Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study compares effects of status on group decision making in ad hoc student and real supervisor-subordinates groups. Eighteen ad hoc and eighteen real groups of three with one high status and two low status members made decisions on two standard choice-dilemma problems. For each group member, compliance, persuasion, recidivism of opinion, perceived competence-influence, and attractiveness were measured. The results of the T-test and correlational analysis, conducted upon the differences between respective values for a high and average low status individuals, revealed that in both, ad hoc and real groups, high status members had stronger actual and perceived influence on group decisions and attitudes of other group members than low status individuals. In ad hoc and real groups, high status members were the first advocates more frequently than low status members. Analysis of variance showed that the influence of high status members was the strongest, if they were also the first advocates. At the same time, the public compliance of low status members under power pressure, and therefore, consequent recidivism of opinion was significant only in the real groups and not in the ad hoc groups. High status members were first advocates much more frequently in the real groups than in the ad hoc groups. Perceived influence of group members strongly correlated with likability only in the real groups. The correlation was close to zero in the ad hoc groups. Based on our previous study on “status equalization phenomenon” in ad hoc groups communicating electronically, we suggest that in real groups as well, the influence of status can be controlled, at least partially, by technically monitoring access of group members to the first advocacy.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allison

G.T.

(1971). The Essence of Decision. Boston: Little, Brown.

Bales

R.F.

(1953). The Equilibrium Problem in Small Groups. In Parsons

Bales

R.F.

Shils

E.A.

(Eds.) Working Papers in The Theory of Action. Glencoe, II: Free Press.

Berger

(1972). Status Characteristics and Social Interaction. American Sociological Review 37: 241–255.

Berger

Fisek

M.H.

Norman

R.Z.

Selditch

(1977). Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation States Approach. New York: Elsevier.

Cyert

R.M.

March

J.G.

(1963). A Behavior Theory of The Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dubrovsky

V.J.

Kiesler

S.B.

Sethna

B.N.

(in press). The Equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human Computer Interaction.

Dubrovsky

Kolla

Sethna

B.N.

(1989). Cross-cultural comparison of status effects on group decision making. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting, Denver, Co, pp. 846–850.

Hass

R.G.

(1981). Effects of Source Characteristics on Cognitive Responses and Persuasion. In Petty

R.E.

Ostrom

T.M.

Brock

T.C.

(Eds.) Cognitive Responses in Persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Publishers.

Hoffman

L.R.

(1978). The group problem-solving process. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Group Processes. New York: Academic Press, pp. 101–112.

10.

Kelman

(1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25: 57–58.

11.

Kiesler

Siegel

McGuire

(1984). Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication. American Psychologist, 39, 10, 1123–1134.

12.

Kirchler

Davis

J.H.

(1986). The influence of member status differences and task type on group consensus and member position change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 83–91.

13.

Kogan

Wallach

M.A.

(1964). Risk Taking: A Study in Cognition and Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

14.

Maier

N.R.F.

(1967). Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: The need for an integrative function. Psychological Review, 74, 4: 239–249.

15.

McGrath

J.E.

(1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

16.

McGuire

W.J.

(1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In Lindzey

Aronson

(Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (2nd ed. Vol. 3), The Individual in The Social Context. Reading, MA: Eddison-Wesley.

17.

McGuire

T.W.

Kiesler

Siegel

(1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 917–930.

18.

Meeker

B.F.

O'Neill

P.W.

(1977). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task oriented groups. American Sociological Review, 42: 91–105.

19.

Ridgeway

C.L.

(1982). Status in groups: The importance of motivation. American Sociological Review, 47:76–88.

20.

Siegel

Dubrovsky

Kiesler

McGuire

T. W.

(1986). Group Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.

21.

Stephan

F.F.

Mishler

E.G.

(1952). The distribution of participation in small groups: An exponential approximation. American Sociological Review, 17: 598–608.

22.

Webster

Driskell

J.E.

(1978). Status generalization: A review and some new data. American Sociological Review, 43: 220–236.

23.

Weisband

S.P.

(in press). Discussion, advocacy and computer-mediated communication effects in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

Effects of Status on Group Decision Making: Ad Hoc versus Real Groups

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References