An Exploratory Analysis of Effect of Sex on Shift in Choices

1980 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 499-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irmtraud Seeborg ◽  
William Lafollette ◽  
James Belohlav
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Composition ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Exploratory Analysis ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Sex Composition

This study investigated the effect of group composition by sex on choice shifts in group decision-making. The Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire was administered to 93 undergraduate students divided into same-sex or mixed-sex groups. The results suggest that groups' sex composition can affect group decisions. All-male groups tended to make slightly risky group decisions while all-female groups tended to be slightly cautious in their group decisions. However, a counterbalancing appears to occur in mixed-sex groups where no significant choice shifts appear in either direction.

Three-way group decisions under hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment for green supplier selection

Kybernetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (12) ◽  
pp. 2919-2945 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weimin Ma ◽  
Wenjing Lei ◽  
Bingzhen Sun
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Supplier Selection ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Green Supplier Selection ◽  
Strategic Role ◽  
Fuzzy Linguistic ◽  
Selection Of

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a three-way group decision-making approach to address the selection of green supplier, by extending decision-theoretic rough set (DTRS) into hesitant fuzzy linguistic (HFL) environment, considering the flexible evaluation expression format of HFL term set (HFLTS) and the idea of minimum expected risk in DTRS. Design/methodology/approach Specifically, the authors first present the calculation method of the conditional probability and discuss the loss functions of DTRS with HFL element (HFLE), along with some associated properties being investigated in detail. Further, three-way group decisions rules can be deduced, followed by the cost of every green supplier candidate. Thus, based on these discussions, a novel green supplier selection DTRS model that combines multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) and HFLTS is designed. Findings A numerical example of green supplier selection, the comparative analysis and associated discussions are conducted to illustrate the applicability and novelty of the presented model. Practical implications The selection of green supplier has played a critically strategic role in sustainable enterprise development due to continuous environmental concerns. This paper offers an insight for companies to select green supplier selection from the perspective of three-way group decisions. Originality/value This paper uses three-way decisions to address green supplier selection in the HFL context, which is considered as a MCGDM issue.

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.

Framing Effects in Group Investment Decision Making: Role of Group Polarization

2008 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 283-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pi-Yueh Cheng ◽  
Wen-Bin Chiou
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Investment Decision ◽  
Framing Effects ◽  
Risk Averse ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Group Polarization ◽  
Relative Preference ◽  
Individual Decisions

Prospect theory proposes that framing effects result in a preference for risk-averse choices in gain situations and risk-seeking choices in loss situations. However, in group polarization situations, groups show a pronounced tendency to shift toward more extreme positions than those they initially held. Whether framing effects in group decision making are more prominent as a result of the group-polarization effect was examined. Purposive sampling of 120 college students (57 men, 63 women; M age = 20.1 yr., SD = 0.9) allowed assessment of relative preference between cautious and risky choices in individual and group decisions. Findings indicated that both group polarization and framing effects occur in investment decisions. More importantly, group decisions in a gain situation appear to be more cautious, i.e., risk averse, than individual decisions, whereas group decisions in the loss situation appear to be more risky than individual decisions. Thus, group decision making may expand framing effects when it comes to investment choices through group polarization.

An Innovative Fuzzy-Neural Decision Analyzer for Qualitative Group Decision Making

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (03) ◽  
pp. 659-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ki-Young Song ◽  
Gerald T. G. Seniuk ◽  
Janusz A. Kozinski ◽  
Wen-Jun Zhang ◽  
Madan M. Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Fuzzy Theory ◽  
Human Cognition ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Uncertain Environments ◽  
Fuzzy Neural ◽  
Professional Fields

Many qualitative group decisions in professional fields such as law, engineering, economics, psychology, and medicine that appear to be crisp and certain are in reality shrouded in fuzziness as a result of uncertain environments and the nature of human cognition within which the group decisions are made. In this paper, we introduce an innovative approach to group decision making in uncertain situations by using fuzzy theory and a mean-variance neural approach. The key idea of this proposed approach is to defuzzify the fuzziness of the evaluation values from a group, compute the excluded-mean of individual evaluations and weight it by applying a variance influence function (VIF); this process of weighting the excluded-mean by VIF provides an improved result in the group decision making. In this paper, a case study with the proposed fuzzy-neural approach is also presented. The results of this case study indicate that this proposed approach can improve the effectiveness of qualitative decision making by providing the decision maker with a new cognitive tool to assist in the reasoning process.

scholarly journals So how to make group decisions? Arrow's impossibility theorem 70 years after

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hung T. Nguyen ◽  
Olga Kosheleva ◽  
Vladik Kreinovich
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Theory ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
First Principles ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Impossibility Theorem ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Kenneth Arrow ◽  
Practical Recommendations

PurposeIn 1951, Kenneth Arrow proved that it is not possible to have a group decision-making procedure that satisfies reasonable requirements like fairness. From the theoretical viewpoint, this is a great result – well-deserving the Nobel Prize that was awarded to Professor Arrow. However, from the practical viewpoint, the question remains – so how should we make group decisions? A usual way to solve this problem is to provide some reasonable heuristic ideas, but the problem is that different seemingly reasonable idea often lead to different group decision – this is known, e.g. for different voting schemes.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper we analyze this problem from the viewpoint of decision theory, the basic theory underlying all our activities – including economic ones.FindingsWe show how from the first-principles decision theory, we can extract explicit recommendations for group decision making.Originality/valueMost of the resulting recommendations have been proposed earlier. The main novelty of this paper is that it provides a unified coherent narrative that leads from the fundamental first principles to practical recommendations.

scholarly journals PENENTUAN BOBOT KEPENTINGAN DECISION MAKER DALAM GROUP DECISION MAKING

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dian Eko Hari Purnomo Dan Nur Aini Masruroh
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Research Result ◽  
Regression Method ◽  
Determination Method ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Consensus Criterion ◽  
High Competence

Generally, there are two criteria which are widely used to determineDM’s weight of interest, i.e. competenceand consensus. Various studies related to determine DM’s weight of interest based on competence or consensusseparately have been conducted. Each criterion has its own advantages. The advantage of using competence as acriterion is DMs who have high competence based on their consistence on the decisions made will have high of interest weight. Meanwhile, consensus criterion emphasizes a DM/s contribution to a group without consideringthe DM’s ability or competence.Considering the advantages of both criteria, this study developed a model to determine DM’s weight of interestby considering the DM’ competence and consensus in a GDM. This study used2 group decision making cases totaling in 6 groups consisting of 5 people each. Collected data was then processedusing DM’s weight of interest determination method based on competence and consensus. A model was thendesigned using regression method and fuzzy method. Therefore, a model to determine DM’s weight of interest was obtained by considering competence and consensus. DM’s weight of interest from each method was then involvedin group decision making. The research result showed that group decisions made by involving DM’s weight of interest were better decisions. It implies competence and consensus are two criteria which can be used to determineDM’s weight of interest.

scholarly journals Group Decision-Making

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Tindale ◽  
Jeremy R. Winget
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
Group Members

Group decisions are ubiquitous in everyday life. Even when decisions are made individually, decision-makers often receive advice or suggestions from others. Thus, decisions are often social in nature and involve multiple group members. The literature on group decision-making is conceptualized as falling along two dimensions: how much interaction or information exchange is allowed among the group members, and how the final decision is made. On one end, group decisions can be made simply by aggregating member preferences or judgments without any interaction among members, with members having no control or say in the final judgment. One the other end, groups’ decisions can involve extensive member interaction and information exchanges, and the final decision is reached by group consensus. In between these two endpoints, various other strategies are also possible, including prediction markets, Delphi groups, and judge–advisor systems. Research has shown that each dimension has different implications for decision quality and process depending on the decision task and context. Research exploring these two dimension has also helped to illuminate those aspects of group decision-making that can lead to better-quality decisions.

WeRGreat, Inc. Merit Increase Decisions

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-71
Author(s):  
Jannifer G. David
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Resource ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Small Groups ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Merit Pay ◽  
Employment Law ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Actual Dollar

Although U.S. corporations rely heavily on merit pay programs to distribute pay increases to their employees, many undergraduate students, even those who have held jobs, lack exposure to merit pay programs until they take their first human resource management course. The exercise gives students an opportunity to experience how organizations make merit pay decisions. With this exercise, students decide what employee information is job-related and what is non–job-related, ensure their decisions conform to employment law, perform calculations to ascertain the actual dollar amounts of the raises, and consider other managers’ opinions through a group decision-making process. Finally, because this exercise is conducted in small groups, it can be used in classes of any size.

scholarly journals Group decision making in fission–fusion societies: evidence from two-field experiments in Bechstein's bats

2006 ◽  
Vol 273 (1602) ◽  
pp. 2785-2790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Kerth ◽  
Cornelia Ebert ◽  
Christine Schmidtke
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Animal Group ◽  
Conflicting Information ◽  
Individual Composition

Group decisions are required when group coordination is beneficial, but individuals can choose between alternatives. Despite the increased interest in animal group decision making, there is a lack of experimental field studies that investigate how animals with conflicting information make group decisions. In particular, no field studies have considered the influence of fission–fusion behaviour (temporary splitting into subgroups) on group decisions. We studied group decision making in two wild Bechstein's bat colonies, which are fission–fusion societies of stable individual composition. Since they frequently switch communal roosts, colony members must regularly make group decisions over where to roost. In the two-field experiments, we provided marked individuals with conflicting information about the suitability of potential roosts. We investigated whether conflicting information led to group decisions that followed a ‘unanimous’ or a ‘majority’ rule, or increased colony fission. Individual behaviour suggests that bats considered both their own information and the behaviour of others when deciding where to roost. Group decisions about communal roosts reflected the information available to a majority of the bats roosting together, but conflicting information led to an increased fission in one colony. Our results suggest that fission–fusion societies allow individuals to avoid majority decisions that are not in their favour.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document