Community Mental Health Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 268–273 | Cite as

The effect of work shift on nurses' evaluations of patient behavior: Implications for team decision making

  • Donald U. Robertson
  • Roger Mesmer
  • Arthur Y. Hoshino
  • Charles Steinmeyer


The authors conceptualized multidisciplinary team decision making in terms of information collection, communication, and combination. The study explored the potentially biasing effects of situational variables on information collection. When compared with evening shift nurses, day shift nurses rated patients as much less competent. The authors discuss how this biased information collection can be transmitted throughout the decision process and suggest that more attention be paid to situational influences on information used in team decision making.


Public Health Decision Making Decision Process Health Psychology Multidisciplinary Team 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, N.H. Integration theory and attitude change.Psychological Review, 1971,78:171–206.Google Scholar
  2. Argyle, M., & Little, B.R. Do personality traits apply to social behavior?Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 1972,2, 1–35.Google Scholar
  3. Beach, L.R., Mitchell, T.R., Deaton, M.D. & Prothero, J. Information relevance, content and source credibility in the revision of opinions.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1978,21, 1–16.Google Scholar
  4. Birnbaum, M.H., & Stegner, S.E. Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise and the judge's point of view.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979,37, 48–74.Google Scholar
  5. Chapman, L., & Chapman, J. Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the valid use of psychodiagnostic signs.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969,74, 271–280.Google Scholar
  6. Cook, R.L., & stewart, T.R. A comparison of seven methods of obtaining subjective descriptions of judgment policy.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975,13, 31–45.Google Scholar
  7. Einhorn, H.J., Hogarth, R.M., & Klempner, E. Quality of group judgment.Psychological Bulletin, 1977,84, 158–172.Google Scholar
  8. Endler, N.S., Hunt, J.M., & Rosenstein, A.J. An S-R inventory of anxiousness.Psychological Monographs, 1962,76, Whole No. 536.Google Scholar
  9. Gauron, E.G., & Dickinson, J.K. Diagnostic decision making in psychiatry: I. Information usage. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1966a,14, 225–232.Google Scholar
  10. Gauron, E.F., & Dickinson, J.K. Diagnostic decision making in psychiatry: II. Diagnostic styles.Archives of General Psychiatry, 1966b,14, 233–237.Google Scholar
  11. Gomez, E.A., Ruiz, P., & Langrod, J. Multidisciplinary team malfunctioning on a state hospital unit: a case study.Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 1980,31, 38–40.Google Scholar
  12. Hammond K.R., Stewart, T.R., Brehmer, B., & Steinmann, D.O. Social judgment theory. In M.F. Kaplan & S. Schwartz (Eds.),Human judgment and decision processes. New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  13. Holzberg, J.D. Problems in the team treatment of adults in state mental hospitals. Panel, 1958. 1. The historical traditions of the state hospital as a force of resistance to the team.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1960,30, 87–94.Google Scholar
  14. Karlsruher, A.E. The non-professional as psychotherapeutic agent.American Journal of Community Psychology, 1974,3, 61–77.Google Scholar
  15. Kaiser, H.F. A second generation Little Jiffy.Psychometrika, 1970,35, 401.Google Scholar
  16. Langer, E.J., & Abelson, R.P. A patient by another name...: Clinician group diffirence in labeling bias.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974,42, 4–9.Google Scholar
  17. Lord, C.G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M.R. Biased association and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979,11, 2098–2109.Google Scholar
  18. Mischel, W.Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.Google Scholar
  19. Robertson, D.U. Differences in nurses' patient ratings as a function of geographic unit. Warren State Hospital Psychology Department, Technical Report No. 3 January 1979.Google Scholar
  20. Rosenhan, D.L. On being sane in insane places.Science, 1973,179, 250–258.Google Scholar
  21. Ruiz, P., & Saiger, G. Partial hospitalization within an urban slum.American Journal of Psychiatry, 1972,129, 89–92.Google Scholar
  22. Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S.C. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971,6, 649–744.Google Scholar
  23. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. Anchoring and calibration in the assessment of uncertain quantities.Oregon Research Institute Research Bulletin, 1972,12, No. 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald U. Robertson
    • 3
  • Roger Mesmer
    • 1
  • Arthur Y. Hoshino
    • 2
  • Charles Steinmeyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Warren State HospitalWarren
  2. 2.Community Medical Center in Scranton
  3. 3.Psychology DepartmentIndiana University of PennsylvaniaIndiana

Personalised recommendations