Improving Group Judgment Accuracy: Information Sharing and Determining the Best Member

Most approaches to improving the quality of group decisions have focused on structuring the group interaction so as to minimize the negative features present in freely interacting groups. The recent finding that groups often can perform at least as well as their best member on judgment tasks suggests the possibility that group effectiveness could be improved by building on the positive features of group interaction rather than by restricting it. In the present study interacting groups were encouraged to discuss each item of a quantitative judgment task before determining what their group′s estimate would be. Two different instructional interventions were implemented and contrasted to a control condition. Both interventions consisted of giving common sense advice about what the groups should do as they discussed each item. Findings indicate that simply telling groups to either: (a) share task-relevant information, or (b) try to determine the most accurate member led to significantly better group performance. These results suggest two distinct ways in which groups can be as accurate as their best member, even when performing tasks with undemonstrable solutions. Implications of these two approaches for improving group accuracy are discussed.     

Goal Setting by Groups Performing an Additive Task: A Comparison With Individual Goal Setting1

This article compares goal levels and task performance of groups and individuals that are assigned or self-set goals. Groups performed an additive task that allowed for direct comparison with individuals' i]ndependent performance of the task. Consistent with predictions, groups and individuals selected goals that were less difficult than assigned goals which required only a modest increase in performance. Group members and individuals who were assigned goals attained higher levels of performance than self-set or no goal condition subjects. The prediction that group members and individuals who self-set their goals would have more positive affective reactions to the goal-setting situation than participants in assigned condition was supported. The results of this study are consistent with the existing literature on groups and individuals regarding effects of goals, performance, and affective reactions. Analyses also indicate that the group goal decision process involves a compensatory strategy in which an average of group member preferences for the goal was used to reach a group goal decision. Discussion focuses on the similarities and differences between the findings of self-set and assigned goal-setting situations for groups and individuals, with particular reference to goal choice strategies, goal expectancies, and efficacy.     

Improving the Accuracy of Group Judgment: A Process Intervention Combining Group Facilitation,Social Judgment Analysis,and Information Technology

Interacting groups fail to make judgments as accurate as those of their most capable members due to problems associated with both interaction processes and cognitive processing. Group process techniques and decision analytic tools have been used with groups to combat these problems. While such techniques and tools do improve the quality of group judgment, they have not enabled groups to make judgments more accurate than those of their most capable members on tasks that evoke a great deal of systematic bias. A new intervention procedure that integrates group facilitation, social judgment analysis, and information technology was developed to overcome more fully the problems typically associated with interaction processes and cognitive processing. The intervention was evaluated by testing the hypothesis that groups using this new procedure can establish judgment policies for cognitive conflict tasks that are more accurate than the ones produced by any of their members. An experiment involving 16 four- and five-member groups was conducted to compare the accuracy of group judgments with the accuracy of the judgments of the most capable group member. A total of 96 participants (48 males and 48 females) completed the individual part of the task; 71 of these participants worked in groups. Results indicated that the process intervention enabled small, interacting groups to perform significantly better than their most capable members on two cognitive conflict tasks (p < .05). The findings suggest that Group Decision Support Systems that integrate facilitation, social judgment analysis, and information technology should be used to improve the accuracy of group judgment.     

团体决策支持系统和团体讨论对团体决策的影响

通过模拟实验的方法,探讨了团体决策支持系统（GDSS）和团体讨论对团体决策的影响。以大学生为被试,运用小组决策任务,对小组决策过程进行了研究。实验记录了在有无GDSS的支持和有无团体讨论两个变量所决定的4种实验条件下,小组决策取得结果的正确性和组内的一致性。用ANOVA方法分析了4种条件下的实验结果,发现GDSS能提高团体决策的正确性,而团体讨论将有助于成员做出一个正确的、一致的决策     

Should information be redundantly distributed among group members? Effective use of group memory in collaborative problem solving

This study examined the relation between the redundancy in task assignment and group performance. It was predicted that assigning items to group members too redundantly would undermine group problem‐solving performance. To test this prediction, dyads and triads engaged in a problem‐solving task. A logic puzzle solvable with seven clues was employed as the task. Participants were asked to memorize the clues before engaging in group problem solving. In the shared condition, all seven clues were assigned to each group member. In the unshared condition, a portion of the seven clues was assigned to each member. Unshared triads whose members were assigned the smallest number of clues were most likely to return the correct solution. This result suggests that less redundant item assignment led to successful problem solving via information pooling among group members. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Leveraging member expertise to improve knowledge transfer and demonstrability in groups

Group success is dependent on both the knowledge of group members and the extent to which the group can access this knowledge. This research focuses on promoting effective knowledge transfer in group members by facilitating their use of extant knowledge when solving novel problems and examines how this affects subsequent discussion, decision making, and performance. Participants (N = 540) answered a series of estimation items individually or in a group. Sessions were recorded to provide insight into the group interactions. Facilitating knowledge transfer promoted (a) a more effective dialogue in which members were able to share more of their knowledge and discuss member expertise, (b) groups giving greater weight to better member preferences in their decision-making process, and (c) improved group performance relative to both average comparison individuals and to groups operating without this intervention. The effectiveness of promoting knowledge transfer in a group context relative to an individual context is discussed and group superiority is related to the concept of task demonstrability.     

Task bias and the accuracy of judgment: Setting a baseline for expected group performance

When a judgment task evokes unbiased estimates (i.e. the errors in individual judgments are distributed randomly around the true value), mathematical aggregation of individual estimates, even by a simple arithmetic mean, often will outperform all group members. However, when a task evokes biased estimates, mathematical aggregation does not perform so well. In this study, simulated data were accumulated to specify the expected' accuracy of mathematical aggregation relative to the accuracy of observed judgment of individual group members under varying conditions of task bias. Three types of judgment tasks were employed: (1) single-estimate, holistic tasks, (2) multiple-estimate, ranking tasks, and (3) multi-cue, decomposed tasks. Findings indicated across all task types that a large percentage of judgment-making group estimates formed strictly by computing the arithmetic mean of individual estimates performed better than their most capable members when a judgment task evoked little or no bias, a result particularly pronounced for ranking tasks. When the task was more greatly bias-evoking, a large percentage of parallel groups performed more poorly than average (or median) members, again a pattern more starkly evident for ranking tasks. These results suggest that the extent to which a judgment task evokes bias in a population of prospective group members is an important explanatory variable deserving much greater attention in the study of group performance. For example, an assertion about the efficacy of a particular group intervention based on a reliable demonstration of group performance as accurate as the most capable members may be unfounded when a task evokes no bias, since the baseline standard under such conditions should be much higher. By selecting tasks and populations that jointly produced highly biased estimates, researchers can lower the performance floor enough to detect (with reasonably small samples of groups) experimental effects should they occur.     

自由讨论条件下群体决策质量的影响因素

通过实验室实验考察了自由讨论条件下群体决策质量的影响因素,并对Stasser所提出的信息取样模型进行了验证,结果发现：(1)部分证实Stasser的信息取样模型。在信息不分享的条件下,如果讨论前群体成员的偏好比较一致时,群体的确倾向于讨论分享信息和群体所偏好的候选人的信息;但如果讨论前的偏好不一致或任务难度较低时,这一结论难以成立。(2)自由讨论条件下,群体规模的增加会增加分享信息的讨论量,而对非分享信息的讨论程度则无显著影响。而在任务难度方面,只有任务难度较大的情况下才有分享信息的讨论优势。     

Helping Groups Determine Their Most Accurate Member: The Role of Outcome Feedback1

One of the difficulties groups have when making quantitative judgments is determining the relative quality of members’ inputs. Outcome feedback was investigated as a method for improving the ability of groups to identify their most accurate member. Results indicate that groups given outcome feedback were better at identifying their best member than were groups that practiced without feedback. This occurred even though the same individual was seldom the most accurate across items. However, groups given feedback were not as accurate as their best member any more often. This suggests that groups given feedback are learning how to discriminate valid from invalid cues, but are not using this information consistently when making their group estimates.     

Robust Improvements on Reasoning Performance Following Discussion in Japan

Group discussion significantly improves performance on intellective problems. However, most experiments have been conducted in Western cultures. Cross‐cultural psychology suggests that members of Eastern cultures might be less likely to benefit from group discussion. One experiment in Japan suggested that this was not the case, but this experiment suffered from some limitations. To address these limitations, Japanese participants were asked to solve an intellective task four times: individually (pre‐test), in small discussion groups (test), individually again (transfer task, post‐test), and individually after a delay (delayed post‐test). The results revealed a robust improvement during group discussion. Groups in which at least one member had found the correct answer individually agreed on it during the discussion. Moreover, and in contrast with results obtained in Western cultures, most groups with no such member also found the correct answer. The gains obtained during discussion were maintained in the transfer tasks. This result provides further evidence that the improvement of reasoning performance in group discussion is a universal phenomenon, and provides support for the practice of collaborative learning in Japan.     

不胜任专家对团队互动模式的影响:团队成员补偿效应

团队中专家的作用日益受到关注,而不胜任专家对于团队互动模式的影响鲜有研究。采用实验室任务团队,通过对专家胜任力进行精确操纵,研究发现不胜任专家团队条件下出现了明显的"成员补偿效应"。即普通成员的主导行为和功能性行为显著增加;影响力水平显著提升。同时,普通成员影响力水平受到领导开放性的调节。只有在高领导开放性的团队中,普通成员对不胜任专家的补偿效应才能发挥作用。     

Separating the confident from the correct: Leveraging member knowledge in groups to improve decision making and performance

Groups often struggle to distinguish expert members from others who stand out for various reasons but may not be particularly knowledgeable (Littlepage & Mueller, 1997). We examined an intervention designed to improve group decision making and performance through instructing group members to search for information they already possessed that was relevant to a problem. Participants estimated values and expressed their confidence in their estimates individually and then a second time either individually or in a group. This was done with or without the intervention. Results indicated that: (1) groups were more confident than, and out-performed, individuals, (2) group decision making was best captured by models predicting more influence for more accurate members when the intervention was used and more influence for more confident members in its absence, and (3) groups that received the intervention out-performed groups that did not.     

The impact of information distribution,ownership, and discussion on group member judgment: The differential cue weighting model

It is often assumed that groups or teams pool knowledge and consider more information than individuals. However, numerous group decision-making studies have found that groups tend to focus on information that members had in common before group discussion instead of exchanging members’ unique information. This paper extends previous research and introduces the differential cue weighting (DCW) model to explain how group members form and revise their judgments during group discussion. It is proposed that information cues are differentially weighted depending on the combination of three factors: the cue’s initial distribution, its ownership by the member, and its addition to group discussion. An empirical study provides support for the DCW model, demonstrating that, for individual judgment, unique information can be just as influential as common information, but only for the member who contributed it to discussion.     

The Rank-Order Effect in Group Decision Making

Many studies indicate that group discussion candisproportionately reflect information known by all group members,at the expense of information known to only one group member, andthis is associated with suboptimal group decisions (Stasser &Titus, 1985). The present study examined the impact of threeprocedural factors on information sharing and quality of groupdecision: (a) group decision procedure (an instruction to "rankorder the alternatives" vs "choose the best alternative"), (b)information access during group discussion (reliance on memory vscomplete access), and (c) communication technology (computer vsface to face). Three-person groups worked on an investment decisionthat was structured as a hidden-profile task where criticalinformation was distributed unevenly prior to group discussion. Thedata provided support for a rank-order effect: Groups instructedto rank order the alternatives, compared to groups instructed tochoose the best alternative, were more likely to fully consider allof the alternatives, exchange information about unpopularalternatives, and make the best decision. But these effects onlyoccurred in face-to-face groups. In computer-mediated groups, therewas general information suppression and no effect of group decisionprocedure. Access to information during group discussion increaseddiscussion of both unique and common information, in theface-to-face conditions, but had no effect on group decisionquality. Taken together, the data suggest that procedural aspectsof group discussion may help overcome the impact of prediscussionpreferences on information processes and group decision.     

Group and Individual Decision Making for Task Performance Goals: Processes in the Establishment of Goals:in Groups1

The study examines the processes by which goals in groups are established. Performance goals and preferences for goals were stated by individuals acting alone, by groups deciding in unison, and by group members. All subjects performed a card-sorting task as individuals, and self-set goals were selected for expected levels of individual performance. Groups selected goals that were less difficult than individual goals on several occasions of goal setting. Analysis of the group goal decisions suggests that a success-based social comparison process occurs that implies groups select a goal slightly lower than the average of the member preferences so that the group members may appear successful. Analyses also indicated that the lower group goals arose quickly in the group interaction, and that group members readily adopted the lower goals as appropriate levels of performance. Discussion focuses on the observed differences among group, group member, and individual performance goals, and the ability of the success-based social comparison process to account for these differences.     

Young dads: the effects of a parenting program on urban African-American adolescent fathers

Sixty urban African-American adolescent first-time fathers were randomly assigned to two groups to study intervention strategies that would help them develop better and more consistent relationships with their young children. The fathers were administered a pretest interview schedule to determine their present quality of life as well as their relationships with their children. In addition to biweekly parenting classes, each member of the experimental group was assigned a social worker with whom he met weekly to assist him with his life needs. The control group was offered weekly parenting classes that focused on learning how to meet the infants' needs. At the end of six months, both groups were interviewed again. Findings indicated that the experimental group made significant gains in employment, vocational planning, feeling positive about their current relationships with their children, using birth control, being able to plan for the future, and increasing the number of close friends.     

Taking the reins: the effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance

New leaders face a challenging task when they take charge of their teams. They have to determine how best to guide the work process, and they must understand how their behaviors will affect the members of their team. This research examines how a newly assigned team leader's status moderates subordinates' reactions to different leadership styles to affect assessments of the leader's self-confidence and effectiveness, and how this impacts team performance. Across 2 experimental studies, results demonstrate that low-status leaders are rated as more effective when they use a directive style, whereas high-status leaders are viewed as more effective when they use a participative style, and this relationship is mediated by perceptions of self-confidence. In addition, teams whose leaders are viewed more favorably perform better on a complex group task. These findings imply that low-status individuals are able to enhance their level of personal power by drawing on whatever positional power they hold, whereas high-status individuals are better off relying solely on their personal power to influence others. This research also provides a clear demonstration that assessments of new leaders' behaviors are subject to an appraisal that is clouded by observers' status perceptions and attributions.     

Reporting discrimination in public and private contexts.

The authors tested the hypothesis that members of stigmatized groups would be unwilling to report that negative events that occur to them are the result of discrimination when they are in the presence of members of a nonstigmatized group. Supporting this hypothesis, women and African Americans were more likely to report that a failing grade assigned by a man or a European American was caused by discrimination, rather than by their own lack of ability, when they made the judgment privately and in the presence of a fellow stigmatized group member. However, they were more likely to indicate that the cause of the failure was lack of ability, rather than discrimination, when they expected to make these judgments aloud in the presence of a nonstigmatized group member.     

Category assignment and relatedness in the group ideation process

When groups gather to generate creative ideas on a particular topic, they can consider many aspects or components of the problem. Because such a multitude of alternatives can be overwhelming, groups may find it helpful to focus on specific aspects or categories of the problem. However, it is not clear whether it is best for group members to focus on the same components of the problem at the same time or whether it is better for group members to focus on different components of the problem. Furthermore, the impact of this type of focus may depend on the extent to which the different components of the problem are closely related semantically. It may be easier to generate ideas in semantically related areas but semantically unrelated areas may stimulate generation of more creative ideas. The present study provided a comprehensive test of the effects of task components or category assignment and the degree of relatedness of the assigned categories on the creativity of groups. Groups that were jointly assigned a small set of categories to focus on at the beginning of their session generated more ideas, explored more categories and exhibited higher clustering of similar ideas than the groups whose members were assigned their own unique category. The groups assigned with low related categories surveyed more categories than those assigned with categories of high relatedness. This study suggests that interdisciplinary or diverse groups or teams should have some common focus in the initial phase of their creative sessions and focus on unrelated aspects of the problem in this phase.     

Toward Developing Laboratory-Based Parent–Adolescent Conflict Discussion Tasks that Consistently Elicit Adolescent Conflict-Related Stress Responses: Support from Physiology and Observed Behavior

Parent–adolescent conflict poses risk for youth maladjustment. One potential mechanism of this risk is that stress in the form of increased arousal during conflict interactions results in adolescents’ impaired decision-making. However, eliciting consistent adolescent stress responses within laboratory-based tasks of parent–adolescent conflict (i.e., conflict discussion tasks) is hindered by task design. This limitation may stem from how conflict topics are assessed and selected for discussion. Within a sample of 47 adolescents (ages 14–17) and parents, we investigated whether a modified version of a conflict discussion task could elicit physiological (i.e., arousal) and behavioral (i.e., hostility) displays of adolescents’ conflict-related stress responses. We assessed parent–adolescent conflict via structured interview to identify topics for dyads to discuss during the task. We randomly assigned dyads to complete a 5-min task to discuss either a putatively benign topic (i.e., control condition) or a conflict topic while undergoing direct assessments of continuous arousal. Trained raters coded dyad members’ hostile behavior during the task. Adolescents in the conflict condition exhibited significantly greater levels of arousal than adolescents in the control condition. We observed an interaction between discussion condition and baseline conflict. Specifically, higher baseline conflict predicted greater hostile behavior for adolescents in the conflict condition, yet we observed the inverse relation for adolescents in the control condition. Our modified laboratory discussion task successfully elicited both physiological and behavioral displays of adolescent conflict-related stress. These findings have important implications for leveraging experimental paradigms to understand causal links between parent–adolescent conflict and adolescent psychopathology, and their underlying mechanisms.