Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality

The effect of diversity in individual prediscussion preferences on group decision quality was examined in an experiment in which 135 three-person groups worked on a personnel selection case with 4 alternatives. The information distribution among group members constituted a hidden profile (i.e., the correct solution was not identifiable on the basis of the members' individual information and could be detected only by pooling and integrating the members' unique information). Whereas groups with homogeneous suboptimal prediscussion preferences (no dissent) hardly ever solved the hidden profile, solution rates were significantly higher in groups with prediscussion dissent, even if none of these individual prediscussion preferences were correct. If dissent came from a proponent of the correct solution, solution rates were even higher than in dissent groups without such a proponent. The magnitude of dissent (i.e., minority dissent or full diversity of individual preferences) did not affect decision quality. The beneficial effect of dissent on group decision quality was mediated primarily by greater discussion intensity and to some extent also by less discussion bias in dissent groups.     

The Effect of Individual Difference Variables on Information Sharing in Decision‐Making Groups

We examined need for cognition, social desirability, and communication apprehension for their influence on the mention and repetition of shared and unshared information in 8‐person decision‐making groups. Both need for cognition and social desirability influenced the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision‐making groups. The findings indicate that increasing motivation to participate in group discussions may not help overcome the bias favoring shared over unshared information. Additionally, there are indications that social desirability increases the repetition of shared information. This finding is consistent with the idea of mutual enhancement (i.e., the idea that group members discuss shared information because it enhances their position with other group members).     

A Self‐regulation Perspective on Hidden‐profile Problems: If–Then Planning to Review Information Improves Group Decisions

In hidden‐profile (HP) problems, groups squander their potential to make superior decisions because members fail to capitalize on each other's unique knowledge (unshared information). A new self‐regulation perspective suggests that hindrances in goal striving (e.g., failing to seize action opportunities) contribute to this problem. Implementation intentions (if–then plans) are known to help deal with hindrances in goal striving; therefore, supporting decision goals with if–then plans should improve the impact of unshared information on group decisions. Indeed, in line with past research, control participants in two experiments rarely identified the best alternative despite monetary incentives and setting decision goals. In contrast, simply adding if–then plans to review advantages of the non‐preferred alternatives before making the final decision significantly increased solution rates. Process manipulations (Experiment 1) and measures (Experiment 2) indicate that conceptualizing HP problems as a self‐regulation challenge provides explanatory power beyond existing accounts. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions

Common explanations for the failure of groups to solve so-called hidden profiles focus on group processes, namely insufficient discussion of unshared information and premature consensus on a suboptimal alternative. As 2 experiments show, even in the absence of such group processes, hidden profiles are hardly ever solved. In Experiment 1, participants first received individual information about a personnel selection task and then read a group discussion protocol containing full information exchange. If the individual information was misleading (hidden profile), most participants failed to detect the correct alternative. In Experiment 2, it was determined that this effect is due to preference-consistent evaluation of information that constitutes an individual-level process mediating the failure of group members to solve hidden profiles.     

Effects of Consensus Information and Task Demonstrability on Preference-Consistent Information Evaluation and Decision Quality in Group Decision Making

Groups often fail to solve hidden profiles even when all information is exchanged. This is partly due to biased evaluation of information. We examined the effects of consensus information and task demonstrability on preference-consistent information evaluation and decision quality. The results showed that the evaluation of unshared but not shared information was moderated by consensus information and task demonstrability. For unshared information, majority members exhibited a higher evaluation bias favoring preference-consistent information than minority members. Task demonstrability reduced the evaluation bias only when group members received no information about the other members' preferences. Finally, majority members were less likely to solve the hidden profile than minority members, and this was partially mediated by the evaluation bias favoring preference-consistent unshared information.     

MAU程序和自由讨论的群体决策质量比较

采用实验室研究方法,比较了在信启、不分享条件下多特征效用模型(MAU)决策程序和自由讨论对群体决策质量的影响,并对影响MAU决策质量的主要因素进行了初步探讨。结果发现：(1)MAU程序可以较好地克服群体动力学方面的一些消极影响,表现出挖掘信息(尤其是非分享信息)的充分性。但MAU程序在被试的态度和社会交互作用等心理效标上并未显示出优势;(2)在MAU条件下,群体规模的增大对分享和非分享信息的讨论量无显著影响。而任务难度效应要和群体规模一起才能起到作用。     

The Collective Preference for Shared Information

Decision-making groups prefer to discuss shared information that all members know instead of unshared information that a single member knows. This bias toward discussing shared information can lead groups to make suboptimal decisions when unshared information is critical for good decision making. This preference for discussing shared information may stem from group members' positive evaluations of each other's task capabilities when shared information is communicated. Members who already are perceived as capable (i.e., those high in status, experts, and leaders) need not bolster their image by communicating shared information. Instead, they discuss unshared information more than members perceived as less capable. As members low in status gain respect by communicating shared information, they may risk mentioning unshared information later during discussion. Assigning group leaders, informing members of their expert roles, and allowing ample time for discussion may increase groups' discussion of unshared information.     

How to achieve synergy in group decision making: Lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm

Based on over 25 years of research on hidden profiles and information sharing in groups, and particularly our own work in this area, we outline a general model of how groups can achieve better decisions in a hidden profile situation than their individual members would have been capable of (i.e., synergy). At its core the model defines intensity and bias as the two key parameters that have to be optimised with regard to both the discussion of information and the processing of information in order to ensure synergy in group decision making. We review the empirical literature on information sharing and group decision making in the hidden profile paradigm (with a particular focus on our own studies) to illustrate how group decision quality can be enhanced by increasing intensity and decreasing bias in the discussion and processing of information. Finally we also outline why we think that the lessons learned from research using the hidden profile paradigm can be generalised to group decision-making research in general, and how these lessons can stimulate studies in other fields of group decision-making and group performance research.     

Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making.

This study integrates research on minority dissent and individual creativity, as well as team diversity and the quality of group decision making, with research on team participation in decision making. From these lines of research, it was proposed that minority dissent would predict innovation in teams but only when teams have high levels of participation in decision making. This hypothesis was tested in 2 studies, 1 involving a homogeneous sample of self-managed teams and 1 involving a heterogeneous sample of cross-functional teams. Study 1 suggested that a newly developed scale to measure minority dissent has discriminant validity. Both Study 1 and Study 2 showed more innovations under high rather than low levels of minority dissent but only when there was a high degree of participation in team decision making. It is concluded that minority dissent stimulates creativity and divergent thought, which, through participation, manifest as innovation.     

Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality

Integrating dual-process models [Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. NewYork: Guilford Press] with work on information sharing and group decision-making [Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.], we predicted that groups with high epistemic motivation engage in more information-driven and less preference-driven interaction, and achieve better decisions. An experiment manipulating process accountability showed that groups under process accountability experienced greater need for more information, repeated unshared information more often, and more often chose the correct decision alternative. Mediation analysis established that epistemic motivation produced high quality decisions because it stimulated systematic information processing. Results also revealed that preference heterogeneity stimulated information-driven interaction and led to higher decision quality.     

The sampling of critical,unshared information in decision-making groups: the role of an informed minority

A collective information sampling model and observations of discussion content suggest that decision-making groups often fail to disseminate unshared information. This paper examines the role that a fully-informed minority may play in facilitating the sampling and consideration of unshared information. University students read a mystery and then met in four-person groups to discuss the case. When critical clues were unshared among three members before discussion, a fully informed fourth member (informed minority) promoted the discussion of these critical clues when participants thought the mystery had a demonstrably correct answer (solve set) but not when they thought the clue may have been insufficient to solve definitively the case (judge set). None the less, under both solve and judge sets, the informed minority increased the likelihood that the group would identify the correct suspect. Social combination, information sampling, and minority influence interpretations of the results are discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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。     

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.     

When is one head better than two? Interdependent information in group decision making

Research on information exchange in group decision making has frequently assumed that information items have independent meanings. Relaxing this assumption raises new issues and presents new possibilities. In the experiment presented here, dyads worked on hidden profile decision tasks in which pairs of unshared information items had interdependent meanings. Dyad decisions were more likely to be accurate when each pair of interdependent items was allocated to a single member (a “connected” hidden profile) than when each pair of interdependent items was separated between the two members (a “disconnected” hidden profile). These information distributions influenced the degree to which dyads considered unshared information. Cognitive load was manipulated, and it impaired decision makers’ ability to identify connections among interdependent information items. The differentiated distribution of information inherent in transactive memory systems moderated the negative effects of cognitive load on dyad decisions.     

From thinking about what might have been to sharing what we know: The effects of counterfactual mind-sets on information sharing in groups

We hypothesized that the activation of a counterfactual mind-set minimizes group decision errors caused by the failure of groups to discuss unshared, uniquely held information. In two experiments, we manipulated the salience of counterfactual thoughts in a pre-task scenario and then had groups of three individuals discuss a murder mystery case. In both experiments, counterfactual mind-sets increased the discussion of unshared information and helped groups to identify the correct murder suspect. These results emerged regardless of whether the direction of the counterfactual thoughts was upward (Experiment 1) or downward (Experiment 2), suggesting that it is the process of thinking counterfactually, and not the content of the counterfactuals, that improves group decision making.     

Productive conflict in group decision making: genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking

Decision-making groups in organizations are often expected to function as a “think tank” and to perform “reality testing” to detect the best alternative. A biased search for information supporting the group's favored alternative impairs a group's ability to fulfill these requirements. In a two-factorial experiment with 201 employees and managers from various economic and public organizations, genuine and contrived dissent were investigated as counterstrategies to biased information seeking. Genuine dissent was manipulated by forming three-person groups whose members either all favored the same alternative individually (homogeneous groups) or consisted of a minority and a majority faction with regard to their favored alternative (heterogeneous groups). Contrived dissent was varied by the use or nonuse of the “devil's advocacy” technique. The results demonstrate that heterogeneity was more effective in preventing a confirmatory information-seeking bias than devil's advocacy was. Confidence was identified as an important mediator. Implications for the design of interventions aimed at facilitating reality testing in group decision making are discussed.     

Cooperation Versus Competition Effects on Information Sharing and Use in Group Decision‐Making

Information processing in groups has long been seen as a cooperative process. In contrast with this assumption, group members were rarely found to behave cooperatively: They withhold unshared information and stick to initial incorrect decisions. In the present article, we examined how group members' cooperative and competitive motives impact on group information processing and propose that information sharing and use in groups could be seen as strategic behavior. We reviewed the latest developments in the literature investigating different forms of strategic information processing and their underlying mechanisms. This review suggests that explicit cooperative goals are needed for effective group decision‐making.     

Deviance in group decision making: Group‐member centrality alleviates negative consequences for the group

Research on the effects of deviance during group decision making has shown that although it can lead to increased innovation and creativity within the group, group members often dislike the deviant member and rate group morale as lower because of dissent during the decision‐making process. The current study (N = 101) uses an information processing approach to examine the effect of deviance on decision outcomes as well as investigate how the perceived position of group members can influence whether they are given leeway to voice dissent. Results found that deviance can improve group decision making without incurring social costs when a deviant group member occupies a central position within the group. These findings are novel within the field of deviance research yet are consistent with research on group criticism and idiosyncrasy credit and therefore have significant implications for literature on the effect of group deviance and the application of deviance techniques within organisational and educational settings. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Deviance in organizational decision making: using unanimous decision rules to promote the positive effects and alleviate the negative effects of deviance

When deviance occurs during group decision making, it can lead to increased innovation and improved decision outcomes. Group members, however, often rate the group climate as lower for having experienced dissent. The current study used a hidden profile framework to investigate the effects of deviance and decision rule on task outcome and group climate. Results found that working under a unanimous decision rule increases the likelihood of shared information improving the overall decision outcome and also alleviates some of the negative consequences associated with deviance. Results have significant implications for both research on group deviance and the application of deviance techniques within organizational settings.     

Social validation in group decision-making: Differential effects on the decisional impact of preference-consistent and preference-inconsistent information

Shared information has a stronger impact on group decisions than unshared information. A prominent explanation for this phenomenon is that shared information can be socially validated during group discussion and, hence, is perceived as more accurate and relevant than unshared information. In the present study we argue that this explanation only holds for preference-inconsistent information (i.e., information contradicting the group members’ initial preferences) but not for preference-consistent information. In Experiments 1 and 2 participants studied the protocol of a fictitious group discussion. In this protocol, we manipulated which types of information were socially validated. As predicted, social validation increased the decisional impact of preference-inconsistent but not preference-consistent information. In both experiments the effect of social validation was mediated by the perceived quality of information. Experiment 3 replicated the results of the first two experiments in an interactive setting in which two confederates discussed a decision case face-to-face with one participant.