Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Combining Individual Judgments

  • Chapter
Behavioral Decision Making

Abstract

It is often assumed that n heads are better than one, that a judgment obtained from a group will be of higher quality than could be expected from an individual. This chapter considers the effectiveness of methods that have been proposed for combining individual quantitative judgments into a group judgment. For the most part, it will be found that n heads are, indeed, better than one, and at least one investigator has concluded that it does not much matter how they are combined. But the potential for improving performance is so great and the problems of achieving it so subtle that a clear understanding of the issues is essential.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Agnew, C. E. (1983). Multiple probability assessments by dependent experts. (Report No. 36J ). Stanford: Stanford University, Economic Systems Department (Program in Information Policy).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar, D. L. ( 1980, December). SPAN: An improvement in group decision making.Unpublished project report, Industrial Engineering Department, University of Arizona, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S. (1980). The seer-sucker theory: The value of experts in forecasting. Technology Review, 83, 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, M. (1975). Group decisions in the face of differences of opinion. Management Science, 22, 182–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, J. M., & Granger, C. W. J. (1969). The combination of forecasts. Operational Research Quarterly, 20, 451–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordley, R. F. (1982a). The combination of forecasts: A Bayesian approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 33, 171–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordley, R. F. (1982b). A multiplicative formula for aggregating probability assessments. Management Science, 28, 1137–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S., & Fishburn, P. C. (1982). Approval voting. Cambridge, MA: Birkhauser Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, H. W. (1980). The problem of “utility weights” in group preference aggregation. Operations Research, 28, 176–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, J. W., & Hicks, J. O., Jr. (1983). A fuzzy set approach to aggregating internal control judgments. Management Science, 29, 317–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N. C. ( 1969, June). The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion (RM-588- PR). Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N. (1975). Toward a theory of group estimation. In H. A. Linstone & M. Turoff (Eds.), The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGroot, M. H. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 118–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq, A. L., van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eils, L. C., & John, R. S. (1980). A criterion validation of multiattribute utility analysis and of group communication strategy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 268–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1975). Unit weighting schemes for decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 171–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., Hogarth, R. M., & Klempner E. (1977). Quality of group judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 158–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eshragh, F., & Mamdani, E. H. (1979). A general approach to linguistic approximation. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 11, 501–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, W. R., & Curtis, P. E. (1983, December). A model of calibration of auditors’ subjective probability distributions and it’s application to aggregation of judgments (Working paper 83- 023 ). Tucscon: University of Arizona, Systems and Industrial Engineering Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, W. R., & McGoey, P. J. (1980). A model of calibration for subjective probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, W. R., & Rehm, K. (1980, May). A model of subjective probabilities from small groups. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference on Manual Control. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. W. (1981). When oracles fail—A comparison of four procedures for aggregating subjective probability forecasts. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 96–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, B. R., & Kohout L. J. (1977). The fuzzy decade: A bibliography of fuzzy systems and closely related topics. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9, 1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselli, E. E. (1964). Theory of psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goitem, B. ( 1983, June). An application of techniques for improving group problem solving to in-creasing the use of statistical reasoning by groups assessing uncertainty. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Forecasting, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, P. (1975). Scientific inquiry or political critique? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7, 195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, B. C. (1972). Action selection and likelihood ratio estimation by individuals and groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, R. (1975). The effect of group format on aggregate subjective probability distributions. In D. Wendt & C. Vlek (Eds.), Utility, probability, and human decision making, Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R. K., Delbecq, A., & Walster, G. W. (1973). A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups and nominal groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 280–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., & Wason, W. H. (1971). The effects of a normative intervention on group decision-making performance. Human Relations, 23, 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M. (1978). A note on aggregating opinions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 40–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M. (1980). Judgment and choice. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (1972). Experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, A. (1975). Introduction to the theory of fuzzy subsets (Vol. I). Fundamental theoretical elements. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. (1976). A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Management Science, 23, 140–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., & Kirkwood, C. W. (1975). Group decision making using cardinal social welfare functions. Management Science, 22, 430–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochen, M., & Badre, A. N. (1974). On the precision of adjectives which denote fuzzy sets. Journal of Cybernetics, 4, 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamm, H., & Myers, D. G. (1978). Group induced polarization of attitudes and behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 145–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J., & Brenner, M. (1958). A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual performance. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 337–372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marcotorchino, J. F., & Michaud, P. (1982). Preference aggregation and cutaneous melanoma. Perspectives in Computing, 2, 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, W. J. (1966). Development of the SPAN technique for making decisions in human groups. American Behavioral Scientist, 9, 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P. A. (1974). Decision analysis expert use. Management Science, 20, 1233–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P. A. (1977). Combining expert judgments: A Bayesian approach. Management Science, 23, 679–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P. A. (1983). An axiomatic approach to expert resolution. Management Science, 29, 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OInick, M. (1978). An introduction to mathematical models in the social and life sciences. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, H. V. (1965). Probalistic prediction. American Statistical Association Journal, 60, 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbaugh, J. (1979). Improving the quality of group judgment: Social judgment analysis and the Delphi technique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 73–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackman, H. (1974). Delphi critique. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seaver, D. A. (1979). Assessing probability with multiple individuals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seaver, D. A., von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1978). Eliciting subjective probability distributions on continuous variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, I. (1982). Probability assessment by individual auditors and audit teams: An empirical investigation. Journal of Accounting Research, 20, 689–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staël von Holstein, C-A. S. (1970). Assessment and evaluation of subjective probability distributions. Stockholm: The Economic Research Institute at the Stockholm School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uecker, W. C. (1982). The quality of group performance in simplified information evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research, 20, 388–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainer, H. (1976). Estimating coefficients in linear models: It don’t make no nevermind. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 213–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J. E., Hitchcock, J. D., & McKinnon, W. J. (1969). SPAN decision making in established groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 78, 183–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R. L. (1971). Probabilistic prediction: Some experimental results. Journal of the Ameri- 15, 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R. L. (1971). Probabilistic prediction: Some experimental results, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66, 675–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R. L. (1981). Combining probability distributions from dependent information sources. Management Science, 27, 479–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning (Parts I, II, III). Information Science, 8, 199–249, 301–357: 9, 43–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Systems and Industrial Engineering Department, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721, USA

    William R. Ferrell

Authors
  1. William R. Ferrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. City of London Polytechnic, London, England

    George Wright

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1985 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ferrell, W.R. (1985). Combining Individual Judgments. In: Wright, G. (eds) Behavioral Decision Making. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2391-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2391-4_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-9460-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-2391-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation