Improving the quality of group judgment: Social judgment analysis and the Delphi technique

Abstract

Previous research findings suggest that group judgment is superior to individual judgment, although groups fail to reach their full potential because of problems associated with the interaction process. Thus, groups perform at a level generally better than the competence of their average members but rarely as well as their most proficient members. The current study explores two methods of group judgment making which have been developed to reduce the discrepancy between potential and actual group performance: social judgment analysis and the Delphi technique. These two methods are compared in a controlled experimental setting with regard to their potential both to significantly reduce group disagreement and to provide accurate judgments. The two methods were found to be equal in the quality of judgments produced. Social judgment analysis, however, was a significantly better method of reducing disagreement than the Delphi technique.