Contagion of Self-Interested Behavior: Evidence from Group Dictator Game Experiments

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takehiro Ito ◽  
Akihiro Suzuki ◽  
Toru Takemoto ◽  
Kazuhito Ogawa ◽  
Hiromasa Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Dictator Game ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Recipient Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Other Regarding

Abstract We examine how group decision-making affects other-regarding behavior in experimental dictator games. In particular, we assess whether the effects of iterated games differ for group and individual decision-making and whether the difference in decision-making style (individual or group) changes the perception of social identity. We make two findings on group decision-making. First, group decisions become more selfish when repeating the game after changing group members. Second, a dictator group donates more to a recipient group at the same university than to a recipient group at a different university. These findings are not true for individual decision-making.

scholarly journals Groups Make Better Self-Interested Decisions

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Charness ◽  
Matthias Sutter
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Economic Behavior ◽  
Economic Research ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Limitations ◽  
Individual Decisions

In this paper, we describe what economists have learned about differences between group and individual decision-making. This literature is still young, and in this paper, we will mostly draw on experimental work (mainly in the laboratory) that has compared individual decision-making to group decision-making, and to individual decision-making in situations with salient group membership. The bottom line emerging from economic research on group decision-making is that groups are more likely to make choices that follow standard game-theoretic predictions, while individuals are more likely to be influenced by biases, cognitive limitations, and social considerations. In this sense, groups are generally less “behavioral” than individuals. An immediate implication of this result is that individual decisions in isolation cannot necessarily be assumed to be good predictors of the decisions made by groups. More broadly, the evidence casts doubts on traditional approaches that model economic behavior as if individuals were making decisions in isolation.

How can a group of procurement experts select suppliers? An approach for group decision support

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 337-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arpan Kumar Kar ◽  
Ashis Kumar Pani
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Supplier Selection ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Geometric Mean ◽  
Group Decision Support ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Content Type

Purpose – The application of theories on group decision support is yet to be explored extensively in supplier selection literature, although the literature in both domains is extremely rich, in isolation. The purpose of this paper is to explore the application of group decision support theories for supplier selection. Design/methodology/approach – The row geometric mean method (RGMM) of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been used in this study for the prioritization of group preferences under consensus. A case study was conducted to test the theories of consensual group decision making and compare it with other approaches based on AHP. Findings – The study establishes that the application of decision support theories for group decision making can improve the supplier selection process. Findings further imply that RGMM is more effective than eigen value method, for group decision making under consensus. Research limitations/implications – Methodologically, the study highlights the greater regularity in outcome of group decision making, vis-à-vis individual decision making, for the same decision-making context. Also, it highlights how RGMM is more effective since it preserves reciprocal properties and diversity in preferences better. Practical implications – The study establishes that firms can improve supplier selection processes by leveraging on the collective expertise of a group rather than depending on individual decision-making expertise. Originality/value – This study explores the application of different theories based on AHP for consensual group decision making. It compares different approaches based on AHP and establishes that RGMM is a superior approach for supplier selection.

Utility-Maximizing Model of Household Time Use for Independent, Shared, and Allocated Activities Incorporating Group Decision Mechanisms

2002 ◽  
Vol 1807 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junyi Zhang ◽  
Harry Timmermans ◽  
Aloys Borgers
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Utility Function ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Time Use ◽  
Time Allocation ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Household Decision ◽  
The One

Existing activity-based models of transport demand typically assume an individual decision-making process. The focus on theories of individual decision making may be partially due to the lack of behaviorally oriented modeling methodologies for group decision making. Therefore, an attempt has been made to develop a new model (called the g-Logit household time-use model) for time-use analysis that incorporates group decision-making mechanisms. To do that, it is proposed that household utility function be defined in the form of multilinear utility function, which can represent interactions among household members and interactions among their activities (four types of activity: in-home, out-of-home independent, allocated, and shared). By introducing this household utility function into the time allocation approach, each member’s time-use functions for different types of activities are obtained. The function for independent activities has a structure similar to the one for allocated activities, except the weight parameters are different. In contrast, the time-use function for shared activities has a completely different structure, which results from the complicated processes and strategies for household decision making. The effectiveness of the proposed model is confirmed with activity-travel diary data.

A novel q-rung orthopair fuzzy TODIM approach for multi-criteria group decision making based on Shapley value and relative entropy

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 235-250
Author(s):  
Liuxin Chen ◽  
Nanfang Luo ◽  
Xiaoling Gou
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Relative Entropy ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Shapley Value ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Similarity Measures ◽  
Entropy Measure ◽  
Shapley Values ◽  
Interactive Relationship ◽  
The Difference

In the real multi-criteria group decision making (MCGDM) problems, there will be an interactive relationship among different decision makers (DMs). To identify the overall influence, we define the Shapley value as the DM’s weight. Entropy is a measure which makes it better than similarity measures to recognize a group decision making problem. Since we propose a relative entropy to measure the difference between two systems, which improves the accuracy of the distance measure.In this paper, a MCGDM approach named as TODIM is presented under q-rung orthopair fuzzy information.The proposed TODIM approach is developed for correlative MCGDM problems, in which the weights of the DMs are calculated in terms of Shapley values and the dominance matrices are evaluated based on relative entropy measure with q-rung orthopair fuzzy information.Furthermore, the efficacy of the proposed Gq-ROFWA operator and the novel TODIM is demonstrated through a selection problem of modern enterprises risk investment. A comparative analysis with existing methods is presented to validate the efficiency of the approach.

A Formal Approach to Handling Conflicts in Multiattribute Group Decision Making

2005 ◽  
Vol 128 (4) ◽  
pp. 678-688 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tung-King See ◽  
Kemper Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Engineering Design ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Team Leaders ◽  
Formal Approach ◽  
Aggregation Functions ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Problem Data

Supporting the decision of a group in engineering design is a challenging and complicated problem when issues like consensus and compromise must be taken into account. In this paper, we present the foundations of the group hypothetical equivalents and inequivalents method and two fundamental extensions making it applicable to new classes of group decision problems. The first extension focuses on updating the formulation to place unequal importance on the preferences of the group members. The formulation presented in this paper allows team leaders to emphasize the input from certain group members based on experience or other factors. The second extension focuses on the theoretical implications of using a general class of aggregation functions. Illustration and validation of the developments are presented using a vehicle selection problem. Data from ten engineering design groups are used to demonstrate the application of the method.

scholarly journals Learning While Deciding in Groups

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Tindale ◽  
Jeremy R. Winget
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Decision Processes ◽  
Learning Potential ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Actual Learning

Groups are used to make many important societal decisions. Similar to individuals, by paying attention to the information available during the decision processes and the consequences of the decisions, groups can learn from their decisions as well. In addition, group members can learn from each other by exchanging information and being exposed to different perspectives. However, groups make decisions in many different ways and the potential and actual learning that takes place will vary as a function of the manner in which groups reach consensus. This chapter reviews the literature on group decision making with a special emphasis on how and when group decision making leads to learning. We argue that learning is possible in virtually any group decision making environment but freely interacting groups create the greatest potential for learning. We also discuss when and why group may not always take advantage of the learning potential.

Group Decision Making for Advanced Manufacturing Technology Selection Using the Choquet Integral

2011 ◽  
pp. 193-212
Author(s):  
Cengiz Kahraman ◽  
Selçuk Çebi ◽  
Ihsan Kaya
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Choquet Integral ◽  
Manufacturing Technology ◽  
Advanced Manufacturing Technology ◽  
Advanced Manufacturing ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Automated Storage ◽  
Method Of Production

Advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) is defined as a modern method of production incorporating highly automated and sophisticated computerized design and operational systems. Hence, an investment decision to adopt AMT is a strategic decision. A group decision making process is stressful when group members have different views under multiple and conflicting criteria. Satisfying group members’ opinions has a critical impact on a decision. In this chapter, a multiple criteria group decision making problem under a fuzzy environment is used for the selection among AMTs. Choquet integral methodology is used for this selection. A strategic investment problem of a company for a suitable Automated Storage/Retrieval System (AS/RS) is considered and discussed.

A Formal Approach to Handling Conflicts in Multiattribute Group Decision Making

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tung-King See ◽  
Kemper Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Support Group ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Formal Approach ◽  
Attribute Weights ◽  
Decision Methods ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Support Decision Making

The Hypothetical Equivalents and Inequivalents Method (HEIM) has been developed to support decision making in multiattribute problems where one decision maker is making the decision. In this paper HEIM is modified to support group decision making in multiattribute problems, resulting in the Group Hypothetical Equivalents and Inequivalents Method (G-HEIM). Instead of aggregating attribute weights or overall alternative values from each individual as is common in other group decision methods, G-HEIM operates by aggregating individual preferences. It is recognized that in group decision making, common preferences among group members can rarely be guaranteed, unless individual freedom is greatly limited. G-HEIM instead allows individuals to freely express preferences over a number of hypothetical alternatives and then explores the level of conflict or differences from the aggregated group preferences. The relationship between the level of conflicting preferences and the usability of the resulting decision is also directly studied using the G-HEIM. An automotive selection example is used to illustrate the approach.

scholarly journals Influencing the physiology and decisions of groups: Physiological linkage during group decision-making

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-159
Author(s):  
Katherine R. Thorson ◽  
Oana D. Dumitru ◽  
Wendy Berry Mendes ◽  
Tessa V. West
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Physiological Response ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Physiological Responses ◽  
High Status ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Physiological Linkage ◽  
To Come ◽  
Middle Status

Many of the most important decisions in our society are made within groups, yet we know little about how the physiological responses of group members predict the decisions that groups make. In the current work, we examine whether physiological linkage from “senders” to “receivers”—which occurs when a sender’s physiological response predicts a receiver’s physiological response—is associated with senders’ success at persuading the group to make a decision in their favor. We also examine whether experimentally manipulated status—an important predictor of social behavior—is associated with physiological linkage. In groups of 5, we randomly assigned 1 person to be high status, 1 low status, and 3 middle status. Groups completed a collaborative decision-making task that required them to come to a consensus on a decision to hire 1 of 5 firms. Unbeknownst to the 3 middle-status members, high- and low-status members surreptitiously were told to each argue for different firms. We measured cardiac interbeat intervals of all group members throughout the decision-making process to assess physiological linkage. We found that the more receivers were physiologically linked to senders, the more likely groups were to make a decision in favor of the senders. We did not find that people were physiologically linked to their group members as a function of their fellow group members’ status. This work identifies physiological linkage as a novel correlate of persuasion and highlights the need to understand the relationship between group members’ physiological responses during group decision-making.

The Selfish Hero: A Study of the Individual Benefits of Self-Sacrificial Prosocial Behavior

2012 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis T. McAndrew ◽  
Carin Perilloux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Prosocial Behavior ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Individual

Twenty-four same-sex, three-person groups (a confederate plus two naive participants) completed a “group decision-making study” in which the success of the group depended upon the willingness of one of its members (the confederate) to endure pain and inconvenience. The ordeal that the altruistic confederate endured was judged to be more difficult and costly than the experience of other group members, and the altruists were ultimately awarded more money and accorded higher status. In a second study, 334 undergraduates read a description of the procedures used in Study 1 and made judgments and monetary allocations to the hypothetical people described in the scenario. The concordance of the data in the two studies support a costly signaling, rather than a reciprocal altruism explanation for such “heroic” behavior.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document