Table 1 The computational model of intragroup conflict for small team decision-making
A proposer’s processes | |
 1. Identify a problem aspect  2. Present own proposal to the identified problem aspect | |
Other members’ processes | |
 3. Evaluate own proposal to the identified problem aspect against the presented one   a. If the proposer is recognized as a subject expert, go to Step 4a   b. If both proposal discrepancy is less than 0.5 (an arbitrary value) and the perceived level of the proposer’s expertise is higher than own expertise, go to Step 4a   c. If none of above, go to Step 4b  4. Dyadic interactions due to the outcome of Step 3   a. Support the presented proposal and do not evoke any task conflict, go to Step 6   b. Reject the presented proposal and evoke a task conflict between the proposer and the evaluator, go to Step 6  5. Dyadic interactions due to the outcome of Step 6   a. If the presented proposal is supported jointly, members (except the proposer) adjust individual proposals towards the supported proposal and upgrade the perceived level of the proposer’s expertise, go to Step 7   b. If a presented proposal is rejected jointly, team members downgrade the perceived level of the proposer’s expertise, go to Step 7 | |
Team processes | |
 6. Make a team census decision whether or not to support the presented proposal to the identified problem aspect   a. If more than half of members opt for the proposal, a team will jointly support the presented proposal to the identified problem aspect, go to Step 5a   b. If less than half of members opt for the proposal, a team will jointly reject the presented proposal to the identified problem aspect, go to Step 5b  7. Continue the next problem aspect, go to Step 1  8. Finish a round of discussion if 10 problem aspects are all covered  9. Finish a decision-making task after 20 rounds of team discussion |