Chapter Four Case Study
Edgar French
South Florida State College

Chapter Three Case Study 1. In your experience, have you found that decision-making groups tend groupthink? If so, what factors contributed to this tendency? If not what factors helped to prevent it?
By and by, I have been included in a few situations in which components of mindless compliance started to happen, however one occasion specifically emerges among the others. I was taking an interest in an undertaking "Clairvia" throughout two weeks, in which participants where gathered in gatherings of 5 and tasked with creating one of a kind critical thinking and investigating procedures for specialized issues. Part of the way through the first day, I saw that a focal "leader" was starting to rise – not on account of the man was especially splendid, but rather in light of the fact that he was louder and more obstinate than the others. As we endeavored to all in all comprehend complex booking profiles, the "leader" affirmed his convictions around a potential arrangement, and quickly, whatever is left of the gathering started to rally behind him. It was as though unique, individual thought had become terminated inside of a matter of 10 minutes, as my colleagues turned out to be progressively baffled by the current workload. By and large, the fundamental persuading component behind the mindless obedience that happened that day, was Mitchell and Eckstein's “High stress from external threats/low hope of a solution better than the leader's” (qtd in Griffin, 2013, p. 9-5e). As individuals from the gathering found that the issue we confronted was past their own level of information, they efficiently started to concur with the man who appeared to realize what he was discussing. All things considered, he talked uproariously and sounded beyond any doubt of himself, so his thoughts seemed, by all accounts, to be superior to anything everybody else's. At last, the "leader" was totally wrong in his suspicion, yet and still, after all that he guaranteed that the facilitators were utilizing a dark model that was never utilized as a part of genuine applications, and that his way would unquestionably have worked in any "ordinary" system. The impacts of mindless conformity drove all of us off track that day. (Griffin, 2011). 2. Review the steps in the rational decision-making model (especially Steps1-4). This model, of course, applies to individuals and might be difficult to apply to group decision-making situations. If, however, you were a juror, how might you apply these steps to your own deliberations? How might they give you some useful guidance? What adjustments would you have to make because of the context (a trial) and situation (a group process)?
Recognizing and defining the decision situation
This first step in the process involves the prompting of a specific stimulus, whichindicates that there is a problem in need of a solution (Griffin, 2013, p. 9-2b, para. 2).In a court case, this sign (or stimulus) is fairly obvious, in that a judge or hearingofficer (along with the rest of the court) explains the reason for the jury’s presence.The decision will be “guilty” or “not guilty,” based upon the evidence and testimoniesprovided, along with an explanation of the particular law(s) that is relative to the case.Like managers would, each individual must personally comprehend the nature of theproblem, and the choices that are available to help correct it.
Identifying Alternatives
In step 2, one should begin to determine alternative courses of action (Griffin, 2013,p. 9-2b). In the courtroom, jury members might begin to think about voting for lesserincluded offenses, if the evidence does not support the primary charge against thesuspect. These options occur quite frequently in criminal trials, when prosecutors areuncertain about the likelihood of a conviction. This eventuality would broaden the setof choices that the jury has to choose from, allowing them to think more open-mindedly about their final decisions.
Evaluating Alternatives
The third step in the rational decision making model suggests the creation of adecision tree, that can be implemented to assist with determining the soundness ofalternatives. The tree represents a basis yes-no process chart, allowing one to evaluatea potential choice based on its feasibility, satisfactoriness, and its consequences(Griffin, 2013, 9-2b, para. 6). In a jury trial setting, jury members might test apotential alternative sentence for its feasibility, by asking themselves (and each other) (Griffin, 2011). 3. In what ways might bounded rationality affect a juror’s approach to a decision? How about satisficing? Intuition? Ethics?
Individuals are spurred to approach their choice making in specific routes, to trust and acknowledge certain things, and to reject information or data. It is confidence in the jury framework that urges its intentions to enhance practices to encourage the push to have liberal and mindful legal hearers as triers of certainty. They (importance the choice making gathering) are telling others what values they remain for, and which values, activities, and decisions they loathe. They are affected to talk on the grounds that they need to express what is imperative to them. A member of the jury can be inspired to do likewise in consideration. Individuals should battle for specific understandings in light of the fact that a decision speaks the truth qualities, standards, and equity, and which party they feel is correct and which isn't right. The part of consideration, utilizing the wording above, can rapidly turn into a "hot" subjective exertion, regardless of the fact that individuals are doing their best to concentrate on the "target" proof and the law as gave to them by the judge. Consequently, sufficient appraisals of potential hearers' perspectives, states of mind, encounters, and so on is basic to making an educated judgment around a specific individual's suitability to sit as a member of the jury. (Griffin, 2011). 4. A recent study found that racially mixed juries “deliberated longer, raised more facts, and conducted broader and more wide-ranging deliberations” than either all-white or all-black juries. Why do you think this was so? Do you think that “mixed” juries are more likely to avoid groupthink than racially homogeneous juries? Explain your reasoning.
As is valid for any environment, assorted qualities for the most part advances better choice making and a more intensive examination of the realities in a gathering setting. There are a few explanations behind this, yet the changed foundations of gathering individuals convey an added element to the critical thinking procedure – one that is not present in homogeneous gatherings. Griffin (2013) states “Groups are better at innovating because they benefit from the input of diverse individuals, which, in turn, generates greater variety in alternative courses of action” (p. 9-5d, para. 2). I trust this enhanced impact gets to be amplified in a jury room, as the potential's gravity choices are more prominent than much of the time. All the time, a man's life remains in a precarious situation amid criminal trials, thus a more various jury offers the blamed a more adjusted listening to overall. References
Griffin, R. (2011). Fudumentals of Management (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage learning.