Preference for decision control in organizational decision making

Two studies examined preference for authority or subordinate decision control in dispute resolution and allocation procedures in an organizational setting. In both studies, a marked preference for the authority/subordinate sharing of decision control was found. In Study 1, nearly one third of respondents preferred that subordinates share decision control with supervisors in both dispute and allocation situations; for several of the situations decision sharing was the modal preference. The study also found a tendency to prefer subordinate decision control in disputes but supervisor decision control in allocations. In Study 2, again the most preferred procedure was one in which subordinates shared decision control with their supervisors. The procedure high in decision sharing was rated as the one most fair. It was also rated as more likely to improve relationships among members and to result in the best decision. Some differences in preference for decision control and decision sharing depending upon social factors predominant in the setting were found.     

Juror decision making

Much of the research on juror decision making is concerned with whether jurors are swayed by irrelevant-or extralegal-issues in their judgments of defendants. Such studies examine whether jurors' attitudes and victims' and defendants' characteristics have a measurable impact on these decisions. Yet, in the typical study, evidential issues are either poorly measured or ignored, hence the effects of extralegal issues may be exaggerated. Moreover, jury simulations are often chosen to study these questions despite critics' concerns about the generalizability of the results. The present study uses data gathered from actual jurors to assess whether the emphasis on juror competence is justified. The results indicate that these jurors' decisions are dominated by evidential issues, particularly evidence concerning the use of force and physical evidence. Jurors were considerably less responsive to characteristics of victims and defendants, although some of these factors significantly affected their decisions.The research reported here was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health under grant No. R01 MH29727 and the National Institute of Justice under grant No. 82-IJ-CX-0015. The author would like to thank Douglas Smith, Barbara Reskin, and Lowell Hargens for helpful comments on earlier drafts.     

The referral decision scale

We examined the validity of the Referral Decision Scale (RDS), a test designed to screen for mental disorder in jail inmates, in a sample of 790 men admitted to an urban pretrial jail. Our results indicated that, in general, the RDS had excellent reliability and acceptable validity as a screening measure for serious mental disorder in jail settings, despite making a large number of false positive errors relative to both contemporaneous and subsequent assessments of mental disorder. Although the RDS is well suited for use in research, more information is needed before the test is used for clinical purposes. We discuss some potential problems with the use of the RDS in correctional systems.     

Collective decision making by committee

Implicitly or explicitly, economic decisions always contain elements of compromise. However, the bargaining models of economic theory treat only the two decision maker case with linearly aggregated priorities; i.e. compromise decisions under Pareto optimality and no side payments. Even then the relative importance of the decision makers remains indeterminate. This paper proposes a simplified bargaining model with three new features: (a) it allows multiple participants; (b) it uses optimal voting patterns to combine the policy proposals, rather than the policy priorities, to form those compromise decisions; and (c) it determines the relative power of each participant endogenously. Perhaps more important, the method does not depend on each decision maker knowing the preferences of his colleagues exactly.     

Parole decision making in Colorado

During the past decade parole decision making in the United States has come under severe scrutiny. One response has been for researchers to intervene and develop parole guideline matrices for use by state parole boards. The research reported here describes such an effort in Colorado. Our data were derived from the records of 292 parolees during a two year period. A systematic sampling process, taking every other docket number from the parole board's monthly eligibility lists, initially produced 1,500 potential parolees. From this list, a 20 percent sample was drawn at random. This yielded a workable guideline matrix that produced less than 13 percent variance from Colorado parole board decisions. The article discusses the procedures for developing the matrix and how it was implemented by the parole board.     

UK: AIDS treatment main factor in decision to grant permission to appeal immigration decision

On 26 June 2003, the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) granted an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, which had overturned an adjudicator's decision to allow an HIV-positive citizen of Uganda to immigrate to the United Kingdom (UK).     

Post-decision confidence,decision time,and self-reported decision processes as postdictors of identification accuracy

Abstract

Post-decision confidence, decision time, and decision processes were evaluated concerning their usefulness for postdicting identification accuracy. One hundred and ninety-two participants witnessed a filmed theft and were tested with target-absent or target-present simultaneous lineups 1 week later. Post-decision confidence was positively associated with, and decision time negatively associated with choosers’ identification accuracy. For several measures of self-reported decision processes, the expected associations were non-significant. Using a decision rule including highly confident and fast participants led to more correct classifications than either variable alone. Significant associations between postdictors highlight the need to consider the different processes jointly as, in combination, they may be more useful in assessing identification decisions.     

Trial court decision in Houle case

The plaintiffs in this case, a hospital and an attending physician, petitioned the court to exercise its parens patriae authority when the parents of a newborn with multiple birth defects refused to consent to surgery that would permit normal feeding and respiration. Basing his decision on the medical necessity and feasibility of the proposed treatments and setting aside the issue of the infant's quality of life, Justice David G. Roberts of the Superior Court ruled that the parents had no right to withhold care from their child. He authorized the infant's guardian ad litem to consent to surgery and other standard life-preserving measures that were immediately necessary, retaining jurisdiction for the court over future developments in the case.     

Jurors' interpretations and jury decision making

In arriving at their verdicts, jurors must determine what really happened in the case at hand. Their interpretations then guide their decision making and become influential in the group deliberation process. This article uses conversational data from simulated jury deliberations to describe jurors' practice of articulating schematic interpretations as accounts for their verdict choices, and as means for persuading other jurors. As jurors contribute additional interpretations during deliberations, the group decision-making task becomes more complex, deliberations las longer, and they are more difficult to resolve. A significant negative relation is established between the number of interpretations articulated and the jury's likelihood of reaching a unanimous verdict. Articulating multiple interpretations in support of a candidate verdict appears to militate against its unanimous adoption.I am endebted to Andre Modigliani and Joseph Sanders for their invaluable assistance on this project.     

Bail decision making and pretrial detention

Bail practices became the target of reform efforts during the 1960's and 1970's not only because of issues concerning economic bias against indigent defendants but also because of criticism of the bail decision itself. Questions were raised about the appropriate uses of bail (e.g., to prevent flight or pretrial crime, or to inflict pretrial punishment), the rationality of the criteria relied on by judges in deciding bail, and the discretionary allocation of pretrial detention through high cash bail. In this article, case law and statutes governing bail practices in the United States are reviewed first to characterize the ambiguous legal framework from within which bail judges must operate. Then bail decisions in a large urban jurisdiction are analyzed as a case study to discover the factors most influential in determining pretrial release options. It is inferred that, even after years of reform, community-ties measures do not play a major role in the bail decision or the determination of pretrial custody; rather, the nature of the charged offense appears most influential. A finding of special significance is that a large proportion of these decisions could not be explained systematically (i.e., a large share of variance remained unexplained). The article concludes by suggesting a guidelines approach to bail that could narrow disparity in bail options and the use of detention, enhance the rationality of the decision process and contribute to more equitable pretrial practices.Revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, August, 1978. This research was supported, in part, by a grant from the Statistics Division of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to the Criminal Justice Research Center. Points of view or opinions stated are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.     

Procedural justice and ethical decision making

Procedural justice, in the form of voice and respectful treatment by supervisor, and ethical decision making are examined in this research. Ethical decision making is hypothesized to be a direct function of moral intent, as indicated by willingness to use moral criteria in decision making. Moral intent is, in turn, expected to be a function of the decision-making context, including perceptions of voice, respect and trust between supervisor and subordinate, and moral climate. Individual moral development is also expected to have a positive effect on moral intent. Results generally support the model, with two exceptions. First, perception of voice has a negative effect on moral intent, while caring climate and respectful supervisory relations have the expected positive effect on moral intent. These results suggest either a compensatory model of ethical decision making or a complacency effect. Second, individual characteristics had very little effect on either the decision made or the level of moral intent developed, save for one decision. These results suggest an important overlooked variable, the salience of issues for procedural justice concerns.     

Environmental remediation technology implementation decision patterns

Each year, environmental technology implementation involves many millions of dollars in the United States alone. The economics of making decisions to continue research, to make changes to processes, or to introduce new products is a critical element in the success of organizations. In previous work by Paladino and Longsworth (1996), the importance of economic factors has been postulated to increase according to a set pattern throughout the implementation process. The authors seek to validate this theory and develop a better understanding of decision patterns related to technology implementations in the environmental remediation business area.