Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 105, Issue , 2016, Pages 63-76

  Winkler, Jens ^a   Moser, Roger ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST GALLEN   (Switzerland)

^b Adjunct Professor IIM Udaipur ^*  (India)

Author keywords

Anchoring; Bandwagon effect; Belief perseverance; Cognitive biases; Desirability bias; Framing

Indexed keywords

TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

ANCHORING; BANDWAGON EFFECT; BELIEF PERSEVERANCE; COGNITIVE BIAS; DESIRABILITY BIAS; FRAMING;

INNOVATION;

COGNITION; DELPHI ANALYSIS; FORECASTING METHOD;

EID: 84957895416     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.021     Document Type: Article

References (180)

1. Alter A.L., Oppenheimer D.M. Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19(2):161-167.
2. Álvarez I., Calvo J., Mora A. Involving academics in the accounting standard setting process: an application of the Delphi methodology to the assessment of IASB proposals. J. Manag. Gov. 2014, 18(3):765-791.
3. Amos T., Pearse N. Pragmatic research design: an illustration of the use of the delphi technique. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 2008, 6(2):95-102.
4. Armor D.A., Taylor S.E. Situated optimism: specific outcome expectancies and self-regulation. Advances in experimental social psychology 1998, vol. 30:309-379. New York, Academic Press. M.P. Zanna (Ed.).
5. Ayton P., Ferrell W.R., Stewart T.R. Commentaries on "The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis" by Rowe and Wright. Int. J. Forecast. 1999, 15(4):377-381.
6. Babad E., Hills M., O'Driscoll M. Factors influencing wishful thinking and predictions of election outcomes. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 13(4):461-476.
7. Bar-Hillel M., Budescu D.V. The elusive wishful thinking effect. Think. Reason. 1995, 1(1):71-103.
8. Baron J. Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Think. Reason. 1995, 1(3):221-235.
9. Baur F., Koch G., Prügl R., Malorny C. Identifying future strategic options for the automotive industry. Zukünftige Entwicklungen in der Mobilität 2012, 273-286. Springer Gabler Research, Wiesbaden. H. Proff, J. Schönharting, D. Schramm, J. Ziegler (Eds.).
10. Belsky G., Gilovich T.D. Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes - And How to Correct Them - Lessons From the New Science of Behavioural Economics 1999, Simon Schuster, New York.
11. Bergman O., Ellingsen T., Johannesson M., Svensson C. Anchoring and cognitive ability. Econ. Lett. 2010, 107(1):66-68.
12. Block R.A., Harper D.R. Overconfidence in estimation: testing the anchoring-and-adjustment hypothesis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Making 1991, 49(2):188-207.
13. Bodenhausen G.V., Gabriel S., Lineberger M. Sadness and susceptibility to judgmental bias: the case of anchoring. Psychol. Sci. 2000, 11(4):320-323.
14. Bolger F., Wright G. Improving the Delphi process: lessons from social psychological research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78(9):1500-1513.
15. Bolger F., Stranieri A., Wright G., Yearwood J. Does the Delphi process lead to increased accuracy in group-based judgmental forecasts or does it simply induce consenus amongst judgmental forecasters?. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78(9):1671-1680.
16. Bonaccio S., Dalal R.S. Advice taking and decision-making: an integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2006, 101(2):127-151.
17. Cadinu M.R., Rothbart M. Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 70(4):661-677.
18. Callaway M.R., Esser J.K. Groupthink: effects of cohesiveness and problem-solving procedures on group decision-making. Soc. Behav. Personal. 1984, 12(2):157-164.
19. Campbell S.D., Sharpe S.A. Anchoring bias in consensus forecasts and its effects on market prices. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 2009, 44(2):369-390.
20. Carlson K.A., Russo J.E. Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2001, 7(2):91-103.
21. Chapman G., Johnson E.J. Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1999, 79(2):1-39.
22. Chapman G.B., Johnson E.J. The limits of anchoring. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 1994, 7(4):223-242.
23. Chapman G.B., Johnson E.J. Incorporating the irrelevant: anchors in judgments of belief and value. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment 2002, 120-138. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.).
24. Cheng F.-F., Wu C.-S. Debiasing the framing effect: the effect of warning and involvement. Decis. Support. Syst. 2010, 49(3):328-334.
25. Chiravuri A., Nazareth D., Ramamurthy K. Cognitive conflict and consensus generation in virtual teams during knowledge capture: comparative effectiveness of techniques. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2011, 28(1):311-350.
26. Clement R.W., Krueger J.I. The primacy of self-reference information in perceptions of social consensus. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 39(2):279-299.
27. Critcher C.R., Gilovich T.D. Incidental environmental anchors. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2008, 21(3):241-251.
28. Czinkota M.R. International trade and business in the late 1980s: an integrated U.S. perspective. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1986, 17(1):127-134.
29. Czinkota M.R., Ronkainen I.A. Global marketing 2000: a marketing survival guide. Mark. Manag. 1992, 1(1):36-45.
30. Czinkota M.R., Ronkainen I.A. International business and trade in the next decade: report from a Delphi study. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1997, 28(4):827-844.
31. Czinkota M.R., Ronkainen I.A. A forecast of globalization, international business and trade: report from a Delphi study. J. World Bus. 2005, 40(2):111-123.
32. Daft R.L., Lengel R.H. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32(5):554-571.
33. Dalkey N.C. Toward a theory of group estimation. The Delphi Method - Techniques and Applications 1975, 231-256. Addison-Wesley, Reading. H.A. Linstone, M. Turoff (Eds.).
34. DeKay M.L., Patiño-Echeverri D., Fischbeck P.S. Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2009, 109(1):79-92.
35. Dequech D. The new institutional economics and the theory of behaviour under uncertainty. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2006, 59(1):109-131.
36. Deutsh M., Gerard H.B. A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1955, 51(3):629-636.
37. Donohoe H.M., Needham R.D. Moving best practice forward: Delphi characteristics, advantages, potential problems, and solutions. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2009, 11(5):415-437.
38. Drake R.A. Toward a synthesis of some behavioral and physiological antecedents of belief perseverance. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 1983, 11(2):57-60.
39. Dunn W.N. Public policy analysis: an introduction 2004, Pearson Prentice Hall. third ed.
40. Ecken P., Gnatzy T., von der Gracht H.A. Desirability bias in foresight: consequences for decision quality based on Delphi results. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78(9):1654-1670.
41. Elliott G., Jiang F., Redding G., Stening B. The Chinese business environment in the next decade: report from a Delphi study. Asian Bus. Manag. 2010, 9(4):459-480.
42. Englich B., Mussweiler T. Sentencing under uncertainty: anchoring effects in the courtroom. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 31(7):1535-1551.
43. Englich B., Soder K. Moody experts - how mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgmental Decis. Making 2009, 4(1):41-50.
44. Englich B., Mussweiler T., Strack F. Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2006, 32(2):188-200.
45. Epley N., Gilovich T.D. Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychol. Sci. 2001, 12(5):391-396.
46. Epley N., Gilovich T.D. When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2005, 18(3):199-212.
47. Eroglu C., Croxton K.L. Biases in judgmental adjustments of statistical forecasts: the role of individual differences. Int. J. Forecast. 2010, 26(1):116-133.
48. Fildes R., Goodwin P. Against your better judgment? How organizations can improve their use of management judgment in forecasting. Interfaces 2007, 37(6):570-576.
49. Förster B., von der Gracht H. Assessing Delphi panel composition for strategic foresight - A comparison of panels based on company-internal and external participants. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 84:215-229.
50. Frederick S.W., Mochon D. A scale distortion theory of anchoring. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2012, 141(1):124-133.
51. Friedrich J. Primary error detection and minimization (PEDMIN) strategies in social cognition: a reinterpretation of confirmation bias phenomena. Psychol. Rev. 1993, 100(2):298-319.
52. Fuller S.R., Aldag R.J. Orgnanizational Tonypandy: lessons from a quarter century of the groupthink phenomenon. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1998, 73(2/3):163-184.
53. Furnham A., Boo H.C. A literature review of the framing effect. J. Socio-Econ. 2011, 40(1):35-42.
54. Gallego D., Bueno S. Exploring the application of the Delphi method as a forecasting tool in information systems and technologies research. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 2014, 26(9):987-999.
55. Gardner P.H., Berry D.C. The effect of different forms of advice on the control of a simulated complex system. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 1995, 9:55-79. (special issue).
56. Georgantzas N.C., Acar W. Scenario-Driven Planning - Learning to Manage Strategic Uncertainty 1995, Quorum Books, Westport.
57. George J.F., Duffy K., Ahuja M. Countering the anchoring and adjustment bias with decision support systems. Decis. Support. Syst. 2000, 29(2):195-206.
58. Golub S.A., Gilbert D.T., Wilson T.D. Anticipating one's troubles: the costs and benefits of negative expectations. Emotion 2009, 9(2):277-281.
59. Graefe A., Armstrong J.S. Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task. Int. J. Forecast. 2011, 27(1):183-195.
60. Gray P., Hovav A. From hindsight to foresight: applying futures research techniques in information systems. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2008, 22:211-234.
61. Green K.C., Armstrong J.S. Role thinking: standing in other people's shoes to forecast decisions in conflicts. Int. J. Forecast. 2011, 27(1):69-80.
62. Häder M. Delphi-Befragungen: Ein Arbeitsbuch 2002, Westdeutscher Verlag.
63. Hallowell M.R., Gambatese J.A. Qualitative research: application of the Delphi method to CEM research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136(1):99-107.
64. Harries C., Yaniv I., Harvey N. Combining advice: the weight of a dissenting opinion in the consensus. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2004, 17(5):333-348.
65. Hart W., Albarracín D., Eagly A.H., Brechan I., Lindberg M.J., Merrill L. Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychol. Bull. 2009, 135(4):555-588.
66. Harvey N. Use of heuristics: insights from forecasting research. Think. Reason. 2007, 13(1):5-24.
67. Harvey N., Fischer I. Taking advice: accepting help, improving judgment, and sharing responsibility. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1997, 70(2):117-133.
68. Harvey N., Harries C. Effects of judges' forecasting on their later combination of forecasts for the some outcomes. Int. J. Forecast. 2004, 20(3):391-409.
69. Hasson F., Keeney S. Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78(9):1695-1704.
70. Henningsen D.D., Henningsen M.L.M., Eden J., Cruz M.G. Examining the symptoms of groupthink and retrospective sensemaking. Small Group Res. 2006, 37(1):36-64.
71. Hernandez I., Preston J.L. Disfluency disrupts the confirmation bias. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 49(1):178-182.
72. Hodson G., Sorrentino R.M. Groupthink and uncertainty orientation: personality differences in reactivity to the group situation. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 1997, 1(2):144-155.
73. Holmes E.R., Tipton D.J., Desselle S.P. The impact of the internet on community pharmacy practice: a comparison of a Delphi panel's forecast with emerging trends. Health Mark. Q. 2002, 20(2):3-29.
74. Huang H.-H., Hsu J.S.-C., Ku C.-Y. Understanding the role of computer-mediated counter-argument in countering confirmation bias. Decis. Support. Syst. 2012, 53(3):438-447.
75. Hussler C., Muller P., Rondé P. Is diversity in Delphi panelist groups useful? Evidence from a French forecasting exercise on the future of nuclear energy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78(9):1642-1653.
76. Isenberg D.J. Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 50(6):1141-1151.
77. Janis I.L. Groupthink and group dynamics: a social psychological analysis of defective policy decisions. Policy Stud. J. 1973, 2(1):19-25.
78. Jonas E., Schulz-Hardt S., Fischer P., Frey D. Biased information seeking after decisions: cognitive and motivational biases. Knowledge and Action 2006, 23-51. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Ashland. D. Frey, H. Mandl, L. von Rosenstiel (Eds.).
79. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. Am. Psychol. 1984, 39(4):341-350.
80. Kauko K., Palmroos P. The Delphi method in forecasting financial markets - an experimental study. Int. J. Forecast. 2014, 30(2):313-327.
81. Kerr N.L., Tindale R.S. Group-based forecasting? A social psychological analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 2011, 27(1):14-40.
82. Klayman J., Soll J.B., Gonzalez-Vallejo C., Barlas S. Overconfidence: it depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1999, 79(3):216-247.
83. Klenk N.L., Hickey G.M. A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: the concept mapping policy Delphi. Int. J. Forecast. 2011, 27(1):152-165.
84. Kray L.J., Galinsky A.D. The debiasing effect of counterfactual mind-sets: increasing the search for disconfirmatory information in group decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2003, 91(1):69-81.
85. Krizan Z., Windschitl P.D. The influence of outcome desirability on optimism. Psychol. Bull. 2007, 133(1):95-121.
86. Krueger J.I. Return of the ego - self-referent information as a filter for social prediction: comment on Karniol (2003). Psychol. Rev. 2003, 110(3):585-590.
87. Kulik J.A., Sledge P., Mahler H.I.M. Self-confirmatory attribution, egocentrism, and the perpetuation of self-beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 50(3):587-594.
88. Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 108(3):480-498.
89. Landeta J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2006, 73(5):467-482.
90. Landeta J., Barrutia J. People consultation to construct the future: a Delphi application. Int. J. Forecast. 2011, 27(1):134-151.
91. LeBoeuf R.A., Shafir E. Anchoring on the "Here" and "Now" in time and distance judgments. J. Exp. Psychol. 2009, 35(1):81-93.
92. Lench H.C. Automatic optimism: the affective basis of judgments about the likelihood of future events. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2009, 138(2):187-200.
93. Lench H.C., Smallman R., Darbor K.E., Bench S.W. Motivated perception of probabilistic information. Cognition 2014, 133(2):429-442.
94. Lin V.S., Goodwin P., Song H. Accuracy and bias of experts' adjusted forecasts. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 48:156-174.
95. Linstone H.A. Eight basic pitfalls: a checklist. The Delphi Method - Techniques and Applications 1975, 559-571. Addison-Wesley, Reading. H.A. Linstone, M. Turoff (Eds.).
96. Linstone H.A., Turoff M. The Delphi Method - Techniques and Applications 1975, Addison-Wesley, Reading.
97. Maheswaran D., Meyers-Levy J. The influence of message framing and issue involvement. J. Mark. Res. 1990, 27(3):361-367.
98. Mannix E., Neale M.A. What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychol. Sci. Public Interes. 2005, 6(2):31-55.
99. Massey C., Simmons J.P., Armor D.A. Hope over experience: desirability and the persistence of optimism. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 22(2):274-281.
100. McAvoy J., Nagle T., Sammon D. A novel approach to challenging consensus in evaluations: the agitation workshop. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. 2013, 16(1):47-57.
101. McElroy T., Dowd K. Susceptibility to anchoring effects: how openness to experience influences responses to anchoring cues. Judgment Decis. Making 2007, 2(1):48-53.
102. Melnyk S.A., Lummus R.R., Vokurka R.J., Burns L.J., Sandor J. Mapping the future of supply chain management: a Delphi study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2009, 47(15):4629-4653.
103. Milch K.F., Weber E.U., Appelt K.C., Handgraaf M.J.J., Krantz D.H. From individual preference construction to group decisions: framing effects and group processes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2009, 108(2):242-255.
104. Mochon D., Frederick S. Anchoring in sequential judgments. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2013, 122(1):69-79.
105. Mussweiler T., Strack F. Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: a selective accessibility model. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 35(2):136-164.
106. Mussweiler T., Strack F. The semantics of anchoring. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2001, 86(2):234-255.
107. Mussweiler T., Strack F., Pfeiffer T. Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 26(9):1142-1150.
108. Myers D.G., Lamm H. The group polarization phenomenon. Psychol. Bull. 1976, 83(4):602-627.
109. Myers D.G., Wojcicki S.B., Aardema B.S. Attitude comparison: is there ever a bandwagon effect?. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1977, 7(4):341-347.
110. Neale M.A., Bazerman M.H., Northcraft G.B., Alperson C. 'Choice shift' effects in group decisions: a decision bias perspective. Int. J. Small Group Res. 1986, 2(1):33-42.
111. Nickerson R.S. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2(2):175-220.
112. Oechssler J., Roider A., Schmitz P.W. Cognitive abilities and behavioural biases. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2009, 72(1):147-152.
113. Okoli C., Pawlowski S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf. Manag. 2004, 42(1):15-29.
114. Oppenheimer D.M. The secret life of fluency. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2008, 12(6):237-241.
115. Oppenheimer D.M., LeBoeuf R.A., Brewer N.T. Anchors aweigh: a demonstration of cross-modality anchoring and magnitude priming. Cognition 2007, 106(1):13-26.
116. Paese P.W., Bieser M., Tubbs M.E. Framing effects and choice shifts in group decision making. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Making 1993, 56(1):149-165.
117. Parente R.J., Anderson-Parente J. A case study of long-term Delphi accuracy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78(9):1705-1711.
118. Parente R.J., Hiöb T.N., Silver R.A., Jenkins C., Poe M.P., Mullins R.J. The Delphi method, impeachment and terrorism: accuracies of short-range forecasts for volatile world events. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2005, 72(4):401-411.
119. Plous S. Thinking the unthinkable: the effects of anchoring on likelihood estimates of nuclear war. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 19(1):67-91.
120. Postmes T., Lea M. Social processes and group decision making: anonymity in group decision support systems. Ergonomics 2000, 43(8):1252-1274.
121. Rabin M., Schrag J.L. First impressions matter: a model of confirmatory bias. Q. J. Econ. 1999, 114(1):37-82.
122. Rains S.A. The impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility and influence in computer-mediated group communication: a test of two competing hypotheses. Commun. Res. 2007, 34(1):100-125.
123. Rothman A.J., Salovey P., Antone C., Keough K., Martin C.D. The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1993, 29(5):408-433.
124. Rowe G., Wright G. The impact of task characteristics on the performance of structured group forecasting techniques. Int. J. Forecast. 1996, 12(1):73-89.
125. Rowe G., Wright G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 1999, 15(4):353-375.
126. Rowe G., Wright G., Bolger F. Delphi - a reevaluation of research and theory. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1991, 39(3):235-251.
127. Rowe G., Wright G., McColl A. Judgment change during Delphi-like procedures: the role of majority influence, expertise, and confidence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2005, 72(4):377-399.
128. Russo J.E., Carlson K.A., Meloy M.G., Yong K. The goal of consistency as a cause of distortion. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2008, 137(3):456-470.
129. Russo J.E., Medvec V.H., Meloy M.G. The distortion of information during decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1996, 66(1):102-110.
130. Scherer A.M., Windschitl P.D., Smith A.R. Hope to be right: biased information seeking following arbitrary and informed predictions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 49(6):106-112.
131. Sharfman M.P., Shaft T.M. Effect of extreme uncertainty on decision-making: the case of foreign direct investment in emerging and transitional economies. Int. J. Manag. 2011, 28(1):51-70.
132. Shepperd J.A., Findley-Klein C., Kwavnick K.D., Walker D., Perez S. Bracing for loss. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 78(4):620-634.
133. Sieck W., Yates J.F. Exposition effects on decision making: choice and confidence in choice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1997, 70(3):207-219.
134. Simoens S. Using the Delphi technique in economic evaluation: time to revisit the oracle?. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2006, 31(6):519-522.
135. Simon H.A. Rational decision making in business organizations. Am. Econ. Rev. 1979, 69(4):493-513.
136. Skulmoski G.J., Hartman F.T., Krahn J. The Delphi method for graduate research. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 2007, 6:1-21.
137. Smith S.M., Levin I.P. Need for cognition and choice framing effects. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 1996, 9(4):283-290.
138. Sniezek J.A., Van Swol L.M. Trust, confidence, and expertise in a judge - advisor system. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2001, 84(2):288-307.
139. Soll J.B., Klayman J. Overconfidence in interval estimates. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2004, 30(2):299-314.
140. Sommers S.R. On racial diversity and group decision making: identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 90(4):597-612.
141. Song H., Gao B.Z., Lin V.S. Combining statistical and judgemental forecasts via a web-based tourism demand forecasting system. Int. J. Forecast. 2013, 29(2):295-310.
142. Stanovich K.E., West R.F. On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 94(4):672-695.
143. Story V., Hurdley L., Smith G., Saker J. Methodological and practical implications of the Delphi technique in marketing decision making: a re-assessment. Mark. Rev. 2001, 1(4):487-504.
144. Strack F., Mussweiler T. Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 73(3):437-446.
145. Strauss H.J., Zeigler L.H. Delphi, political philosophy and the future. Futures 1975, 7(3):184-193.
146. Sweeny K., Krizan Z. Sobering up: a quantitative review of temporal declines in optimism. Psychol. Bull. 2013, 139(3):702-724.
147. Tersine R.J., Riggs W.E. The Delphi technique: a long-range planning tool. Bus. Horiz. 1976, 19(2):51-56.
148. Thomas K.E., Handley S.J. Anchoring in time estimation. Acta Psychol. 2008, 127(1):24-29.
149. Thorsteinson T.J., Breier J., Atwell A., Hamilton C., Privette M. Anchoring effects on performance judgements. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2008, 107(1):29-40.
150. Trope Y., Liberman N. Temporal construal. Psychol. Rev. 2003, 110(3):403-421.
151. Tsikerdekis M. The effects of perceived anonymity and anonymity states on conformity and groupthink in online communities: a wikipedia study. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 64(5):1001-1015.
152. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185(4157):1124-1131.
153. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211(4481):453-458.
154. Tyler J.M., Rosier J.G. Examining self-presentation as a motivational explanation for comparative optimism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 97(4):716-727.
155. Van Exel N., Brouwer W., van den Berg B., Koopmanschap M. With a little help from an anchor: discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation. J. Socio-Econ. 2006, 35(5):836-853.
156. Van Swol L.M., Sniezek J.A. Factors affecting the acceptance of expert advice. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 44(3):443-461.
157. von der Gracht H.A. The Future of Logistics - Scenarios for 2025 2008, Gabler, Wiesbaden.
158. Vosgerau J. How prevalent is wishful thinking? Misattribution of arousal causes optimism and pessimism in subjective probabilities. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2010, 139(1):32-48.
159. Wakefield R., Watson T. A reappraisal of Delphi 2.0 for public relations research. Public Relat. Rev. 2014, 40(3):577-584.
160. Walsh P.R. Dealing with the uncertainties of environmental change by adding scenario planning to the strategy reformulation equation. Manag. Decis. 2005, 43(1):113-122.
161. Wegener D.T., Petty R.E., Blankenship K.L., Detweiler-Bedell B. Elaboration and numerical anchoring: implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. J. Consum. Psychol. 2010, 20(1):5-16.
162. Wegener D.T., Petty R.E., Detweiler-Bedell B., Jarvis W.B.G. Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 37(1):62-69.
163. Wester K.L., Borders L.D. Research competencies in counseling: a Delphi study. J. Couns. Dev. 2014, 92(4):447-458.
164. Whyte G. Groupthink reconsidered. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14(1):40-56.
165. Wilson T.D., Houston C.E., Etling K.M., Brekke N. A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1996, 125(4):387-402.
166. Windschitl P., Scherer A., Smith A.R., Rose J.P. Why so confident? The influence of outcome desirability on selective exposure and likelihood judgment. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2013, 120(1):73-86.
167. Windschitl P.D., Smith A.R., Rose J.P., Krizan Z. The desirability bias in predictions: going optimistic without leaving realism. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2010, 111(1):33-47.
168. Winkler J., Kuklinski C.P.J.-W., Moser R. Decision making in emerging markets: The Delphi approach's contribution to coping with uncertainty and equivocality. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68(5):1118-1126.
169. Woudenberg F. An evaluation of Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1991, 40(2):131-150.
170. Wright G., Goodwin P. Eliminating a framing bias by using simple instructions to think harder and respondents with managerial experience: comment on breaking the frame. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23(11):1059-1067.
171. Wright G., Rowe G. Group-based judgmental forecasting: an integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda. Int. J. Forecast. 2011, 27(1):1-13.
172. Yang X.-J., Zeng L., Zhang R. Cloud Delphi method. Int. J. Uncertain. 2012, 20(1):77-97.
173. Yaniv I. Receiving other people's advice: influence and benefit. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2004, 93(1):1-13.
174. Yaniv I. Group diversity and decision quality: amplification and attenuation of the framing effect. Int. J. Forecast. 2011, 27(1):41-49.
175. Yaniv I., Kleinberger E. Advice taking in decision making: egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2000, 83(2):260-281.
176. Yaniv I., Milyavsky M. Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2007, 103(1):104-120.
177. Zaichkowsky J.L. Measuring the involvement construct. J. Consum. Res. 1985, 12(3):341-352.
178. Ziegler G., Farkas C., Lorincz A. A framework for anonymous but accountable self-organizing communities. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2006, 48(8):726-744.
179. Ziglio E. The Delphi method and its contribution to decision-making. Gazing into the Oracle: the Delphi Method and its Application to Social Policy and Public Health 1996, 3-33. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London. M. Adler, E. Ziglio (Eds.).
180. Zimmermann M., Darkow I.-L., von der Gracht H.A. Integrating Delphi and participatory backcasting in pursuit of trustworthiness - the case of electric mobility in Germany. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79(9):1605-1621.