Human decision making behavior under stress has been studied quite extensively
[12]. However, there seems to be more to study about decision making under stress
for group situations. The interaction and influencing process between the members,
related to time or members’ personality still need to be explored further. Such
studies can later improve group decision making, particularly in an emergency
situation.
5 Conclusions
In this paper, a model of group decision making has been proposed. The model
emphasizes the aspect of individual influence towards each other in making a group
decision. In the current stage of research, some issues were found. This paper wants
to highlight that in a group setting, humans also tend to rely on a heuristic approach
in decision making, just like in an individual setting. However, there is a mechanism that was not found in individual decision making, which are influence and
conformity. Further research need to be done to ensure that group decision making
in emergency situation will produce a good decision.
References
1. G. Stasser, B. Dietz-Uhler, Collective choice, judgment, and problem solving, in Blackwell
Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes Hogg/Blackwell, ed. by M.A. Hogg, R.S.
Tindale (Blackwell, Malden, MA, 2001), pp. 31–55
2. R.A. LeBoeuf, E.B. Shafir, Decision making, in The cambridge handbook of thinking and
reasoning, ed. by K.J. Holyoak, R.G. Morrison (Cambridge University Press, New York,
2012), pp. 301–321
3. K.L. Mosier, U.M. Fischer (eds.), Informed by knowledge: Expert performance in complex
situation (Psychology Press, New York, 2011)
4. D.C. Matz, W. Wood, Cognitive dissonance in groups: The consequences of disagreement.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88, 22–37 (2005)
5. L. Festinger, A theory of cognitive dissonance (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA,
1957)
6. D.R. Forsyth, Group Dynamics, 6th edn. (Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA,
2010)
7. D. Kahneman, Thinking, fast and slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2011)
8. R.B. Cialdini, N.J. Goldstein, Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 55(1974), 591–621 (2004)
9. P.R. Nail, G. MacDonald, On the development of the social response context model, in The
science of social influence: Advance and future progress, ed. by A.R. Pratkanis (Psychology
Press, New York, 2007), pp. 193–221
286
D. Mahardhika et al.
[12]. However, there seems to be more to study about decision making under stress
for group situations. The interaction and influencing process between the members,
related to time or members’ personality still need to be explored further. Such
studies can later improve group decision making, particularly in an emergency
situation.
5 Conclusions
In this paper, a model of group decision making has been proposed. The model
emphasizes the aspect of individual influence towards each other in making a group
decision. In the current stage of research, some issues were found. This paper wants
to highlight that in a group setting, humans also tend to rely on a heuristic approach
in decision making, just like in an individual setting. However, there is a mechanism that was not found in individual decision making, which are influence and
conformity. Further research need to be done to ensure that group decision making
in emergency situation will produce a good decision.
References
1. G. Stasser, B. Dietz-Uhler, Collective choice, judgment, and problem solving, in Blackwell
Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes Hogg/Blackwell, ed. by M.A. Hogg, R.S.
Tindale (Blackwell, Malden, MA, 2001), pp. 31–55
2. R.A. LeBoeuf, E.B. Shafir, Decision making, in The cambridge handbook of thinking and
reasoning, ed. by K.J. Holyoak, R.G. Morrison (Cambridge University Press, New York,
2012), pp. 301–321
3. K.L. Mosier, U.M. Fischer (eds.), Informed by knowledge: Expert performance in complex
situation (Psychology Press, New York, 2011)
4. D.C. Matz, W. Wood, Cognitive dissonance in groups: The consequences of disagreement.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88, 22–37 (2005)
5. L. Festinger, A theory of cognitive dissonance (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA,
1957)
6. D.R. Forsyth, Group Dynamics, 6th edn. (Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA,
2010)
7. D. Kahneman, Thinking, fast and slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2011)
8. R.B. Cialdini, N.J. Goldstein, Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 55(1974), 591–621 (2004)
9. P.R. Nail, G. MacDonald, On the development of the social response context model, in The
science of social influence: Advance and future progress, ed. by A.R. Pratkanis (Psychology
Press, New York, 2007), pp. 193–221
286
D. Mahardhika et al.