From individual preference construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes

Milch, Kerry F.; Weber, Elke U.; Appelt, Kirstin C.; Handgraaf, Michel J. J.; Krantz, David H.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.11.003

Cited by 93 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, group researchers have also demonstrated that under certain conditions, groups will actually attenuate some of the biases that individual decision makers are prone to make (e.g., Augustinova, 2008;Kuhberger, 1998;Milch, Weber, Appelt, Handgraaf & Krantz, 2009). When a shared stereotype exists in the group, it may serve as a shared task representation and be exacerbated at the group level.…”

Section: Groups and Decision-making Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Roles of Shared Stereotypes and Shared Processing Goals on Mock Jury Decision Making

Stawiski

Dykema‐Engblade

Tindale

2012

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Groups and Decision-making Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Roles of Shared Stereotypes and Shared Processing Goals on Mock Jury Decision Making

Stawiski

Dykema‐Engblade

Tindale

2012

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(i) It relies on a predefined framework for benchmarking fisheries sustainability (the MSC fishery standard) rather than on case-specific definitions: this allows a standardized framing of problems across fishery systems, brings considerable time saving during the interaction, and creates opportunities for synergy by tapping the experience and solutions of other systems; (ii) It shifts the focus from problem detection to solution finding: this puts less emphasis on the precise assignment of scores for evaluation purposes (like in the MSC certification process) and more on finding collectively accepted solutions to fishery problems; (iii) It places critical decisions in the hands of the group rather than the individual expert (Milch et al, 2009): this adds flexibility for the targets to set and outputs to achieve, and ensures the involvement of critical stakeholders in creating change.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking for data-limited fishery systems to support collaborative focus on solutions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This shows that, though some evidence indicates that participation may increase use of climate forecasts (Patt et al 2005;Roncoli et al 2009), it does not always lead to accurate understanding and optimal responses. The possibility that group processing of information may introduce biases in risk management decisions is well recognized, but this is generally attributed to psychological factors (Cooke 2001;Milch et al 2009) rather than to cultural dimensions of participation. Group biases may be magnified by consensus-based decision-making, as illustrated by current research on citizen participation and deliberative democracy (Cornwall and Schattan Coelho 2007;Leach and Scoones 2005;Stirling 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural styles of participation in farmers’ discussions of seasonal climate forecasts in Uganda

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is confronting African farmers with growing uncertainties. Advances in seasonal climate predictions offer potential for assisting farmers in dealing with climate risk. Experimental cases of forecast dissemination to African rural communities suggest that participatory approaches can facilitate understanding and use of uncertain climate information. But few of these studies integrate critical reflections on participation that have emerged in the last decade which reveal how participatory approaches can miss social dynamics of power at the community level and in the broader context. Furthermore, neither climate application research nor theoretical critiques of participation fully examine the culturally constructed nature of participation. Drawing on sociolinguistic analysis, in-depth interviews, and ethnographic observation, this paper examines how Ugandan farmers engage in participation in the context of discussions of seasonal climate forecasts. Forecasts were presented to farmers groups whose members were then asked to discuss the forecast among themselves. In doing so, groups sought to develop a common understanding of the forecast and consensual plans for response strategies. Focusing on one particular group meeting as an example, we show how different cultural styles of participation affect the interpretation of the forecast and the formulation of response strategies. Group interaction is shown to be mostly structured around two styles of participation. On the one hand, there is the ''Western'' style advocated by NGOs and the government, which centers on ensuring that all individuals who are present have opportunities to speak during discussion and to vote on group decisions. On the other hand, a ''Kiganda'' style of participation emphasizes the importance of affirming ties to a collectivity, respect for social hierarchy, deployment of good manners, and consensus building. The case study illuminates how the performance of different styles of participation is grounded in localized frameworks of language and culture but also draw on political and policy discourses at the national level. Although a cultural high value on consensus may work in favor of prominent members, the availability of multiple styles of participation also enables group members to exercise their agency in positive ways. Attention to the interplay of different styles of participation throws light on the subtle social processes that shape how knowledge is assessed, which sources are trusted, which and whose interpretations prevail, what options are deemed viable, how costs and benefits are calculated, and whose resources are mobilized in the effort to reduce vulnerability to climate risk. These are key questions for an assessment of the role of boundary organizations, such as farmer associations, in the communication and application of climate forecasts in agriculture.

show abstract

From individual preference construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes

Cited by 93 publications

References 52 publications

The Roles of Shared Stereotypes and Shared Processing Goals on Mock Jury Decision Making

The Roles of Shared Stereotypes and Shared Processing Goals on Mock Jury Decision Making

Benchmarking for data-limited fishery systems to support collaborative focus on solutions

Cultural styles of participation in farmers’ discussions of seasonal climate forecasts in Uganda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About