Theory and Decision

, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp 403–438 | Cite as

The Ecological Rationality of Simple Group Heuristics: Effects of Group Member Strategies on Decision Accuracy

  • Torsten Reimer
  • Ulrich Hoffrage


The notion of ecological rationality implies that the accuracy of a decision strategy depends on features of the information environment in which it is tested. We demonstrate that the performance of a group may be strongly affected by the decision strategies used by its individual members and specify how this effect is moderated by environmental features. Specifically, in a set of simulation studies, we systematically compared four decision strategies used by the individual group members: two linear, compensatory decision strategies and two simple, noncompensatory heuristics. Individual decisions were aggregated by using a majority rule. To assess the ecological rationality of the strategies, we varied (a) the distribution of cue validities, (b) the quantity, and (c) the quality of shared information. Group performance strongly depended on the distribution of cue validities. When validities were linearly distributed, groups using a compensatory strategy achieved the highest accuracy. Conversely, when cue validities followed a J-shaped distribution, groups using a simple lexicographic heuristic performed best. While these effects were robust across different quantities of shared information, the quality of shared information exerted stronger effects on group performance. Consequences for prescriptive theories on group decision making are discussed


compensatory and noncompensatory decision strategies group decision making group performance simple heuristics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adamowicz W. A., Hanemann M., Swait, J., Johnson, R., Layton, D., Regenwetter, M., Reimer, T. and Sorkin, R. (in press), Group decisions: Analyzing decision strategy and structure in households, Marketing LettersGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, R.S., Kerr, N.L., Miller, N. 1992Group Process, Group Decision, Group ActionOpen University PressBuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  3. Bröder, A. 2000Assessing the empirical validity of the ‘Take The Best’ heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inferenceJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition2613321346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Czerlinki J., Gigerenzer G. and Goldstein D.G. (1999), How good are simple heuristics?. In: Gigerenzer G., Todd P.M. and the ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart, Oxford University Press, New York, (pp. 97–118).Google Scholar
  5. Davis, J.H. 1973Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemesPsychological Review8097125Google Scholar
  6. Davis, J.H. 1992Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research, and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: selected examples, 1950–1990Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes52338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawes, R.M. 1979The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision makingAmerican Psychologist34571582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawes, R.M., Corrigan, B. 1974Linear models in decision makingAmerican Psychologist34571582Google Scholar
  9. Einhorn, H.J., Hogarth, R.M., Klempner, E. 1977Quality of group judgmentPsychological Bulletin84158172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gigerenzer, G. 2005Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationalityKoehler, D.Harvey, N. eds. Handbook of Judgment and Decision MakingBlackwellOxford, UK6288Google Scholar
  11. Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., Kleinbölting, H. 1991Probabilistic mental models; A Brunswikian theory of confidencePsychological Review98506528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gigerenzer, G., Selten, R. 2001Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive ToolboxMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Gigerenzer, G. Todd , P.M. The ABC Research Group1999Simple Heuristics that Make us SmartOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Gigone, D., Hastie, R. 1996The impact of information on group judgment: A model and computer simulationWitte, E.H.Davis, J.H. eds. Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual Action by Small GroupErlbaum AssociatesMahwah, NJ221251Google Scholar
  15. Gigone, D., Hastie, R. 1997The impact of information on small group choiceJournal of Personality and Social Phychology72132140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hastie, R., Kameda, T. 2005The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisionsPsychological Review112494508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hertwig, R. Hoffrage, U. and Martignon, L. (1999), Quick estimation: Letting the environment do the work, in G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd and The ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart, Oxford University Press, New York, (pp. 209–234).Google Scholar
  18. Hinsz, V.B., Tindale, R.S., Vollrath, D.A 1997The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processorsPsychological Bulletin1214364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffrage, U., Reimer, T. 2004Models of bounded rationality: The approach of fast and frugal heuristicsManagement Revue15437459Google Scholar
  20. Hogarth, R. M. and Karelaia, N. (2003), “Take-the-Best” and Other Simple Strategies: Why and When They Work “Well” in Binary Choice, Universitat Pompeu Fabra working paper, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  21. Hogarth, R. M. and Karelaia, N. (in press), Simple models for multi-attribute choice with many alternatives: When it does and does not pay to face tradeoffs with binary attributes, Management Science.Google Scholar
  22. Hollingshead, A.B. 1996The rank-order effect in group decision makingOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes68181193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karelaia, N. 2004The Role of Redundant Information in Choice: The Lure of ConsistencyUniversity Pompeu Fabra working paperBarcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  24. Larson, J.R., Foster-Fishman, P.G., Keys, C.B. 1994Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groupsJournal of Personality and Social Psychology67446461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laughlin, R.P., Ellis, A.L. 1986Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasksJournal of Experimental Social Psychology22177189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martignon, L., Hoffrage, U. 2002Fast, Frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparisonTheory and Decision522971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mennecke, B.E. 1997Using group support systems to discover hidden profiles: An examination of the influence of group size and meeting structures on information sharing and decision qualityInternational Jouranal of Human Computer Studies47387405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J. 1993The Adaptive Decision MakerCambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Remier, T., Bornstein, A.-L., Opwis, K. 2005Positive and nagative transfer effects in groupsBetsch, T.Haberstroh,  eds. Routine decision makingLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah, NJ175192Google Scholar
  30. Reimer, T., Hoffrage, U. 2003Information aggregation in groups: the approach of Simple Group Heuristics (SIGH)Alterman, R.Kirsch, D. eds. Proceedings of the Twenty Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science SocietyCognitive Science SocietyBoston982987Google Scholar
  31. Reimer, T., Hoffrage, U. 2005Can simple group heuristics detect hidden profiles in rendomly generated environments?Swiss Journal of Psychology642137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reimer, T., Katsikopoulos, K. 2004The use of recognition in group decision-makingCognitive Science2810091029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rieskamp J., and Hoffrage U. (1999). When do people use simple heuristics, and how can we tell?. In: Gigerenzer G., Todd P.M. and The ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart, Oxford University Press, New York, (pp. 141–167)Google Scholar
  34. Schittekatte, M., Hiel, A. 1996Effects of partially shared information and awareness of unshared information on infromation samplingSmall Group Reserach27431449Google Scholar
  35. Simon, H.A. 1982Models of Bounded RationalityMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  36. Stasser, G. 1988Computer simulation as a research tool: the DISCUSS model of group decision makingJournal of Experimental Social Psychology24393422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stasser, G. 1992Information salience and the discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: a “thought experiment”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making52156181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stasser, G., Stewart, D.D., Wittenbaum, G.M. 1995Expert roles and infromation exchange during discussion: he importance of knowing who knows whatJournal of Experimental Social Psychology31244265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stasser, G., Taylor, L.A., Hanna, C. 1989Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groupsJournal of Personality and Social Psychology576778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stasser, G., Titus, W. 1985Pooling of unshared infromation in group decision making: iased infromation sampling during discussionJournal of Personality and Social Psychology4814671478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stewart, D.D., Billings, R.S., Stasser, G. 1998Accountability and the discussion of unshared, Critical infromation in decision-making groupsGroup Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice21823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Todd, P. M. and Gigerenzer, G. (1999), What we have learned (so far), in G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd and The ABC Reserach Group, Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart, Oxford University Press, New York, (pp. 357–365).Google Scholar
  43. Tversky, A. 1972Elimination by Aspects: a theory of choicePsychological Review79281299Google Scholar
  44. Vroom, V.H. 1969Industrial social psychologyLindzey, G.Aronson, E. eds. Handbook of Social PsychologyAddison-WesleyReading, MA196268Google Scholar
  45. Wittenbaum, G.M., Stasser, G. 1996Management of information in small groupsNye, J.L.Brower,  eds. What’s Social About Social Cognition?SageLondon328Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Adaptive Behavior and CognitionMax Planck Institute for Human DevelopmentBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyNorth Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA
  3. 3.Max Planck Institute for Human DevelopmentBerlinGermany
  4. 4.University of LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations