Order effects in multiple decisions by groups

We assessed the effects of the order in which groups undertake different tasks in a multitask situation, using mock juries. Subjects watched a videotaped enactment of a criminal trial involving three joined charges and then, either individually or as members of six-person groups, decided on the guilt or innocence of the defendant on all three charges in one of three orders: descending seriousness, ascending seriousness, or no specified order. The results, concerning the charge of medium seriousness (the middle charge of both specified orders), showed that the proportion of convictions for both individuals and groups was greater in the descending seriousness order. Further analyses showed that conviction on earlier charges significantly increased the relative frequency of conviction on later charges. These findings are discussed in relation both to earlier results that support a contrast explanation of such order effects and to the influence of task order on group decision processes in general. Procedural factors in human interaction have come to be recognized as an important class of variables in group performance. The now classic work by Thibaut and Walker (1975) on procedural justice called attention to such issues (e.g., the order and patterning of case facts) by analogy with the courtroom trial. It is not surprising that the courtroom is a place where important and thorough attention is given to procedural matters, because a tranquil society requires a widespread belief in at least the procedural fairness of formal interactions designed to settle disputes and conflicts. What is surprising, however, is that procedural issues have not been recognized earlier as an important object for em

Order (exchange · Applied Psychology · Conflict Management and Negotiation · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Psychology of Social Influence · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology

• The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors

  Verlin B Hinsz, R Scott Tindale et al.•Psychological Bulletin•1997

  Incluir item

• Bias in judgment

  Norbert L Kerr, Robert J Maccoun et al.•Psychological Review•1996

  Incluir item

• Social choice theory, social decision scheme theory, and group decision-making

  Open Access•Patrick R Laughlin•Group Processes & Intergroup…•2010

  Incluir item

• Scientific inquiry on how groups decide

  Open Access•Norbert L Kerr, R Scott Tindale•Group Processes & Intergroup…•2012

  Incluir item

• Order Effects in Individual and Group Policy Allocations

  Open Access•Janice Nadler, Julie R Irwin et al.•Group Processes & Intergroup…•2001

  Incluir item

• Jury decision making

  Dennis J Devine, Laura D Clayton et al.•Psychology Public Policy and Law•2001

  Incluir item

• The Effects of Prior Experience on Mock Juror Case Judgments

  Dennis H Nagao, Janet Haggerty Davis et al.•Social Psychology Quarterly•1980

  Incluir item

• Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors' verdicts

  Norbert L Kerr•Journal of Personality and Social…•1978

  Incluir item

• Some implications of temporal drift in social parameters

  Open Access•Dennis H Nagao, Janet Haggerty Davis et al.•Journal of Experimental Social…•1980

  Incluir item

• Group decision and social interaction

  Janet Haggerty Davis, James H Davis•Psychological Review•1973

  Incluir item

• Group decision making and social influence

  Garold Stasser, Janet Haggerty Davis et al.•Psychological Review•1981

  Incluir item

• Contrast effects in judgments of crime severity and the punishment of criminal violators

  Albert Pepitone, Mark Dinubile et al.•Journal of Personality and Social…•1976

  Incluir item

• The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules

  Janet Haggerty Davis, James H Davis et al.•Journal of Personality and Social…•1975

  Incluir item