128:, decisions made collectively also tend to be more effective than decisions made by a single individual. In this vein, certain collaborative arrangements have the potential to generate better net performance outcomes than individuals acting on their own. Under normal everyday conditions, collaborative or group decision-making would often be preferred and would generate more benefits than individual decision-making when there is the time for proper deliberation, discussion, and dialogue. This can be achieved through the use of committee, teams, groups, partnerships, or other collaborative social processes.
622:
information, they would be more likely to make an optimal decision. But if people do not share all of their information, the group may make a sub-optimal decision. Stasser and Titus have shown that partial sharing of information can lead to a wrong decision. And Lu and Yuan found that groups were eight times more likely to correctly answer a problem when all of the group members had all of the information rather than when some information was only known by select group members.
418:
Plurality is the most consistent scheme when superior decisions are being made, and it involves the least amount of effort. Voting, however, may lead to members feeling alienated when they lose a close vote, or to internal politics, or to conformity to other opinions. Consensus schemes involve members more deeply, and tend to lead to high levels of commitment. But, it might be difficult for the group to reach such decisions.
37:
437:
decision-making, such as requiring more time to make choices and by consequence rushing to a low-quality agreement in order to be timely. Some issues are also so simple that a group decision-making process leads to too many cooks in the kitchen: for such trivial issues, having a group make the decision is overkill and can lead to failure. Because groups offer both advantages and disadvantages in making decisions,
156:, in combination with other antecedent conditions (e.g. ideological homogeneity and insulation from dissenting opinions) have been noted to have a negative effect on group decision-making and hence on group effectiveness. Moreover, when individuals make decisions as part of a group, there is a tendency to exhibit a bias towards discussing shared information (i.e.
541:
Cognitive bias is a phenomenon in which people often distort their perceived results due to their own or situational reasons when they perceive themselves, others or the external environment. in the decision-making process, cognitive bias influences people by making them over-dependent or giving more
417:
There are strengths and weaknesses to each of these social decision schemes. Delegation saves time and is a good method for less important decisions, but ignored members might react negatively. Averaging responses will cancel out extreme opinions, but the final decision might disappoint many members.
351:
Each participant has a say that is directly proportional to the degree that particular decision would affect the individual. Those not affected by a decision would have no say and those exclusively affected by a decision would have full say. Likewise, those most affected would have the most say while
270:
This method requires 3 to 4 rounds of information feedback. In the hourly feedback, both the investigation team and the expert team can conduct in-depth research, so the final results can basically reflect the basic ideas of the experts and the understanding of the information. Therefore, the results
131:
However, in some cases, there can also be drawbacks to this method. In extreme emergencies or crisis situations, other forms of decision-making might be preferable as emergency actions may need to be taken more quickly with less time for deliberation. On the other hand, additional considerations must
123:
contribute to the outcome. The decisions made by groups are often different from those made by individuals. In workplace settings, collaborative decision-making is one of the most successful models to generate buy-in from other stakeholders, build consensus, and encourage creativity. According to the
436:
Groups have many advantages and disadvantages when making decisions. Groups, by definition, are composed of two or more people, and for this reason naturally have access to more information and have a greater capacity to process this information. However, they also present a number of liabilities to
467:
The leader takes on a cooperative holistic approach, collaborating with the group as a whole as they work toward a unified and consensual decision. The leader is non-directive and never imposes a particular solution on the group. In this case, the final decision is one made by the group, not by the
255:
Since all members of the Group do not meet directly when this approach is used, they communicate by mail, thus eliminating the impact of the authority. This is the main feature of the method. Anonymity is a very important function of Delphi methods. Forecasters don't know each other. They exchanged
717:
When groups are not aware that the probability of a given event occurring is the least upper bound on the probability of that event and any other given event occurring together; thus if the probability of the second event is less than one, the occurrence of the pair will always be less likely than
537:
Past experience can influence future decisions. It can be concluded that when a decision produces positive results, people are more likely to make decisions in similar ways in similar situations. On the other hand, people tend to avoid repeating the same mistakes, because future decisions based on
550:
Groups have greater informational and motivational resources, and therefore have the potential to outperform individuals. However they do not always reach this potential. Groups often lack proper communication skills. On the sender side this means that group members may lack the skills needed to
369:
Sometimes, groups may have established and clearly defined standards for making decisions, such as bylaws and statutes. However, it is often the case that the decision-making process is less formal, and might even be implicitly accepted. Social decision schemes are the methods used by a group to
187:
Tries to avoid "winners" and "losers". Consensus requires that a majority approve a given course of action, but that the minority agree to go along with the course of action. In other words, if the minority opposes the course of action, consensus requires that the course of action be modified to
172:
suggests a more general approach to group decision-making than the popular groupthink model, which is a narrow look at situations where group and other decision-making is flawed. Social identity analysis suggests that the changes which occur during collective decision-making are part of rational
356:
Plurality and dictatorship are less desirable as decision rules because they do not require the involvement of the broader group to determine a choice. Thus, they do not engender commitment to the course of action chosen. An absence of commitment from individuals in the group can be problematic
309:
Decision-making in groups is sometimes examined separately as process and outcome. Process refers to the group interactions. Some relevant ideas include coalitions among participants as well as influence and persuasion. The use of politics is often judged negatively, but it is a useful way to
487:
under the heading of intelligent decision support systems in his work on the topic of human error. James Reason notes that events subsequent to The Three Mile accident have not inspired great confidence in the efficacy of some of these methods. In the Davis-Besse accident, for example, both
285:
The most typical group prediction results reflect the views of the majority of people, and at most only the views of a few people are mentioned, but this does not indicate the state of the different views of the group. The statistical answer is not. Each view is included in such statistical
621:
Research using the hidden profiles task shows that lack of information sharing is a common problem in group decision making. This happens when certain members of the group have information that is not known by all of the members in the group. If the members were to all combine all of their
690:
Group members base their decisions on inaccurate appraisals of individuals' behavior—namely, overestimating internal factors (e.g., personality) and underestimating external or contextual factors. (Note: This phenomenon is reliably observed in individualist cultures, not in collectivist
227:
Delphi method is a process of collective anonymous thought exchange using the form of correspondence. It has three characteristics that are clearly different from other expert prediction methods, namely anonymity, multiple feedback, and statistical responses of groups. Named after the
551:
express themselves clearly. On the receiver side this means that miscommunication can result from information processing limitations and faulty listening habits of human beings. In cases where an individual controls the group it may prevent others from contributing meaningfully.
360:
There are no perfect decision-making rules. Depending on how the rules are implemented in practice and the situation, all of these can lead to situations where either no decision is made, or to situations where decisions made are inconsistent with one another over time.
328:
Involves all participants acknowledging each other's needs and opinions and tends towards a problem solving approach in which as many needs and opinions as possible can be satisfied. It allows for multiple outcomes and does not require agreement from some for others to
136:
also can occur at times, leading some groups to make more extreme decisions than those of its individual members, in the direction of the individual inclinations. There are also other examples where the decisions made by a group are flawed, such as the
338:
Involves assigning responsibility for evaluation of a decision to a sub-set of a larger group, which then comes back to the larger group with recommendations for action. Using a sub-committee is more common in larger governance groups, such as a
567:
The group may quickly or arbitrarily formulate a decision without thinking things through to completion. They then bolster their decision by exaggerating the favorable consequences of the decision and minimizing the importance of unfavorable
533:
With age, cognitive function decreases and decision-making ability decreases. Generally speaking, the low age group uses the team decision effect to be good; with the age, the gap between the team decision and the excellent choice increases.
173:
psychological processes which build on the essence of the group in ways that are psychologically efficient, grounded in the social reality experienced by members of the group, and have the potential to have a positive impact on society.
310:
approach problems when preferences among actors are in conflict, when dependencies exist that cannot be avoided, when there are no super-ordinate authorities, and when the technical or scientific merit of the options is ambiguous.
441:
developed a normative model of decision-making that suggests different decision-making methods should be selected depending on the situation. In this model, Vroom identified five different decision-making processes.
343:. Sometimes a sub-committee includes those individuals most affected by a decision, although at other times it is useful for the larger group to have a sub-committee that involves more neutral participants.
271:
are expensive and objective. Credible. Communication between team members is achieved by answering the organizer's questions, usually requiring multiple rounds of feedback to complete the prediction.
449:
The leader of the group uses other group members as sources of information, but makes the final decision independently and does not explain to group members why s/he required that information.
300:
A method that relies on the use of forms called "dotmocracy sheets" to allow large groups to brainstorm collectively and recognize agreement on an unlimited number of ideas they have authored.
542:
trust to expected observations and prior knowledge, while discarding information or observations that are considered uncertain, rather than focusing on more factors. The prospects are broad.
525:(IDSS). On the other hand, an active and intelligent DSS is an important tool for the design of complex engineering systems and the management of large technological and business projects.
635:
can often affect group decision-making adversely. According to
Forsyth, there are three categories of potential biases that a group can fall victim to when engaging in decision-making:
474:
The leader takes a backseat approach, passing the problem over to the group. The leader is supportive, but allows the group to come to a decision without their direct collaboration.
1194:
201:
lets each member score one or more of the available options. The option with the highest average is chosen. This method has experimentally been shown to produce the lowest
656:
A group remains committed to a given plan primarily due to the investment already made in that plan, regardless of how inefficient and/or ineffective it may have become.
407:
A consensus scheme whereby the group discusses the issue until it reaches a unanimous agreement. This decision rule is what dictates the decision-making for most juries.
561:
Replacing high-priority tasks with tasks of lower priority. The group postpones the decision rather than studying the alternatives and discussing their relative merits.
211:
requires support from more than 50% of the members of the group. Thus, the bar for action is lower than with unanimity and a group of "losers" is implicit to this rule.
455:
The leader talks to each group member alone and never consults a group meeting. S/he then makes the final decision in light of the information obtained in this manner.
377:
An individual, subgroup or external party makes the decision on behalf of the group. For instance, in an "authority scheme", the leader makes the decision or, in an
240:, as an effective and reliable method of collecting expert opinions and was widely used in commercial, military, educational, health care and other fields.
580:
The group muddles through the issue by considering only a very narrow range of alternatives that differ to only a small degree from the existing choice.
1249:
Stasser, Garold; Titus, William (1985). "Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion".
631:
Individuals in a group decision-making setting are often functioning under substantial cognitive demands. As a result, cognitive and motivational
393:
Group members vote on their preferences, either privately or publicly. These votes are then used to select a decision, either by simple majority,
370:
combine individual responses to come up with a single group decision. There are a number of these schemes, but the following are the most common:
1011:
Davis, James H.; et al. (1988). "Effects of straw polls on group decision making: Sequential voting pattern, timing, and local majorities".
505:(DSS) have been developed to assist decision-makers in considering the implications of various courses of thinking. They can help reduce the
1087:
Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Decision making. In
Forsyth, D. R. , Group Dynamics (5th Ed.) (P. 317-349) Belmont: CA, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
574:
The group delegates the decision to a subcommittee or diffuses accountability throughout the entire group, thereby avoiding responsibility.
809:
586:
A combination of the words "satisfy" and "suffice". Members accept a low-risk, easy solution instead of searching for the best solution.
554:
It is also the case that groups sometimes use discussion to avoid rather than make a decision. Avoidance tactics include the following:
461:
The group and the leader meet and s/he consults the entire group at once, asking for opinions and information, then comes to a decision.
1046:
Kameda, Tatsuya; et al. (2002). "Cost–benefit analysis of social/cultural learning in a nonstationary uncertain environment".
1292:
Lu, Li; Yuan, Y. Connie; McLeod, Poppy
Lauretta (2011-09-06). "Twenty-Five Years of Hidden Profiles in Group Decision Making".
764:
132:
also be taken into account when evaluating the appropriateness of a decision-making framework. For example, the possibility of
115:
is then no longer attributable to any single individual who is a member of the group. This is because all the individuals and
1233:
1181:"Decision engineering, an approach to Business Process Reengineering (BPR) in a strained industrial and business environment"
1151:
947:
922:
611:"The amount of time a group spends discussing an issue will be in inverse proportion to the consequentiality of the issue."
724:
Group members rely too heavily on decision-making factors that seem meaningful but are, in fact, more or less misleading.
613:(For example, a committee discusses an expenditure of $ 20 million for 3 minutes and one for $ 500 for 15 minutes.)
387:
Each group member makes their own private and independent decision and all are later "averaged" to produce a decision.
838:
80:
668:
Group members falsely over-estimate the accuracy of and/or the relevance of their past knowledge of a given outcome.
62:
759:
426:
1380:
47:
317:(GDSSs) may have different decision rules. A decision rule is the GDSS protocol a group uses to choose among
286:
information, avoiding the shortcoming that the expert meeting methodology reflects only the majority view.
794:
522:
413:
The group leaves the choice to chance. For example, picking a number between 1 and 10 or flipping a coin.
769:
498:
and for different forms of active decision support for industrial operators, designers and managers.
182:
980:
739:
491:
237:
169:
1344:
1195:"Decision Making: Factors that Influence Decision Making, Heuristics Used, and Decision Outcomes"
857:
744:
502:
314:
214:
157:
58:
966:
Hastie, Reid; Kameda, Tatsuya (2005). "The Robust Beauty of
Majority Rules in Group Decisions".
975:
518:
54:
650:
A group utilises information in their decision-making that has already been deemed inaccurate.
749:
488:
independent safety parameter display systems were out of action before and during the event.
784:
779:
734:
138:
25:
8:
1180:
804:
684:
Group members ignore applicable information they have concerning basic trends/tendencies.
1325:
1274:
1122:
662:
A group choosing to use some information despite having been told it should be ignored.
153:
133:
1059:
1356:
1317:
1309:
1266:
1229:
1147:
1126:
1114:
1063:
1028:
993:
943:
918:
915:
Victims of
Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes
892:
875:
Moscovici, Serge; Zavalloni, Marisa (1969). "The group as a polarizer of attitudes".
834:
606:
501:
Due to the large number of considerations involved in many decisions, computer-based
318:
21:
1329:
1278:
1168:"An Approach to the Intelligent Decision Advisor (IDA) for Emergency Managers, 1999"
1301:
1258:
1106:
1055:
1020:
985:
884:
422:
233:
217:, where the largest block in a group decides, even if it falls short of a majority.
120:
1097:
Vroom, Victor H. (2003). "Educating managers for decision making and leadership".
1223:
1141:
799:
202:
112:
1262:
989:
1024:
774:
149:
1110:
1374:
1360:
1313:
1305:
1270:
1118:
1067:
1032:
896:
398:
394:
346:
222:
592:
The group will avoid dealing with larger issues by focusing on minor issues.
1321:
1219:
997:
789:
484:
438:
313:
In addition to the different processes involved in making decisions, group
198:
116:
1167:
754:
340:
108:
17:
701:
295:
142:
643:
The misuse, abuse and/or inappropriate use of information, including:
888:
514:
378:
333:
65:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
603:"A task will expand to fill the time available for its completion."
495:
208:
111:
collectively make a choice from the alternatives before them. The
125:
1225:
The Power of
Collective Wisdom and the Trap of Collective Folly
483:
The idea of using computerized support systems is discussed by
229:
193:
626:
510:
711:
Group members rely on information that is readily available.
205:
among common voting methods, even when voters are strategic.
1345:"Cultural Limitations of the Fundamental Attribution Error"
632:
506:
1257:(6). American Psychological Association (APA): 1467–1478.
152:
also affect group decisions. For example, groups high in
1019:(6). American Psychological Association (APA): 918–926.
1010:
883:(2). American Psychological Association (APA): 125–135.
704:
that over-simplify complex decisions. This can include:
538:
past experience are not necessarily the best decisions.
1218:
596:
Two fundamental "laws" that groups all too often obey:
24:
that studies rules for collective decision-making, see
431:
304:
381:, a coalition of leading figures makes the decision.
852:
850:
874:
695:
677:Overlooking useful information. This can include:
638:
1372:
1222:; Callanan, Tom; Erickson, Sheryl (March 2011).
847:
232:, it was developed in the 1950s by the American
1045:
831:In search of synergy in small group performance
672:
357:during the implementation phase of a decision.
352:those least affected would have the least say.
1291:
1251:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1248:
1013:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
965:
877:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
545:
1212:
1083:
1081:
1079:
1077:
478:
961:
959:
942:. London: SAGE Publications. p. 177.
627:Cognitive limitations and subsequent error
364:
979:
908:
906:
810:Framework for Accountable Decision-Making
145:model of group decision-making is based.
81:Learn how and when to remove this message
1294:Personality and Social Psychology Review
1074:
917:. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
956:
513:. DSSs which try to realize some human-
245:Three characteristics of Delphi method:
160:), as opposed to unshared information.
1373:
1342:
1139:
937:
903:
828:
765:Collaborative decision-making software
528:
1096:
912:
858:"Decision Making and Problem Solving"
1192:
523:Intelligent Decision Support Systems
30:
938:Haslam, S Alexander (24 May 2004).
862:FEMA Emergency Management Institute
13:
432:Normative model of decision-making
397:or other more or less complicated
305:Decision-making in social settings
14:
1392:
1349:Advances in Psychological Science
1140:Reason, James (26 October 1990).
176:
148:Factors that impact other social
760:Computer supported brainstorming
163:
35:
1343:Li, Chen; Chen, Wuqing (2006).
1336:
1300:(1). SAGE Publications: 54–75.
1285:
1242:
1199:Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse
1186:
1173:
1160:
1133:
1090:
427:Collective cognitive imperative
1146:. Cambridge University Press.
1039:
1004:
931:
868:
822:
256:ideas with complete anonymity.
188:remove objectionable features.
1:
1060:10.1016/s1090-5138(02)00101-0
913:Janis, Irving Lester (1972).
815:
687:Fundamental attribution error
101:collaborative decision-making
1048:Evolution and Human Behavior
721:Representativeness heuristic
618:Failure to share information
141:, the incident on which the
107:) is a situation faced when
7:
1263:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
1054:(5). Elsevier BV: 373–393.
990:10.1037/0033-295x.112.2.494
940:Psychology in Organizations
795:Low-information rationality
728:
61:the claims made and adding
10:
1397:
1025:10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.918
770:Collective problem solving
420:
105:collective decision-making
93:Subset of Decision Science
15:
1111:10.1108/00251740310509490
546:Group discussion pitfalls
183:Consensus decision-making
1306:10.1177/1088868311417243
1105:(10). Emerald: 968–978.
829:Larson, James R (2010).
503:decision support systems
492:Decision-making software
479:Decision support systems
315:decision support systems
238:Douglas Aircraft Company
170:social identity approach
745:Shared information bias
700:Relying too heavily on
365:Social decision schemes
158:shared information bias
1228:. ReadHowYouWant.com.
718:the first event alone.
708:Availability heuristic
659:Extra-evidentiary bias
571:Denying responsibility
1381:Group decision-making
750:Shared intentionality
696:"Sins of imprecision"
421:Further information:
236:, established by the
97:Group decision-making
968:Psychological Review
833:. Psychology Press.
785:Public participation
780:Online participation
740:Judge–advisor system
735:Social choice theory
639:"Sins of commission"
452:Consult (individual)
194:Voting-based methods
139:Bay of Pigs invasion
26:social choice theory
1099:Management Decision
805:Multi-agent systems
647:Belief perseverance
529:Influencing factors
1179:See, for example,
1166:See, for example,
673:"Sins of omission"
134:group polarization
119:processes such as
46:possibly contains
16:For the branch of
1235:978-1-4587-3224-8
1193:Dietrich, Cindy.
1153:978-1-139-45729-3
949:978-0-7619-4231-3
924:978-0-395-14002-4
607:Law of triviality
496:autonomous robots
494:is essential for
319:scenario planning
282:(iii) Statistics
91:
90:
83:
48:original research
22:welfare economics
1388:
1365:
1364:
1340:
1334:
1333:
1289:
1283:
1282:
1246:
1240:
1239:
1216:
1210:
1209:
1207:
1205:
1190:
1184:
1177:
1171:
1164:
1158:
1157:
1137:
1131:
1130:
1094:
1088:
1085:
1072:
1071:
1043:
1037:
1036:
1008:
1002:
1001:
983:
963:
954:
953:
935:
929:
928:
910:
901:
900:
889:10.1037/h0027568
872:
866:
865:
854:
845:
844:
826:
714:Conjunctive bias
577:Muddling through
517:decision-making
423:Bandwagon effect
234:RAND Corporation
230:Oracle of Delphi
150:group behaviours
121:social influence
86:
79:
75:
72:
66:
63:inline citations
39:
38:
31:
1396:
1395:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1341:
1337:
1290:
1286:
1247:
1243:
1236:
1217:
1213:
1203:
1201:
1191:
1187:
1178:
1174:
1165:
1161:
1154:
1138:
1134:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1075:
1044:
1040:
1009:
1005:
981:10.1.1.336.3389
964:
957:
950:
936:
932:
925:
911:
904:
873:
869:
856:
855:
848:
841:
827:
823:
818:
800:Open assessment
731:
698:
675:
641:
629:
612:
600:Parkinson's Law
558:Procrastination
548:
531:
481:
458:Consult (group)
434:
429:
367:
307:
203:Bayesian regret
179:
166:
99:(also known as
94:
87:
76:
70:
67:
52:
40:
36:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1394:
1384:
1383:
1367:
1366:
1355:(6): 938–943.
1351:(in Chinese).
1335:
1284:
1241:
1234:
1211:
1185:
1172:
1159:
1152:
1132:
1089:
1073:
1038:
1003:
974:(2): 494–508.
955:
948:
930:
923:
902:
867:
846:
839:
820:
819:
817:
814:
813:
812:
807:
802:
797:
792:
787:
782:
777:
775:Hindsight bias
772:
767:
762:
757:
752:
747:
742:
737:
730:
727:
726:
725:
722:
719:
715:
712:
709:
697:
694:
693:
692:
688:
685:
682:
681:Base rate bias
674:
671:
670:
669:
666:
665:Hindsight bias
663:
660:
657:
654:
653:Sunk cost bias
651:
648:
640:
637:
628:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
614:
609:
604:
601:
594:
593:
590:
589:Trivialization
587:
584:
581:
578:
575:
572:
569:
565:
562:
559:
547:
544:
530:
527:
480:
477:
476:
475:
472:
469:
465:
462:
459:
456:
453:
450:
447:
433:
430:
415:
414:
411:
408:
405:
402:
391:
388:
385:
382:
375:
366:
363:
354:
353:
349:
344:
336:
330:
326:
321:alternatives.
306:
303:
302:
301:
298:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
267:(ii) Feedback
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
252:(i) Anonymity
247:
246:
242:
241:
225:
219:
218:
212:
206:
196:
190:
189:
185:
178:
177:Formal systems
175:
165:
162:
92:
89:
88:
43:
41:
34:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1393:
1382:
1379:
1378:
1376:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1339:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1288:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1245:
1237:
1231:
1227:
1226:
1221:
1220:Briskin, Alan
1215:
1200:
1196:
1189:
1182:
1176:
1169:
1163:
1155:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1136:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1093:
1084:
1082:
1080:
1078:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1042:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1007:
999:
995:
991:
987:
982:
977:
973:
969:
962:
960:
951:
945:
941:
934:
926:
920:
916:
909:
907:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
871:
863:
859:
853:
851:
842:
840:9780805859447
836:
832:
825:
821:
811:
808:
806:
803:
801:
798:
796:
793:
791:
788:
786:
783:
781:
778:
776:
773:
771:
768:
766:
763:
761:
758:
756:
753:
751:
748:
746:
743:
741:
738:
736:
733:
732:
723:
720:
716:
713:
710:
707:
706:
705:
703:
689:
686:
683:
680:
679:
678:
667:
664:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
645:
644:
636:
634:
620:
617:
616:
610:
608:
605:
602:
599:
598:
597:
591:
588:
585:
583:"Satisficing"
582:
579:
576:
573:
570:
568:consequences.
566:
563:
560:
557:
556:
555:
552:
543:
539:
535:
526:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
499:
497:
493:
489:
486:
473:
470:
466:
463:
460:
457:
454:
451:
448:
445:
444:
443:
440:
428:
424:
419:
412:
409:
406:
403:
400:
399:voting system
396:
395:supermajority
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
376:
373:
372:
371:
362:
358:
350:
348:
347:Participatory
345:
342:
337:
335:
331:
327:
324:
323:
322:
320:
316:
311:
299:
297:
294:
293:
284:
283:
281:
280:
279:
278:
269:
268:
266:
265:
264:
263:
254:
253:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
243:
239:
235:
231:
226:
224:
223:Delphi method
221:
220:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
200:
197:
195:
192:
191:
186:
184:
181:
180:
174:
171:
164:In psychology
161:
159:
155:
151:
146:
144:
140:
135:
129:
127:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
85:
82:
74:
64:
60:
56:
50:
49:
44:This article
42:
33:
32:
27:
23:
19:
1352:
1348:
1338:
1297:
1293:
1287:
1254:
1250:
1244:
1224:
1214:
1202:. Retrieved
1198:
1188:
1175:
1162:
1142:
1135:
1102:
1098:
1092:
1051:
1047:
1041:
1016:
1012:
1006:
971:
967:
939:
933:
914:
880:
876:
870:
861:
830:
824:
790:Deliberation
699:
676:
642:
630:
595:
553:
549:
540:
536:
532:
500:
490:
485:James Reason
482:
439:Victor Vroom
435:
416:
368:
359:
355:
312:
308:
199:Range voting
167:
147:
130:
117:social group
104:
100:
96:
95:
77:
68:
45:
1143:Human Error
755:Think tanks
521:are called
341:legislature
109:individuals
18:mathematics
1204:1 November
816:References
702:heuristics
691:cultures.)
564:Bolstering
464:Facilitate
374:Delegation
296:Dotmocracy
143:groupthink
55:improve it
1361:1671-3710
1314:1088-8683
1271:1939-1315
1127:155070602
1119:0025-1747
1068:1090-5138
1033:1939-1315
976:CiteSeerX
897:1939-1315
519:functions
515:cognitive
509:of human
404:Unanimity
390:Plurality
384:Averaging
379:oligarchy
334:committee
325:Gathering
215:Plurality
59:verifying
1375:Category
1330:12237599
1322:21896790
1279:34000088
998:15783295
729:See also
471:Delegate
209:Majority
154:cohesion
124:idea of
113:decision
71:May 2024
468:leader.
126:synergy
53:Please
1359:
1328:
1320:
1312:
1277:
1269:
1232:
1150:
1125:
1117:
1066:
1031:
996:
978:
946:
921:
895:
837:
633:biases
511:errors
446:Decide
410:Random
1326:S2CID
1275:S2CID
1123:S2CID
1357:ISSN
1318:PMID
1310:ISSN
1267:ISSN
1230:ISBN
1206:2020
1148:ISBN
1115:ISSN
1064:ISSN
1029:ISSN
994:PMID
944:ISBN
919:ISBN
893:ISSN
835:ISBN
507:risk
425:and
332:Sub-
329:act.
168:The
20:and
1302:doi
1259:doi
1107:doi
1056:doi
1021:doi
986:doi
972:112
885:doi
103:or
57:by
1377::
1353:14
1347:.
1324:.
1316:.
1308:.
1298:16
1296:.
1273:.
1265:.
1255:48
1253:.
1197:.
1121:.
1113:.
1103:41
1101:.
1076:^
1062:.
1052:23
1050:.
1027:.
1017:55
1015:.
992:.
984:.
970:.
958:^
905:^
891:.
881:12
879:.
860:.
849:^
1363:.
1332:.
1304::
1281:.
1261::
1238:.
1208:.
1183:.
1170:.
1156:.
1129:.
1109::
1070:.
1058::
1035:.
1023::
1000:.
988::
952:.
927:.
899:.
887::
864:.
843:.
401:.
84:)
78:(
73:)
69:(
51:.
28:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.