IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v11y2002i4d10.1023_a1015624824288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of a Quantitative Decision Aid – Analytic Hierarchy Process – on Group Polarization

Author

Listed:
  • Chi-Kuang Chen

    (Yuan Ze University)

  • David H. Gustafson

    (University of Wisconsin)

  • Yuan-Duen Lee

    (Chang Jung Christian University)

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to examine group polarization in subjects who have access to a quantitative decision aid, comparing to subjects who do not. Group polarization indicates the opinion of a group involved in a decision process will tend to be more extreme in the direction of the norm than the initial opinions of its members. Most of previous studies were focused on the theoretical explanation of this effect. Two theories are generally proposed to explain it: social comparison (SC) and persuasive arguments (PA). As we know, no study has been worked on how it can be dealt with. In this study, we use Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a quantitative decision aid in a group process to examine the changes of this effect. Two hundred and forty undergraduate students participated in this study. Results show that persuasive argument was significantly reduced by the use of AHP, while no significant effect was found in group polarization and social comparison. The implications of the findings are further discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Chi-Kuang Chen & David H. Gustafson & Yuan-Duen Lee, 2002. "The Effect of a Quantitative Decision Aid – Analytic Hierarchy Process – on Group Polarization," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 329-344, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:11:y:2002:i:4:d:10.1023_a:1015624824288
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1015624824288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1015624824288
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1015624824288?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Denis Bouyssou, 1984. "Decision-Aid and Expected Utility Theory: A Critical Survey," Post-Print hal-02920187, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2008. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty: What approach?]," MPRA Paper 83347, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2008.
    2. Anderson, Jock R. & Dillon, John L. & Hardaker, J. Brian, 1985. "Farmers and Risk," 1985 Conference, August 26-September 4, 1985, Malaga, Spain 183026, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2019. "The new models of decision in risk: A review of the critical literature," MPRA Paper 92693, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2019.
    5. Stewart, Theodor J. & Losa, Fabio B., 2003. "Towards reconciling outranking and value measurement practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(3), pages 645-659, March.
    6. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les Nouveaux Modèles de Décision dans le Risque et l’Incertain : Quel Apport ? [The New Models of Decision Under Risk or Uncertainty : What Approach?]," MPRA Paper 76954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Denis Bouyssou & Jean-Claude Vansnick, 1990. "« Utilité cardinale » dans le certain et choix dans le risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(6), pages 979-1000.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:11:y:2002:i:4:d:10.1023_a:1015624824288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.