Marketing Letters

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 23–32 | Cite as

The influence of member heterogeneity on dyad judgment: Are two heads better than one?

  • Kim P. Corfman
  • Barbara E. Kahn


An experiment is conducted to test the effect of the degree of heterogeneity in individual member judgments on the accuracy of judgments made by dyads. Predictions are made about how (1) homogeneity versus heterogeneity in judgments and (2) task instruction interact to affect a group's judgmental accuracy in average price-estimation tasks. Results indicate that dyads were not more accurate than the average dyad member or than the better member. However, increases in accuracy (relative to the accuracy of the better member of the dyad) occurred more often in dyads whose members were heterogeneous in their prior individual judgments than they did in dyads whose members were more homogeneous. When provided with instructions, heterogeneous dyads improved in accuracy to a greater degree than did homogeneous dyads.

Key words

judgment heterogeneity training accuracy bias 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Burnstein, Eugene, and Amiram Vinokur. (1975). “What a Person Thinks upon Learning He Has Chosen Differently from Others: Nice Evidence for the Persuasive-Arguments Explanation of Choice Shifts,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11, 412–426.Google Scholar
  2. Crocker, Jennifer. (1981). “Judgment of Covariation by Social Perceivers,”Psychological Bulletin 2, 272–292.Google Scholar
  3. Della Bitta, Albert J., and Kent B. Monroe. (1974). “The Influence of Adaptation Level on Selective Price Perceptions.” In Scott Ward and Peter Wright (eds.),Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 1), Provo, Utah: Association for Consumer Research (pp. 359–369).Google Scholar
  4. Fisher, B. Aubrey. (1980).Small Group Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Folkes, Valerie. (1988). “The Availability Heuristic and Perceived Risk,”Journal of Consumer Research 15, 13–23.Google Scholar
  6. Fong, Geoffrey T., David H. Krantz, and Richard E. Nisbett. (1986). “The Effects of Statistical Training on Thinking About Everyday Problems,”Cognitive Psychology 18, 253–292.Google Scholar
  7. Hastie, Reid. (1986). “Review Essay: Experimental Evidence on Group Accuracy.” In Bernard Grofman and Guillermo Owen (eds.),Information Pooling and Group Decision Making (pp. 129–157). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  8. Higgins, E. Tory, and William M. Chaires. (1980). “Accessibility of Interrelational Constructs: Implications for Stimulus Encoding and Creativity,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16, 348–361.Google Scholar
  9. Hill, Gayle. (1982). “Group Versus Individual Performance: Are N + 1 Heads Better than One?”Psychological Bulletin 91, 517–539.Google Scholar
  10. Hoch, Stephen J. (1988). “Who Do We Know: Predicting the Interests and Opinions of the American Consumer,”Journal of Consumer Research 15, 315–324.Google Scholar
  11. Laughlin, Patrick R., N.L. Kerr, J.H. Davis, H.M. Halff, and K.A. Marciniak. (1975). “Group Size, Member Ability, and Social Decision Schemes on an Intellective Task,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31, 522–535.Google Scholar
  12. Laughlin, Patrick R., Richard P. McGlynn, Jon A. Anderson, and Everett S. Jacobson. (1968). “Concept Attainment by Individuals Versus Cooperative Pairs as a Function of Memory, Sex, and Concept Rules,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8, 410–417.Google Scholar
  13. Lorge, Irving, and Herbert Solomon. (1955). “Two Models of Group Behavior in the Solution of Eureka-Type Problems,”Psychometrika 20, 139–148.Google Scholar
  14. Michaelsen, Larry K., Warren E. Watson, and Robert H. Black. (1989). “A Realistic Test of Individual Versus Group Consensus Decision Making,”Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 834–839.Google Scholar
  15. Miner, Frederick C., Jr. (1984). “Group Versus Individual Decision Making: An Investigation of Performance Measures, Decision Strategies, and Process Losses/Gains,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 33, 112–124.Google Scholar
  16. Myers, David G., and Helmut Lamm. (1976). “The Group Polarization Phenomenon,”Psychological Bulletin 83, 602–627.Google Scholar
  17. Pruitt, Dean G. (1971). “Choice Shifts in Group Discussion: An Introductory Review,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 20, 339–360.Google Scholar
  18. Rao, Vithala, and Joel H. Steckel. (1991). “A Polarization Model for Describing Group Preferences,”Journal of Consumer Research 18, 108–118.Google Scholar
  19. Russo, J. Edward, and Paul J.H. Shoemaker. (1989).Decision Traps: The Ten Barriers to Brilliant Decision-Making and How to Overcome Them. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  20. Ryack, B.L. (1965). “Individuals Versus Groups,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2, 296–299.Google Scholar
  21. Shaw, M.E. (1981).Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Taylor, D.W. (1954). “Problem Solving in Groups.” InProceedings of the XIV International Congress of Psychology. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  23. Taylor, Shelley E. (1987). “The Availability Bias in Social Perception and Interaction.” In Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky (eds.),Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. (pp. 190–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. (1974). “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,”Science 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  25. Walsh, James P., Croline M. Henderson, and John Deighton. (1988). “Negotiated Belief Structures and Decision Performance: An Empirical Investigation,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 42, 194–216.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim P. Corfman
    • 1
  • Barbara E. Kahn
    • 2
  1. 1.Leonard N. Stern School of BusinessNew York UniversityNew York
  2. 2.The Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvanaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations