Talk:Group attribution error
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Group attribution error article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YherChu. Peer reviewers: Vsusy89.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Section I moved
editHere is a section I moved from the main page. Look at the page's history if you want to see why I did that. --Spannerjam 08:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
To demonstrate the second form of group attribution error, researchers typically give participants three pieces of information about a group's decision: (1) the percentage of group members in favor of a particular group decision outcome, (2) the decision rule used by the group to convert that percentage into an outcome, and (3) the final group decision outcome itself. The researchers usually hold the percentage of group support for the outcome constant and vary the decision rule to produce different outcomes. For example, all participants might be informed that 57% of a group favors a presidential candidate, but some participants are told that the decision rule used by the group is simple majority rule while other participants are told that the decision rule is two-thirds majority. Thus, participants in the majority rule condition learn that the candidate is successfully elected (because 57% is greater than 50%) whereas participants in the two-thirds rule condition learn that the candidate has failed to be elected (because 57% is less than 67%). All participants are then asked to infer the group's opinions about the candidate. The results typically show that participants are more likely to infer that the group supports the candidate in the successfully elected condition than in the failure to elect condition, even though in both conditions support for the candidate is identical (57%).