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

被引:65
作者
Greitemeyer, T
Schulz-Hardt, S
Brodbeek, FC
Frey, D
机构
[1] Univ Munich, Dept Psychol, D-80802 Munich, Germany
[2] Inst Psychol, Econ & Social Psychol Unit, D-37073 Gottingen, Germany
[3] Univ Gottingen, Inst Psychol, Econ & Social Psychol Unit, D-3400 Gottingen, Germany
[4] Aston Univ, Aston Business Sch, Birmingham B4 7ET, W Midlands, England
关键词
group decision making; hidden profile; information sampling; dialectical techniques;
D O I
10.1037/1076-898X.12.1.31
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:31 / 42
页数:12
相关论文
共 52 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], INFORM SAMPLING ADAP
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1988, ESSENCE STRATEGIC DE
[3]   The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: the effects of pre-discussion dissent [J].
Brodbeck, FC ;
Kerschreiter, R ;
Mojzisch, A ;
Frey, D ;
Schulz-Hardt, S .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 32 (01) :35-56
[4]  
BRODBECK FC, 2000, GROUP PROCESS INTERG, V2, P159
[5]   The impact of information distribution, ownership, and discussion on group member judgment: The differential cue weighting model [J].
Chernyshenko, OS ;
Miner, AG ;
Baumann, MR ;
Sniezek, JA .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 2003, 91 (01) :12-25
[6]  
Cohen J., 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA
[7]   Information exchange and use in small group decision making [J].
Dennis, AR .
SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, 1996, 27 (04) :532-550
[8]   A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments [J].
Edwards, K ;
Smith, EE .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1996, 71 (01) :5-24
[9]   THE COMMON KNOWLEDGE EFFECT - INFORMATION SHARING AND GROUP JUDGMENT [J].
GIGONE, D ;
HASTIE, R .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1993, 65 (05) :959-974
[10]   The impact of information on small group choice [J].
Gigone, D ;
Hastie, R .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1997, 72 (01) :132-140