Group and Computer-Mediated Discussion Effects in Risk Decision Making.

Timothy McGuire
Sara Kiesler
Jane Siegel

Abstract

Managers individually and in 3-person groups made multiattribute risk choices (two investment alternatives, each with multiple outcomes). Two group decisions were reached during face-to-face discussion, and two were reached during (real-time) computer-mediated discussion. In comparison with prediscussion individual preferences, groups' multiattribute risk choices and attitudes after face-to-face discussion were risk averse for gains and risk seeking for losses, a tendency predicted by prospect theory and consistent with choice shift and other group extremitization research. By contrast, group decisions during computer-mediated discussion did not shift in the direction of prospect theory predictions. The results are consistent with persuasive-arguments theory, in that computer-mediated discussion contained less argumentation than face-to-face discussion. Social decision schemes were used to evaluate alternative assumptions about the group process. A "(prospect-theory) norm-wins" decision scheme described group choice well in the face-to-face discussion condition, but not in the computer-mediated discussion condition. Another decision scheme, first-advocate wins, which described choices well in both face-to-face and computer-mediated discussions, was explored in a discussion of the role of communication in group decision making.

Keywords

APA Citation

McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917-930.

About the Study

Links to Article http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1987-25054-001
http://10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.917
Mode Technology-enhanced
Publication Type Journal Article
In Publication Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Type of Research Quantitative
Research Design Experiments
Intervention/Areas of Study Collaborative, group, or team-based learning
Level of Analysis Institutional-level
Specific Populations Examined Faculty, teachers, instructors, or staff
Peer-Reviewed Yes
Specific Institutional Characteristics of Interest
Specific Course or Program Characteristics Professions
Outcome Variables of Interest Other
Student Sample Size 0-99
Citing Articles


css.php