Policy experts' propensity to change their opinion along Delphi rounds

A key to successful Delphi process is to have some panellists to change their opinion as a result of considering the views of their peers. Despite this, studying the changes in opinions has not been in the research focus outside methodological approaches in the field of forecasting. In addition to forecasting, Delphi technique is also used widely in the fields of public policy and strategic decision-making in companies. We assessed opinion shift between Delphi rounds that were set up to evaluate reforms of specific agriculture and forestry policy measures. Theoretical postulates and findings from previous studies concerning consensus and extreme responses were assessed in this real-world Delphi process. The feedback in the process included both numeric and argumentative information from the previous round outcomes. We found that change in opinion was stimulated by the majority's stand whilst providing extreme responses to the arguments that were fed back meant perseverance of opinions. Additionally, interest groups showed differing response behaviour concerning the evaluated agriculture policy measures. In particular, panellists, who represented interest groups, were more persistent in their opinions compared to panellists representing other groups of expertise (e.g. administration, non-governmental organisations or research). Unlike interest groups, other groups or fields of expertise, age, gender or education did not offer elucidation over opinion change. Our results show not only the connection between changing opinions and the feedback information, but also that panellists can be analysed based on their propensity to change their opinion. This feature can be beneficial not only for policy- and decision-making but also, for example, for conflict assessments and for cases where further understanding of the group dynamics is desired.

[1]  J. H. Davis Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. , 1973 .

[2]  M. Deutsch,et al.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[3]  Ian Masser,et al.  Delphi Revisited: Expert Opinion in Urban Analysis , 1987 .

[4]  Heiko A. von der Gracht,et al.  Surface- and deep-level diversity in panel selection — Exploring diversity effects on response behaviour in foresight , 2014 .

[5]  George Wright,et al.  The impact of task characteristics on the performance of structured group forecasting techniques , 1996 .

[6]  Heiko A. von der Gracht,et al.  Consensus measurement in Delphi studies , 2012 .

[7]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Cueing and Cognitive Conflict in Judge-Advisor Decision Making , 1995 .

[8]  Pradip Kumar Ray,et al.  Productivity Management in India: A Delphi Study , 1990 .

[9]  Stephanie C Payne,et al.  Personality predictors of extreme response style. , 2009, Journal of personality.

[10]  J. Uusivuori,et al.  New and enhanced policy measures for the sustainable use of natural resources in agriculture and forestry , 2015 .

[11]  A. Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 1991, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[12]  Muhammad Imran Yousuf,et al.  Using Experts` Opinions Through Delphi Technique , 2007 .

[13]  George Wright,et al.  Improving the Delphi process: Lessons from social psychological research , 2011 .

[14]  Irving M. Lane,et al.  Quality and Acceptance of an Evaluative Task: The Effects of Four Group Decision-Making Formats , 1984 .

[15]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[16]  Gene Rowe,et al.  Judgment change during Delphi-like procedures: The role of majority influence, expertise, and confidence , 2004 .

[17]  Uma G. Gupta,et al.  Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1975–1994) , 1996 .

[18]  Mary Kay Rayens,et al.  Building Consensus Using the Policy Delphi Method , 2000 .

[19]  G. Albaum,et al.  A Cross-National Comparison of Extreme Response Style Measures , 2014 .

[20]  F. Allport,et al.  The Measurement and Motivation of Atypical Opinion in a Certain Group , 1925, American Political Science Review.

[21]  F. H. Hankins,et al.  The Psychology of Social Norms , 1937 .

[22]  George Wright,et al.  Expert Opinions in Forecasting: The Role of the Delphi Technique , 2001 .

[23]  J. Landeta Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences , 2006 .

[24]  N. Kerr,et al.  Group-based forecasting?: A social psychological analysis , 2011 .

[25]  George Wright,et al.  The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis , 1999 .

[26]  Andrew Stranieri,et al.  Does the Delphi process lead to increased accuracy in group-based judgmental forecasts or does it simply induce consensus amongst judgmental forecasters ? , 2011 .

[27]  S. Bonaccio,et al.  Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences , 2006 .

[28]  John Rohrbaugh,et al.  Improving the quality of group judgment: Social judgment analysis and the Delphi technique. , 1979 .

[29]  Murray Turoff,et al.  The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications , 1976 .

[30]  R. D. Needham,et al.  THE POLICY DELPHI: PURPOSE, STRUCTURE, AND APPLICATION , 1990 .

[31]  Petri Tapio,et al.  Disaggregative Policy Delphi: Using cluster analysis as a tool for systematic scenario formation , 2003 .