Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 681

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes.

Davis, James H.·1973·Psychological Review

Abstract

This paper proposes a general theory (social decision scheme theory) for many kinds of group decision making and illustrates some special case models with a variety of data from several experimental situations. While focusing upon the traditional issue of individual-gr oup differences, the theory is aimed at accounting for the distribution of group decisions by using formal hypotheses about the effects of social interaction when the inputs to discussion are individual member preferences. The basic assumptions underlying the model are similar in several respects to proposals by Restle and Davis (1962) and Steiner (1966) in group problem-solving research, and the model itself represents the general case of earlier theoretical notions by Smoke and Zajonc (1962), Davis, Hoppe and Hornseth (1968), and Zajonc, Wolosin and Wolosin (1972) in group decision making. In addition, several nonintuitive consequences of group decision making, assuming some form of the model, are discussed. Small groups are widely used as decision- may have minimal acquaintance with each making instruments, or as information- other prior to group activity. processing devices to provide more sophis- In practice, of course, decision-making ticated input to an individual decision groups may have many purposes other than maker. Some groups are institutionalized rendering an optimal decision — collecting (juries, corporate boards, departmental information, obtaining commitment of executive committees, congressional com- members in order to better implement the mittees, etc.) in that formal provision is decision, representing decision preferences made for their existence and perhaps con- of segments of a population not present, and tinuation. Other groups are ad hoc (study so on. One important theme that runs panels, academic conferences, etc.) in that through the use of groups for decisions is their existence is temporary and members that such a process recognizes diversity among the persons involved with regard

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0033951

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 681

Metadata

Authors
Davis, J. H.
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
1973-03
Volume
80
Issue
2
Pages
97-125
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2163492547
Cited by
681
References
2
FWCI
53.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/h0033951
The paper
Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033951

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.