IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v27y2011i1p41-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group diversity and decision quality: Amplification and attenuation of the framing effect

Author

Listed:
  • Yaniv, Ilan

Abstract

Do groups make better judgments and decisions than individuals? We tested the hypothesis that the advantage of groups over individuals in decision-making depends on the group composition. Our study used susceptibility to the framing effect as a measure of decision quality. Individuals were assigned to one of two perspectives on a choice problem. The individuals were asked to indicate their individual preference between a risky option and a risk-free option. Next, they were asked to consider the same (or a related) choice problem as a group. Homogeneous groups were composed of similarly framed individuals, while the heterogeneous ones were composed of differently framed individuals. In comparison to individual preferences, the homogeneous groups’ preferences were polarized, and thus the framing effect was amplified; in contrast, the heterogeneous groups’ preferences converged, and thus the framing effect was reduced to zero. The findings are discussed with regard to group polarization, the effects of heterogeneity on group performance, and the Delphi forecasting method.

Suggested Citation

  • Yaniv, Ilan, 2011. "Group diversity and decision quality: Amplification and attenuation of the framing effect," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 41-49.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:41-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207010000944
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paese, Paul W. & Bieser, Mary & Tubbs, Mark E., 1993. "Framing Effects and Choice Shifts in Group Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 149-165, October.
    2. Tindale, R. Scott & Sheffey, Susan & Scott, Leslie A., 1993. "Framing and Group Decision-Making: Do Cognitive Changes Parallel Preference Changes?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 470-485, August.
    3. Gary Bornstein & Ilan Yaniv, 1998. "Individual and Group Behavior in the Ultimatum Game: Are Groups More “Rational” Players?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 101-108, June.
    4. Milch, Kerry F. & Weber, Elke U. & Appelt, Kirstin C. & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & Krantz, David H., 2009. "From individual preference construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 242-255, March.
    5. Rowe, Gene & Wright, George, 1999. "The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 353-375, October.
    6. Sniezek, Janet A., 1992. "Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 124-155, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pennings, Clint L.P. & van Dalen, Jan & Rook, Laurens, 2019. "Coordinating judgmental forecasting: Coping with intentional biases," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 46-56.
    2. Ciccarone Giuseppe & Giuli Francesco & Marchetti Enrico, 2020. "Prospect Theory and sentiment-driven fluctuations," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 20(1), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Palmié, Maximilian & Parida, Vinit & Mader, Anna & Wincent, Joakim, 2023. "Clarifying the scaling concept: A review, definition, and measure of scaling performance and an elaborate agenda for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Jiang, Ruth & Kleer, Robin & Piller, Frank T., 2017. "Predicting the future of additive manufacturing: A Delphi study on economic and societal implications of 3D printing for 2030," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 84-97.
    5. Culot, Giovanna & Orzes, Guido & Sartor, Marco & Nassimbeni, Guido, 2020. "The future of manufacturing: A Delphi-based scenario analysis on Industry 4.0," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    6. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    7. repec:oup:jconrs:v:49:y:2023:i:5:p:926-939. is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Schlecht, Laura & Schneider, Sabrina & Buchwald, Arne, 2021. "The prospective value creation potential of Blockchain in business models: A delphi study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    9. Philipp Ecken & Richard Pibernik, 2016. "Hit or Miss: What Leads Experts to Take Advice for Long-Term Judgments?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2002-2021, July.
    10. von Briel, Frederik, 2018. "The future of omnichannel retail: A four-stage Delphi study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 217-229.
    11. Wright, George & Rowe, Gene, 2011. "Group-based judgmental forecasting: An integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, January.
    12. Crawford, Megan M., 2019. "A comprehensive scenario intervention typology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    13. Kawamoto, Carlos Tadao & Wright, James Terence Coulter & Spers, Renata Giovinazzo & de Carvalho, Daniel Estima, 2019. "Can we make use of perception of questions' easiness in Delphi-like studies? Some results from an experiment with an alternative feedback," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 296-305.
    14. repec:eee:intfor:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    16. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    17. Förster, Bernadette & von der Gracht, Heiko, 2014. "Assessing Delphi panel composition for strategic foresight — A comparison of panels based on company-internal and external participants," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 215-229.
    18. Amira Galin, 2013. "Endowment Effect in negotiations: group versus individual decision-making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 389-401, September.
    19. Joseph Steinhardt & Michael A. Shapiro, 2015. "Framing Effects in Narrative and Non‐Narrative Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(8), pages 1423-1436, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yaniv, Ilan, 2011. "Group diversity and decision quality: Amplification and attenuation of the framing effect," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 41-49, January.
    2. Levine, John M. & Higgins, E. Tory & Choi, Hoon-Seok, 2000. "Development of Strategic Norms in Groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 88-101, May.
    3. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    4. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    5. Martin G. Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2005. "The Decision Maker Matters: Individual Versus Group Behaviour in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(500), pages 200-223, January.
    6. Anita Williams Woolley, 2011. "Playing Offense vs. Defense: The Effects of Team Strategic Orientation on Team Process in Competitive Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1384-1398, December.
    7. Haoran He & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "Are teams less inequality averse than individuals?," Post-Print halshs-01077253, HAL.
    8. Mohammed, Susan & Ringseis, Erika, 2001. "Cognitive Diversity and Consensus in Group Decision Making: The Role of Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 310-335, July.
    9. He, Haoran & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2017. "Are group members less inequality averse than individual decision makers?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 111-124.
    10. Amira Galin, 2013. "Endowment Effect in negotiations: group versus individual decision-making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 389-401, September.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:5:p:659-668 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Andreas Glöckner & Janet Kleber & Stephan Tontrup & Stefan Bechtold, 2009. "The Endowment Effect in Groups with and without Strategic Incentives," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_35, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    13. Kerr, Norbert L. & Tindale, R. Scott, 2011. "Group-based forecasting?: A social psychological analysis," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 14-40, January.
    14. Kerr, Norbert L. & Tindale, R. Scott, 2011. "Group-based forecasting?: A social psychological analysis," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 14-40.
    15. Haoran He & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "Are team members less inequality averse than individual decision makers?," Working Papers halshs-00996545, HAL.
    16. Michel J. J. Handgraaf & Kerry F. Milch & Kirstin C. Appelt & Philip Schuette & Nicole A. Yoskowitz & Elke U. Weber, 2012. "Web-conferencing as a viable method for group decision research," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(5), pages 659-668, September.
    17. Prommer, Lisa & Tiberius, Victor & Kraus, Sascha, 2020. "Exploring the future of startup leadership development," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).
    18. Chen, Yunong & Belmonte, Andrew & Griffin, Christopher, 2021. "Imitation of success leads to cost of living mediated fairness in the Ultimatum Game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 583(C).
    19. Morone, A. & Morone, P. & Germani, A.R., 2014. "Individual and group behaviour in the traveler's dilemma: An experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-7.
    20. Bas Kolen & Matthijs Kok & Ira Helsloot & Bob Maaskant, 2013. "EvacuAid: A Probabilistic Model to Determine the Expected Loss of Life for Different Mass Evacuation Strategies During Flood Threats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(7), pages 1312-1333, July.
    21. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:41-49. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.