The basic paradigm of asset pricing is in vibrant f lux. The purely rational approach is being subsumed by a broader approach based upon the psychology of investors. In this approach, security expected returns are determined by both risk and misvaluation. This survey sketches a framework for understanding decision biases, evaluates the a priori arguments and the capital market evidence bearing on the importance of investor psychology for security prices, and reviews recent models.

/pdf/investor-psychology-and-asset-pricing-c95w5p60ck.pdf

Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing

This book describes the new perspective of naturalistic decision making. The point of departure is how people make decisions in complex, time-pressured, ambiguous, and changing environments. The purpose of this book is to present and elaborate on past models developed to explain this type of decision making. The central philosophy of the book is that classical decision theory has been unproductive since it is so heavily grounded in economics and mathematics. The contributors believe there is little to be learned from laboratory studies about how people actually handle difficult and interesting tasks; therefore, the book presents a critique of classical decision theory. The models of naturalistic decision making described by the contributors were derived to explain the behavior of firefighters, business people, jurors, nuclear power plant operators, and command-and-control officers. The models are unique in that they address the way people use experience to frame situations and adopt courses of action. The models explain the strengths of skilled decision makers. Naturalistic decision research requires the examination of field settings, and a section of the book covers methods for conducting meaningful research outside the laboratory. In addition, since his approach has applied value, the book covers issues of training and decision support systems.

Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods

Record Status This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database. Citation Murphy M K, Black N A, Lamping D L, McKee C M, Sanderson C F B, Askham J, Marteau T. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development: a review. Health Technology Assessment 1998; 2(3): 1-88 Authors' objectives To identify the factors that affect the decisions that emerge from consensus development methods. To assess the implications of the findings for the development of clinical guidelines. To recommend further methodological research for improving the use of consensus development methods as a basis for guideline production.

Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.

A selective review of research highlights the emerging view of groups as information processors. In this review, the authors include research on processing objectives, attention, encoding, storage, retrieval, processing, response, feedback, and learning in small interacting task groups. The groups as information processors perspective underscores several characteristic dimensions of variability in group performance of cognitive tasks, namely, commonality-uniqueness of information, convergence-diversity of ideas, accentuation-attenuation of cognitive processes, and belongingness-distinctiveness of members. A combination of contributions framework provides an additional conceptualization of information processing in groups. The authors also address implications, caveats, and questions for future research and theory regarding groups as information processors.

The Emerging Conceptualization of Groups as Information Processors

▪ Abstract Many theorists have long extolled the virtues of public deliberation as a crucial component of a responsive and responsible democracy. Building on these theories, in recent years practitioners—from government officials to citizen groups, nonprofits, and foundations—have increasingly devoted time and resources to strengthening citizen engagement through deliberative forums. Although empirical research has lagged behind theory and practice, a body of literature has emerged that tests the presumed individual and collective benefits of public discourse on citizen engagement. We begin our review of this research by defining “public deliberation”; we place it in the context of other forms of what we call “discursive participation” while distinguishing it from other ways in which citizens can voice their individual and collective views on public issues. We then discuss the expectations, drawn from deliberative democratic theory, regarding the benefits (and, for some, pitfalls) assumed to derive from p...

/pdf/public-deliberation-discursive-participation-and-citizen-4jddjnmfp1.pdf

Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature

Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups.

Patterns of speaking turns in 6-person mock juries were examined using Parker's (1988) floor model of conversational turns and a proposed simulation model, SPEAK, which embodies the notions of stable and transitory differences in members' tendencies to speak. Dyadic exchanges (floors) accounted for 49% of speaker turns in these juries, less than in Parker's (1988) 4-person conversational groups but substantially greater than expected by chance. SPEAK model reproduced sequential speaking patterns observed in both sets of data and accounted for the differential incidence of floor and nonfloor states observed in the different size groups. SPEAK simulations demonstrated that complex patterns of speaker turns can arise from confluence of stable differences in speaking rates (Stephan & Mishler, 1952), tendency for speakers to speak again on subsequent turns (Dabbs & Ruback, 1987), and group member competition for discussion time. Face-to-face group discussion often appears chaotic and unpredictable. To the casual observer, it may seem that the succession of speakers is without pattern and that the succession of topics is guided by superficial and often remote associations. However, more careful and systematic observation has revealed striking patterns in face-to-face conversation. Duncan (1972; Duncan & Fiske, 1977) has identified intricate patterns of verbal, vocal, and kinesic cues that are used to orchestrate speaker switches. Tracy (1985) summarized conversational conventions that maintain the coherence of discussion content, and she speculated that shifting the topic of conversation without regard for these conventions may invoke social disapproval. Building on the earlier work of Jaffe and Feldstein (1970), Dabbs and Ruback (1987) examined the patterns of single and simultaneous vocalizations and pauses during group discussion. This work and a more recent study by Parker (1988) highlight regularities in the sequence of conversational turns taken by members during group discussion. Although studying the patterns of conversational or speaker turns ignores many of the social and psychological overtones and the content of group discussion, who speaks when and how often constitute an important consideration in understanding the flow of information and influence during group discussion. Nonverbal behaviors may punctuate and color social interaction, but verbal communication is the primary means of expressing opinions, formulating arguments, and exchanging information during group discussion. Thus, the speaking turn is a basic unit of behavior in social and performance groups.

Laurie A. Taylor

Papers

Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups.

Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions.