An official website of the United States government
Collective, especially group-based, managerial decision making is crucial in organizations. Using an evolutionary theoretic approach to collective decision making, agent-based simulations were conducted to investigate how human collective decision making would be affected by the agents’ diversity in problem understanding and/or behavior in discussion, as well as by their social network structure. Simulation results indicated that groups with consistent problem understanding tended to produce higher utility values of ideas and displayed better decision convergence, but only if there was no group-level bias in collective problem understanding. Simulation results also indicated the importance of balance between selection-oriented (i.e., exploitative) and variation-oriented (i.e., explorative) behaviors in discussion to achieve quality final decisions. Expanding the group size and introducing nontrivial social network structure generally improved the quality of ideas at the cost of decision convergence. Simulations with different social network topologies revealed collective decision making on small-world networks with high local clustering tended to achieve highest decision quality more often than on random or scale-free networks. Implications of this evolutionary theory and simulation approach for future managerial research on collective, group, and multilevel decision making are discussed.
more »
« less
Participation Improves Collective Decisions (When It Involves Deliberation): Experimental Evidence From Kenya
Abstract Citizen participation in decision making has been widely lauded as a method for improving societal outcomes. Deliberative discussion, in particular, is believed to be more transformative than a mere aggregation of individual preferences, leading to more socially optimal decision making and behavior. I report the results from a laboratory experiment with 570 subjects in Nairobi, directly testing the effect of participation in deliberative group decision making on collective outcomes. Participants engage in a group task to earn compensation toward a shared group fund. Randomly assigned treatments vary according to whether decision making over the task to be completed involves: (1) external assignment; (2) non-deliberative majority voting; or (3) consensus through deliberative discussion. I find that deliberation improves collective decision making. Deliberation is also associated with changes in preferences, greater agreement with decision outcomes, and greater perceived fairness. Evidence for behavior change is weaker, but there is some support for further research into the relationship between preference change and behavior change.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2018011
- PAR ID:
- 10489512
- Publisher / Repository:
- Cambridge University Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- British Journal of Political Science
- Volume:
- 52
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 0007-1234
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1728 to 1747
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
PurposeThis study seeks to establish a new framework for categorizing incivility, differentiating between explicit and implicit forms, and to investigate their respective abilities to proliferate and mobilize conversations, along with behavioral outcomes in various social contexts. Design/methodology/approachEmploying computational techniques, this research analyzed 10,145 protest-related threads from the HK Golden Forum, a prominent online discussion board in Hong Kong. FindingsOur analysis revealed divergent effects of explicit and implicit incivility on their diffusion, influences on deliberative discussions, and user participation. Explicit incivility was found to impede deliberative conversations, while implicit incivility tended to provoke more responses. Explicit uncivil expressions encouraged the propagation of incivility but reduced the likelihood of individual involvement. In contrast, implicit incivility had a stronger dampening effect on further uncivil comments and achieved greater thread popularity. The results showed strong associations between uncivil expressions and the contextual norms surrounding social movements. Originality/valueTheoretically, this research introduced a classification of incivility and underscored the importance of differentiating between implicit and explicit incivility by examining their effects on deliberation and engagement. Although previous studies have extensively covered explicit incivility, this study goes further by analyzing implicit incivility and comparing both forms of uncivil discourse in a less-studied context. Methodologically, the study developed a Cantonese dictionary to differentiate between two types of incivility, providing a practical reference for more nuanced analyses. By revealing how varying movement norms moderate the interplay between deliberative and uncivil expressions, the study drew attention to the highly situational nature of incivility.more » « less
-
Abstract As part of the formulation of the first National Water Plan (NWP) in Uruguay, a mini-public process called ‘Citizen Deliberation on Water (Deci Agua)’ was developed in 2016. While the draft of the plan was being discussed in the formal arenas of water governance (Basin Commissions and Regional Water Resources Councils), a University research team (led by the authors), in coordination with the national water authority, adapted the mechanism of consensus conferences in order to incorporate the citizens’ visions and to contribute to public understanding of the NWP challenges. This article analyses the main aspects of the developed participation strategy and discusses them regarding a set of quality criteria used to evaluate deliberative processes. Although the final version of the NWP (passed by decree in 2017) incorporated some of the contributions of the Citizen Panel, an in-depth analysis of the scope of the deliberative process of Deci Agua allows us to delve into some key aspects related to the quality of participation processes and the challenges. A mixed approach that combines stakeholder participation and lay citizens is novel and desirable in water governance since it increases the scope of participation, deepens the legitimacy of decision-making and improves the public debate.more » « less
-
Can deliberation increase charitable giving when giving is impulsive (i.e., a one-time small gift in response to an immediate appeal)? We conduct two studies in Israel and Sweden to compare two forms of deliberation, unguided and guided, in their ability to decrease the singularity effect (i.e., giving more to one than many victims), often evident in impulsive giving. Under unguided deliberation, participants were instructed to simply think hard before making a donation decision whereas participants in the guided deliberation condition were asked to think how much different prespecified decision attributes should influence their decision. We find that both types of deliberation reduce the singularity effect, as people no longer value the single victim higher than the group of victims. Importantly, this is driven by donations being decreased under deliberation only to the single victim, but not the group of victims. Thus, deliberation affects donations negatively by overshadowing the affective response, especially in situations in which affect is greatest (i.e., to a single victim). Last, the results show that neither type of deliberation significantly reversed the singularity effect, as people did not help the group significantly more than the single victim. This means that deliberate thinking decreased the overall willingness to help, leading to a lower overall valuation of people in need.more » « less
-
ABSTRACT How group‐living primates come to a consensus about navigating their environment is a result of their decision‐making processes. Although decision‐making has been examined in several primate taxa, it remains underexplored for primates living in anthropogenic landscapes. To shed light on consensus decision‐making and flexibility in this process, we examined collective movement behavior in a group of wild moor macaques (Macaca maura) experiencing a risk‐reward tradeoff as a result of roadside provisioning within Bantimurung Bulusaraung National Park in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Our goal was to determine whether individual characteristics (e.g., sex, dominance rank, and/or social network centrality) predict the likelihood of initiating a collective movement and if the opportunity to receive food provisions along the road alters these patterns. Using the all‐occurrences method, we recorded the location, time, and identity of initiators and followers of each collective movement observed from April to June 2023 (N = 61). We used conditional logistic regression models to examine which individual characteristics predicted initiation overall and based on two destination categories: forest‐ and road‐directed collective movements. Initiation was distributed amongst most of the group, indicating a partially‐shared decision‐making style. Overall, adult males were more likely to initiate collective movements than adult females. However, for collective movements directed toward the risky roadside, dominance, rather than sex, was a better predictor of initiation, with higher ranked individuals being more likely to initiate collective movements. Examining the decision‐making processes in this species through collective movements can provide insight into how primates come to a consensus and the extent to which anthropogenic factors shape these processes. By shedding light on how moor macaques navigate the risk‐reward tradeoff at this site, our results can also inform the management of human‐macaque interfaces.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123421000375
