The IRMA Community
Newsletters
Research IRM
Click a keyword to search titles using our InfoSci-OnDemand powered search:
|
Theory of Intelligent Collectives: An Experimental Physiological Approach to Group Decision-Making
|
|
Author(s): Megan McKoy (Georgia Regents University, USA), S. Spitler (Georgia Regents University, USA), Kelsey Zuchegno (Georgia Regents University, USA), E. Taylor (Georgia Regents University, USA), K. C. Hewitt (Georgia Regents University, USA), John Shallcross (Georgia Regents University, USA), Preston Roman (Georgia Regents University, USA), Nadya Clontz (Georgia Regents University, USA), Austin Goetz (Georgia Regents University, USA), Kevin Asmann (Georgia Regents University, USA), Alana Enslein (Georgia Regents University, USA), Stephen Hobbs (Georgia Regents University, USA), Robert A. Reeves (Georgia Regents University, USA), Tadd Patton (Georgia Regents University, USA)and W. F. Lawless (Paine College, USA)
Copyright: 2015
Pages: 17
Source title:
Improving Organizational Effectiveness with Enterprise Information Systems
Source Author(s)/Editor(s): João Eduardo Varajão (University of Minho, Portugal), Maria Manuela Cruz-Cunha (Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave, Portugal)and Ricardo Martinho (Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Portugal & CINTESIS - Center for Research in Health Technologies and Information Systems, Portugal)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8368-6.ch012
Purchase
|
Abstract
We review our theory of robust intelligence (RI) for groups. We examine the quality of decisions by groups in the laboratory under either majority rule (MR) or consensus rule (CR). Theoretically, engagement in decision-making becomes a factor depending on whether an individual is in a group or in competition between groups. From earlier research, measures of engagement in three-person groups included self-reports, counts of utterances during discussions, and changes in electro-dermal activity (i.e., galvanic skin responses, or GSR). We predicted engagement (number of utterances) would be greater under CR than MR; under MR, we predicted that GSRs would be greater (more attention). Based on partial analyses, participants under CR spoke significantly more often during discussions than MR. As predicted, after de-trending GSR data, we found MR produced higher GSRs and shorter discussions. Our recent work in group size has increased to five participants working on Wason Selection Tasks.
Related Content
|
Margee Hume, Paul Johnston.
© 2017.
19 pages.
|
|
Jessy Nair, D. Bhanu Sree Reddy.
© 2017.
27 pages.
|
|
Joseph R. Muscatello, Diane H. Parente, Matthew Swinarski.
© 2017.
19 pages.
|
|
Klaus Wölfel.
© 2017.
33 pages.
|
|
Rui Pedro Marques.
© 2017.
21 pages.
|
|
Ebru E. Saygili, Arikan Tarik Saygili.
© 2017.
17 pages.
|
|
Aparna Raman, D. P. Goyal.
© 2017.
41 pages.
|
|
|