Majority Decision-Making Works Best Under Conditions of Leadership Ambiguity and Shared Task Representations

The Group Intertemporal Decision-Making Process

Intertemporal decision making is the process by which individuals make judgments or choices regarding outcomes that occur at different times. Although intertemporal decision making is widely investigated, most studies explore it in terms of individual decision making, while neglecting group decision making, which holds more practical significance and adaptive value. This study recommends adopting a "two-process" approach that uses self-assessment questionnaires, audiovisual recordings, and visual decision-making tools to quantify interpersonal interaction processes and information processing in group intertemporal decision-making settings. In this way, studies can reveal the psychological and theoretical mechanisms of the group intertemporal decision-making process. At the level of interpersonal interaction processes, such an approach can identify the differential mechanisms between group and individual intertemporal decision making. In terms of information processing, it can reveal the mechanisms of the decision-making process in group intertemporal decision making. The findings of such work can provide a basis for interventions and nudges that encourage more visionary group intertemporal decision making.

Qualitative systematic review: The lived experiences of males in the nursing profession on gender discrimination encounters

AIMS

This review aims to synthesise the best available evidence exploring the lived experiences of males in the nursing profession on gender discrimination encounters.

BACKGROUND

The underrepresentation of males within the nursing profession could potentially cause discrimination and stereotypes against them, causing barriers to entry into, and retention within, the profession. With a shortage in manpower, the deterrence of males to nursing might exacerbate the existing manpower shortage. This review consolidates and highlights the lived experiences of males in the profession.

METHODS

The review was synthesised according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Employing the meta-synthesis approach, two independent reviewers conducted critical appraisal and data extraction of included studies, using the standard Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Instrument for Qualitative Research and a standardised data extraction form, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included. Extracted findings were aggregated into 14 categories and synthesised into three themes: stereotypes, discrimination and challenges faced by males.

DISCUSSION

The synthesised findings showed that male nurses faced gender discrimination in multiple facets. These caused them to have difficulty in carrying out their nursing duties, missing out of clinical opportunities and causing them multiple social and mental stressors.

CONCLUSION

This review informed the discriminatory experiences faced by males within the nursing profession. With males already underrepresented within this profession, it is imperative for interventions, policies and research to be made to address this issue to improve experiences of male nurses, thereby limiting the deterrence of males into the profession.

IMPLICATIONS

Findings of this study showed that males are being stereotyped and discriminated, resulting in challenges faced solely because of their gender. Effective interventions and policies could be implemented to alleviate the negative experiences.

Degree of group consensus shapes perceived power structures and decision-process evaluations of groups

Groups often make decisions by consensus and choose the option(s) preferred by the majority. Most research has therefore treated group consensus as a singular construct, contrasting consensus and dissensus, or the majority and minority. The current research, however, found that varying degrees of consensus among the majority impacted outside observers’ perceptions of the voting group’s internal power structure and evaluations of its decision-making process. Specifically, partial consent (not all members agree), versus unanimous consent (all members agree), led observers to (i) infer that the group had a more decentralized, egalitarian (vs centralized, hierarchical) power structure and, consequently (ii) evaluated the group’s ostensible decision-making process more (vs less) favorably. In sum, this research demonstrated how a lack of unanimity can bolster group perceptions, identified one context where that effect was attenuated by making unanimity favorable, discusses the role of procedural fairness in group judgments, and reveals potential implications for public affairs.