The Committee Charge, Framing Interpersonal Agreement, and Consensus Models of Group Quantitative Judgment

Abstract Procedural mechanisms, ostensibly serving to facilitate the consensus process in group decision making, have also been observed to influence process and outcome, frequently in unexpected and undesirable ways. Procedural influence in this study was attributable to the initial enabling charge that focused the group consensus process on task performance, interpersonal relations, or nothing. Both task- and interpersonally oriented groups allocated less money on average to an AIDS awareness educational program than did un-charged groups, and groups generally allocated less money than independent individuals who worked alone. Explanation focused on discussion as norm enhancing and committee charge as further intensifying norm salience, albeit in a somewhat unexpected direction. A “social judgment scheme” model based on the pattern of member preferences, and member positions in that pattern, accurately predicted group quantitative judgments within each experimental condition, whereas plausible alternative models and baselines did not. Among other findings, post-group member confidence in the decision was higher than that of parallel individuals, and highest among those from “task-oriented” groups; the latter also were more willing than ex-members of “interpersonally oriented” groups to discriminate among fellow members in retrospectively evaluating the relative contributions of each other.