Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Small Group Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vanlear, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Mabry, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Testing Contrasting Interaction Models for Discriminating between Consensual and Dissentient Decision-Making Groups

C. Arthur Vanlear

University of Connecticut

Edward A. Mabry

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

This study tested three models of group interaction for their ability to discriminate between groups that reach consensus and those that do not. Fifteen mock juries (seven hung and eight conviction) constituted the sample. Model 1, a "functional action model," successfully discriminated between consensus and hung juries based on the relative number of simple disagreements. Model 2, an "interact pattern model," successfully discriminated between consensus and hung juries based on the sequential redundancy of interaction patterns that perpetuate or resolve ambiguity, that digress from the work at hand, and that clarify or resolve conflict. Model 3, Fisher’s four phases of development, failed to discriminate between consensus and hung juries.

Small Group Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, 29-58 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/104649649903000103
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
M. A. Renz
The Meaning of Consensus and Blocking for Cohousing Groups
Small Group Research, August 1, 2006; 37(4): 351 - 376.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol RevHome page
J. E. McGrath, H. Arrow, and J. L. Berdahl
The Study of Groups: Past, Present, and Future
Personality and Social Psychology Review, February 1, 2000; 4(1): 95 - 105.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
S. A. Wheelan
Introduction to this Special Issue on Group Development
Small Group Research, February 1, 1999; 30(1): 3 - 7.
[PDF]