Abstract
Experiments were conducted to determine whether group discussion of criteria, political or technical emphasis in decision making, and the use of other judges’ opinions would result in differential selection of candidates for three openings on a city’s land use planning commission. Results indicated that there was a significant difference in how the planning commissioners were selected when the judges (N=244) made their selections after reviewing criteria and emphasizing either the political or technical aspects of their decision. The top six candidates were the same regardless of the manipulation, but the top three candidates changed after manipulation of experimental procedures. The criteria did not change in perceived relative importance as a result of discussion before or after selecting the planning commissioners (N=295). There was no significant difference in how participants (N=78) evaluated candidates, regardless of whether they were supplied with information on how other participants judged the same candidates.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Note
Dalkey, N. C. The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion (Memorandum RM 5888-PR). Santa Monica, Calif: Rand Corporation, June 1969.
References
Buys, C. J. Humans would do better without groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1978, 4, 123–125. (a)
Buys, C. J. On humans would do better without groups: A final note. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1978, 4, 568.(b)
Pfeiffer, J. W., & Jones, J. E. Community leader worksheet: Exercise 115. In J. W. Pfeiffer & J. E. Jones (Eds.), A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training (Vol. 4). La Jolla, Calif: University Associates, 1973.
Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schuh, A.J. Use of criteria for appointment of land use planning commissioners. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 20, 82–84 (1982). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330088
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330088