Spelling suggestions: "subject:"group decisionmaking"" "subject:"group decisionmaking""
1 |
Preferences, Information, and Group Decision MakingEspinoza, Alejandro 15 May 2009 (has links)
This study will examine how the structure of preferences of group members in a
decision-making group, as well as the information they have, affects the collection and
the processing of information by individual members of a decision making group.
Structure of preferences in this study will represent each individual group members’
preference towards a particular course of action. Using an experimental method of
analysis, this study will examine how the preference structure of a group affects what
and how much information a group member will analyze before making a decision. I
hypothesize that the structure of the group members’ preferences should affect the
subjects’ search and process of information. This study aims to answer the following
questions; do group preferences affect the search and processing of information? Do
group members thoroughly survey the objectives and alternatives in the decision making
process?
|
2 |
Develop an assessment process for determining if groupthink characteristics are present in a military unitAllen, Charles H. January 2001 (has links) (PDF)
Thesis--PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2001. / Field problem. Includes bibliographical references.
|
3 |
THE EFFECT OF FEEDBACK AND CONFIDENCE RATINGS ON ESTABLISHED AND AD HOC SPAN DECISION-MAKING GROUPSCockrum, David Lendell. January 1978 (has links)
No description available.
|
4 |
AN ANALYSIS OF THE INDIRECT ALLOCATION FEATURES OF SPAN DECISION-MAKINGErikson, Robert Clifford, 1946- January 1976 (has links)
No description available.
|
5 |
Sex differences in the span decision-making process: ad hoc versus established groupsRoss, Shelagh Noreen, 1936- January 1977 (has links)
No description available.
|
6 |
Impact of group support systems on judgment biases: an experimental investigationLim, Lai-Huat 05 1900 (has links)
Past research has demonstrated that individual and group judgments are subject to systematic
biases. Although much effort has been devoted to the debiasing of individual judgments, no
corresponding work to date has been found on the debiasing of group judgments. Complicating
this research gap is the fact that group and team work is gaining increasing importance in
organizational settings. The current study examines the usefulness of group support systems
(GSS) in addressing two important judgment biases, namely, representativeness bias and
availability bias. Representativeness bias refers to the bias incurred in posterior-probability
estimation by not properly utilizing information sources such as base rate. Availability bias
occurs when events of higher availability to the memory are correspondingly judged as occurring
more frequently.
The formation of a judgment is seen from the perspective of an information integration process.
Two orthogonal dimensions of information integration -- interpersonal and intrapersonal -- are
involved in group judgments. Interpersonal information integration concerns the aspect of
information sharing among group members, and can be supported with the electronic
communication channel of GSS. Intrapersonal information integration deals with the information
processing capacities and capabilities of individuals, and is supportable using cognitive-support
tools of GSS.
A laboratory experiment with a 2x2 factorial design was conducted. One hundred and twenty
subjects took part in the experiment. They were randomly allocated to 40 groups. Two
experimental tasks, designed to examine the two judgment biases of interest, were solved by
each group. Data pertaining to both processes and outcomes were collected and analyzed.
Representativeness bias was reduced by the use of cognitive support, in the form of a problem
representation tool. Groups with the problem representation tool made fewer references to
diagnostic information versus base rate, leading to the use of more correct strategies which
combined these two information sources. The use of the problem representation tool was found to be responsible for causing this chain of events. On the other hand, electronic communication
did not lead to a similar change in the pattern of group processes, and, correspondingly, did not
reduce the representativeness bias. Although electronic communication is capable of improving
the interpersonal aspect of information integration, the representativeness bias is primarily a
result of cognitive limitations, and benefits little from improved communication among group
members.
Availability bias was reduced by both cognitive support and communication support. Cognitive
support, in the form of electronic brainstorming, increased the information search scope of
issues, especially those issues of relatively low availability to the memory. Electronic
communication allows parallel input and has a lower social presence than verbal communication.
These features helped to reduce the extent of groupthink and widened the range of alternative
solutions proposed.
Some interaction effects were observed on group members’ perceptions of the group process.
For example, communication medium had an effect on group members’ satisfaction in groups
without cognitive support, but not those with cognitive support. Correspondingly, cognitive
support affected some perceptual variables in verbally-communicating groups, but not
electronically-communicating groups. Examples of such effects include an increase in perceived
socio-emotional behavior and perceived informal leadership.
|
7 |
The effects of group cohesiveness on group conformity and member satisfaction /Kern, Wilfried, January 1992 (has links)
Thesis (M.S.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1992. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 127-131). Also available via the Internet.
|
8 |
Decision logics in juries /Macoubrie, Jane. January 1998 (has links)
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves[149]-162).
|
9 |
An analysis of group decision justification and its implications for GSS use and design idealsPhahlamohlaka, Letlibe Jacob. January 2003 (has links)
Thesis (PhD (Information Technology)) -- University of Pretoria, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references.
|
10 |
Account vocabularies and social accountability : constructing social reality in decision-making talk /Castor, Theresa Rose. January 1999 (has links)
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 175-185).
|
Page generated in 0.0905 seconds