Experiments exploring the effects of group discussion on attitudes, jury decisions, ethical decisions, judgments, person perceptions, negotiations, and risk taking (other than the choice-dilemmas task) are generally consistent with a \"group polarization\" hypothesis, derived from the risky-shift literature. Recent attempts to explain the phenomenon fall mostly into one of three theoretical approaches: (a) group decision rules, especially majority rule (which is contradicted by available data), (b) interpersonal comparisons (for which there is mixed support), and (c) informational influence (for which there is strong support). A conceptual scheme is presented which integrates the latter two viewpoints and suggests how attitudes develop in a social context.

The group polarization phenomenon.

A proclivity for entrepreneurship

Research examining the relative risk-taking propensities of entrepreneurs and managers has produced conflicting findings and no consensus, posing an impediment to theory development To overcome the limitations of narrative reviews, the authors used psychometric meta-analysis to mathematically cumulate the literature concerning risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers Results indicate that the risk propensity of entrepreneurs is greater than that of managers Moreover, there are larger differences between entrepreneurs whose primary goal is venture growth versus those whose focus is on producing family income Results also underscore the importance of precise construct definitions and rigorous measurement

Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review.

Three measures of actors' network centrality are derived from an elementary rocess model of social influence. The measures are closely related to, and cast new light on, widely used measures of actors' centrality; for example, the essential social organization of status that has been assumed by Hubbell, Bonacich, Coleman, and Burt appears as a deducible outcome of this social influence process. Unlike previous measures, which have been viewed as competing alternatives, the present measures are complementary and, in their juxtaposition, provide for a rich description of social structure. The complementary indicates a degree of theoretical unification in the work on network centrality that was heretofore unsuspected.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2781908.pdf

Theoretical Foundations for Centrality Measures

This paper proposes a general theory (social decision scheme theory) for many kinds of group decision making and illustrates some special case models with a variety of data from several experimental situations. While focusing upon the traditional issue of individual-gr oup differences, the theory is aimed at accounting for the distribution of group decisions by using formal hypotheses about the effects of social interaction when the inputs to discussion are individual member preferences. The basic assumptions underlying the model are similar in several respects to proposals by Restle and Davis (1962) and Steiner (1966) in group problem-solving research, and the model itself represents the general case of earlier theoretical notions by Smoke and Zajonc (1962), Davis, Hoppe and Hornseth (1968), and Zajonc, Wolosin and Wolosin (1972) in group decision making. In addition, several nonintuitive consequences of group decision making, assuming some form of the model, are discussed. Small groups are widely used as decision- may have minimal acquaintance with each making instruments, or as information- other prior to group activity. processing devices to provide more sophis- In practice, of course, decision-making ticated input to an individual decision groups may have many purposes other than maker. Some groups are institutionalized rendering an optimal decision — collecting (juries, corporate boards, departmental information, obtaining commitment of executive committees, congressional com- members in order to better implement the mittees, etc.) in that formal provision is decision, representing decision preferences made for their existence and perhaps con- of segments of a population not present, and tinuation. Other groups are ad hoc (study so on. One important theme that runs panels, academic conferences, etc.) in that through the use of groups for decisions is their existence is temporary and members that such a process recognizes diversity among the persons involved with regard

Dorwin Cartwright

Papers

Risk taking by individuals and groups: An assessment of research employing choice dilemmas.