Groups often make decisions by consensus and choose the option(s) preferred by the majority. Most research has therefore treated group consensus as a singular construct, contrasting consensus and dissensus, or the majority and minority. The current research, however, found that varying degrees of consensus among the majority impacted outside observers’ perceptions of the voting group’s internal power structure and evaluations of its decision-making process. Specifically, partial consent (not all members agree), versus unanimous consent (all members agree), led observers to (i) infer that the group had a more decentralized, egalitarian (vs centralized, hierarchical) power structure and, consequently (ii) evaluated the group’s ostensible decision-making process more (vs less) favorably. In sum, this research demonstrated how a lack of unanimity can bolster group perceptions, identified one context where that effect was attenuated by making unanimity favorable, discusses the role of procedural fairness in group judgments, and reveals potential implications for public affairs.
AhlerD. J.RoushC. E.SoodG. (2019). The micro-task market for lemons: Data quality on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Political Science Research and Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2021.57
2.
BaronR.KerrN. (2003). Group process, group decision, group action 2/E: McGraw-Hill Education.
3.
BohnerG.Dykema-EngbladeA.TindaleR. S.MeisenhelderH. (2008). Framing of majority and minority source information in persuasion: When and how “consensus implies correctness.”Social Psychology, 39(2), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.39.2.108
4.
BorA.MazepusH.BokemperS. E.DeScioliP. (2020). When should the majority rule? Experimental evidence for Madisonian judgments in five cultures. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.8
5.
BreitmoserY.ValasekJ. (2017). A rationale for unanimity in committees. Discussion Papers. Research Unit: Economics of Change. WZB Berlin Social Science Center. https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbeoc/spii2017308.html
6.
BurlingameG. M.McClendonD. T.AlonsoJ. (2011). Cohesion in group therapy. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022063
7.
ChangA.BordiaP. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32(4), 379–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200401
8.
ChmielewskiM.KuckerS. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149
9.
DeScioliP.BokemperS. E. (2019). Intuitive political theory: People’s judgments about how groups should decide. Political Psychology, 40(3), 617–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12528
10.
Falomir-PichastorJ. M.StaerkléC.DepuisetM.-A.ButeraF. (2005). Democracy justifies the means: Political group structure moderates the perceived legitimacy of intergroup aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(12), 1683–1695. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278260
11.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
FolgerR. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 35(2), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.108
GilovichT. (1993). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life: Free Press.
17.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach: Guilford publications.
18.
HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 1–26, https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
19.
KamedaT.TindaleR. S. (2006). Groups as adaptive devices: Human docility and group aggregation mechanisms in evolutionary context. In SchallerM.SimpsonJ. A.KenrickD. T. (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 317–341). Psychosocial Press.
KleinH. J.MulveyP. W. (1995). Two investigations of the relationships among group goals, goal commitment, cohesion, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1004
KruglanskiA. W. (2013). The psychology of closed mindedness. Psychology Press.
24.
KruglanskiA. W.PierroA.MannettiL.De GradaE. (2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological review, 113(1), 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.84
25.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
26.
LindE. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. Advances in organizational justice, 56(8), 56–88.
27.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z
MohammedS.RingseisE. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 310–335. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2943
MullenB.CopperC. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological bulletin, 115(2), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210
33.
MummoloJ.PetersonE. (2019). Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 517–529. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000837
34.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
35.
OttoA. S.ClarksonJ. J.KardesF. R. (2016). Decision sidestepping: How the motivation for closure prompts individuals to bypass decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000057
PierroA.MannettiL.De GradaE.LiviS.KruglanskiA. W. (2003). Autocracy bias in informal groups under need for closure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203251191
38.
RastD. E.IIIHoggM. A.GiessnerS. R. (2013). Self-uncertainty and support for autocratic leadership. Self and Identity, 12(6), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.718864
39.
RinneT.SteelG. D.FairweatherJ. (2012). Hofstede and Shane revisited: The role of power distance and individualism in national-level innovation success. Cross-Cultural Research, 46(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397111423898
SchminkeM.AmbroseM. L.CropanzanoR. S. (2000). The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.294
43.
SchoelC.BluemkeM.MuellerP.StahlbergD. (2011). When autocratic leaders become an option—Uncertainty and self-esteem predict implicit leadership preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023393
44.
Schulz-HardtS.FreyD.LüthgensC.MoscoviciS. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.655
StalmeierP. F.RoosmalenM. S.VerhoefL. C.Hoekstra-WeebersJ. E.OosterwijkJ. C.MoogU.HoogerbruggeN.van DaalW. A. (2005). The decision evaluation scales. Patient Education and Counseling, 57(3), 286–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.07.010
47.
StassonM. F.KamedaT.ParksC. D.ZimmermanS. K.DavisJ. H. (1991). Effects of assigned group consensus requirement on group problem solving and group members’ learning. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(1), 25–35. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/2786786
48.
SteigerJ. H. (2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychological Methods, 9(2), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.164
49.
ThomasK. A.CliffordS. (2017). Validity and Mechanical Turk: An assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.038
50.
TodorovA.ChaikenS.HendersonM. D. (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In DillardJ. P.PfauM. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 195–211): SAGE Publications, Inc. https://dx.<wbr>doi.<wbr>org/10.4135/9781412976046.n11
Van VugtM.JepsonS. F.HartC. M.De CremerD. (2004). Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00061-1
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
