Information Sampling and Confidence Within Groups and Judge Advisor Systems

This study compared how the judge advisor system (JAS) and unstructured groups discuss common and unique information. Three differences between the two were measured for their effect on communication of information. These were responsibility for decision, consensus seeking, and equity of participation. Participants were given information about two drugs and had to decide which of the two to market. Half met in unstructured 3-person groups and made the decision as a group. The rest met in JASs whereby the judge discussed the information with each advisor separately and then made the decision individually. Advisors mentioned but did not repeat a higher proportion of unique information than group members. Judges felt more responsible for, reported putting more effort toward, and had higher confidence in the decision than did group members. There was more inequity of participation and consensus seeking in JASs compared to groups. Differences are discussed in light of results found on information exchange.