Information Processing and Exchange in Mediated Groups

This study examined whether features of mediated group discussion were related to participator judgments. Prior to discussion, participants (N = 138) were asked to memorize a list of qualifications for each of 3 hypothetical candidates for a faculty position. Each list contained shared (given to all members) and unique (given to just 1 member) information. Participants, working in 3‐person groups, then interacted via 1 of 2 computer text environments to choose the best candidate. Following discussion, participants rated each other on a set of participator assessment items. Discussions were coded for units that contained shared or unique information. The analysis revealed that shared contributions were related only to self‐assessment of participation. Unique contributions had a complex relation with self‐assessments—they were positively associated with such judgments only when partners infrequently provided unique information. Technology affected in a variety of ways the relation between the discussion variables and participator assessments. Discussion focuses on the relation between information pooling and interaction, as well as on the role of technology in group process.     

The Social Construction of Injustice: Fairness Judgments in Response to Own and Others' Unfair Treatment by Authorities

The research literature in organizational justice has examined in some detail the dynamics and consequences of justice judgments based on direct experiences with fair and unfair authorities, but little is known about how people form justice judgments on the basis of reports of injustice by others or how group discussion changes justice judgments. The present study examined the consequences of distributed injustice, in which all members of a group experience some denial of voice, and concentrated injustice, in which one member experiences repeated denial of voice and others do not. It was predicted and found that mild personal experiences of injustice are a more potent source of group impressions of injustice than are reports of more severe injustice experienced by others. In both conditions, group ratings of unfairness were more extreme than were the mean of individual ratings either before or after discussion.     

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.     

Antecedents of entitativity in categorically and dynamically construed groups

The extent to which a set of people is perceived as a meaningful group, as one entity, is called entitativity. In this paper, we propose that there are two qualitatively different group construals, or ways of thinking, about groups: as dynamic groups or as categorical groups. Two experiments investigated this distinction. An analogy was used to induce these construals by having participants think of the same group (the group “bees”) either dynamically (as the interacting members of a hive) or categorically (as the members of the species). We then gave participants information about a social group and assessed the impact of the construal manipulation on how that information was processed. Study 1 showed that perceivers recall and report different perceptual cues (similarity and interaction characteristics, respectively) when groups are thought of in these different ways. Study 2 showed that judgments of entitativity are differentially based on a group's similarity versus interaction under these different group construals. The results suggest that group construals change the properties on which entitativity is based. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The influence of group discussion on performance judgments: rating accuracy, contrast effects, and halo

The authors investigated the effect of group discussion, such as may occur formally in panel interview scenarios, assessment centers, or 360-degree feedback situations, on judgments of performance. Research on group polarization suggests that the effect of group discussion combined with raters' preexisting impressions of ratees or interviewees should result in an extremitization of impressions. Thus, the authors hypothesized that group discussion would (a) make ratings less accurate, (b) polarize impressions that were already good or poor as reflected by greater contrast effects, and (c) increase positive halo. Results indicated that group discussion resulted in less accurate ratings and greater contrast effects. Additional analyses suggested that group discussion increased positive halo. The authors discuss implications for research on group or panel judgments.     

Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group variability

The accuracy of in-group and out-group variability judgments was examined by comparing those judgments with the variability of self-ratings provided by random samples of group members. Following Park and Judd (1990), perceptions of both group dispersion and group stereotypicality were examined. Accuracy was examined both by within-subject sensitivity correlations and by simple discrepancies between perceived and actual variability estimates. In-group-out-group differences in sensitivity were shown, particularly for judgments of stereotypicality. These differences were related to differences in the degree to which out-group variability is underestimated relative to in-group variability (i.e., the out-group homogeneity effect). Out-group stereotypicality judgments were overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. Whether dispersion judgments were over- or underestimated depended on their measurement.     

Accuracy Motivations,Predispositions, and Social Information in Political Discussion Networks

This analysis studies how variation in individuals' motivation to form accurate judgments affects the process of political discussion. I use a small‐group experiment in which participants compete to elect the simulated candidate who best represents their true preferences. I manipulate economic incentives to control participants' accuracy motivations. The results show that accuracy‐motivated participants, compared to those with weaker accuracy goals, seek discussants with more expertise and a more diverse set of viewpoints, place greater emphasis on socially provided messages, and reduce emphasis on political predispositions. As a result of these differences, however, accuracy‐motivated participants rely more heavily on biased information. Hence, accuracy motivations do not produce more accurate judgments or better decisions. Although previous work on political discussion has largely ignored the role of motivations, these results suggest that accuracy motivations play an important but nuanced role in this process. Strengthened accuracy motivations increase individuals' exposure to political expertise and ideological diversity but also increase their potential to be misled.     

Using Relative Confidence Judgments to Evaluate Group Effectiveness

The performance of groups can be greatly influenced by their ability to identify their best member. This study investigated this issue in the context of a quantitative judgment task. Relative confidence judgments were used to determine the extent to which group members were able to identify their best member. The effectiveness of groups was also compared across three experimental conditions that varied in terms of the specific instructions group members were given about the group discussion. Results indicate that group members were often able to identify the most accurate member even though the judgment task did not have a demonstrable solution. Groups were also at least as accurate as their best member nearly 40% of the time. The group process intervention that encouraged group members to try to determine the most accurate individual judgment fared better than the intervention that focused on intraindividual accuracy rankings. Groups in this condition also showed the strongest correspondence between identifying the best member and performing at this level. Groups assigned to an unstructured group discussion condition performed nearly as well as those assigned to the more successful of the two interventions.     

Are intertemporal preferences contagious? Evidence from collaborative decision making

Prior research has provided substantial insight into individuals’ intertemporal preferences (i.e., preferences about delayed rewards). In the present study, we instead investigated the preferences of small groups of individuals asked to express collective intertemporal decisions. The paradigm consisted of three phases. During the precollaboration and postcollaboration phases, participants completed an intertemporal decision task individually. During the collaboration phase, participants completed a similar task in small groups, reaching mutually-agreed-upon decisions. The results suggest that group preferences were systematically related to the mean of the group members’ precollaboration preferences. In addition, collaborative decision making altered the group members’ intertemporal preferences. Specifically, individuals’ postcollaboration preferences converged toward the preferences of their respective groups. Furthermore, we found that individuals’ postcollaboration preferences were independently related to both their precollaboration preferences and the preferences of the other group members, suggesting that individuals’ postcollaboration preferences represented a revision of their precollaboration preferences based on the preferences observed in other group members. In Experiment 2, we demonstrated that similar patterns of results were found whether participants were making matching judgments or binary choices.     

Affective influences on individual and group judgments

Do emotional states influence the social judgments made by groups and individuals? Based on affect-cognition theories and research on group judgmental shifts, we predicted that group discussion will enhance positive mood effects on judgments, but inhibit affectively-based distortions in dysphoric moods. Positive, neutral and negative moods were induced using audiovisual presentations. Individual and group consensus judgments of nine person categories on three judgmental dimensions (evaluation, competence and self-confidence) were obtained in two experimental sessions separated by a two-week interval. Results showed that individuals made more positive judgments when happy, and more negative judgments when sad than did controls. Group discussion resulted in a further polarization of positive judgments, and the attenuation of negative judgments. The findings are interpreted as evidence for the important role affect plays in mediating both individual cognitive processes and interactive social behaviours. The implications of the results for contemporary affect-cognition theories and models of group behaviour are considered.     

THE EFFECTS OF GROUP INTERDEPENDENCE ON SUPERVISOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

A laboratory experiment was designed to test the effect of group member interdependence on supervisory performance ratings. Subjects played the role of supervisors in charge of evaluating members of a three-person work group which was constructed to include two good performers and one poor performer. Supervisors were either told that group members would work closely together (high interdependence) or independently (low interdependence). As hypothesized, supervisors rated the poor performer higher and the good performers lower when the group was portrayed as highly interdependent than when the group members were relatively independent.     

A Longitudinal Social Relations Analysis of Participation in Small Groups

Contrary to previous work in which task‐related judgments are hypothesized to predict participation in small groups, the current study assumes that participation is both an outcome of and an influence on judgments of task‐related ability. In this study, the association between task‐relevant judgments and participation was examined at two points in discussion. Results from a path analysis indicated that substantive participation during the first minute of discussion was positively related to task‐relevant judgments measured at the first‐minute time. In turn, those judgments were positively associated with subsequent substantive participation. Finally, substantive participation predicted judgments taken at discussion’s end. Nonsubstantive participation and judgments were not directly associated with each other. Discussion addresses theoretical and methodological issues raised by the findings.     

How do people influence in jury deliberation? a social psychological view

Research in small-group decision making suggests two means by which discussion shifts the responses of individual members—Nonmative influence and informational influence. The former is based on pressure to conform to the normative positions of group members, and the latter involves changes due to the informational content of persuasively or passively shared facts. Which influence mode is used depends on the group decision rule, whether the response is public or private, the perceived nature of the task, and the nature of the issue. Specifically, normative influence is likely to prevail in public judgments, under group cohesion sets, and with value-laden issues, while informational influence will emerge when responses are private, the group is oriented toward the immediate task, and the issue is intellective. Suggestions are made regarding strategy and tactics for anticipating, harnessing, and shaping the form of influence that will take place during deliberation.     

Responding to historical injustices: Does group membership trump liberal‐conservative ideology?

In the legal literature, “privity” refers to the link between a minority's current social, psychological, and economic problems and its previous mistreatment by the government. Scholars speculate that judgments of privity underlie support for redress for historical injustices. There is no gold standard for evaluating privity, however, and its assessment is susceptible to personal and situational influences. We conducted three studies to examine how liberal‐conservative ideology interacts with group membership to predict judgments of privity and support for redress. This research is the first to examine the combined effects of liberal‐conservative ideology and group membership among respondents who belong to previously victimized minorities. Across both actual and hypothetical injustices, increasing conservatism was inversely related to judgments of privity, except when respondents were members of the victimized group. Victimized group members claimed privity regardless of ideology. The effects on support for reparations paralleled those for privity with one exception involving African Americans (Study 2). We discuss the implications of the findings for understanding the nature of liberalism‐conservatism. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

DISCUSSION PROCEDURES AND DECISION-MAKING PERFORMANCE

This study sought to obtain empirical data that either directly supports or refutes the “functional” perspective advanced by recent group decision-making theorists. Specifically, the study attempted to test the general claim that the group's satisfaction of critical task-achievement functions (or requisite conditions) is a better predictor of decision-making performance than the discussion procedures it employs in arriving at a decision. A total of 48 three-member groups were randomly assigned to one of four different discussion formats. The groups were trained to use their assigned format in arriving at a decision regarding a human relations case. Two-way ANOVA revealed no significant main effect for “discussion format,” but a significant main effect for “satisfaction of requisite conditions.” No interaction effect was discovered. The findings thus offer strong support for the “functional” perspective. Other analyses indicated that the satisfaction of certain requisite conditions may be more important than others in determining group decision-making success.     

Which Worlds are Possible? A Judgment Aggregation Problem

Suppose the members of a group (e.g., committee, jury, expert panel) each form a judgment on which worlds in a given set are possible, subject to the constraint that at least one world is possible but not all are. The group seeks to aggregate these individual judgments into a collective judgment, subject to the same constraint. I show that no judgment aggregation rule can solve this problem in accordance with three conditions: “unanimity,” “independence” and “non-dictatorship,” Although the result is a variant of an existing theorem on “group identification” (Kasher and Rubinstein, Logique et Analyse 160:385–395, 1997), the aggregation of judgments on which worlds are possible (or permissible, desirable, etc.) appears not to have been studied yet. The result challenges us to take a stance on which of its conditions to relax.     

Jewish-Arab violence: perspectives of a dominant majority and a subordinate minority

In 2 studies, the authors investigated intergroup violence as perceived by Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. University and junior high school students judged Jewish-Arab clashes, which ended in shots fired at a crowd of either Jewish or Arab demonstrators. The authors hypothesized that judgments of these shootings would be contingent on 3 variables: the origin of the respondent, the origin of the shooter, and the level of danger to the shooter. The results tended to support those hypotheses: (a) Both Jewish and Arab respondents justified shootings by members of their own group more readily than those by members of the other group. (b) Jewish judgments of violence were associated more closely than Arab judgments with the danger that the demonstrators posed to the shooter. (c) The Jewish respondents referred to self-defense more often than did the Arab respondents to justify their judgments, whereas the Arab respondents referred more often to intergroup considerations. Those differences may reflect the disagreement between the majority and the minority on the issue that each group should take into consideration in cases of international violence.     

The impact of positive mood and category importance on crossed categorization effects

Four studies examined the effect of positive versus neutral affect on preference among potential discussion partners who were members of two in-groups, two out-groups, or both an in-group and an out-group (crossed targets). The importance of targets' category memberships was manipulated by idiographically based selection. Positive affect elevated evaluation of crossed targets with a dominant (differentially important) in-group (Study 1). When categories were made equally important, positive affect had no impact (Studies 2 and 3). Study 4 presented crossed targets with both equally and differentially important group memberships and showed that differential category importance (dominance) is necessary for positive affect to influence judgments about them. These results are explained by the broadened categorization induced by positive affect.