Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
