IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v20y2011i1d10.1007_s10726-010-9201-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Emergence of Individual Knowledge in a Group Setting: Mitigating Cognitive Fallacies

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel E. O’Leary

    (Marshall School of Business)

Abstract

Research in psychology has found that subjects regularly exhibit a conjunction fallacy in probability judgments. Additional research has led to the finding of other fallacies in probability judgment, including disjunction and conditional fallacies. Such analyses of judgments are critical because of the substantial amount of probability judgment done in accounting, business and organizational settings. However, most previous research has been conducted in the environment of a single decision maker. Since business and other organizational environments also employ groups, it is important to determine the impact of groups on such cognitive fallacies. This paper finds that groups substantially mitigate the impact of probability judgment fallacies among the sample of subjects investigated. The key finding of this paper is the analysis of the apparent manner in which groups make such decisions. A statistical analysis, based on a binomial distribution, suggests that groups investigated here did not use consensus. Instead, if any one member of the group has correct knowledge about the probability relationships, then the group uses that knowledge and does not exhibit fallacy in probability judgment. Having a computational model of the group decision making process provides a basis for developing computational models that can be used to simulate “mirror worlds” of reality or model decision making in real world settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel E. O’Leary, 2011. "The Emergence of Individual Knowledge in a Group Setting: Mitigating Cognitive Fallacies," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 3-18, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:20:y:2011:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-010-9201-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-010-9201-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-010-9201-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-010-9201-y?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. Davis, James 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, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 3-38, June.
    2. Camerer, Colin F, 1987. "Do Biases in Probability Judgment Matter in Markets? Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 981-997, December.
    3. P. George Benson & Shawn P. Curley & Gerald F. Smith, 1995. "Belief Assessment: An Underdeveloped Phase of Probability Elicitation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(10), pages 1639-1653, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Slembeck, Tilman & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2004. "Do institutions promote rationality?: An experimental study of the three-door anomaly," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 337-350, July.
    2. Johnson, Eric N., 1995. "Effects of information order, group assistance, and experience on auditors' sequential belief revision," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 137-160, March.
    3. Burton, F. Greg & Coller, Maribeth & Tuttle, Brad, 2006. "Market responses to qualitative information from a group polarization perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 107-127, February.
    4. Boris Maciejovsky & Matthias Sutter & David V. Budescu & Patrick Bernau, 2013. "Teams Make You Smarter: How Exposure to Teams Improves Individual Decisions in Probability and Reasoning Tasks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(6), pages 1255-1270, June.
    5. Nelson, Mark W. & Bloomfield, Robert & Hales, Jeffrey W. & Libby, Robert, 2001. "The Effect of Information Strength and Weight on Behavior in Financial Markets," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 168-196, November.
    6. Benjamin Enke & Florian Zimmermann, 2019. "Correlation Neglect in Belief Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 313-332.
    7. Chen Lian & Yueran Ma & Carmen Wang, 2019. "Low Interest Rates and Risk-Taking: Evidence from Individual Investment Decisions," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(6), pages 2107-2148.
    8. Baethge, Caroline, 2016. "Performance in the beauty contest: How strategic discussion enhances team reasoning," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Betriebswirtschaftliche Reihe B-17-16, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    9. David M. Frankel, 2008. "Adaptive Expectations And Stock Market Crashes," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 595-619, May.
    10. Jason Shachat & Anand Srinivasan, 2022. "Informational Price Cascades and Non-Aggregation of Asymmetric Information in Experimental Asset Markets," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 388-407, November.
    11. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K. & Shehata, Mohamed, 1997. "Market behavior in the presence of costly, imperfect information: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 61-74, May.
    12. Max Albert & Andreas Hildenbrand, 2012. "Industrial organization in the laboratory," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201205, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    13. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2005. "Individual option prices for climate change mitigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 283-301, February.
    14. Wolfgang Luhan & Martin Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Group polarization in the team dictator game reconsidered," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(1), pages 26-41, March.
    15. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    16. Steinel, Wolfgang & De Dreu, Carsten K.W. & Ouwehand, Elsje & Ramírez-Marín, Jimena Y., 2009. "When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 67-78, May.
    17. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    18. Bruno Biais & Denis Hilton & Karine Mazurier & Sébastien Pouget, 2000. "Psychological Traits and Trading Strategies," CSEF Working Papers 39, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    19. Felix Bolduan & Ivo Schedlinsky & Friedrich Sommer, 2021. "The influence of compensation interdependence on risk-taking: the role of mutual monitoring," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(8), pages 1125-1148, October.
    20. Farjam, Mike & Kirchkamp, Oliver, 2018. "Bubbles in hybrid markets: How expectations about algorithmic trading affect human trading," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 248-269.

    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:spr:grdene:v:20:y:2011:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-010-9201-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.