Biased information search in group decision making

Research has shown that people prefer supporting to conflicting information when making decisions. Whether this biased information search also occurs in group decision making was examined in three experiments. Experiment 1 indicated that groups as well as individuals prefer supporting information and that the strength of this bias depends on the distribution of the group members' initial decision preferences. The more group members had chosen the same alternative prior to the group discussion (group homogeneity), the more strongly the group preferred information supporting that alternative. Experiment 2 replicated these results with managers. Experiment 3 showed that the differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups reflect group-level processes. Higher commitment and confidence in homogeneous groups mediated this effect. Functional and dysfunctional aspects of biased information seeking in group decision making are discussed.     

Signal-detection analysis of group decision making

How effectively can groups of people make yes-or-no decisions? To answer this question, we used signal-detection theory to model the behavior of groups of human participants in a visual detection task. The detection model specifies how performance depends on the group's size, the competence of the members, the correlation among members' judgments, the constraints on member interaction, and the group's decision rule. The model also allows specification of performance efficiency, which is a measure of how closely a group's performance matches the statistically optimal group. The performance of our groups was consistent with the theoretical predictions, but efficiency decreased as group size increased. This result was attributable to a decrease in the effort that members gave to their individual tasks rather than to an inefficiency in combining the information in the members' judgments.     

Influences of sex composition,decision rule,and decision consequences in small group policy making

Previous research has indicated sex differences in style of interaction for members in small groups. It was assumed that some of these sex differences could be attributed to demand characteristics in relation to specific topics discussed by group members in earlier investigations. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relative importance of two such demand characteristics, decision rule (consensus rule vs. majority rule), and decision consequence (high vs. low consequences), in addition to the sex composition of the group membership. Adherence to the group decision was also studied. On a topic previously rated as important, 16 four-person groups of males and the same number of female groups met and deliberated on a decision regarding an academic policy. Later these undergraduate students indicated their preference on the decision topic. The results showed male—female differences not accounted for by decision rule, decision consequence, or group decision post-test change. Explanation of the sex differences was offered in terms of varying academic aspiration levels and incongruency with attained academic achievement. The results also lend partial support for the importance of some operating demand characteristics, as yet unidentified.     

Escalation of commitment in individual and group decision making

Previous research (cf. B. M. Staw, Academy of Management Review, 1981, 6, 577–587) has found that when managers are given negative feedback on an initial individual investment decision, they allocate more additional funds to that investment if they, rather than another member of their organization, made the initial allocation decision. Justification is thought to underlie this phenomenon. This study explored commitment in group and individual decisions and examined the plausibility of dissonance processes as the mediator of escalation of commitment. One hundred eighty-three individuals participated in a role-playing exercise in which personal responsibility for an initial decision was manipulated for groups and individuals. As expected, escalation of commitment occurred for both groups and individuals. In support of a dissonance explanation, dissonance processes did vary as a function of the personal responsibility manipulation, and individual variation in dissonance responses accounted for a substantial portion of variance in allocation behavior beyond that accounted for by the experimental manipulations. The results concerning dissonance processes suggest a number of ways in which escalation can be reduced in individuals and groups.     

Team confidence,motivated information processing,and dynamic group decision making

According to the Motivated Information Processing in Groups (MIP‐G) model, groups should perform ambiguous (non‐ambiguous) tasks better when they have high (low) epistemic motivation and concomitant tendencies to engage in systematic (heuristic) information processing and exchange. The authors tested this prediction in an experiment with four‐person groups performing a complex and dynamic decision making task. Group confidence was measured after extensive training and prior to actual group decision‐making. Task ambiguity was manipulated. Results showed that when task ambiguity was low, group confidence indeed benefits decision quality and group performance. But when task ambiguity was high, group confidence hurt decision quality and group performance. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Quality of decision making and group norms.

Two studies investigated the impact of group norms for maintaining consensus versus norms for critical thought on group decisions in a modification of the biased sampling paradigm (G. Stasser & W. Titus, 1985). Both studies showed that critical norms improved the quality of decisions, whereas consensus norms did not. This effect appeared to be mediated by the perceived value of shared and unshared information: Consensus norm groups valued shared information more highly than critical groups did, and valence was a good predictor of decision outcome. In addition, the 2nd study showed that the group norm manipulation has no impact on individual decisions, consistent with the assumption that this is a group effect. Results suggest that the content of group norms is an important factor influencing the quality of group decision-making processes and that the content of group norms may be related to the group's proneness for groupthink.     

Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making.

This article expands the view of groups as information processors into a motivated information processing in groups (MIP-G) model by emphasizing, first, the mixed-motive structure of many group tasks and, second, the idea that individuals engage in more or less deliberate information search and processing. The MIP-G model postulates that social motivation drives the kind of information group members attend to, encode, and retrieve and that epistemic motivation drives the degree to which new information is sought and attended to, encoded, and retrieved. Social motivation and epistemic motivation are expected to influence, alone and in combination, generating problem solutions, disseminating information, and negotiating joint decisions. The MIP-G model integrates the influence of many individual and situational differences and combines insight on human thinking with group-level interaction process and decision making.     

Framing effects in group investment decision making: role of group polarization

Prospect theory proposes that framing effects result in a preference for risk-averse choices in gain situations and risk-seeking choices in loss situations. However, in group polarization situations, groups show a pronounced tendency to shift toward more extreme positions than those they initially held. Whether framing effects in group decision making are more prominent as a result of the group-polarization effect was examined. Purposive sampling of 120 college students (57 men, 63 women; M age = 20.1 yr., SD = 0.9) allowed assessment of relative preference between cautious and risky choices in individual and group decisions. Findings indicated that both group polarization and framing effects occur in investment decisions. More importantly, group decisions in a gain situation appear to be more cautious, i.e., risk averse, than individual decisions, whereas group decisions in the loss situation appear to be more risky than individual decisions. Thus, group decision making may expand framing effects when it comes to investment choices through group polarization.     

Age differences in choice satisfaction: a positivity effect in decision making

The authors tested the possibility that older adults show a positivity effect in decision making, by giving younger and older adults the opportunity to choose 1 of 4 products and by examining the participants' satisfaction with their choice. The authors considered whether requiring participants to explicitly evaluate the options before making a choice has an effect on age differences in choice satisfaction. Older adults in the evaluation condition listed more positive and fewer negative attributes than did younger adults and were more satisfied with their decisions than were younger adults. There were no age differences among those who did not evaluate options. This evaluation-dependent elevation of satisfaction among older adults was still present when participants were contacted 2 weeks after the experiment. Age did not influence the accuracy with which participants predicted how their satisfaction would change over time.     

Emotion,cognition, and decision making

We examine two explanations of the subliminal affective priming effect. The feelings-as-information model (Schwarz &; Clore, 1988) holds that judgements are based on perceptible feelings. Hence, affective influences depend on the source to which feelings are (mis)attributed. In contrast, the affective primary hypothesis (Zajonc, 1980) suggests that affective influences should resist attributional interventions. This is because the affective system responsible for preferences is separate from the cognitive system responsible for inferences; because early affective processes are automatic and therefore inaccessible to higher-order interventions; and because early affective responses are not represented as conscious feelings. We tested these explanations in two experiments that crossed subliminal affective priming with (mis)attribution manipulations. Both studies found reliable shifts in judgements of neutral stimuli as a result of primes even when subjects were aware that their feelings might not be diagnostic for the judgement at hand. Subjects did not report experiencing any feelings in response to the primes. The obtained affective priming effect was independent of response times and subjective reports of engaging in judgemental corrections. However, the priming effect did prove sensitive to the experimental instructions. We discuss the implications of these findings for the affective primacy hypothesis and the feelings-as-information model.     

Order effects and memory for evidence in individual versus group decision making in auditing

Sequential processing of evidence may lead to recency effect, a potential bias in judgment. The present research seeks to extend the literature on recency effects by assessing the potential moderating influence of team work: whether group decision making moderates the severity of recency effects predicted by Hogarth and Einhorn (1992), and whether group processing influences the accuracy of, and confidence in memory for evidence. Experienced auditors from a Big‐6 accounting firm made audit judgments, either individually or as groups. They were randomly assigned to one of two levels of evidence presentation order. After performing the judgment task, participants completed two evidence recognition tests. Consistent with prior findings, recency effects on judgments were observed, but only for individuals. Group judgments or audit reports were not affected by recency. Order effects, however, did not translate into different choices of audit reports, and did not persist in memories of either individuals or groups. As expected, group memory was more accurate than individual memory and groups were more confident than individuals. Overall, confidence in accurate memories was greater than in inaccurate ones. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Knowledge management in decision making and decision support

A knowledge-oriented view of decisions and decision making is introduced, as a complement to classical perspectives and as a contribution of under-standing computer-based possibilities for relaxing strains on decision makers. This perspective includes a model of knowledge management activities performed by a decision maker and a taxonomy of knowledge types. It leads to a characterization of decision-support-system purpose, traits, and potentials that offers a basis for new research into computer-based possibilities for knowledge management. Clyde W. Holsapple holds the Rosenthal Endowed Chair in Management Information Systems and is Professor of Decision Science and Information Systems at the College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky.     

身体姿势启动的内隐权力感对公平决策的影响

已有研究表明, 扩张身体姿势可启动个体的权力感。基于具身认知的视角, 实验1考察身体姿势对免惩罚游戏的提议者进行金钱分配时的影响, 实验2和实验3分别考察最后通牒游戏、免惩罚游戏的回应者在蜷缩和扩张姿势下对各种分配类型方案的拒绝率。结果表明, 与蜷缩姿势相比, 扩张姿势使个体更倾向于在免惩罚游戏提议者角色时做出更多的利己不公平分配, 同时使个体更倾向于拒绝最后通牒游戏和免惩罚游戏中的不公平分配。本研究证明了扩张姿势启动的权力感可影响个体的公平决策。     

Information sampling and group decision making: the effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task experience

Group discussions tend to focus on information that was previously known by all members (shared information) rather than information known by only 1 member (unshared information). If the shared information implies a suboptimal alternative, this sampling bias is associated with inaccurate group decisions. The present study examines the impact of 2 factors on information exchange and decision quality: (a) an advocacy group decision procedure versus unstructured discussion and (b) task experience. Results show that advocacy groups discussed both more shared and unshared information than free-discussion groups. Further, with increasing experience, more unshared information was mentioned in advocacy groups. In contrast, there was no such increase in unstructured discussions. Yet advocacy groups did not significantly improve their decision quality with experience.     

Modelling group decision making: Some important aspects for system design

Abstract

The discussion on work flexibility in organizations seems to be promising in terms of self-determination and autonomy of the concerned people. Computer systems offer features to articulate preferences of tasks and times. Therefore the work planning process could be more democratic, since the workers could participate in the decision-making procedure actively. The article investigates how a decision situation can be modelled in order to design a technical support system. In addition it will be analysed as to which social and group dynamic aspects play crucial roles–from a system designer's view. Empirical data on time management processes of various working groups serves as discussion example.     

Collective efficacy and vigilant problem solving in group decision making: A non-linear model

This research explores the relationship between collective efficacy and aspects of analytic or vigilant problem solving (Janis, 1989) in the context of group decision making. We hypothesized that vigilant problem solving would be most evident under conditions of relatively moderate collective efficacy, as opposed to either very high or very low collective efficacy. We investigated this hypothesis with groups of business students who participated in a complex business strategy simulation. Results show a significant curvilinear relationship between collective efficacy and vigilant problem solving, and a significant linear relationship between vigilant problem solving and decision outcomes. There is also evidence that vigilant problem solving mediates the relationship between collective efficacy and decision outcomes. Implications for theory, managerial practice, and directions for future research are discussed.     

Numeracy and decision making

A series of four studies explored how the ability to comprehend and transform probability numbers relates to performance on judgment and decision tasks. On the surface, the tasks in the four studies appear to be widely different; at a conceptual level, however, they all involve processing numbers and the potential to show an influence of affect. Findings were consistent with highly numerate individuals being more likely to retrieve and use appropriate numerical principles, thus making themselves less susceptible to framing effects, compared with less numerate individuals. In addition, the highly numerate tended to draw different (generally stronger or more precise) affective meaning from numbers and numerical comparisons, and their affective responses were more precise. Although generally helpful, this tendency may sometimes lead to worse decisions. The less numerate were influenced more by competing, irrelevant affective considerations. Analyses showed that the effect of numeracy was not due to general intelligence. Numerical ability appears to matter to judgments and decisions in important ways.     

Decision making styles and progress in occupational decision making

This study provides a reexamination of the role of different decisional strategies in facilitating progress in occupational decision making. Although the assumptions that a rational decision making style is the preferred mode of vocational functioning has been endorsed in a variety of career theories and interventions, there has been conflicting evidence about the validity of this assumption. To examine the role of different decisional approaches in the progress of making an occupational decision, the rational, intuitive, and dependent decision making style scores of 71 undergraduate students were used to predict progress in occupational decision making. The results of the regression analyses failed to provide support for the assumption that a rational style is the most effective in accomplishing this careerrelated task, but indicated strong support for the conclusion that the use of dependent decisional strategies is damaging, particularly in early stages of the decisional process.