Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decision Conferencing A Unique Approach to the Behavioral Aggregation of Expert Judgment

  • Chapter
Expertise and Decision Support

Abstract

Judgment is an inferential cognitive process by which an individual draws conclusions about unknown quantities or qualities on the basis of available information. The flaws in an individual’s cognitive process leading to inaccurate judgment have been explored widely (Hammond, Stewart, Brehmer, & Steinmann, 1986; Hogarth, 1987; Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Simon, 1945, Simon, 1960). The earliest research on group judgment led to some confidence that the mathematical aggregation of judgments from several individuals (collected as a “statistized,” “nominal,” or “noninteracting” group) usually would be better than the accuracy expected by randomly selecting a single individual from the population of all prospective group members (Bruce, 1935; Gordon, 1924; Knight, 1921).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

  • Bruce, R. S. (1935). Group judgments in the fields of lifted weights and visual discrimination. The Journal of Psychology, 1, 117–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, B. R., Levine, B. J., & Samter, W. (1984). Decision-making procedure and decision quality. Human Communication Research, 10, 557–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.

    Article  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., & Klempner, E. (1977). Quality of group judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 158–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, W. R. (1985). Combining individual judgments. In G. Wright (Ed.), Behavioral decision making. New York: Plenum.

    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 

  • Flores, B. E., & White, E. M. (1989). Subjective versus objective combining of forecasts: An experiment. Journal of Forecasting, 8, 331–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, K. (1924). Group judgments in the field of lifted weights. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 398–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E. J., Mouton, J. S., & Blake, R. R. (1963). Group problem solving effectiveness under conditions of pooling vs. interaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 59, 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., & Williams, M. S. (1970). Group dynamics training and improved decision making. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6, 39–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R., Stewart, T. R., Brehmer, B., & Steinmann, D. O. (1986). Social judgment theory. In H. R. Arkes & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, J., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1990). Social judgment analysis and small group decision making: Cognitive feedback effects on individual and collective performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 34–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, T. T., & Yost, E. B. (1979). A comparison of decision quality under nominal interacting consensus group formats: The case of the structured problem. Decision Sciences, 10, 358–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M. (1987). Judgment and choice. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holloman, C. R., & Hendrick, H. W. (1972). Adequacy of group decisions as a function of the decision-making process. Academy of Management Journal, 8, 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloman, C. R., & Hendrick, H. W. (1971). Problem solving in different sized groups. Personnel Psychology, 24, 489–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. L. (1925). The applicability of the Spearman-Brown formula for the measurement of reliability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 16, 300–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, H. C. (1921). A comparison of the reliability of group and individual judgments. Unpublished master’s thesis, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCartt, A. T., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1989). Evaluating group decision support system effectiveness: A performance study of decision conferencing. Decision Support Systems, 5, 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milter, R. G., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1988). Judgment analysis and decision conferencing for administrative review: A case study of innovative policy making in government. In R. L. Cardy, S. M. Puffer, & J. M. Newman (Eds.), Advances in information processing in organizations (Vol. 3). Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miner, F. C. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemiroff, P. M., & King, D. C. (1975). Group decision-making performance as influenced by consensus and self-orientation. Human Relations, 28, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemiroff, P. M., Pasmore, W. A., & Ford, D. L. (1976). The effects of two normative structural interventions on establishes and ad hoc groups: Implications for improving decision making effectiveness. Decision Sciences, 7, 841–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. D. (1988a). Requisite decision modeling for technological projects. In C. Vlek & G. Cvetkovitch (Eds.), Social decision methodology for technological projects. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. D. (1988b). People-centered group decision support. In G. Doukidis, F. Land, & G. Miller (Eds.), Knowledge based management support systems. Chichester: Harwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, M. G. (1938). Note on the reliability and validity of the group judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 462–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1991). Improving the accuracy of forecasts: A process intervention combining social judgment analysis and group facilitation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University at Albany, State University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbaugh, J. (1988). Cognitive conflict tasks and small group processes. In B. Brehmer & C. R. B. Joyce (Eds.), Human judgment: The SJT approach. Amsterdam: North-Holland Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). Improving the quality of group judgment: Social judgment analysis and the Nominal Group Technique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 272–288.

    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 

  • Simon, H. A. (1945). Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1980). The new science of management decision. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. B. (1941). The validity and reliability of group judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 420–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniezek, J. A. (1990). A comparison of techniques for judgmental forecasting by groups with common information. Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniezek, J. A., & Henry, R. A. (1989). Accuracy and confidence in group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. R. (1987). The Delphi technique and judgmental forecasting. Climatic Change, 11, 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. R. (1932). Is the judgment of the group better than that of the average member of the group? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 550–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, R. L. (1938). On what type of tasks will a group do well? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 33, 409–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmons, W. M. (1942). Can the product superiority of discussors be attributed to averaging or majority influences? Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 23–32.

    Article  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 

  • Yetton, P. W., & Bottger, P. C. (1982). Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Center for Policy Research, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York, 12222

    Patricia Reagan-Cirincione

  2. Graduate School of Public Affairs, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York, 12222

    John Rohrbaugh

Authors
  1. Patricia Reagan-Cirincione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Rohrbaugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Strathclyde Glasgow, Scotland

    George Wright

  2. University College London London, England

    Fergus Bolger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Reagan-Cirincione, P., Rohrbaugh, J. (1992). Decision Conferencing A Unique Approach to the Behavioral Aggregation of Expert Judgment. In: Wright, G., Bolger, F. (eds) Expertise and Decision Support. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-585-34290-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-585-34290-0_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-306-43862-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-585-34290-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation