Participants' response to the Delphi method: An attitudinal perspective

Abstract The processes involved in an individual's response to the Delphi method are conditioned by a number of psychological affects. This paper examines aspects of two of these processes: the basis for changing opinions, and the factors related to continued participation in subsequent Delphi rounds. The attitudinal perspective is shown to be promising in explaining an individual panelist's response in the Delphi method. Cognitive dissonance apparently has a significant role to play in bolstering the assimilation of nonconforming respondents. This is, however, complicated by the respondents' perception of the credibility of the feedback received. Careful choice of panels may reduce dropouts, presumably by selecting those with a high degree of ego involvement. Nonetheless, elements of cognitive dissonance apparently lead certain panelists to abandon the Delphi process. It is evident that numerous parallels exist between psychological explanations of attitude change and the behavior of Delphi panelists.

[1]  Joseph L. Schofer,et al.  Goals-delphis for urban planning: Concepts in their design , 1973 .

[2]  William J. McGuire,et al.  Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments. , 1961 .

[3]  Wayne K. Talley,et al.  Individual stability in Delphi studies , 1980 .

[4]  T H CHOO,et al.  COMMUNICATOR CREDIBILITY AND COMMUNICATION DISCREPANCY AS DETERMINANTS OF OPINION CHANGE. , 1964, The Journal of social psychology.

[5]  Elliot Aronson,et al.  Communicator credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. , 1963 .

[6]  Stephen S. Skjei.  Information for collective action: A microanalytic view of plural decision-making , 1973 .

[7]  S. W. Cochran,et al.  Needs of older Americans assessed by Delphi procedures. , 1972, Journal of Gerontology.

[8]  Ralph M. Stogdill,et al.  Individual Behavior and Group Achievement , 1960 .

[9]  Chester A. Insko,et al.  Theories of attitude change , 1967 .

[10]  Frederick R. Cyphert,et al.  The Delphi Technique: A Case Study. , 1971 .

[11]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness , 1951 .

[12]  Richard N. Farmer,et al.  COMPARATIVE management and economic progress , 1966 .

[13]  Ronald Abler.  Human Geography in a Shrinking World. , 1976 .

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

[15]  H. B. Green.  SOCIALIZATION VALUES IN THE NEGRO AND EAST INDIAN SUBCULTURES OF TRINIDAD. , 1964, The Journal of social psychology.

[16]  Harold Sackman,et al.  Delphi critique : expert opinion, forecasting, and group process , 1975 .

[17]  H. Kelley,et al.  Communication And Persuasion , 1953 .

[18]  Wayne K. Talley,et al.  Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies , 1979 .

[19]  Jerry B. Schneider,et al.  The policy Delphi: A regional planning application , 1971 .

[20]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[21]  Vijay Mahajan,et al.  Using the Delphi method to assess community health needs , 1977 .

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

[23]  William J. McGuire,et al.  Cognitive consistency and attitude change. , 1960 .

[24]  K. E. Smith.  Delphi Methods and Rural Development , 2013 .

[25]  W. A. Scott.  Attitude change through reward of verbal behavior. , 1957, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[26]  B. Berelson,et al.  Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings , 1964 .

[27]  Peter G. Goldschmidt,et al.  Scientific inquiry or political critique?: Remarks on Delphi assessment, expert opinion, forecasting, and group process by H. Sackman , 1975 .

[28]  M. Rokeach,et al.  Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. A Theory of Organization and Change , 1968 .