The Psychological Record

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 427–436 | Cite as

The Effects of Decision Outcome Dispersion Upon Organizational Decision Making

  • Kimberly R. Gioffre
  • Robert B. Lawson
  • Lawrence R. Gordon
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

The effects of varying decision outcome dispersion on organizational decision making were investigated under individual and group decision making conditions. Thirty-six female and pg]36 male subjects made decisions for organizational decision scenarios in which outcomes affected primarily the decision maker, people other than the decision maker, or a group of which the decision maker was a member. Subjects rated their levels of perceived risk and confidence in their decisions and made decisions within a simulated context of either a small or a large organization. Results indicated that subjects perceived significantly less risk and more confidence in their decisions when outcomes affected primarily themselves rather than others regardless of whether the decisions were made individually or by a group. Males perceived their decisions as significantly more risky than females. Induced organizational size did not significantly influence decision making.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BLAU, P. (1987). A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review, 35, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. DAVIDSON, A. R., & MORRISON, D. M. (1982). Social psychological models of decision making. Research in Marketing, Suppl. 1, 91–112.Google Scholar
  3. DIBERARDINIS, J., RAMAGE, K., & LEAVITT, S. (1984). Risky shift and gender of the advocate: Information theory versus normative theory. Group and Organization Studies, 9(1), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. FANDT, P. M., & FERRIS, G. R. (1990). The management of information and impressions: When employees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 140–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FORD, R., ARMANDI, B. R., & HEATON, C. P. (1988). Size. In Organization theory: An integrative approach. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  6. HALL, R. H. (1972). Organizational size. Organizations: Structure and process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. HUDGENS, G. A., & FATKIN, L. T. (1984). Sex differences in risk taking: Repeated sessions on a computer-simulated task. The Journal of Psychology, 119(3), 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. KOGAN, N., & WALLACH, M. (1964). Risk taking: A study in cognition and personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. KOGAN, N., & ZALESKA, M. (1969). Level of risk selected by individuals and groups when deciding for self and for others. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 4 (Pt. 1), 423–424.Google Scholar
  10. LAUGHLIN, P. R., & EARLEY, P. C. (1982). Social combination models, persuasive arguments theory, social comparison theory, and choice shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(2), 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. LIPSHITZ, R. (1989). Either a “medal or a corporal”: The effects of success and failure on the evaluation of decision making and decision makers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 380–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. NIGRO, F. A., & NIGRO, L. G. (1984). Decision making. Modern public administration. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  13. OFFERMAND, L. R., & GOWING, M. K. (1990). Organizations of the future: Changes and challenges. American Psychologist, 45, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. PITZ, G. F., & SACHS, N. J. (1984). Judgment and decision: Theory and application. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. SAWYER, J. E. (1990). Effects of risks and ambiguity on judgments of contingency relations and behavioral resource allocation decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. SLOVIC, P., WEINSTEIN, M. S., & LICHTENSTEIN, S. (1967). Sex differences in the risk a person selects for himself and the risks he selects for someone else. (Research Bulletin No. 10) Vol. 7. Eugene: Oregon Research Institute.Google Scholar
  17. SNIEZEK, J. A., & HENRY, R. A. (1990). Revision, weighting, and commitment in consensus group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. STREUFERT, S. (1987). Decision making: Research and theory challenges for applied social psychology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 609–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. SUNDSTROM, E., DEMEUSE, K. P., & FUTRELL, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. TETLOCK, D. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 297–332). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.Google Scholar
  21. TUTTLE, T. C. (1988). Technology, organizations of the future, and non-management roles. In J. Hage (Ed.), Futures of organizations (pp. 163–180). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  22. VANDER ZANDEN, J. W. (1987). Gender roles, identities, and sexuality. Social psychology. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  23. WALLACH, M. A., KOGAN, N., & BEM, D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taken. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. WILKE, H., & MEERTENS, R. (1973). Individual risk taking for self and others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(4), 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ZALESKA, M., & KOGAN, N. (1971). Level of risk selected by individuals and groups when deciding for self and for others. Sociometry, 34, 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kimberly R. Gioffre
    • 1
  • Robert B. Lawson
    • 1
  • Lawrence R. Gordon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, John Dewey HallUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations