in [6]) pointed out that there are five social responses related to influence: compliance, conversion, independence, anticonformity, and congruence. That categorization is made based on the status of agreement between the individual decision
(before and after discussion) and the group decision. A group may reach a consensus after all the members agree with it publicly. However, they may or may not
privately agree with it. If they agree both publicly and privately, it is called conversion. Otherwise it is called compliance. However, if they have agreed even
before the discussion, it is called congruence. Independence is when a person
disagrees with the group decision at all time. Anticonformity is when a person
initially agree (or neutral) but afterward disagree with the group.
3 Experiment, Data, and Analysis
3.1 Experiment Design
The purpose of the experiment is to find the pattern of rational and non-rational
influence in regard to three different responses of group decision making: compliance, conversion, and congruence. The data were taken from a previous research
about mutual belief model [10]. In that experiment, 21 groups of size 3, 4, and 5
persons were asked to give ranks to 15 items (such as oxygen, water, rope, etc.)
based on their priority related to a fictional moon-survival story [11]. They were
required to provide their own rank before discussion (IIR—Individual Initial Rank),
publicly agreed rank (GR—Group Rank), and individual rank after discussion (IRR
—Individual Revised Rank). In this experiment, only congruence, compliance, and
conversion can be observed. Independence cannot be observed because by definition, this type of response is disagreeing with the group decision at all time, while in
the experiment, the final group decision must be unanimous. For the similar reason,
anticonformity cannot be observed as well. The discussion was conducted for
15 minutes, and they have to reach a unanimous decision within that time. The
whole discussion process was recorded by both video and audio.
It is assumed that if the IIR between members are diverse, they will have more
discussion. In the same manner, it is also assumed that if a person has a higher
congruence, this person is regarded to be influential to the group because his/her
initial answer remains close to the final group answer. By using these two
assumptions, all participants were then mapped based on their diversity and
congruence.
From the mapping, several participants’ data were chosen, and their videos were
observed to find the conformity pattern in the discussion. The detail of the mapping
and video observation is explained in the following subsections.
282
D. Mahardhika et al.
(before and after discussion) and the group decision. A group may reach a consensus after all the members agree with it publicly. However, they may or may not
privately agree with it. If they agree both publicly and privately, it is called conversion. Otherwise it is called compliance. However, if they have agreed even
before the discussion, it is called congruence. Independence is when a person
disagrees with the group decision at all time. Anticonformity is when a person
initially agree (or neutral) but afterward disagree with the group.
3 Experiment, Data, and Analysis
3.1 Experiment Design
The purpose of the experiment is to find the pattern of rational and non-rational
influence in regard to three different responses of group decision making: compliance, conversion, and congruence. The data were taken from a previous research
about mutual belief model [10]. In that experiment, 21 groups of size 3, 4, and 5
persons were asked to give ranks to 15 items (such as oxygen, water, rope, etc.)
based on their priority related to a fictional moon-survival story [11]. They were
required to provide their own rank before discussion (IIR—Individual Initial Rank),
publicly agreed rank (GR—Group Rank), and individual rank after discussion (IRR
—Individual Revised Rank). In this experiment, only congruence, compliance, and
conversion can be observed. Independence cannot be observed because by definition, this type of response is disagreeing with the group decision at all time, while in
the experiment, the final group decision must be unanimous. For the similar reason,
anticonformity cannot be observed as well. The discussion was conducted for
15 minutes, and they have to reach a unanimous decision within that time. The
whole discussion process was recorded by both video and audio.
It is assumed that if the IIR between members are diverse, they will have more
discussion. In the same manner, it is also assumed that if a person has a higher
congruence, this person is regarded to be influential to the group because his/her
initial answer remains close to the final group answer. By using these two
assumptions, all participants were then mapped based on their diversity and
congruence.
From the mapping, several participants’ data were chosen, and their videos were
observed to find the conformity pattern in the discussion. The detail of the mapping
and video observation is explained in the following subsections.
282
D. Mahardhika et al.