Small group predictions on an uncertain outcome: The effect of nondiagnostic information

Theory and Decision

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 149-167

  Young II, George R ^a   Price, Kenneth H ^b   Claybrook, Cynthia ^b  

^a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Dilution effect; Individual predictions; Nondiagnostic information; Small groups; Uncertain outcome

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042835560     PISSN: 00405833     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1010390527827     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Accountants International Study Group (1975), Going Concern Problems. Newport Press, New York.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) (1988), The auditor's consideration of an entity's ability to continue as a going concern, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 59. AICPA, New York.
3. Arnold, V. and Edwards, D.E. (1993), Going concern evaluation: Factors affecting decisions, The CPA Journal 63 (10): 58-60.
4. Brown, R. (1965), Social Psychology. Free Press of Glencoe, New York.
5. Burnstein, E. and Vinokur, A. (1975), What a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: Nice evidence for the persuasive arguments explanation of choice shifts, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11: 412-426.
6. Carlson, J.A. and Davis, C.M. (1971), Cultural values and the risky-shift: A cross-cultural test in Uganda and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 20: 392-399.
7. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.
8. Deutch, M. and Gerard, H.G. (1955), A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51: 629-636.
9. Forsyth, D.R. (1990), Decision Making. Group Dynamics (2). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, CA. pp 308-315.
10. Goethals, G.R. and Zanna, M.P. (1979), The role of social comparison in choice shifts, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 1469-1476.
11. Hackenbrack, K. (1992), Implications of seemingly irrelevant evidence in audit judgment, Journal of Accounting Research 30: 126-136.
12. Hans, V.P. and Doob, A.N. (1976), S. 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the deliberations of simulated juries, Criminal Law Quarterly 18: 235-253.
13. Hoffman, V.B. and Patton, J.M. (1997), Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatisim in auditors' fraud judgments, Journal of Accounting Research 35: 227-237.
14. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) (1986), Going concern, International Standard on Auditing No. 23. AICPA, New York.
15. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk, Econometrica 47: 263-291.
16. Kaplan, M.F. (1975), Information integration in social judgment: Interaction of judge and informational components, in M.F. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (eds), Human Judgment and Decision Processes, Academic Press, New York. pp 139-171.
17. Kaplan, M.F. (1984), How do people influence deliberation? A social psychological view, Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2: 1-6.
18. Kaplan, M.F. (1987), The influencing process in group decision making, in C. Hendrick. (eds), Group Processes, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
19. McCauley, C., Teger, A.I. and Kogan, N. (1971), Effect of the pretest in the risky-shift paradigm, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 20: 379-381.
20. Moscovici, S. and Zavalloni, M. (1969), The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12: 125-135.
21. Nisbett, R.E., Zukier, H. and Lemley, R. (1981), The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the effect of diagnostic information, Cognitive Psychology 13: 248-277.
22. Rutledge, R.W. (1993), The effects of group decisions and group-shifts on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic. Social Behavior and Personality 21: 215-226.
23. Rutledge, R.W. and Harrell, A.M. (1994), The impact of responsibility and framing of budgetary information on group-shifts, Behavioral Research in Accounting 6: 92-109.
24. Schultz, J.J. and Reckers, P.M.J. (1981), The impact of group processing on selected audit disclosure decisions, Journal of Accounting Research 19:482-501.
25. Stoner, J.A.F. (1961), A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Unpublished master's thesis. School of Industrial Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
26. Tetlock, P.E. and Boettger, R. (1989), Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 388-398.
27. Zukier, H. (1982), The dilution effect: The role of the correlation and the dispersion of predictor variables in the use of nondiagnostic information, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43: 1163-1174.
28. Zukier, H. and Jennings, D.L. (1983-1984), Nondiagnosticity and typicality effects in prediction, Social Cognition 2: 187-198.