Group-based judgmental forecasting: an integration of extent knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    24 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    We review and integrate the extant knowledge on group-based forecasting, paying particular attention to the papers included in this special issue of the International Journal of Forecasting. We focus on the relative merits of different methods of aggregating individual forecasts, the advantages of heterogeneity in group memberships, the impact of others’ opinions on group members, and the importance of perceptions of trust. We conclude that a change of opinion following group-based deliberation is most likely to be appropriate where the group membership is heterogeneous, the minority opinion is protected from pressure to conform, information exchange between group members has been facilitated, and the recipient of the advice is able — by reasoning processes — to evaluate the reasoning justifying the proffered advice. Proffered advice is least likely to be accepted where the advisor is not trusted — an evaluation which is based on the advisor having different perceived values to the recipient and being thought to be self-interested. In contrast, the outcome of a group-based deliberation is most likely to be accepted when there is perceived to be procedural fairness and the participants in the process are perceived to be trustworthy. Finally, we broaden our discussion of group-based forecasting to include a consideration of other group-based methodologies which are aimed at enhancing judgment and decision making. In particular, we discuss the relevance of research on small-group decision making, the nature and quality of the advice, group-based scenario planning, and public engagement processes. From this analysis, we conclude that, for medium- to long-term judgemental forecasting, a variety of non-outcome criteria need to be considered in the evaluation of alternative group-based methods.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages1-13
    Number of pages14
    JournalInternational Journal of Forecasting
    Volume27
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2011

    Fingerprint

    Judgmental forecasting
    Research agenda
    Deliberation
    Group membership
    Advisors
    Evaluation
    Judgemental forecasting
    Minorities
    Procedural fairness
    Judgment and decision making
    Group decision making
    Perceived value
    Public engagement
    Scenario planning
    Information exchange
    Methodology

    Keywords

    • group-based
    • judgmental forecasting
    • extant knowledge
    • research agenda

    Cite this

    @article{e36999c5455a441798436c5a84f3b54e,
    title = "Group-based judgmental forecasting: an integration of extent knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda",
    abstract = "We review and integrate the extant knowledge on group-based forecasting, paying particular attention to the papers included in this special issue of the International Journal of Forecasting. We focus on the relative merits of different methods of aggregating individual forecasts, the advantages of heterogeneity in group memberships, the impact of others’ opinions on group members, and the importance of perceptions of trust. We conclude that a change of opinion following group-based deliberation is most likely to be appropriate where the group membership is heterogeneous, the minority opinion is protected from pressure to conform, information exchange between group members has been facilitated, and the recipient of the advice is able — by reasoning processes — to evaluate the reasoning justifying the proffered advice. Proffered advice is least likely to be accepted where the advisor is not trusted — an evaluation which is based on the advisor having different perceived values to the recipient and being thought to be self-interested. In contrast, the outcome of a group-based deliberation is most likely to be accepted when there is perceived to be procedural fairness and the participants in the process are perceived to be trustworthy. Finally, we broaden our discussion of group-based forecasting to include a consideration of other group-based methodologies which are aimed at enhancing judgment and decision making. In particular, we discuss the relevance of research on small-group decision making, the nature and quality of the advice, group-based scenario planning, and public engagement processes. From this analysis, we conclude that, for medium- to long-term judgemental forecasting, a variety of non-outcome criteria need to be considered in the evaluation of alternative group-based methods.",
    keywords = "group-based, judgmental forecasting, extant knowledge, research agenda",
    author = "George Wright and G Rowe",
    year = "2011",
    doi = "10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.012",
    language = "English",
    volume = "27",
    pages = "1--13",
    journal = "International Journal of Forecasting",
    issn = "0169-2070",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Group-based judgmental forecasting

    T2 - International Journal of Forecasting

    AU - Wright, George

    AU - Rowe, G

    PY - 2011

    Y1 - 2011

    N2 - We review and integrate the extant knowledge on group-based forecasting, paying particular attention to the papers included in this special issue of the International Journal of Forecasting. We focus on the relative merits of different methods of aggregating individual forecasts, the advantages of heterogeneity in group memberships, the impact of others’ opinions on group members, and the importance of perceptions of trust. We conclude that a change of opinion following group-based deliberation is most likely to be appropriate where the group membership is heterogeneous, the minority opinion is protected from pressure to conform, information exchange between group members has been facilitated, and the recipient of the advice is able — by reasoning processes — to evaluate the reasoning justifying the proffered advice. Proffered advice is least likely to be accepted where the advisor is not trusted — an evaluation which is based on the advisor having different perceived values to the recipient and being thought to be self-interested. In contrast, the outcome of a group-based deliberation is most likely to be accepted when there is perceived to be procedural fairness and the participants in the process are perceived to be trustworthy. Finally, we broaden our discussion of group-based forecasting to include a consideration of other group-based methodologies which are aimed at enhancing judgment and decision making. In particular, we discuss the relevance of research on small-group decision making, the nature and quality of the advice, group-based scenario planning, and public engagement processes. From this analysis, we conclude that, for medium- to long-term judgemental forecasting, a variety of non-outcome criteria need to be considered in the evaluation of alternative group-based methods.

    AB - We review and integrate the extant knowledge on group-based forecasting, paying particular attention to the papers included in this special issue of the International Journal of Forecasting. We focus on the relative merits of different methods of aggregating individual forecasts, the advantages of heterogeneity in group memberships, the impact of others’ opinions on group members, and the importance of perceptions of trust. We conclude that a change of opinion following group-based deliberation is most likely to be appropriate where the group membership is heterogeneous, the minority opinion is protected from pressure to conform, information exchange between group members has been facilitated, and the recipient of the advice is able — by reasoning processes — to evaluate the reasoning justifying the proffered advice. Proffered advice is least likely to be accepted where the advisor is not trusted — an evaluation which is based on the advisor having different perceived values to the recipient and being thought to be self-interested. In contrast, the outcome of a group-based deliberation is most likely to be accepted when there is perceived to be procedural fairness and the participants in the process are perceived to be trustworthy. Finally, we broaden our discussion of group-based forecasting to include a consideration of other group-based methodologies which are aimed at enhancing judgment and decision making. In particular, we discuss the relevance of research on small-group decision making, the nature and quality of the advice, group-based scenario planning, and public engagement processes. From this analysis, we conclude that, for medium- to long-term judgemental forecasting, a variety of non-outcome criteria need to be considered in the evaluation of alternative group-based methods.

    KW - group-based

    KW - judgmental forecasting

    KW - extant knowledge

    KW - research agenda

    UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.012

    U2 - 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.012

    DO - 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.012

    M3 - Article

    VL - 27

    SP - 1

    EP - 13

    JO - International Journal of Forecasting

    JF - International Journal of Forecasting

    SN - 0169-2070

    IS - 1

    ER -