Explaining choice shift: An effects coded model

Mayer, Michael

doi:10.1080/03637758509376097

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A few subjects indicated to this researcher that they had enjoyed discussing various aspects of each situation in the BCDQ with their co-workers (in the instructions distributed with the survey, subjects were not asked to refrain from discussing the situations in the BCDQ with their colleagues). Several researchers have studied the effect of group discussion on risk-taking propensity and have found that individuals may change their responses to CDQ-type situations after discussion with others (Boster & Hale, 1989;Fischer & Burdeny, 1972;Jesuino, 1986;Mayer, 1985;Shure, Malamuth, & Johnston, 1975;Stoner, 1968;Vidmar & Burdeny, 1971;Wallach & Mabli, 1970). This phenomenon, known as "choice shift," can change responses i n the risky or the cautious direction, depending upon the nature of the CDQ-type situation.…”

Section: Discussion Of Results: Descriptive Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research has been conducted to determine the relationship between risk-taking propensity and age (Bailey, 1991;Botwinick, 1966;Botwinick, 1969;Calhoun & Hutchison, 1981;Korchin & Basowitz, 1956;MacCrimmon & Wehrung, 1986;Masters & Meier, 1990;Vroom & Pahl, 1971;Wallach & Kogan, 1961), gender (Bailey, 1991;Botwinick, 1966;Kogan & Dorros, 1978;Masters & Meier, 1990;Schell & Bonin, 1989;Wallach & Kogan, 1959;Wallach & Mabli, 1970), number of dependents (MacCrimmon & Wehrung, 1986), the influence of the opinions of others (Boster & Hale, 1989;Fischer & Burdeny, 1972;Jesuino, 1986;Mayer, 1985;Shure, Malamuth, & Johnston, 1975;Stoner, 1968;Vidmar & Burdeny, 1971;Wallach & Mabli, 1970), book censorship (Schell & Bonin, 1989), societal values (Stoner, 1968;Wallach & Mabli, 1970), motivational factors (Saha & Krishna, 1991), professional status (Masters & Meier, 1990), longevity of employment (Kouzes & Posner, 1995;MacCrimmon & Wehrung, 1986;Macmillan, 1993;Wardlow, Swanson, & Migler, 1992), academic discipline (Masters & Meier, 1990), educational level (Bailey, 1991;…”

Section: Risk-taking Propensity Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Choice shift: The tendency of a small group to make a more extreme decision than its individual members made previously (Mayer, 1985); also termed group shift or group-induced shift.…”

Section: Cdqmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The stability of the risky or cautious shift in the individual members after group discussion was also of interest to the researchers. Mayer (1985) offered three possible explanations for the phenomenon of choice shift: 1) diffusion of responsibility, 2) persuasive argument, and 3) social comparison. In the diffusion of responsibility explanation, the individual's accountability is reduced when in a group; therefore an individual may agree to a riskier stance in a group than s/he would have taken alone.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since its development, the CDQ, parts of the CDQ, and modifications of the CDQ have been widely used by other researchers to measure risk-taking propensity in psychology-related studies (Boster & Hale, 1989;Botwinick, 1966;Botwinick, 1969;Calhoun & Hutchison, 1981;Fischer & Burdeny, 1972;Jackson, Hourany, & Vidmar, 1972;Kogan & Dorros, 1978;Mayer, 1985;Saha & Krishna, 1991;Shure, Malamuth, & Johnston, 1975;Stoner, 1968;Vidmar & Burdeny, 1971;Vroom & Pahl, 1971;Wallach & Mabli, 1970;Zuber, Crott & Werner, 1992), business-related studies (Zinkhan, Joachimsthaler, and Kinnear, 1987), and education-related studies (Horber & Geisinger, 1983, Schell & Bonin, 1989. The CDQ or parts of it have also been translated and administered in research studies in other countries (Jesuino, 1986;Saha & Krishna, 1991;Zuber, Crott & Werner, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Risk-taking propensity of faculty, administrators and academic departament heads at large, urban, multicampus community college

Bolton¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

, "Risk-taking propensity of faculty, administrators and academic departament heads at large, urban, multicampus community college" (1997 propensity among employees at a community college. Risk-taking propensity (RTP) was measured by the 12-item BCDQ, which consisted of personal and professional risk-related situations balanced for the money, reputation, and satisfaction dimensions of the risk construct. Scoring ranged from 1.00 (most cautious) to 6.00 (most risky).Surveys including the BCDQ and seven demographic questions relating to age, gender, professional status, length of service, academic discipline, highest degree, and campus location were sent to faculty, administrators, and academic department heads. A total of 325 surveys were returned, resulting in a 66.7% response rate. Subjects were relatively homogeneous for age, length of service, and highest degree.Subjects were also homogeneous for risk-taking propensity: no substantive differences in RTP scores were noted within and among vi demographic groups, with the possible exception of academic discipline. The mean RTP score for all subjects was 3.77, for faculty was 3.76, for administrators was 3.83, and for department heads was 3.64.The relationship between propensity to take personal risks and propensity to take professional risks was tested by computing Pearson r correlation coefficients. The relationships for the total sample, faculty, and administrator groups were statistically significant, but of limited practical significance. Subjects were placed into risk categories by dividing the response scale into thirds. A 3 X 3 factorial ANOVA revealed no interaction effects between professional status and risk category with regard to RTP score.A discriminant analysis showed that a seven-factor model was not effective in predicting risk category.The homogeneity of the study sample and the effect of a riskencouraging environment were discussed in the context of the community college. Since very little data on risk-taking in education is available, risk propensity data from this study could serve as a basis for comparison to future research. Results could be used by institutions to plan professional development activities, designed to increase risk-taking and encourage active acceptance of change.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of Results: Descriptive Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk-taking Propensity Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Choice shift: The tendency of a small group to make a more extreme decision than its individual members made previously (Mayer, 1985); also termed group shift or group-induced shift.…”

Section: Cdqmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Risk-taking propensity of faculty, administrators and academic departament heads at large, urban, multicampus community college

Bolton¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence

Meyers

1989

Communication Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persuasive Arguments Theory (PAT) is a noninteractional theory of group decision-making that predicts postdiscussion shifts (polarization/choice shifts) from the cognitive arguments individuals generate prior to discussion. PAT relegates interaction to a "display channel"; it is considered an efficient, but not necessary, mechanism for displaying members' cognitive arguments in group discussion. The principal PAT predictor model incorporates four primary elements: (a) cognitive arguments, (b) cognitive argument novelty ratings, (c) cognitive argument persuasiveness ratings, and (d) a weighted-averaging combinatory formula. This model is utilized to predict individual and group shifts produced in group discussion. Following a review, critique, and alternative interaction-based explanation of the argument-decision shift link, two models, each increasingly more interactionoriented, are advanced to test the PAT perspective on argument. Results of the tests revealed that although the initial model was not a significantly better predictor of postdiscussion shifts than the PAT model, the second elaborated model demonstrated superior predictive ability at some levels of analysis. Implications for PAT and for the role of communication in determining decision shifts are discussed.

show abstract

Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument‐outcome link

Meyers

Brashers

1998

Communication Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explaining choice shift: An effects coded model

Cited by 7 publications

References 37 publications

Risk-taking propensity of faculty, administrators and academic departament heads at large, urban, multicampus community college

Risk-taking propensity of faculty, administrators and academic departament heads at large, urban, multicampus community college

Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence

Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument‐outcome link

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About