compared to the expert rank [11], this least contributive member is on the other
hand, had the closest rank to the expert rank. However, she did not try to influence
other members to follow her rank. In some of the items, she converted or complied
to the group rank. In the end the group score fell down and got further from the
expert rank. Her IRR also became bad, and quite far from her IIR. However, in
group 5_7, the opposite situation was found. The member with best IIR was also the
most talkative and the group score also become good, close to his initial rank.
4 Preliminary Findings
Even though at the current stage of research the supporting data are not enough and
more of the videos in the data need to be analyzed, there were several interesting
findings that can lead to further investigation or elaboration. From the analysis
explained in the previous section, three preliminary results were found.
The first finding is that group members sometimes do not realize what is
important to discuss and what is not. Moreover, in a time-constrained decision
making situation where members are pressured to make a decision as fast as possible, they may skip the orientation process of understanding the differences of the
topics. As found in the analysis, group 5_6 discussed more about oxygen regardless
of its low difference of IIR, while discussed less about a heating unit regardless of
its high difference of IIR. This was triggered simply because oxygen was mentioned
very early by one of the members, while nobody mentioned about a heating unit
until the middle of the discussion. Similar situation was also found in group 5_7,
even though not as extreme as in group 5_6.
The second finding is about the pattern of rational influence and non-rational
influence. It is found that when the time pressure is higher (in this case, reaching the
end of discussion time) members tend to use non-rational influence than rational
influence. Since they do not have enough resources (time) to consider all facts, they
may choose to rely on their partners’ preference. When it comes to this situation,
whose preference will be used will depend on various things such as the members’
personality. However, sometimes when time pressure does not exist and they feel
that the difference of opinion is not so significant, they still use non-rational
influence. Such a case was found in the beginning of the discussion of group 3_3.
They did that probably to save resources, since argumentation requires resource
(time, energy, and so on).
The third finding is the effect of the members’ personality on the decision. As
found in the analysis of group 5_6, the member with the best answer is unfortunately the least contributive member. On the other hand, the answers of the dominant members were not so good. The opposite situation happened in group 5_7.
Since the groups relied on the heuristic approach for most of the items, then the
dominant members were more influential regardless the level of accuracy of their
answer.
Rational and Non-rational Influence in a Time-Constrained …
285
hand, had the closest rank to the expert rank. However, she did not try to influence
other members to follow her rank. In some of the items, she converted or complied
to the group rank. In the end the group score fell down and got further from the
expert rank. Her IRR also became bad, and quite far from her IIR. However, in
group 5_7, the opposite situation was found. The member with best IIR was also the
most talkative and the group score also become good, close to his initial rank.
4 Preliminary Findings
Even though at the current stage of research the supporting data are not enough and
more of the videos in the data need to be analyzed, there were several interesting
findings that can lead to further investigation or elaboration. From the analysis
explained in the previous section, three preliminary results were found.
The first finding is that group members sometimes do not realize what is
important to discuss and what is not. Moreover, in a time-constrained decision
making situation where members are pressured to make a decision as fast as possible, they may skip the orientation process of understanding the differences of the
topics. As found in the analysis, group 5_6 discussed more about oxygen regardless
of its low difference of IIR, while discussed less about a heating unit regardless of
its high difference of IIR. This was triggered simply because oxygen was mentioned
very early by one of the members, while nobody mentioned about a heating unit
until the middle of the discussion. Similar situation was also found in group 5_7,
even though not as extreme as in group 5_6.
The second finding is about the pattern of rational influence and non-rational
influence. It is found that when the time pressure is higher (in this case, reaching the
end of discussion time) members tend to use non-rational influence than rational
influence. Since they do not have enough resources (time) to consider all facts, they
may choose to rely on their partners’ preference. When it comes to this situation,
whose preference will be used will depend on various things such as the members’
personality. However, sometimes when time pressure does not exist and they feel
that the difference of opinion is not so significant, they still use non-rational
influence. Such a case was found in the beginning of the discussion of group 3_3.
They did that probably to save resources, since argumentation requires resource
(time, energy, and so on).
The third finding is the effect of the members’ personality on the decision. As
found in the analysis of group 5_6, the member with the best answer is unfortunately the least contributive member. On the other hand, the answers of the dominant members were not so good. The opposite situation happened in group 5_7.
Since the groups relied on the heuristic approach for most of the items, then the
dominant members were more influential regardless the level of accuracy of their
answer.
Rational and Non-rational Influence in a Time-Constrained …
285