This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kaplan, M. F. Articles by Martin, A. M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Effects of Differential Status of Group Members on Process and Outcome of Deliberation

Northern Illinois University, mkaplan{at}niu.edu

Ana M. Martin

Universidad de La Laguna

Decision making groups, including European juries, often contain factions differing in status. Mock juries composed of trained and layperson status factions decided guilt and punishment for realistic cases of university code violations. Cases presented predominantly intellective or judgmental issues, and juries had to justify verdicts according to facts alone, or facts and values. Compared to laypersons, trained factions influenced group decisions more, but only in judgmental cases, or when having to include values in justification. They more actively discussed the judgmental cases, and engaged more than laypersons in normative influence. Trained jurors appear to wield social/normative power, impacting judgmental issues more. Consistent with their minority status, laypersons engage in more informational than normative influence. The fact that laypersons are as active in discussing intellective cases as are trained members, and are equally informational in their style of influence, enhances their impact when deciding issues that revolve around gathering facts to reach a correct decision.

Key Words: factions • groups • influence • processes • status

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?