Description
Many decisions rest on the collective judgment of small groups like committees, boards, or teams. However, some group members may have hidden agendas and manipulate this judgment to induce a consequent decision in their interest. Utilizing an incentivized experiment, I analyze how manipulation affects the accuracy and trustworthiness of such group judgment depending on the format of group interaction. I compare group judgments from unstructured face-to-face interaction, ubiquitous in real-world institutions, to group judgments from the scientifically endorsed, structured Delphi technique. To identify mechanisms underlying the accuracy differences, I use structural estimations and analyze emergent communication patterns. Without manipulation, Delphi is more accurate than face-to-face interaction and indistinguishable from the Bayesian benchmark. Manipulation decreases accuracy for Delphi but not for face-to-face interaction. Thus, with manipulation, Delphi is less accurate than face-to-face interaction. Manipulation likely decreases the accuracy of Delphi judgments through more bias and less utilization of valuable information. Trustworthiness does not always match accuracy. Judgments from face-to-face interaction - unjustifiably - enjoy higher levels of trust without hidden agendas. Trustworthiness correctly decreases with hidden agendas for Delphi groups but - unjustifiably - also for face-to-face groups. With hidden agendas, face-to-face groups are simultaneously more accurate and trusted.| Period | 11 Oct 2023 |
|---|---|
| Event title | ESA's Job-Market Candidates Seminar Series |
| Event type | Seminar |
| Location | UnknownShow on map |