Challenge Versus Exchange in Collective Decision Making: A Comparison of Two Simulation Models Based on Simulated Data

Abstract

In collective decision making, actors can use different influence strategies to get their way. Differences in influence strategies may, or may not, be connected to differences in collective outcomes. This research studies two influence strategies: the i>exchange strategy and the i>challenge strategy. In the existing literature, these strategies are analyzed and compared using simulation models in which actor behavior regarding influence attempts based on one of the strategies is modeled explicitly. Until now, these models have been tested only empirically on limited data sets. However, a theoretical test is necessary to gain more precise insights in the effect of characteristics of collective decision making situations on the collective outcomes. In the present research, computer simulations are used in a structured comparison of two competing models (the iterative exchange model and challenge model). The analyses show that the outcomes of both models are captured for a large part in the actor characteristics on the issues. Besides this, the expected directions of challenges and exchanges play a major part in explaining the outcomes of the models. This research shows that the use of simulated data allows a structured search of the input space, which led to new insights into the iterative exchange model and challenge model, and therefore in the exchange strategy and the challenge strategy.