Measuring disagreement in groups facing limited choice problems

A measure of the amount of disagreement, D, in a group facing a problem with limited solution choices is proposed. D is simple to calculate, meaningfully derived and provides a standard scale from 0 to 1 for the disagreement of any size group facing a number of solution choices. It also provides a related measure, d, which allows the measurement of the disagreement of each individual in the group. D essentially compares the number of differences found between pairs of individuals in the group with the number of differences theoretically possible. Extension of the measure to the case where the solution choices are represented by ranked, interval and ratio scale data shows that D is equal to twice the variance of the solution scores, although in this case the maximum value of D may be greater than 1. The properties of this measure are explored and found to be similar to what is expected of a measure of disagreement. An example application is given, illustrating how disagreement at both the individual and group levels can be meaningfully and usefully represented by d and D. The measure was used in an experiment where computer-mediated groups of five subjects, interacting only through a computer network, had to provide group solutions to multi-choice questions with four choice options.

[1]  E. C. Pielou,et al.  An introduction to mathematical ecology , 1970 .

[2]  Poppy Lauretta McLeod,et al.  An Assessment of the Experimental Literature on Electronic Support of Group Work: Results of a Meta-Analysis , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[3]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making☆ , 1992 .

[4]  M. Winniford,et al.  Issues in automated voting , 1991, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[5]  J. Davitz,et al.  A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual performance, 1920-1957. , 1958, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[7]  Brian Whitworth,et al.  Generating group agreement in cooperative computer-mediated groups: towards an integrative model of group interaction , 1997 .

[8]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. , 1987 .

[9]  L. Adrianson,et al.  Group processes in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication , 1991 .

[10]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences , 1988, MIS Q..

[11]  Brian Whitworth,et al.  Voting before discussing: computer voting as social communication , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[12]  L. R. Hoffman,et al.  VALENCE IN THE ADOPTION OF SOLUTIONS BY PROBLEM-SOLVING GROUPS: CONCEPT, METHOD, AND RESULTS. , 1964, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[13]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  The Effects of Group Attitudes Toward Alternative GDSS Designs on the Decision‐making Performance of Computer‐Supported Groups* , 1994 .

[14]  Russell Spears,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication, De-Individuation and Group Decision-Making , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[15]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[16]  James C. Bezdek,et al.  A Fuzzy Analysis of Consensus in Small Groups , 1980 .

[17]  Bernard C. Y. Tan,et al.  Will Distributed GSS Groups Make More Extreme Decisions? An Empirical Study , 1996, ICIS.

[18]  Kwok-Kee Wei,et al.  Effects of support and task type on group decision outcome: A study using SAMM , 1991, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[19]  M. E. Shaw Group dynamics : the psychology of small group behavior , 1971 .

[20]  A. Vinokur,et al.  Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach. , 1974 .

[21]  Hock-Hai Teo,et al.  Promoting consensus in small decision making groups , 1995, Inf. Manag..

[22]  J. Keith Murnighan,et al.  Group Confidence Pressures in Iterative Decisions , 1982 .

[23]  W. Owen,et al.  Metaphor Analysis of Cohesiveness in Small Discussion Groups , 1985 .

[24]  J. McGrath Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[25]  M. Sherif The Psychology of Social Norms , 1937 .