|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 4, No. 2,
99-115 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430201004002002
© 2001 SAGE Publications
Order Effects in Individual and Group Policy Allocations
Janice Nadler
Northwestern University and American Bar Foundation, jnadler{at}northwestern.edu
Julie R. Irwin
University of Texas, Austin
James H. Davis
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Wing Tung Au
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Paul Zarnoth
Hamilton College
Adrian K. Rantilla
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Kathleen Koesterer
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Although citizen panels have become quite popular for policy making, there is very little research on how the procedures these groups employ to manage consensus affect their decision making. We measured the effect of a simple procedural mechanism, agenda order, on individual and group allocations for an HIV policy. Allocations made in a large-small (state-region-city) order were substantially smaller, overall, than were allocations made in small-large (city-region-state) order, and group allocations were smaller, overall, than were individual judgments. The Social Judgment Scheme model (Davis, 1996) provided a good fit of the group allocation, and suggested a mechanism for this overall downward shift in judgment. Normative (i.e. calibration) analyses, as well as subjective impressions (e.g. confidence, repeat judgments) favored relatively smaller allocations so that judgments made in large-small order, and judgments made in groups were arguably more defensible than were individual or small-large judgments. We discuss these strong agenda influences and their implications both for citizen panels and for theoretical research on group consensus.
Key Words: citizen panels • context effects • group decision making • preference • order effects
References
- Abelson, R. P. (1964). Mathematical models of the distribution of attitudes under controversy. In N. Frederiksen & H. Gulliksen (Eds.), Contributions to mathematical psychology (pp. 142-182). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
- Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.
- Baron, J. (1997). Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 72-88.[CrossRef]
- Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97-125.[CrossRef]
- Davis, J. H. (1984). Order in the courtroom. In D. J. Muller, D. G. Blackman, & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Psychology and the law. London: Wiley.
- Davis, J. H. (1992). Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research, and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: Selected examples, 1950-1990. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 52, 3-38.[CrossRef]
- Davis, J. H. (1996). Group decision making and quantitative judgments: A consensus model. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Vol. 1. Consensual action by small groups. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Davis, J. H., Stasson, M. F., Parks, C. D., Hulbert, L., Kameda, T., Zimmerman, S. K., & Ono, K. (1993). Quantitative decisions by groups and individuals: Voting procedures and monetary awards by mock and civil juries. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 326-346.
- Davis, J. H., Tindale, R. S., Nagao, D. H., Hinsz, V. B., & Robertson, B. A. (1984). Order effects in multiple decisions by groups: A demonstration with mock juries and trial procedures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1003-1012.[CrossRef]
- Davis, J. H., Zarnoth, P., Hulbert, L. G., Chen, X. P., Parks, C., & Nam, K. (1997). The committee charge, framing interpersonal agreement, and consensus models of group quantitative judgment, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 137-157.[CrossRef]
- Einhorn, H., & Hogarth, R. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabalistic inference. Psychological Review, 92, 433-461.[CrossRef]
- El-Sadr, W., Oleske, J. M., Agins, B. D. (1994). Evaluation and Management of Early HIV Infection. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 7 (AHCPR Publication No. 94-0572). Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
- Irwin, J. R. (1994). Buying/selling price preference reversals: Preference for environmental changes in buying versus selling modes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 431-457.[CrossRef]
- Irwin, J. R., & Davis, J. H. (1995). Choice/matching preference reversals in groups: Consensus processes and justification-based reasoning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 325-339.[CrossRef]
- Irwin, J. R., Jones, L. E., & Mundo, D. (1996). Risk perception and victim perception: The judgment of HIV cases. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 1-22.
- Irwin, J. R., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., & McClelland, G. H. (1993). Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6, 5-18.[CrossRef]
- Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57-70.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Keeney, R. L., von Winterfeldt, D. V., & Eppel, T. (1990). Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions. Management Science, 36, 1011-1030.
- Kerr, N., Harmon, A., & Graves, R. (1982). Independence of multiple verdicts by jurors and juries. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 12-29.[CrossRef]
- Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J. & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgement: Company individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687-719.[CrossRef]
- Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Lyttleton, R. (1979). The Gold effect. In R. Duncan & M. Weston-Smith (Eds.), The encyclopedia of delusions. New York: Simon & Schuster.
- Mowen, J. C. & Gentry, J. W. (1980). Investigation of the preference-reversal phenomenon in a new product introduction task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 715-722.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
- Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. (1977). Data analysis and regression. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
- Nagao, D. H., & Davis, J. H. (1980). The effects of prior experience on mock juror case judgments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 190-199.[CrossRef]
- Ono, K., Tindale, R. S., Hulin, C. L., & Davis, J. H. (1988). Intuition vs. deduction: Some thought experiments concerning Likert’s linking-pin theory of organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 135-154.[CrossRef]
- Parducci, A. (1968). The relativism of absolute judgments. Scientific American, 219, 84-90.[ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Pepitone, A., & DeNubile, M. (1976). Contrast effects in judgments of crime severity and the punishment of criminal violators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 448-459.[CrossRef]
- Plott, C., & Levine, M. E. (1978). A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. American Economic Review, 68, 146-160.
- Schwarz, J., & Sudman, S. (1992). (Eds.). Context effects in social and psychological research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Webler, T., Rakel, H., Renn, O., & Johnson, B. (1995). Eliciting and classifying concerns: A methodological critique. Risk Analysis, 15, 421-436.[CrossRef]
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
|
