Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CONFIDE: A Collective Decision-Making Procedure Using Confidence Estimates of Individual Judgements

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An algorithm (termed CONFIDE) is proposed that may capture many of the benefits of group decision making without the necessity of face-to-face interaction. The algorithm allows individual decision makers to differentially weight the contributions from members according to the confidence with which each member holds to their opinions. The CONFIDE algorithm is compared to both face-to-face group decisions and simple averaging of group members opinions on the Lost-at-Sea ranking task. Results indicate that, in terms of decision quality, the CONFIDE algorithm produces solutions equal to that of the face-to-face group decision method and significantly better than the solution achieved by simple averaging of group members responses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agnew, N.M., and J.L. Brown. (1986). “Bounded Rationality: Fallible Decisions in Unbounded Decision Space,” Behavioral Science 31, 148–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, L.M., B.R. Konsynski, and J.F. Nunamaker. (1986). “A Group Decision Support System for Idea Generation and Issue Analysis in Organization Planning,” Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Hawaii International Conference of Systems Sciences.

  • Ashton, A.H., and R.H. Ashton. (1985). “Aggregating Subjective Forecasts: Some Empirical Results,” Management Science 31, 1499–1508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R.L., and RH. Lengel. (1986). “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design,” Management Science 32, 554–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N.C. (1969). “The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion,” working paper 5888-PR, Rand Corporation.

  • Dalkey, N.C., B. Brown, and S. Cochran. (1979). “The Delphi Method IV: Effect of Percentile Feedback and Feed-in of Relevant Facts,” working paper 6118-PR, Rand Corporation.

  • 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 and Human Decision Processes 52(1), 3–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq, A.L., A.H. Van de Ven, and D.H. Gustafson. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W.G. (1977). Team Building: Issues and Alternatives. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckerson, W. (1992). “Users Enthused About Electronic Meetings,” Network World 9(24), 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H.J., and R.M. Hogarth. (1978). “Confidence in Judgement: Persistence of the Illusion of Validity,” Psychological Review 85, 395–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H.J., and R.M. Hogarth. (1981). “Behavioral Decision Theory: Process of Judgments and Choice,” Annual Review of Psychology 32, 53–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H.J., R.M. Hogarth, and E. Klempner. (1977). “Quality of Group Judgement,” Psychological Bulletin 84, 158–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Er, M.C., and A.C. Ng. (1995). “The Anonymity and Proximity Factors in Group Decision Support Systems,” Decision Support Systems 14(1), 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1975). “Hindsight and Foresight: the Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgement Under Uncertainty,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1, 288–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1982). “Debiasing,” in D. Kahnenman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 422–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulk, J., and B. Boyd. (1991). “Emerging Theories of Communication in Organizations,” Journal of Management 17(2), 407–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gessner, S., M. McNeilly, and W. Leskee. (1994). “Using Electronic Meeting Systems for Collaborative Planning at IBM Rochester,” Planning Review 22(1), 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L.R. (1970). “Man Versus Model of Man: A Rationale, Plus Some Evidence for a Method of Improving on Clinical Inferences,” Psychological Bulletin 73, 422–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J.R. (eds.). (1990). Groups That Work (And Those That Don't). San Francisco, CA: Josse-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R.M. (1977). “Methods for Aggregating Opinions,” in H. Jungerman, and G. de Veouw (eds.), Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 231–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R.M. (1978). “A Note on Aggregating Opinions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 36, 209–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A.B., and J.E. McGrath. (1995). “Computer-Assisted Groups: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research,” in Richard A. Guzzo, Eduardo Salas, and Associates (eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Josse-Bass, 46–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G.P. (1982). “Group Decision Support Systems as Aids in the Use of Structured Group Management Techniques,” Management Science 28, 96–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G.P. (1984). “The Nature and Design of Post-Industrial Organizations,” Management Science 30, 928- 951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, V.S., and H. Pirkul. (1992). “A Framework for Supporting Distributed Group Decision-Making,” Decision Support Systems 8(1), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. (1973). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Decisions and Fiascos. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J.E., and J.W. Pfeffer (eds.). (1975). The 1975 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators. La Jolla, CA: University Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keasey, K., and R. Watson. (1989). “Consensus and Accuracy in Accounting Studies of Decision-Making: A Note on a New Measure of Success,” Accounting, Organizations and Society 14(4), 337–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N.L. (1992). “Group Decision Making at a Multialternative Task,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52(1), 64–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, S., and L. Sproull. (1992). “Group Decision Making and Communication Technology,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52(1), 96–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilmann, R.H. (1989). Managing Beyond the Quick Fix. San Francisco, CA: Josse-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E.L. III. (1986). High Involvement Management. San Francisco, CA: Josse-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E.L. III. (1992). The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High Involvement Organization. San Francisco, CA: Josse-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libby, R., and R.K. Blashfield. (1986). “Performance of a Composite as a Function of the Number of Judges,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 21, 121–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorge, I., and H. Solomon. (1955). “Two Models of Group Behavior in the Solution of Eureka-type Problems,” Psychometrika 20, 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabe, P.A. and S.G. West. (1982). “Validity of Self-Evaluation of Ability: A Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology 67, 280–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannix, E.A. (1993). “Organizations as Resource Dilemmas,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 55(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Migliarese, P., and E. Paolucci. (1993). “A System for Group Production Planning in Manufacturing,” Interfaces 23(3), 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G.A. (1956). “Magical Number Seven Plus of Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information,” Psychological Review 63, 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miner, F.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 

  • Mockler, R.J., and Dologite, D.G. (1991). “Using Computer Software to Improve Group Decision-Making,” Long Range Planning 24(4), 44–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M.H. (1985). “The Potential of Remote Work for Professionals,” in Office Workstations in the Home. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 125–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osberg, T.M., and J.S. Shrauger. (1986). “Self-prediction: Exploring the Parameters of Accuracy,” Journal of Personality and Psychology 51, 1044–1057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, N. (1985). “Mountain Bell: Program for Managers,” in Office Workstations in the Home. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsower, R.M. (1985). Telecommutinq: the Organizational and Behavioral Effects of Working at Home. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Research Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman, S., T.W. Johnson, and B.T. Mayes. (1992). “Group Decision Program,” Decision Support Systems 8(2), 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrauger, J.S., and T.M. Osberg. (1981). “The Relative Accuracy of Self-predictions and Judgements by Others in Psychological Assessment,” Psychological Bulletin 90, 322–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrauger, J.S., and T.M. Osberg. (1982). “Self-Awareness: The Ability to Predict One's Future Behavior,” in G. Underwood (ed.), Aspects of Consciousness, Vol. 3. London: Academic Press, 267–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, H. (1989). “The Demand for Homework: Evidence from the U.S. Census,” in Eileen Boris, and Cynthia R. Daniels (eds.). Homework: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Paid Labor at Home. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 103–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (1979). “Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations,” American Economics Review 69, 493–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slevin, D.P. (1978). “Observations on the Invalid Scoring Algorithm of ‘NASA’ and Similar Consensus Tasks,” Group and Organizational Studies 3, 497–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniezek, J.A. (1992). “Groups Under Uncertainty: An Examination of Confidence in Group Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52(1), 124–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G. (1992). “Information Salience and the Discovery of Hidden Profiles by Decision-Making Groups: A Thought Experiment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52(1), 156–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., and W. Titus. (1985). “Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Group Discussion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I.D. (1966). “Models of Inferring Relationships Between Group Size and Potential Group Productivity,” Behavioral Science 11, 273–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A. (1989). Team Entrepreneurship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. (1973). “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,” Cognitive Psychology 4, 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V.H., and P. Yetton. (1973). Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R.G. (1994). “Virtually Interactive Brainstorming,” Industrial Engineering 26(9), 20–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yetton, P., and P. Bottger. (1982). “Individual Versus Group Problem Solving: An Empirical Test of Best-member Strategy,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 29, 307–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G. (1981). “Leadership in Organizations,” Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Dennis P. Slevin

  2. Department of Management, St., USA

    Larry W. Boone

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, USA

    Eileen M. Russo

  4. School of Business Administration, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, USA

    Richard S. Allen

Authors
  1. Dennis P. Slevin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry W. Boone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eileen M. Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard S. Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Slevin, D.P., Boone, L.W., Russo, E.M. et al. CONFIDE: A Collective Decision-Making Procedure Using Confidence Estimates of Individual Judgements. Group Decision and Negotiation 7, 179–194 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008650524782

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008650524782

Search

Navigation