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

Abstract

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.