The effects of group decisions and group-shifts on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic

The use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic by individuals and groups was examined. Subjects were either in a high or low anchor condition, and made decisions as individuals (pregroup), within groups, and then again as individuals (postgroup). Within-subject measurements were made to determine the extent of groups’ use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic, and the extent of group-shifts. The results indicate that groups are susceptible to anchoring effects in a manner similar to those of individuals. Additionally, a group-shift effect was noted, whereby group discussion allowed subjects’ decision choices to move further from the anchor levels than the pregroup-individuals’ choices. This further move from the anchor remained after the groups disbanded.

[1]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[2]  Johannes A. Zuber,et al.  Choice shift and group polarization : an analysis of the status of arguments and social decision schemes , 1992 .

[3]  Michael A. Wallach,et al.  DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND LEVEL OF RISK TAKING IN GROUPS. , 1963, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[4]  D. G. Pruitt.  Choice shifts in group discussion: An introductory review. , 1971 .

[5]  Dorwin Cartwright,et al.  Risk taking by individuals and groups: An assessment of research employing choice dilemmas. , 1971 .

[6]  Robert Libby,et al.  Accounting and human information processing : theory and applications , 1981 .

[7]  D. Mackie.  Social identification effects in group polarization. , 1986 .

[8]  S. Moscovici,et al.  The group as a polarizer of attitudes. , 1969 .

[9]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. , 1992 .

[10]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Judgment processes in motivation: Anchoring and adjustment effects on judgment and behavior. , 1991 .

[11]  Johannes A. Zuber,et al.  Group decision, choice shift, and polarization in consulting, political, and local political scenarios: An experimental investigation and theoretical analysis , 1991 .

[12]  L. R. Hoffman.  Group Problem Solving1 , 1965 .

[13]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  Response Scale Ambiguity as a Moderator of the Choice Shift , 1989 .

[14]  M. Wallach,et al.  CAN GROUP MEMBERS RECOGNIZE THE EFFECTS OF GROUP DISCUSSION UPON RISK TAKING , 1965 .

[15]  D. J. Schneider,et al.  Test of the "risk is a value" hypothesis. , 1969 .

[16]  J. Sterman.  Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making , 1989 .

[17]  R. Baron,et al.  Why do Groups Make Riskier Decisions Than Individuals?1 , 1970 .

[18]  D. Isenberg.  Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. , 1986 .

[19]  N. Bateson.  Familiarization, group discussion, and risk taking , 1966 .

[20]  Eugene Burnstein,et al.  An Analysis of Group Decisions Involving Risk ("The Risky Shift") , 1969 .

[21]  A. Vinokur,et al.  Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach. , 1974 .

[22]  A. Vinokur.  Cognitive and Affective Processes Influencing Risk Taking in Groups: An Expected Utility Approach. , 1971 .

[23]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Cognitive processes in preference reversals , 1989 .

[24]  Johannes A. Zuber,et al.  Social decision schemes and choice shift: An analysis of group decisions among bets , 1986 .

[25]  S. Plous,et al.  Thinking the Unthinkable : The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear Warl , 1989 .

[26]  G. Wells,et al.  Outcome trees and baseball: A study of expertise and list-length effects , 1991 .