Quantitative Decisions by Groups and Individuals: Voting Procedures and Monetary Awards by Mock Civil Juries

Davis, James H.; Stasson, Mark F.; Parks, Craig D.; Hulbert, Lorne G.; Kameda, Tatsuya; Zimmerman, Suzi K.; Ono, Kaoru

doi:10.1006/jesp.1993.1015

Cited by 28 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Status may be derived from positive social connections (Kilduff and Krackhardt 1994); perceived knowledge or expertise (Wittenbaum 1998(Wittenbaum , 2000; or one's role, physical appearance, socioeconomic standing, or other demographic traits (Thomas-Hunt et al 2003). In line with prior work, we conceptualized each group member's opinion of the expertise of others as respect, a weight that is applied to each member's opinion or position (Davis et al 1993, Davis 1996, Kerr and Tindale 2004, Regan et al 2006, Ekel et al 2008. According to the literature, lead decision makers tend to place more weight on their own position and advisors' position more similar to their own, than on dissimilar positions (Harvey et al 2000, Yaniv andKleinberger 2000).…”

Section: Positions and Respectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the respect values that agents have for themselves and for all the other agents involved in a specific interaction are normalized to ensure relative weighting is only applied across the values of agents involved in the interaction, and not across all the agents in the organization. Consistent with prior models of consensus (Davis et al 1993, Davis 1996, Kerr and Tindale 2004, Regan et al 2006, Ekel et al 2008, each agent's position value is then updated by calculating an average of the positions of all interacting agents, weighted by the respect that each agent has for each other, as follows:…”

Section: Interactions and Position Updatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Watkins¹,

Massey²,

Brooks³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Ecological restoration, particularly in urban contexts, is a complex collective decision-making process that involves a diversity of stakeholders and experts, each with their own perceptions and preferences about what landscapes should and can look like, how to get them to the desired state, and on what timeline. We investigate how structural and behavioral factors may influence collective decision making in the context of ecological restoration, with the purpose of establishing general relationships between management styles (defined by structural and behavioral factors of the organization) and decision outcomes. Informed by existing literature on collective decision making and by empirical data from the Chicago Wilderness region, we present a stylized agent-based model that maps out and simulates the processes by which individuals within restoration organizations communicate, discuss, and ultimately make a decision. Our study examines how structural and behavioral characteristicsincluding: (a) the number of actors and groups involved in decision making, (b) the frequency and type of interactions among actors, (c) the initial setup of positions and respect, (d) outside information, and (e) entrenchment and cost of dissent-lead to or prohibit group convergence in terms of collective position, variation in position across actors, and final decision strategies. We found that formal meetings and group leaders are important facilitators of convergence, especially when multiple groups are present, new information is introduced in the process, and participants are polarized around an issue. Also, intergroup interactions are particularly important for overall convergence. Position entrenchment slows the convergence process and increases the need for decision strategies involving outside intervention. Cost of dissent can reinforce these effects. Our study formalizes collective decision-making processes within the context of ecological restoration, establishes generalizable relationships between these processes and decision outcomes, and provides a foundation for further empirical and modeling research.

show abstract

Section: Positions and Respectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interactions and Position Updatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Watkins¹,

Massey²,

Brooks³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An interpretation of these results is that groups are prone to the same sort, or possibly even an exaggeration, of the attributional biases of individuals. This same exaggeration of individual responses at the collective level has been seen in the choice shift literature (e.g., Myers & Lamm, 1976;Pruitt, 1971), as well as for many civil jury simulation studies (see Davis et al, 1993). The collective entity, composed of a set of individuals who are clearly individually prone to self-serving attributions, simply reflects and even magnifies that response pattern at the group level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Collective Task Responsibility Allocation

Rantilla

2000

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores differences in individual-and group-level allocation of responsibility for task performance following positive and negative performance feedback. In two studies, 330 participants completed and received veridical feedback for a verbal performance task. A group identity measure showed higher levels of group identification in groups with faceto-face interaction compared with those that did not interact. On several measures, both individual-and group-level responses exhibited the classic self-or group-serving response pattern (higher internal attributions for success than for failure). Empirical evidence documents and further refines understanding of a group-serving response pattern in several types of actual collectives.Self-serving attributions, a powerful psychological phenomenon, can be summed up in the following famous saying and its many variants: Success has a hundred fathers, but failure is an unwanted child. Self-serving attributions refers to the tendency to attribute positive outcomes (successes) to internal causes and negative outcomes (failures) to external causes. In other words, following success there

show abstract

“…Kerr (1982) finds that systematic polling of the jury tended to decrease the length of time that the jury took to come to a conclusion, although Davis et al (1993) find that when juries are mandated to take a poll, they tend to hang more often and take longer to deliberate.…”

Section: Motivating Literaturementioning

confidence: 95%

Factors Affecting the Length of Time a Jury Deliberates: Case Characteristics and Jury Composition

Brunell¹,

Dave²,

Morgan³

2009

Review of Law &Amp; Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the time it takes to reach a verdict (deliberation time) using a unique dataset on the deliberation times of actual juries in criminal and civil cases. Duration model results indicate that case complexity, the unanimity of verdicts and the process of voir dire affect deliberation times, whereas jury size, prior juror experience and the gender composition of juries are not significant correlates. The results shed empirical light on an important correlate of trial accuracy using real-world data, in contrast to previous research that employed mock jury data.

show abstract

Quantitative Decisions by Groups and Individuals: Voting Procedures and Monetary Awards by Mock Civil Juries

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Collective Task Responsibility Allocation

Factors Affecting the Length of Time a Jury Deliberates: Case Characteristics and Jury Composition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About