Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:19:37.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Garbage in, garbage out? Some micro sources of macro errors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2014

CASS R. SUNSTEIN  and
REID HASTIE
CASS R. SUNSTEIN*
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
REID HASTIE
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many institutions, large or small, make their decisions through some process of deliberation. Nonetheless, deliberating institutions often fail, in the sense that they make judgments that are false or that fail to take advantage of the information that their members have. Micro mistakes can lead to macro blunders or even catastrophes. There are four such failures; all of them have implication for large-scale institutions as well as small ones. (1) Sometimes the predeliberation errors of an institution's members are amplified, not merely propagated, as a result of deliberation. (2) Institutions fall victim to cascade effects, as the initial speakers or actors are followed by their successors, who do not disclose what they know. Non-disclosure, on the part of those successors, may be a product of either informational or reputational cascades. (3) As a result of group polarization, deliberating institutions sometimes end up in a more extreme position in line with their predeliberation tendencies. Sometimes group polarization leads in desirable directions, but there is no assurance to this effect. (4) In deliberating institutions, shared information often dominates or crowds out unshared information, ensuring that institutions do not learn what their members know. Informational signals and reputational pressure help to explain all four errors. The results can be harmful to numerous institutions, including large ones, and to societies as a whole. Markets are able to correct some of these problems, but cascade effects occur there as well.

Type
A forum on minds and institutions
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 561 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abele, S., Stasser, G., and Vaughan-Parsons, S. (2005), ‘Information Sharing, Cognitive Centrality, and Influence among Business Executives during Collective Choice’, http://www.erim.eur.nl (Accessed 9 December, 2013).Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. (2001), ‘Combining Forecasts’, in Armstrong, J. (ed.), Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners, Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Baron, R. S., Hoppe, S. I., Kao, C. F., Brunsman, B., Linneweh, B., and Rogers, D. (1996), ‘Social Corroboration and Opinion Extremity’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32 (6): 537–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. (1986), Social Psychology: The Second Edition, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Christenson, C. and Abbott, A. (2000), ‘Team Medical Decision Making’, in Chapman, G. and Sonnenberg, F. (eds.), Decision Making in Health Care, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., and Wänke, M. (2010), ‘The Truth About the Truth: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Truth Effect’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14 (2): 238–257.Google Scholar
Gigone, D. and Hastie, R. (1993), ‘The Common Knowledge Effect: Information Sharing and Group Judgment’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (5): 959.Google Scholar
Gigone, D. and Hastie, R. (1997), ‘Proper Analysis of the Accuracy of Group Judgments’, Psychological Bulletin, 121 (1): 149.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., and Kahneman, D. (eds.) (2002), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, E. L. and Sunstein, C. R. (2009), ‘Extremism and Social Learning’, Journal of Legal Analysis, 1 (1): 263–324.Google Scholar
Hastie, R. (1986), ‘Experimental Evidence of Group Accuracy’, in Grofman, B. and Owen, G. (eds.), Information Pooling and Group Decision Making, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, p. 129.Google Scholar
Heath, C. and Gonzalez, R. (1995), ‘Interaction with Others Increases Decision Confidence but Not Decision Quality: Evidence Against Information Collection Views of Interactive Decision Making’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61 (3): 305–326.Google Scholar
Hightower, R. and Sayeed, L. (1995), ‘The Impact of Computer-Mediated Communication Systems on Biased Group Discussion’, Computers in Human Behavior, 11 (1): 33–44.Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, D. (1995), ‘The Blind Leading the Blind: Social Influence, Fads and Informational Cascades’, in Tommasi, M. and Ierulli, K. (eds.), The New Economics of Human Behaviour, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, J. R. and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janis, I. L. (1983), Groupthink, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 2–13.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. D. (2009), Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., and Takezawa, M. (1997), ‘Centrality in Sociocognitive Networks and Social Influence: An Illustration in a Group Decision-Making Context’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (2): 296.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., and Kramer, G. P. (1996), ‘Bias in Judgment: Comparing Individuals and Groups’, Psychological Review, 103 (4): 687.Google Scholar
Kuran, T. and Sunstein, C. R. (1999), ‘Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation’, Stanford Law Review, 51 (4): 683–768.Google Scholar
MacCoun, R. J. (2002), ‘Comparing Micro and Macro Rationality’, in Gowda, R. and Fox, J. (eds.), Judgments, Decisions, and Public Policy, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. and Zavalloni, M. (1969), ‘The Group as a Polarizer of Attitudes’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12 (2): 125.Google Scholar
Mowen, J. C. and Gentry, J. W. (1980), ‘Investigation of the Preference-Reversal Phenomenon in a New Product Introduction Task’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 65 (6): 715.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001), ‘Social Status and Group Structure’, Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, 352–375. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470998458.ch15/summaryGoogle Scholar
Rozin, P. and Nemeroff, C. (2002), ‘Sympathetic Magical Thinking: The Contagion and Similarity “Heuristics”’, in Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. and Kahneman, A. (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schkade, D., Sunstein, C. R., and Kahneman, D. (2000), ‘Deliberating About Dollars: The Severity Shift’, Columbia Law Review, 100 (4): 1139–1175.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. (2006), Micromotives and Macrobehavior, New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Schumann, E. L. and Thompson, W. C. (1989), ‘Effects of Attorney's Arguments on Jurors’ Use of Statistical Evidence’. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Shiller, R. (2004), The New Financial Order, New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiller, R. (2006), Irrational Exuberance, New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. E. (2000), The Perception of Risk, New York: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
Sniezek, J. A. and Henry, R. A. (1989), ‘Accuracy and Confidence in Group Judgment’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43 (1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Stahlberg, D., Eller, F., Maass, A., and Frey, D. (1995), ‘We Knew it All Along: Hindsight Bias in Groups’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63 (1): 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G. and Dietz-Uhler, B. (2001), ‘Collective Choice, Judgment, and Problem Solving’, Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, 3: 31–55.Google Scholar
Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., and Hanna, C. (1989), ‘Information Sampling in Structured and Unstructured Discussions of Three-And Six-Person Groups’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (1): 67.Google Scholar
Stasser, G. and Titus, W. (1985), ‘Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (6): 1467.Google Scholar
Stasser, G. and Titus, W. (2003), ‘Hidden Profiles: A Brief History’, Psychological Inquiry, 14 (3–4): 304–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasson, M. F., Ono, K., Zimmerman, S. K., and Davis, J. H. (1988), ‘Group Consensus Processes on Cognitive Bias Tasks: A Social Decision Scheme Approach’, Japanese Psychological Research, 30 (2): 68.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2003), Why Societies Need Dissent, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (ed.) (2006), Are Judges Political?[Electronic Resource]: An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary, Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Tahler, R. and Sunstein, C. R. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Terwiesch, C. and Ulrich, K. T. (2009), Innovation Tournaments: Creating and Selecting Exceptional Opportunities, Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973), ‘Availability: A Heuristic For Judging Frequency and Probability’, Cognitive Psychology, 5 (2): 207–232.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1982), ‘Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biase’, in Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, P. (2001), The Psychology of the Internet, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watts, D. (2011), Everything Is Obvious, New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Whyte, G. (1986), ‘Escalating commitment to a course of action: A reinterpretation’, Academy of Management Review, 11 (2): 311–321.Google Scholar
Whyte, G. (1993), ‘Escalating Commitment in Individual and Group Decision Making: A Prospect Theory Approach’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54 (3): 430–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P., and Zuckerman, C. (1999), ‘Mutual Enhancement: Toward an Understanding of the Collective Preference for Shared Information’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (5): 967.Google Scholar