Group diversity and decision quality: Amplification and attenuation of the framing effect

Department of Psychology & Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91905, Israel
International Journal of Forecasting (Impact Factor: 1.49). 01/2011; 27(1):41-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.009

ABSTRACT Do groups make better judgments and decisions than individuals? We tested the hypothesis that the advantage of groups over individuals in decision-making depends on the group composition. Our study used susceptibility to the framing effect as a measure of decision quality. Individuals were assigned to one of two perspectives on a choice problem. The individuals were asked to indicate their individual preference between a risky option and a risk-free option. Next, they were asked to consider the same (or a related) choice problem as a group. Homogeneous groups were composed of similarly framed individuals, while the heterogeneous ones were composed of differently framed individuals. In comparison to individual preferences, the homogeneous groups’ preferences were polarized, and thus the framing effect was amplified; in contrast, the heterogeneous groups’ preferences converged, and thus the framing effect was reduced to zero. The findings are discussed with regard to group polarization, the effects of heterogeneity on group performance, and the Delphi forecasting method.

1 Follower
  • Source
    • "• Insights gained beyond borders of firm might be novel to company [28] • Not frequently practiced since some decision makers perceive internal knowledge to be superior to external knowledge [28] • Seeking internal advice might foster an atmosphere of trust that encourages employees to share information and to develop new ideas [28] • Decision makers are more critical: internal information can be better evaluated than external information [29] • Scarce and therefore valuable information [29] • False information harder to identify [29] • Easy to obtain and analyze [16] [29] • In general, regarded to be less valuable than external advice [16] • Persons seeking outside information rewarded for efforts with improved status [16] • Danger that information from external sources is assumed to be true knowledge: accuracy is rarely challenged [31] • Generated information is kept internal [32] • Adhering to internal sources reinforces existing mindset and blind areas [1] • " Organizational myths " and " artificial and illusory level of comfort " are challenged by external sources of information [33, p. 66] • Involve stakeholders [34] [35] • External stakeholders have a birds-eye perspective and focus on different aspects because of different backgrounds [1] [21]. to be very high, so that they are expected to use detailed explanations of their reasoning when they find it necessary. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Decision makers seek advice from others in order to make more accurate decisions, justify these decisions, and share responsibility. The Delphi survey technique finds broad acceptance as a decision support and forecasting tool. Recent research has discussed the composition of Delphi panels and whether company internal or external panelists should be consulted for strategic foresight. We make a contribution to this discussion by investigating whether internal and external participants of Delphi studies lead to differing results and how the differences can be utilized by decision makers. We consider differences that might be inherent not only to quantitative but also to qualitative Delphi data. Results of our research reveal that there are several significant differences between the two panels' evaluations, which lead to varying consultation practices for different strategic purposes.
    Technological Forecasting and Social Change 11/2013; forthcoming. DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.012 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "This process was designed to create groups small enough to encourage discussion and allow consensus, but with the full range of interests and expertise represented in each group. Including as wide a range of interests as possible in the group has been demonstrated by social psychologists to be important for eliciting expert judgement effectively (Bolger & Wright, 2011; Hussler et al., 2011; Yaniv, 2011). During the discussion sessions, all participants could see the anonymous comments others had made during the first voting stage, and the number of votes for each knowledge need. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 1. In response to evidence of insect pollinator declines, organisations in many sectors, including the food and farming industry, are investing in pollinator conservation. They are keen to ensure that their efforts use the best available science. 2. We convened a group of 32 ‘conservation practitioners’ with an active interest in pollinators and 16 insect pollinator scientists. The conservation practitioners include representatives from UK industry (including retail), environmental non-government organisations and nature conservation agencies. 3. We collaboratively developed a long list of 246 knowledge needs relating to conservation of wild insect pollinators in the UK. We refined and selected the most important knowledge needs, through a three-stage process of voting and scoring, including discussions of each need at a workshop. 4. We present the top 35 knowledge needs as scored by conservation practitioners or scientists. We find general agreement in priorities identified by these two groups. The priority knowledge needs will structure ongoing work to make science accessible to practitioners, and help to guide future science policy and funding. 5. Understanding the economic benefits of crop pollination, basic pollinator ecology and impacts of pesticides on wild pollinators emerge strongly as priorities, as well as a need to monitor floral resources in the landscape.
    Insect Conservation and Diversity 01/2012; Online Early DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00221.x(3). DOI:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00221.x · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Yaniv [61] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper we review methods that aim to aid the anticipation of rare, high-impact, events. We evaluate these methods according to their ability to yield well-calibrated probabilities or point forecasts for such events. We first identify six factors that can lead to poor calibration and then examine how successful the methods are in mitigating these factors. We demonstrate that all the extant forecasting methods — including the use of expert judgment, statistical forecasting, Delphi and prediction markets — contain fundamental weaknesses. We contrast these methods with a non-forecasting method that is intended to aid planning for the future — scenario planning. We conclude that all the methods are problematic for aiding the anticipation of rare events and that the only remedies are to either (i) to provide protection for the organization against the occurrence of negatively-valenced events whilst allowing the organization to benefit from the occurrence of positively-valenced events, or (ii) to provide conditions to challenge one's own thinking — and hence improve anticipation. We outline how components of devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry can be combined with Delphi and scenario planning to enhance anticipation of rare events.
    Technological Forecasting and Social Change 03/2010; 77(3-77):355-368. DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2009.10.008 · 1.71 Impact Factor
Show more