{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/21912"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/21912","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Effects of two procedural factors on group decision-making: Deliberation style and assigned decision rule","abstract":"\"Many important decision making groups in our society are guided, formally or informally, by a variety of procedures that serve to facilitate the consensus process (e.g., quorum rules, voting procedures, fixed agenda). Despite abundant anecdotes concerning the procedural effects on group decisions and sophisticated formal developments by welfare economists, the number of relevant empirical studies on this issue is quite limited. This study examined procedural influences in a legal context. Six-person mock juries discussed two civil cases in which applicable law required either a conjunctive or disjunctive assessment of key evidence (i.e., proving either all or at least one legal criterion) to render a verdict of liability. Under these task requirements, jury deliberation style, analogous to the verdict-driven/evidence-driven distinction by Hastie, Penrod, and Pennington (1983), and official decision rule were manipulated. Consistent with predictions derived from Grofman's (1985) conceptual framework, deliberation style was found to interact with the task environment in affecting jury verdicts: the \"\"elemental\"\" (cf., evidence-driven) deliberation style yielded a liable verdict more often than the \"\"compound\"\" (cf., verdict-driven) deliberation style in the conjunctive case, whereas this pattern was reversed when the case required a disjunctive judgment. Although the decision rule factor (i.e., majority/unanimity) revealed no significant effect on group decisions, it affected members' postdecision responses (e.g., acceptance of the group decision, opinion change). Implications of these procedural influences for legal/administrative decision contexts were discussed.\"","abstract_html":""Many important decision making groups in our society are guided, formally or informally, by a variety of procedures that serve to facilitate the consensus process (e.g., quorum rules, voting procedures, fixed agenda). Despite abundant anecdotes concerning the procedural effects on group decisions and sophisticated formal developments by welfare economists, the number of relevant empirical studies on this issue is quite limited. This study examined procedural influences in a legal context. Six-person mock juries discussed two civil cases in which applicable law required either a conjunctive or disjunctive assessment of key evidence (i.e., proving either all or at least one legal criterion) to render a verdict of liability. Under these task requirements, jury deliberation style, analogous to the verdict-driven/evidence-driven distinction by Hastie, Penrod, and Pennington (1983), and official decision rule were manipulated. Consistent with predictions derived from Grofman's (1985) conceptual framework, deliberation style was found to interact with the task environment in affecting jury verdicts: the ""elemental"" (cf., evidence-driven) deliberation style yielded a liable verdict more often than the ""compound"" (cf., verdict-driven) deliberation style in the conjunctive case, whereas this pattern was reversed when the case required a disjunctive judgment. Although the decision rule factor (i.e., majority/unanimity) revealed no significant effect on group decisions, it affected members' postdecision responses (e.g., acceptance of the group decision, opinion change). Implications of these procedural influences for legal/administrative decision contexts were discussed."","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Kameda, Tatsuya"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Davis, James H."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2011,"date_issued":"2011-05-07T13:22:59Z","date_published":"2011-05-07T13:22:59Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:18Z","subjects":["Psychology, Social","Political Science, General","Sociology, Public and Social Welfare"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["Copyright 1989 Kameda, Tatsuya"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["AAI8924856","(UMI)AAI8924856"],"render_values":[{"text":"AAI8924856","href":null,"code":true},{"text":"(UMI)AAI8924856","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/21912","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Davis, James H."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Kameda, Tatsuya"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2011-05-07T13:22:59Z","10000-01-01","1989"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Psychology, Social","Political Science, General","Sociology, Public and Social Welfare"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 1989 Kameda, Tatsuya"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["AAI8924856","(UMI)AAI8924856","http://hdl.handle.net/2142/21912"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["\"Many important decision making groups in our society are guided, formally or informally, by a variety of procedures that serve to facilitate the consensus process (e.g., quorum rules, voting procedures, fixed agenda). Despite abundant anecdotes concerning the procedural effects on group decisions and sophisticated formal developments by welfare economists, the number of relevant empirical studies on this issue is quite limited. This study examined procedural influences in a legal context. Six-person mock juries discussed two civil cases in which applicable law required either a conjunctive or disjunctive assessment of key evidence (i.e., proving either all or at least one legal criterion) to render a verdict of liability. Under these task requirements, jury deliberation style, analogous to the verdict-driven/evidence-driven distinction by Hastie, Penrod, and Pennington (1983), and official decision rule were manipulated. Consistent with predictions derived from Grofman's (1985) conceptual framework, deliberation style was found to interact with the task environment in affecting jury verdicts: the \"\"elemental\"\" (cf., evidence-driven) deliberation style yielded a liable verdict more often than the \"\"compound\"\" (cf., verdict-driven) deliberation style in the conjunctive case, whereas this pattern was reversed when the case required a disjunctive judgment. Although the decision rule factor (i.e., majority/unanimity) revealed no significant effect on group decisions, it affected members' postdecision responses (e.g., acceptance of the group decision, opinion change). Implications of these procedural influences for legal/administrative decision contexts were discussed.\"","Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-07T13:22:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) 8924856.pdf: 2594511 bytes, checksum: 2fc005f6f3a50f4c7975f62f469ba7b7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1989","Item marked as restricted to the 'UIUC Users [automated]' Group (id=2) by Howard Ding (hding2@illinois.edu) on 2011-05-07T14:54:02Z Item is restricted indefinitely.","Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:25:04-05:00 Original Data Group with Access UIUC Users [automated] Release Date: none Reason: ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","U of I Only"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Effects of two procedural factors on group decision-making: Deliberation style and assigned decision rule"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Davis, James H."],"dc:creator":["Kameda, Tatsuya"],"dc:date":["2011-05-07T13:22:59Z","10000-01-01","1989"],"dc:description":["\"Many important decision making groups in our society are guided, formally or informally, by a variety of procedures that serve to facilitate the consensus process (e.g., quorum rules, voting procedures, fixed agenda). Despite abundant anecdotes concerning the procedural effects on group decisions and sophisticated formal developments by welfare economists, the number of relevant empirical studies on this issue is quite limited. This study examined procedural influences in a legal context. Six-person mock juries discussed two civil cases in which applicable law required either a conjunctive or disjunctive assessment of key evidence (i.e., proving either all or at least one legal criterion) to render a verdict of liability. Under these task requirements, jury deliberation style, analogous to the verdict-driven/evidence-driven distinction by Hastie, Penrod, and Pennington (1983), and official decision rule were manipulated. Consistent with predictions derived from Grofman's (1985) conceptual framework, deliberation style was found to interact with the task environment in affecting jury verdicts: the \"\"elemental\"\" (cf., evidence-driven) deliberation style yielded a liable verdict more often than the \"\"compound\"\" (cf., verdict-driven) deliberation style in the conjunctive case, whereas this pattern was reversed when the case required a disjunctive judgment. Although the decision rule factor (i.e., majority/unanimity) revealed no significant effect on group decisions, it affected members' postdecision responses (e.g., acceptance of the group decision, opinion change). Implications of these procedural influences for legal/administrative decision contexts were discussed.\"","Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-07T13:22:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) 8924856.pdf: 2594511 bytes, checksum: 2fc005f6f3a50f4c7975f62f469ba7b7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1989","Item marked as restricted to the 'UIUC Users [automated]' Group (id=2) by Howard Ding (hding2@illinois.edu) on 2011-05-07T14:54:02Z Item is restricted indefinitely.","Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:25:04-05:00 Original Data Group with Access UIUC Users [automated] Release Date: none Reason: ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","U of I Only"],"dc:identifier":["AAI8924856","(UMI)AAI8924856","http://hdl.handle.net/2142/21912"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 1989 Kameda, Tatsuya"],"dc:subject":["Psychology, Social","Political Science, General","Sociology, Public and Social Welfare"],"dc:title":["Effects of two procedural factors on group decision-making: Deliberation style and assigned decision rule"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:18Z"}