Terry Connolly

Regret in Decision Making

Decision research has only recently started to take seriously the role of emotions in choices and decisions. Regret is the emotion that has received the most attention. In this article, we sample a number of the initial regret studies from psychology and economics, and trace some of the complexities and contradictions to which they led. We then sketch a new theory, decision justification theory (DJT), which synthesizes several apparently conflicting findings. DJT postulates two core components of decision–related regret, one associated with the (comparative) evaluation of the outcome, the other with the feeling of self–blame for having made a poor choice. We reinterpret several existing studies in DJT terms. We then report some new studies that directly tested (and support) DJT, and propose a number of research issues that follow from this new approach to regret.

The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task

This study examines the influence of anonymity on group process in groups using a group decision support system (GDSS) with an idea-generating task. Group members whose contributions were anonymous generated more comments, were more critical and probing, and were more likely to embellish ideas proposed by others than were those whose contributions were identified by name. Implications for group support research are discussed.

COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL INFORMATION: STATUS SALIENCE AND STATUS DIFFERENCES

Many studies have found that groups that interact by computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies are less prone to domination by high-status members than are face-to-face groups. We report h...

Discretionary Data Bases A Theory and Some Experimental Findings

Organizational members routinely have access to information that may benefit other employees and that may be shared through new information technologies. This discretionary information can be viewed as having the properties of a public good, enabling the development of a number of powerful propositions from a few simple assumptions. Generally, discretionary information will be undersupplied. A conceptual framework is developed to propose that reduced contribution rates occur in the following situations: a) greater contribution costs, b) larger groups of participants, c) lower values of information to participants, and d) greater asymmetries in information value and benefits across participants. A series of experiments are reported that provide preliminary support for these expectations. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research.

Toward Atheory of Automated Group Work The Deindividuating Effects of Anonymity

Recent developments in information systems technology have made it possible for individ- uals to work together anonymously using networked personal computers. Use of one such technology, the Group Decision Support System, is growing quickly. However, empirical GDSS research is only beginning to emerge, and, as of yet, this literature lacks a sound guiding theory. In this article we propose a theory of anonymous interaction. Grounded in social psychological research in deindividuation and sociallcognitive loafing, we explain anonymous GDSS interaction. Evidence is provided to suggest that anonymity has deindividuating effects on group process and can, therefore, influence group outcomes in several ways.

Multiple reference points in satisfaction and fairness assessment

Most studies of reference point effects have used a single referent, such as a price, a salary, or a target. There is considerable evidence that the judged fairness of, or satisfaction with, an outcome is significantly influenced by discrepancies from such single referents. In many settings, however, more than one reference point may be available, so the subject may be confronted simultaneously with some referents above, some at, and some below the focal outcome. Little is known about the simultaneous impact of such multiple reference points. We examine here the effects of two referents on ratings of salary satisfaction and fairness. Subjects were presented with a series of scenarios that described a salary offer made to a hypothetical MBA graduate and provided information about the salary offers made to either one or two other similar graduates. For each scenario, subjects judged how fair the focal graduate would feel the offer to be, and how satisfied he or she would be with it. Satisfaction ratings displayed asymmetric effects of comparisons: the pain associated with receiving a salary lower than another MBA is greater than the pleasure associated with a salary higher than the other student by the same amount. Fairness ratings showed a different pattern of asymmetric effects of discrepancies from the reference salaries: the focal graduates salary was judged somewhat less fair when others received lower offers, and much less fair when others received higher offers. The asymmetric effects occurred for both reference points, suggesting that the focal salary was compared separately to each of the referents rather than to a single reference point formed by prior integration of the referents. Copyright

On the effectiveness of group brainstorming: Test of one underlying cognitive mechanism.

Recent studies suggest that group brainstorming, in its electronic form, can be an effective method of generating ideas, if the group is sufficiently large. We report here an experiment probing the mechanism underlying this good performance. Because larger groups are more likely than small ones to generate rare ideas, we hypothesized that rare ideas might be especially stimulating to further idea generation, and thus boost the performance of large, interacting groups. Experimental subjects working alone generated ideas while exposed to streams of either rare, common, or no stimulus ideas. No support for the hypothesized stimulating effect of rare ideas was found. We suggest several alternative mechanisms worth exploring.

Omission bias in vaccination decisions: Where's the "omission"? Where's the "bias"?

Abstract Several studies have reported that parents are often reluctant to vaccinate their own or other people’s children, even when the balance of health risks and benefits clearly favors vaccination. This reluctance has been interpreted as a manifestation of “omission bias”, a general tendency to prefer inactive to active options even when inaction leads to worse outcomes or greater risks. The research raises significant public health concerns as well as worries about human decision biases in general. In this paper we argue that existing research on vaccination decisions has not convincingly demonstrated any general reluctance to vaccinate nor has it made the case that such a tendency, if found, would constitute a bias. We identify several conceptual and methodological issues that, we argue, cloud interpretation of earlier studies. In a new questionnaire-based study (Experiment 1) we examined the vaccination decisions of undergraduate students ( N =103) and non-student adults ( N =192). In both groups a clear majority chose to vaccinate when disease and vaccination risks were balanced. Experiments 2 and 3 identify several problems associated with the measures used in earlier studies, and show how these problems could have led to the misleading appearance of majority anti-vaccination preferences. In our data, vaccination intentions appear to be less a function of generalized preferences for action or inaction than they are of the regret respondents expect to feel if vaccination or non-vaccination were to lead to a poor outcome. Regret-avoiding choices led some respondents to favor vaccination, others to oppose it. In two follow-up studies, few respondents mentioned action or inaction per se in explaining their choices. We conclude that there is no convincing evidence that a generalized “omission bias” plays any important role in vaccination decisions.

Computer Security and Risky Computing Practices: A Rational Choice Perspective

Despite rapid technological advances in computer hardware and software, insecure behavior by individual computer users continues to be a significant source of direct cost and productivity loss. Why do individuals, many of whom are aware of the possible grave consequences of low-level insecure behaviors such as failure to backup work and disclosing passwords, continue to engage in unsafe computing practices? In this article we propose a conceptual model of this behavior as the outcome of a boundedly-rational choice process. We explore this model in a survey of undergraduate students (N = 167) at two large public universities. We asked about the frequency with which they engaged in five commonplace but unsafe computing practices, and probed their decision processes with regard to these practices. Although our respondents saw themselves as knowledgeable, competent users, and were broadly aware that serious consequences were quite likely to result, they reported frequent unsafe computing behaviors. We discuss the implications of these findings both for further research on risky computing practices and for training and enforcement policies that will be needed in the organizations these students will shortly be entering.

Predecisional information acquisition: Effects of task variables on suboptimal search strategies

Abstract Effective overall performance in judgment tasks generally involves both acquisition of information and integration of the information acquired. When information is costly the decision maker must balance acquisition costs against improved decisional accuracy, a complex balancing problem in which, laboratory evidence suggests, humans often do poorly. The three experiments reported here extend this earlier evidence to different task structures, subject pools, incentive systems, information volumes, decision aids, and kind of data sources. Though each of these factors was found to affect performance, the general finding was of persistent underpurchase (buying less information overall than is optimal) and mispurchase (buying poor sources when better sources are available at the same cost), with significant inflation of overall costs. It is proposed that unaided human judgment is unequal to the complexity of the cost/benefit trade-offs involved in acquiring costly information, and that formal decision analysis should be preferred whenever the stakes justify.