Group decision making at a multialternative task: Extremity, interfaction distance, pluralities, and issue importance

Four-person groups attempted to reach unanimous agreement on four high- and four low-importance 6-point attitudinal scales. Continuous monitoring of each group member's current position permitted a social transition scheme (STS) analysis of a number of process questions which arise when groups must choose among several ordered alternatives. Members of extreme factions, members of submajority plurality factions, and nearby factions exerted greater attraction than moderate factions, members of subplurality factions, and distant factions, respectively. The latter effect was attributable, in part, to majority factions making small concessions to distant minority factions to prompt reciprocation and progress toward concensus. Groups were more likely to reach unanimous agreement and comparable shifts in opinion occurred more rapidly on the less important issues than on the more important issues. However, the present within-groups manipulation of issue importance exerted little effect on the group decision-making process. A number of explanations and applications of these effects are discussed.