Revision, Weighting, and commitment in consensus group judgment
References (16)
When oracles fail—A comparison for four procedures for aggregating subjective probability forecasts
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
(1981)Improving the quality of group judgment: Social judgment analysis and the Delphi technique
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
(1979)- et al.
Accuracy and confidence in group judgment
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1989) - et al.
A study of normative and informational social influence on individual judgment
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
(1955) - et al.
Quality of group judgment
Psychological Bulletin
(1977) Experimental evidence on group accuracy
- et al.
Frequency perception of individual and group successes as a function of competition, coaction, and isolation
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1976) - et al.
Separating individual and group effects
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1985)
Cited by (93)
Group efficiency and individual fairness tradeoff in making wise decisions
2024, Omega (United Kingdom)Conflict management-based consensus reaching process considering conflict relationship clustering in large-scale group decision-making problems
2024, Expert Systems with ApplicationsUnpacking strategic foresight: A practice approach
2014, Scandinavian Journal of ManagementWisdom of group forecasts: Does role-playing play a role?
2012, OmegaCitation Excerpt :This paper focuses on the judgemental forecasts given by consensus-seeking groups, which are routinely encountered in organisational contexts [17]. In light of previous work suggesting the importance of role-playing [18,19] and the potential advantages of group processes in enhancing individual judgements [20–23], current study aims to compare the effects of role-playing on performance of group predictions and the associated forecast adjustment behaviour. Accordingly, the literature review and the research questions are presented in Section 2, while the details of the experimental study are given in Section 3.
Why groups perform better than individuals at quantitative judgment tasks: Group-to-individual transfer as an alternative to differential weighting
2012, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision ProcessesCitation Excerpt :However, we would like to emphasize that this effect may be highly task specific and that more complex judgmental tasks might require groups to interact more often to fully manifest G–I-transfer. One question is why we were able to find evidence for increased individual accuracy whereas the only previous study investigating the possible occurrence of revised individual judgments did not (Sniezek & Henry, 1990). Although somewhat speculative, we consider this difference to be due to the type of information participants were allowed to exchange.