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
[11]   Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions [J].
Greitemeyer, T ;
Schulz-Hardt, S .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, 84 (02) :322-339
[12]   The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions [J].
Hastie, R ;
Kameda, T .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2005, 112 (02) :494-508
[13]  
Hastie R., 1986, DECISION RES, V2, P129
[14]  
Herbert TT, 1977, Academy of Management Review, V4, P662, DOI [10.2307/257518, DOI 10.2307/257518, 10.5465/amr.1977.4406749]
[15]   The rank-order effect in group decision making [J].
Hollingshead, AB .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1996, 68 (03) :181-193
[16]   The debate on structured debate: Toward a unified theory [J].
Katzenstein, G .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1996, 66 (03) :316-332
[17]   Group decision making: The effects of initial preferences and time pressure [J].
Kelly, JR ;
Karau, SJ .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 1999, 25 (11) :1342-1354
[18]   Improving group decisions by better pooling information: A comparative advantage of group decision support systems [J].
Lam, SSK ;
Schaubroeck, J .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 85 (04) :565-573
[19]   Diagnosing groups: The pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making [J].
Larson, JR ;
Christensen, C ;
Franz, TM ;
Abbott, AS .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 75 (01) :93-108
[20]   DISCUSSION OF SHARED AND UNSHARED INFORMATION IN DECISION-MAKING GROUPS [J].
LARSON, JR ;
FOSTERFISHMAN, PG ;
KEYS, CB .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1994, 67 (03) :446-461