members of a colluding group involve in the same examination of such a methodological or systematic procedure, the outcome, therefore, is a mean modification in a way of valuable community. There is the presence of two fluctuations of the said temporal arrangement; one is that highlights the displacements of cognitive contents, which have multiple numbers of aspects, while the other one concerns the practice of keeping one jump ahead of a friend or competitor.
Based on the studies of such a pluralistic ignorance, every individual or group of people introduces itself and/or its own positions as a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions in the interval of two different proclivities—the petition to be bound by mutual interests, loyalties, or affections to an individual’s own conception of absolute perfection. In addition to this view, the desire not to be aberrant from the notion of the inner direction of a certain group is also acknowledged.
Thus, prior to group discussion review or argument, every member of a particular group trivializes the standards of the group ab initio. Evaluation from the primary valuations of their personal standards becomes distant to some extent or degree. Throughout the argumentations, which are unfolded by the entire group, every individual or member of the group is acknowledged nigh to the right standards; hence, an instance of divergence or disagreement by the common action of how good a group member is and how he or she likes to be ostensible.
On delving into the second set of options, a group member directly changes to a more idealistic thought or matter of argumentations. As such, the strategic method of group decision making with most group members is acknowledged. Therefore, the theory concerning pluralistic ignorance is that it prevails for the mere reason of precise exchange of information with regard to the true beliefs of most members of the group in spite of the fact that it might be due to the preconception, which has a basis in or reducible to empirical factual knowledge (Jones & Nisbett, 1972).
Other evaluators made a thorough explication concerning the possible outcomes of procedures in relation to the social comparison. These evaluations have become a more controversial along the issue concerning such matters of argument in which the group of people are encouraged by an aspiration to be unique from the other groups of people in a more precious and significant way or direction of feelings and/or thoughts (Fromkin, 1970). Moreover, these people are also encouraged to introduce themselves in a more advantageous way than the other groups of people.
Briefly, such a group of people desires to be unique and become better than other groups of people. As an analogy, Brown expresses his own feelings by acknowledging the fact that when creating pre-valuations in a certain aspect, every individual member of the group gives him/herself a valuation, which is moderately advantageous than the valuation that he or she takes for granted—the norm or standards the mean group member will share.
For a better comprehension with regard to this conceptualization, when a member directly or indirectly deducts the precise standards, he or she then develops his or her personal valuations; hence, making the general options with regard to the perilous modification becomes inevitable to acknowledge. Inasmuch as the technical aspects of making the perilous modification in cognitive contents, which have multiple aspects, the technical aspects concerning a current or fashionable trend is a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions by the common action of self-enhancement and self-abasement.
Indeed, however, it may be quite arduous to acknowledge these two technical aspects theoretically. Nevertheless, there are respective imbrications on the pluralistic ignorance and current or fashionable trends. To support such an argument, the general reference for social comparison comes from presentations that coherent knowledge and insights with regard to the standards of other group members is able to make conformation bias. It takes place when combined or neutral vestige is used to reinforce an already made and intelligibly one-sided point of view.
Consequently, every member of the group on both sides may therefore make an action or any movement farther apart, when he or she is presented with the same combined vestige. Such e strategic effect is called ‘mere exposure’ effects in which numerous researched studies have tried creating this terminology for further explication of the denotations of the perilous modification within the group decision making. Processing the Information that Affects the Group Decision Making
A number of scholarly studies with regard to the group decision making from different pats of the world have been published; now, it remains one of the global contemporary issues. The original perilous modification research of Stoner (1961) has been globally recognized upon the use of certain outlines of the summary with a dramatic or literary work—the scenario, which shows the value of perils that a group member thinks what action he or she should take. For a better comprehension, it is explained with the best example, which Stoner used.
He shows such a perilous modification through playing with a chess—the moves, careers shifts, professional shifts etc. In addition, other studies concern the probability of such a perilous modification. It is showed through the frequent exposure of conditions in which it is more likely to be substantial than any moderate exposure of such conditions; mixed with non-significant. Some studies argue that a certain member’s option or a standard on the matter of argument is methodological function of numerous pro and con debates.
It is acknowledged as an individual calls back the memory when hypothesizing his or her personal thought or standards. Therefore, in forming an opinion or estimation of the guilt or innocence of an accused person after careful consideration, a body of citizens sworn to give a true verdict according to the evidence presented in a court of law comes to pre-deliberation decisions in accordance with the respective number and strength of the pro-guilt and pro-innocence statements.
Consequently, a formal discourse on a topic or an exposition becomes the cause of an individual’s modification of his or her thought with regard to the running skepticism in the court. During the period subsequent to the time when the conceptualization of the power to induce the taking of a course of action or the embracing of a point of view by means of argument or entreaty is acknowledged, a number of studies distinguish the characteristics of statements, which lead them into being convincing.
Moreover, some studies express the denotations of perilous modification. They show this through presenting deputations on the statements within the group members. For a better comprehension concerning this ideology, a specified group may or may not change the way, which has given to it. While every member thinks of producing a good outcome, the arguments take place from the other members of the group. Thus, the function of originality is certainly and specifically determined.
However, if such statements or arguments are given from the fact that the individual member is already acquainted with such matter of argumentations, he or she then cannot modify or change his or her position or standards of thinking or sharing his or her thoughts with the other members of the group of choice (Kaplan, 1997). Evaluating Qualitative and Quantitative Research Designs As such, if new convincing arguments are given, but opposing the way that has been pre-approved by the group member, their standards will be modified reversely.
Hence, a body of citizens sworn to give a true verdict according to the evidence presented in a court of law who pre-approved one who is justly chargeable with or responsible for a usually grave breach of conduct or a crime will come to regard a more guilty opinion or treat him or her with favor. This occurrence takes place only if he or she is liable to the new statements, which give favor to the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penal.
The condition of being peculiar to a particular individual or group, as the issue with regard to the process by which other studies or scholarly researched articles produce, accommodates two general empirical bases. One is that concerns the given correct information. To understand better, such studies or scholarly articles anticipate the methodological system and extent of selecting the thought to be unfolded on the matters of argumentation whether they are breaking up into opposing factions or grouping, or causing to become partially or wholly unbroken up to opposing factions.
In addition to this statement or argument with regard to the critical review of group decision making, the number of studies make it easier to bring out the conceptual coordination of mental processes into a normal effective personality or with the individual’s environment, or the operation of finding a function whose differential is known and/or solving a different equation.
In view of that fact, the fundamental technical aspect is the same for statements, which have been processed in a more advanced and secure system, or in a mutual or reciprocal action or influence with the other people or group members. Therefore, to support the entire conceptualization of this view, the vestige for the proposition that convincing statements alone may yield choice modification and a position of polarization, which has been assumed for a specific purpose—boldly supported by advanced explications of polarization (Pruitt, 197la. 1971b). Conclusion
I have learned substantially from the said research and conceptualization of contemporary argumentations with regard to the critical review of group decision making and it impelled me to seek various means to learn the more advanced and methodological process of critical thinking and evaluation on the group decision-making. First, I have learned to perceive more contemplatively. This means, prior to making decisions or establishing beliefs, a group member must be aware that he or she has personal biases about certain things and he or she should not let this get in the way of arriving at an accurate perception and wise decision.
Second, I have learned that by being more involved and by listening to and observing people a particular member of the group, who joins the arguments while discussing the best things to gain favorable outcomes, would be able to gain a broader perspective, if not a holistic view, of people and circumstances as a whole. This means that he or she should not only be satisfied with what he or she sees or wants to see but endeavor to look further and probe deeper into what is actually happening that he or she could not directly sense.
Moreover, he or she should also verify his or her perceptions and the conclusions he or she has reached through critical thinking by communicating and learning more about the entities involved. These helpful hints have caused substantial improvement in my critical thinking process relative not only to the office works but to all the other daily activities as well. They have led me to perceive accurately, think critically and gain greater understanding of people and contemporary events.
Brown. R. (1965). Social psychology. New York: Free Press. Fromkin. H. (1970). Effects of experimentally aroused feelings of indistinctiveness upon valuation of scarce and novel experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16. 521-529 Jones, E. E.. & Nisbett R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, E. E. Kanouse. H. H. Kelley. R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins. & B. Veiner(Eds. ). Attribution. Perceiving the causes of behavior.
Morristown. NJ: General Learning Press. Kaplan. M. F. (1977). Discussion polarization effects in a modified jury decision paradigm: Informational influences. Sociomeir): 40, 262-271 Moscovici. S. , & Zavalloni. M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 12. I25-135. Myers, D. G. (1975). Discussion-induced attitude polarization. Human Relations, 28, 699-714 Myers. D. G. , & Lamm. H. (1975). The polarizing effect of group discussion.
American Scientist, 63. 297-303. Pruitl, D. G. (197 la). Choice shifts in group discussion: An introductory review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 20, 339-360. — (197lb). Conclusions: Toward an understanding of choice shifts in group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 20. 495-510. Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Unpublished master’s thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA.