Choice/matching preference reversals in groups: Consensus processes and justification-based reasoning

20Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Individual preferences can vary significantly by the mode in which they are elicited. Thus, the seemingly benign procedural issue of elicitation mode (i.e., choice, buying price, rating, matching) could have a profound effect on group decisions, although elicitation mode has not been much studied as a group procedural variable. Individual preferences differ by elicitation mode when the elicitation contexts differentially emphasize particular aspects of the decision. Emphasis on explainability, for example, may produce decisions that are based only on a few, important, attributes. Because group consensus processes also can encourage particular reasoning strategies, grouping may interact with elicitation mode; that is, group consensus processes may moderate or exacerbate preference reversals. The present study explored a particular elicitation effect, choice versus matching preference reversals, for decisions with both low and high social significance. The results confirmed both that elicitation mode can affect group decisions and that group consensus processes moderate choice/matching preference reversals. Further, evidence from both preference measures and rating scales suggested that the moderation was due to an increase in easily defended, justifiable decisions. Social significance did not affect individual or group decisions, but decreased members′ post group commitment to the group decision. These results have implications both for group decision making and for the study of the role of explanation-based strategies in preference formation. © 1995 Academic Press.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Irwin, J. R., & Davis, J. H. (1995). Choice/matching preference reversals in groups: Consensus processes and justification-based reasoning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(3), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1109

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free