Decision Emergence Theory (DET)
Research indicates that groups tend to go through a variety of phases in accomplishing a group task.  There are various phase or stage theories and models of group decision making.  One popular approach is B, Aubrey Fisher's Decision Emergence Theory.

DET proposes that decisions emerge from group members’ verbal interaction:

• Interpretation: value judgement without support (for, undecided, or against).
• Substantiation: evidence, explanations, arguments (for, undecided, or against).
• Clarification
• Modification
• Agreement or Disagreement

• Orientation
• Conflict
• Eemergence
• Reinforcement

• Emphasis on clarification and agreement.
• High level of agreement expressed by ambiguity.
• Reduces uncertainty (entropy).
• Polite interaction since the group is likely experiencing primary tension.
• Phase goals are to develop roles and understand the nature of the problem.
• This phase includes getting acquainted, clarifying, and tentatively expressing attitudes.
• This is a period of forming opinions, not rocking the boat, and getting rid of social tensions.

• Decision alternatives are addressed.
• Criticism of (e.g., unfavorable attitudes toward) decision proposals.
• Primary tension has been overcome and there is now a lack of social inhibitions -- people have a tendency to say what's on their minds.
• Attempts to persuade increase.
• Ambiguous attitudes from the Orientiation Phase now become polarized attitudes, fostering coalitions.
• Argument is a group norm during this phase and a lack or argumentativeness (or apathy) is considered deviant behavior.
• Leaders emerge.

• Significantly less criticism (e.g., unfavor-able attitudes toward) of proposals.
• Ambiguity emerges again. What was a strong unfavorable attitude in the conflict stage is now an ambiguous disagreement (modified or muted dissent).
• Such a pattern allows group members to save face as the decision emerges.
• The group does not “make” decisions, rather, decisions naturally emerge from group interaction during this phase.
• Members compromise to achieve consensus.
• The group progresses toward unanimity.
• This is the longest (gradual) phase.

• The group enters this phase with a strong emerging decision.
• The group reaches decision consensus.
• Members are committed to the decision.
• The decision reflects real agreement rather than the avoidance of conflict.
• Favorable views of the decision proposal are expressed.  These views receive agreement and reinforcement.
• There is a strong spirit of unity and verbal backslapping by the members.
• The decision and the group interaction process create solidarity.

Symptoms of groupthink
1) An illusion of invulnerability makes group members believe that they cannot fail.
2) A belief in the inherent morality of the group makes  members automatically assume the rightness of
    their cause.
3) Collective rationalization creates an unquestioning atmosphere.
4) Out-group stereotypes cause group members to disregard outsiders
5) Self-censorship eliminates the expression of disagreement.
6) The illusion of unanimity develops from a lack of counterarguments.
7) Direct pressure is exerted on dissenters.
8) Self-appointed mindguards protect a leader from troublesome ideas.

Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making
(Chapter 19; developed by Hirokawa & Gouran)

An Effective Decision-Making Path from a Functional Perspective

• Hirokawa speaks of quality solutions.
• Gouran refers to appropriate decisions.
• The functional perspecitve illustrates the wisdom of joint interaction.

• Problem analysis
• Goal setting
• Identification of alternatives
• Evaluation of Postive and Negative