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.     

Emotional and personality-related aspects of persistent career decision-making difficulties

This study focused on examining the persistent aspects of career decision-making difficulties, using the Emotional and Personality-related Career decision-making Difficulties scale (EPCD; [Saka, N., Gati, I., & Kelly, K.R. (in press). Emotional and personality-related aspects of career decision-making difficulties. Journal of Career Assessment]). The contribution of four personality measures—general indecisiveness, self-esteem, trait anxiety, and identity status—to the prediction of persistent career decision-making difficulties was tested on 747 students, using a longitudinal design. Results indicated that individuals with high EPCD scores at the beginning of the academic school year had less confidence in their choice and were less close to making a decision about the major into which they wanted to be admitted at the end of the year. The moderate correlations between the EPCD score and the four personality measures supported the validity of the EPCD. Implications for counseling and future research are discussed.     

Preparing young veterans for civilian life: The effects of a workshop on career decision-making difficulties and self-efficacy

The current study mapped the career decision-making difficulties and career decision self-efficacy of 1315 young veterans who participated in a 5-day workshop aimed at facilitating their transition to civilian life. A pre- and post-test comparison showed that participation in the workshop reduced (d = 0.57) the participants' career decision-making difficulties (measured by the CDDQ; Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996) and increased (d = 0.77) their career decision self-efficacy (measured by the CDSE; Taylor & Betz, 1983). A more advanced decision status, as reflected in the participants' Range of Considered Alternatives ( Saka & Gati, 2007), was negatively associated with participants' career decision-making difficulties, and positively associated with career decision self-efficacy. However, a more advanced decision status and the perceived effectiveness of the workshop were not associated with the decrease in difficulties and the increase in self-efficacy that resulted from participating in the workshop. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Framing and Group Decision-Making: Do Cognitive Changes Parallel Preference Changes?

Subjects had their initial frames of reference concerning a decision problem (Asian Disease problem; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981, Science,211, 453–458) manipulated in order to compose four-person groups containing members with different frames of reference. Three different group compositions (number of members with "gain-oriented" vs "loss-oriented" frames) were used: three gain-oriented and one loss oriented (3–1), two gain-oriented and two loss-oriented (2–2), and one gain-oriented and three loss-oriented (1–3). Results indicated a postgroup discussion choice shift toward the risk alternative in the 2–2 and the 1–3 composition conditions. However, changes in members′ frames of reference were unrelated to preference changes. Group composition also affected group decision processes. Implications for future theory and research in small group decision-making are discussed.     

Experience and sentence processing: statistical learning and relative clause comprehension

Many explanations of the difficulties associated with interpreting object relative clauses appeal to the demands that object relatives make on working memory. MacDonald and Christiansen [MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35-54] pointed to variations in reading experience as a source of differences, arguing that the unique word order of object relatives makes their processing more difficult and more sensitive to the effects of previous experience than the processing of subject relatives. This hypothesis was tested in a large-scale study manipulating reading experiences of adults over several weeks. The group receiving relative clause experience increased reading speeds for object relatives more than for subject relatives, whereas a control experience group did not. The reading time data were compared to performance of a computational model given different amounts of experience. The results support claims for experience-based individual differences and an important role for statistical learning in sentence comprehension processes.     

Preparing young veterans for civilian life: The effects of a workshop on career decision-making difficulties and self-efficacy

The current study mapped the career decision-making difficulties and career decision self-efficacy of 1315 young veterans who participated in a 5-day workshop aimed at facilitating their transition to civilian life. A pre- and post-test comparison showed that participation in the workshop reduced (d = 0.57) the participants' career decision-making difficulties (measured by the CDDQ; Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996) and increased (d = 0.77) their career decision self-efficacy (measured by the CDSE; Taylor & Betz, 1983). A more advanced decision status, as reflected in the participants' Range of Considered Alternatives (Saka & Gati, 2007), was negatively associated with participants' career decision-making difficulties, and positively associated with career decision self-efficacy. However, a more advanced decision status and the perceived effectiveness of the workshop were not associated with the decrease in difficulties and the increase in self-efficacy that resulted from participating in the workshop. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

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.     

Should I Drive Today? Development of a daily driving decisions model for older adults

BackgroundOlder adults in communities make daily decisions about how to meet their transportation needs so they can access services and stay socially connected. With the aging of populations in developed countries, the travel decisions of older adults will have increasing impacts. Research studies have identified different sets of factors that contribute to certain travel decisions, but little research has been directed towards understanding how individuals select information from all available factors, what information they include in their decisions under different circumstances, and the processes they use in making their transportation decisions.MethodsThis exploratory study involved 20 men and 17 women, mean age 78.6 years (range 70–96), who drove weekly. All participants were involved in each phase of the 3-phase study. In Phase 1, a review of the literature and interviews with the participants was used to collect information, and inductive thematic analysis was employed to construct a draft conceptual model of older driver decision-making. In Phase 2, participants completed a stated preference task of written scenarios to demonstrate their decision-making strategies. Results were tabulated and used to refine a final Daily Driving Decisions model. In Phase 3, a card sorting decision task was used to test the model with participants.ResultsThe final dynamic Daily Driving Decisions Model was confirmed to describe decision processes used by the participants in making decisions about how they would meet their transportation needs. The model describes three categories of factors used in decisions, labelled Motivators, Constraint/Enablers and Context, each containing four attribute themes. A significant finding was the variable use of the same item to either constrain or enable the decision to drive depending on the variation of other factors in the scenario. Participants demonstrated use of compensatory and noncompensatory (heuristic, habitual) decision processes that were accommodated by the model.ConclusionThe proposed Daily Driving Decisions Model addresses a gap in our understanding of how older drivers make their decisions about meeting their transportation needs. The model presents a template for classifying the types of information used, ignored or discarded by older adults, and the pathways that they take to arrive at their decisions. The model provides opportunities for further research in testing the influence of other factors such as urban/rural residence, income, health status and culture on driving decisions. Further, the model can be used by practitioners to gain insight into the decision-making behaviours of individuals and to develop interventions to enhance their decision-making skills.     

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.     

Emotional and personality-related aspects of persistent career decision-making difficulties

This study focused on examining the persistent aspects of career decision-making difficulties, using the Emotional and Personality-related Career decision-making Difficulties scale (EPCD; [Saka, N., Gati, I., & Kelly, K.R. (in press). Emotional and personality-related aspects of career decision-making difficulties. Journal of Career Assessment]). The contribution of four personality measures—general indecisiveness, self-esteem, trait anxiety, and identity status—to the prediction of persistent career decision-making difficulties was tested on 747 students, using a longitudinal design. Results indicated that individuals with high EPCD scores at the beginning of the academic school year had less confidence in their choice and were less close to making a decision about the major into which they wanted to be admitted at the end of the year. The moderate correlations between the EPCD score and the four personality measures supported the validity of the EPCD. Implications for counseling and future research are discussed.     

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。     

Task conflict,information processing,and decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict

A popular theoretical assumption holds that task-related disagreements stimulate critical thinking, and thus may improve group decision making. Two recent meta-analyses showed, however, that task conflict can have a positive effect, a negative effect, or no effect at all on decision-making quality (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012). In two studies, we built upon the suggestion of both meta-analyses that the presence of relationship conflict determines whether a task conflict is positively or negatively related to decision making. We hypothesized and found that the level of perceived relationship conflict during task conflict (Study 1), and the actual presence (vs. absence) of relationship conflict during task conflict (Study 2), increased group members’ rigidity in holding onto suboptimal initial preferences during decision making and thus led to poor decisions. In both studies the effect of relationship conflict on decision making was mediated by biased use of information.     

The Motivations of Islamic Martyrs: Applying the Collective Effort Model

This paper examines the motivations of Islamic martyrs through the Collective Effort Model (CEM). The CEM postulates that individuals work hard in a group only if they believe their work, input, or efforts will help attain their individually valued outcomes. In addition, people will work even harder as a group if they have close affinities with that group or if they are persuaded that their effort will be recognized (Karau & Williams, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(4):681–706, 1993). In the context of this analysis, it seems appropriate to apply the CEM to the motivations of Islamic martyrs to engage in suicide bombing as one can easily see the effects of their own efforts on their group’s organizational goals. Determining the motivations of Islamic martyrs may also help us identify the specific recruiting strategies used by terrorist organizations looking to acquire followers for their cause.     

多决策方法多交流方式的群体决策比较

采用人员选拔的实验室模拟实验,以160名被试组成40个4人群体,对4种决策方法和2类交流方式的群体决策进行了比较。结果发现（1）决策方法和交流方式对于讨论过程的信息交流具有显著影响;（2）以计算机为中介进行决策的被试知觉到的任务难度要高于面对面决策条件;决策方法对于群体成员有关实验任务难度知觉具有主效应;交流方式和决策方法对于群体决策过程满意感和结果满意感没有显著影响;（3）在以投票轮次来表明群体达成一致意见所需时间上,决策方法对于投票轮次具有显著影响。恶魔式辩护、辨证式查询两种方法下所需的投票轮次多于专家意见法和自由讨论法的投票轮次。     

群体决策过程中的信息取样偏差

一般认为,决策群体的优势是能综合各个成员拥有的不完整信息,形成对所有决策备择方案的无偏差的认识,从而作出最佳选择。但“群体讨论中的有偏差信息取样模型’认为,群体在决策中往往表现出倾向于讨论两种信息：(1)各成员讨论前都拥有的信息;(2)支持成员在讨论前所偏好的信息。该实验通过模拟人员选拔决策形式的实验室实验,对这一模型的假设进行验证。研究结果表明,大多数群体选择了一开始受到大多数成员支持的候选人,而非实际的最佳人选;群体讨论非但未纠正,反而加强了成员对候选人原有的歪曲印象。     

Effects of task relevance and stimulus-driven salience in feature-search mode

Attentional allocation in feature-search mode (W. F. Bacon & H. E. Egeth, 1994) is thought to be solely determined by top-down factors, with no role for stimulus-driven salience. The authors reassessed this conclusion using variants of the spatial cuing and rapid serial visual presentation paradigms developed by C. L. Folk and colleagues (C. L. Folk, R. W. Remington, & J. C. Johnston, 1992; C. L. Folk, A. B. Leber, & H. E. Egeth, 2002). They found that (a) a nonsingleton distractor that possesses the target feature produces attentional capture, (b) such capture is modulated by bottom-up salience, and (c) resistance to capture by irrelevant singletons is mediated by inhibitory processes. These results extend the role of top-down factors in search for a nonsingleton target while arguing against the notion that effects of bottom-up salience and top-down factors on attentional priority are strictly encapsulated within distinct search modes.     

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.     

Escalation in groups: Focus on information sampling

The purpose of this experiment was to examine if groups escalate more than individuals when information is not distributed to all group members. The experiment also attempted to replicate Bazerman, Beekun, and Schoorman's (1992) findings, that participants with high responsibility escalate more than participants with low responsibility. The task was a modified version of the Heeley Store Case (Bazerman et al., 1992). The dependent measures fell into three categories: rewards, appropriateness of layoff/demotion, and forecasted future performance. The results showed little support for the hypotheses. First, high responsibility participants escalated significantly more than low responsibility candidates for only one of the six measures. This may have been due to the fact that all participants felt responsible for their decisions. For the other dependent variables, the effect was either not significant or in the wrong direction. Second, no significant interaction was found between responsibility and decision-making context (individual, groups with all shared information, and groups with shared and unshared information). We then analyzed the data using a measure of felt responsibility as a covariate. The interaction between felt responsibility and decision-making context was significant only for layoff decision. For all of the other measures, no significant interaction was found. One possible reason why our hypotheses were not supported may have been that the groups felt a diffusion of responsibility. Larger groups may have also demonstrated the effects of group processes more effectively. No clear conclusions can be made regarding the influence of information sampling on escalation. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1998 meetings of the American Psychological Society.     

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.     

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.