Post-decision consolidation in large group decision-making.

Decision-makers tend to change the psychological attractiveness of decision alternatives in favor of their own preferred alternative after the decision is made. In two experiments, the present research examined whether such decision consolidation occurs also among individual group members in a large group decision-making situation. High-school students were presented with a decision scenario on an important issue in their school. The final decision was made by in-group authority, out-group authority or by majority after a ballot voting. Results showed that individual members of large groups changed the attractiveness of their preferred alternative from a pre- to a post-decision phase, that these consolidation effects increased when decisions were made by in-group members, and when participants identified strongly with their school. Implications of the findings for understanding of group behavior and subgroup relations are discussed.

[1]  Ola Svenson,et al.  Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research: Values, Affect, and Processes in Human Decision Making: A Differentiation and Consolidation Theory Perspective , 2003 .

[2]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. , 1994 .

[3]  T. Tyler Affirmative Action in an Institutional Context: The Antecedents of Policy Preferences and Political Support , 2004 .

[4]  O. Svenson Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes , 1992 .

[5]  O. Svenson Decision Making and the Search for Fundamental Psychological Regularities: What Can Be Learned from a Process Perspective? , 1996 .

[6]  Millard F. Mann,et al.  Effect of importance of freedom and attraction to group members on influence produced by group pressure. , 1975 .

[7]  R. Vermunt,et al.  On the psychology of procedural justice: reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities , 2004 .

[8]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Motivated Information Processing in Group Judgment and Decision Making , 2008, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[9]  Steven L. Blader,et al.  The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior , 2003, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[10]  T. Tyler,et al.  A Relational Model of Authority in Groups , 1992 .

[11]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. , 1992 .

[12]  Yuen J. Huo,et al.  The Self-Relevant Implications of the Group-Value Model: Group Membership, Self-Worth, and Treatment Quality , 1998 .

[13]  S. Read,et al.  The redux of cognitive consistency theories: evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  A. Brownstein,et al.  Biased predecision processing. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  S. Schulz-Hardt,et al.  Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: an expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  Yuen J. Huo Procedural Justice and Social Regulation Across Group Boundaries: Does Subgroup Identity Undermine Relationship-Based Governance? , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[17]  N. Ellemers,et al.  Reactions to Outgroup Authorities' Decisions: The Role of Expected Bias, Procedural Fairness and Outcome Favorability , 2008 .

[18]  S. Read,et al.  Bias at the Racetrack: Effects of Individual Expertise and Task Importance on Predecision Reevaluation of Alternatives , 2004, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[19]  Margaret G. Meloy,et al.  The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  K. Leung,et al.  Realpolitik versus fair process: moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. , 2007, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  Biased attributions regarding the origins of preferences in a group decision situation , 2009 .

[22]  Kelly S. Fielding,et al.  Leaders and their treatment of subgroups: implications for evaluations of the leader and the superordinate group , 2003 .

[23]  Yuen J. Huo,et al.  Superordinate Identification, Subgroup Identification, and Justice Concerns: Is Separatism the Problem; Is Assimilation the Answer? , 1996 .

[24]  O. Svenson The Construction of Preference: Pre- and Post-Decision Construction of Preferences: Differentiation and Consolidation , 2006 .

[25]  K. Bos,et al.  What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect , 1999 .

[26]  Friend or foe? Ingroup identification moderates reactions to outgroup members' allocation behavior , 2006 .