Search

The age-old question of the generalizability of the results of experiments that are conducted in artificial laboratory settings to more realistic inferential and decision-making situations is considered in this paper. Conservatism in probability revision provides an example of a result that (1) has received wide attention, including attention in terms of implications for real-world decision making, on the basis of experiments conducted in artificial settings and (2) is now apparently thought by many to he highly situational and not at all a ubiquitous phenomenon, in which case its implications for real-world decision making are not as extensive as originally claimed. In this paper conservatism is considered in some detail within the context of the generalizability question. In a more general vein, we discuss some of the difficulties inherent; in experimentation in realistic settings, suggest possible procedures for avoiding or at least alleviating such difficulties, and make a plea for more realistic experiments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years a substantial body of research findings (based almost solely on responses to the Dilemmas-of-Choice instrument as the measure of risk), commonly referred to as the "risky shift" phenomenon, has suggested that groups take greater risks than individuals. This interpretation, if generalizable. would replace the commonly held belief that groups make decisions that are more conservative than. or the average of, individual decisions. This paper examines, empirically and analytically, some major limitations of the generalizability of the risky shift phenomenon. The major concerns of this paper are analysis of (1) the conventional method of statistically analyzing the data generated in risky shift studies, and (2) the measure of risk almost universally used by investigators of the risky shift phenomenon. In order to accomplish this task several experiments were designed. The conventional statistic used in the risky shift literature is analyzed and inferences appropriate to it are explored. The conventional test supports the risky shift findings. A revised measurement scale and alternative statistical testing procedures are discussed. The revised scale permits a continuum of response rather than the discrete choices permitted with the Dilemmas-of-Choice instrument. Results using the alternative methods of statistical analysis and the revised scale are presented. These results do not support the previous findings that groups accept a level of risk significantly greater than that acceptable to the average group member deciding alone. These findings strongly suggest that generalization of the risky shift phenomenon may be limited to individuals and groups using the Dilemmas-of-Choice instrument as the measure of risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper describes a normative-descriptive strategy for cognitive research. In a set of illustrative experiments based on models from physics, subjects were asked to judge the positions and weights necessary to maintain equilibrium in mechanical displays of varying complexity. Whenever possible subjects' judgments were accounted for through the appropriate normative models; otherwise descriptive models were generated from the normative models and from the results of the other experiments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The widely held belief that participation in decision making will result in power equalization between "haves" and "have-nots" is criticized. It is hypothesized, on the contrary, that when great differences exist in the expert power of group members. the participation process will provide the more powerful persons with greater opportunities for using their expert power, with the result that their effective influence on the less powerful will increase. An experiment was designed in which two variations of Other's expert power and two variations of Subject's extent of participation with Other (Other being a paper stooge) were manipulated. Measures included pre- and post-measures of Subject's preference for a certain solution of a complex problem. As a result, the Experimenter could determine whether or not Subject had changed from his initial point of view to one in line with the opposite opinion advanced by Other and was able to find out Subject's reactions to Other and to the influence process. Two hypotheses were put to test: Hypothesis One: a higher degree of expert power (availability of relevant information) of Other will result in more effective influence by Other on Subject than lower expert power. Hypothesis Two: the more expert power possessed by Other, and the greater the extent of Subject's participation with Other in the decision-making processes, the greater Other's effective influence on Subject. Both hypotheses were strongly supported by the experimental findings. The relevance of the tested theory and of other empirical data for "democratization processes" is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the results of an experiment designed in investigate the relationship between intuitive Bayesian point est inial and theoretically optimal Bayesian point estimates for various probability distributions (normal distributions) and loss functions (linear and quadratic loss functions). The results indicate that this relationship depends somewhat on the parameters of the distribution and loss function. Overall. however, the subjects performed the task of intuitive estimation and prevention very well. On the average, the intuitive estimates were quite close to the optimal estimates despite the complexity of the decision-making problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes an experiment performed to evaluate the JUDGE technique (Judged Utility Decision Generator). The JUDGE system is designed to dispatch aircraft on non-preplanned close air support missions, the number dispatched depending on judgments of target values made by experts at the times when targets appear. In contrast to an earlier field study employing Air Force officers as subjects, the current experiment included an extensive training period, longer scenarios, and repeated measurements. The subjects were fourteen students from the junior and senior Army ROTC classes at UCLA; they worked for two hours a day over the eight weeks of the experiment. For comparison, JUDGE was pitted against a second technique called DASC in the experiment, the name being taken from the Direct Air Support Center. This mode of operation is a hypothetical version of the system the Air Force currently uses, and is not a standard Air Porte procedure. The subjects performed in both modes against all the situations in the simulated war. In the JUDGE mode, the subjects assigned a value to each target as it appeared by comparing it with a "standard" target, which had a constant value of 100 throughout the experiment. A computer program then translated each subject's responses into dispatching decisions, and evaluated those decisions based on his value responses. Operating in the DASC mode, the subject received target reports identical to those in the JUDGE mode, but also containing a graph showing how effective various numbers of aircraft would be against the target. The subject himself assigned aircraft to the target, being permitted to allocate any even number from 0 to 16 of the aircraft remaining to him. The results clearly show the superiority of JUDGE over DASC when measured by an expected utility criterion. JUDGE performed at the 90% level when compared with the perfect possible performance. DASC reached a level of only 40%. We conclude from this that JUDGE is more effective in implementing a subject's value judgments than the subject is himself, The reliability of both systems was evaluated by measuring both the intersubject and intrasubject correlations. These two measures were substantially higher for the JUDGE system than for DASC, revealing that an exceptional amount of agreement occurs within JUDGE. Examination of the data processing task in isolation from the judgmental process in the decision environment led to the conclusion that JUDGE gains its advantage by turning over the necessary mechanical calculations to a computer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper develops a model of organizational participative decision making (PDM) which emphasizes equilibrium and social change. Using attitudes as a mediating variable, the analysis explores organizational homeostatic reactions to an experimental PDM program. Various mechanisms are described by which PDM may contribute to motive satisfaction of managers and subordinates and to organizational goal attainment. Using this approach, the effects of several mediating variables on PDM are entertained. The PDM literature is summarized briefly and criticized in depth. Research in nonorganizational settings is not relevant, for the central issues in organizational PDM are ignored. Although less at fault, observational studies of organizations offer insufficient support for the PDM hypothesis. Experimental studies in organizations could provide the best support, but the data are mixed (yet suggestive). It is suggested that future research focus on mediating factors in PDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]