Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgments

Datos Bibliográficos

ID4419490
AutoresDaniel Gigone (Duke University), Reid Hastie
Año1997
Volumen121
Número1
Páginas149-167
Fecha de publicación1997-01-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaPsychological Bulletin (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0033-2909 • E-ISSN: 1939-1455
EditorialAmerican Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1037//0033-2909.121.1.149
OpenAlexW4235130374
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas24
Referencias citadas14

Modern societies rely heavily on groups to make important economic and political decisions. However, a review of research on group processes shows that progress has been slow in the delineation of the conditions that promote or impede efficient, accurate group judgments. One reason for the slow progress is that research methods and data analysis in this area are varied, difficult to compare, and often substandard. In this review, the authors summarize alternate methods of analysis and provide detailed illustrations of the best methods for assessing and analyzing group judgment accuracy Increased accuracy is a common justification for using groups, rather than individuals, to make judgments. However, the empirical literature shows that groups excel as judges only under limited conditions. Hill's (1982) review found that groups tend to perform around the level of the second best member in most tasks, including group judgment. Hastie (1986) identified several task differences that moderate the relative accuracy of group and individual judges, but he also concluded that there were few, if any, task conditions under which groups consistently

Cognitive psychology · Group (periodic table) · Statistics · Cognitive and psychological constructs research · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Mathematics · Psychological Testing and Assessment · Psychology · Social Psychology