While numerous studies have demonstrated the difficulty minority opinion holders face when trying to persuade a majority, the present research investigated the conditions under which minority members might second-guess themselves and become advocates for the majority’s position even when they have the best information. In a laboratory experiment, we examined whether the structure of monetary incentives (fixed amount vs. performance-based) and group decision-making procedure (collective decisions vs. group discussion then individual decisions) might mitigate second-guessing by minority members when they initially favor the objectively best choice. Our results indicated that compared with fixed-amount incentives, performance-based incentives increased overall information sharing in collective decision-making groups but not in individual decision-making groups. Second-guessing by minority members was most likely to occur in groups that received performance-based incentives and made decisions individually. As a result of second-guessing, these groups also made poorer decisions.
AschS. E. (1952). Social psychology. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
2.
BazarovaN. N.WaltherJ. B.McLeodP. (2012). Minority influence in virtual groups: A comparison of four theories of minority influence. Communication Research, 39, 295-316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211399752
BosterF. J.HaleJ. L.MongeauP. A. (1990, June). Social loafing and information sharing in group discussion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland.
5.
BosterF. J.HunterJ. E.HaleJ. L. (1991). An information processing model of jury decision-making. Communication Research, 18, 524-547. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365091018004004
6.
De DreuC. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628-638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.628
7.
De DreuC. K. W.CarnevaleP. J. D. (2003). Motivational bases for information processing and strategic choice in conflict and negotiation. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 235-291). New York, NY: Academic Press.
8.
De DreuC. K. W.NijstadB. A.van KnippenbergD. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 22-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307304092
DeutschM.GerardH. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408
11.
DeweyJ. (1938). The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
12.
Di VestaF. J. (1959). Effects of confidence and motivation on susceptibility to informational social influence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 204-209. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042945
13.
EpsteinE. S. (1969). A scoring system for probability forecasts of ranked categories. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 8, 985-987. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1969)008
14.
GebhardtL. J.MeyersR. A. (1995). Subgroup influence in decision-making groups: Examining consistency from a communication perspective. Small Group Research, 26, 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496495262001
15.
HenningsenD. D.HenningsenM. L. M. (2004). The effect of individual difference variables on information sharing in decision-making groups. Human Communication Research, 30, 540-555. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/30.4.540
16.
HollingsheadA. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making the effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00392.x
17.
KelleyH. H.ThibautJ. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: John Wiley.
18.
KeppelG.WickensT. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
19.
KouC. Y.StewartV. (2018). Group accountability: A review and extension of existing research. Small Group Research, 49, 34-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417712438
20.
KruglanskiA. W. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. In HigginsE. T.SorrentinoR. M. (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 333-368). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
LaughlinP. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In FishbeinM. (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (pp. 27-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
LaughlinP. R.EllisA. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90022-3
24.
LemusD. R.SeiboldD. R.FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2004). Argument and decision making in computer mediated groups. Journal of Communication, 54, 302-320. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/54.2.302
25.
LiuY. C.McLeodP. L. (2014). Individual preference for procedural order and process accountability in group problem-solving. Small Group Research, 45, 154-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414522716
26.
MaassA.ClarkR. D. I. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.428
27.
MartinR.HewstoneM.MartinP. Y.GardikiotisA. (2008). Persuasion from majority and minority groups. In CranoW. D.PrislinR. (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 361-384). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
28.
MayselessO.KruglanskiA. W. (1987). What makes you so sure? Effects of epistemic motivation on judgmental confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 39, 162-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90036-7
29.
McClintockC. (1977). Social motives in settings of outcome interdependence. In DruckmanD. (Ed.), Negotiations: Social psychological perspective (pp. 49-77). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
30.
McLeodP. L.BaronR. S.MartiM. W.YoonK. (1997). The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 706-718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.706
31.
McPheeR. D.PooleM. S.SeiboldD. R. (1982). The valence model unveiled: Critique and alternative formulation. In BurgoonM. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 259-278). New Brunswick, NJ: International Communication Association.
32.
MeyersR. A.BrashersD. E.HannerJ. (2000). Majority-minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication, 50, 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/50.4.3
33.
MoscoviciS. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 347-412). New York, NY: Random House.
34.
NemethC. (1982). Stability of faction position and influence. In BrandstetterG. H.DavisJ. H.Stocker-KriechgauerG. (Eds.), Group decision making (pp. 185-213). New York, NY: Academic.
35.
NemethC. J.WachtlerJ. (1974). Creating the perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence. Sociometry, 37, 529-540. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786425
36.
PalfreyT. R.WangS. W. (2009). On eliciting beliefs in strategic games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 71, 98-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.03.025
37.
RusbultC. E.Van LangeP. A. M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 564-596). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
38.
SchachterS. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190-207. https://doi.org/10.1037/10646-004
39.
ScholtenL.van KnippenbergD.NijstadB. A.De DreuC. K. W. (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 539-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.010
40.
SchreiberM.EngelmannT. (2010). Knowledge and information awareness for initiating transactive memory system processes of computer-supported collaborating ad hoc groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1701-1709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.019
41.
Schulz-HardtS.JochimsM.FreyD. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 563-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00001-8
42.
StasserG.TitusW. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.48.6.1467
43.
StasserG.TitusW. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.81
44.
TanfordS.PenrodS. (1984). Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence process. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 189-225. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.2.189
TindaleR. S.DavisJ. H.VollrathD. A.NagaoD. H.HinszV. B. (1990). Asymmetrical social influence in freely interacting groups: A test of three models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 438-449. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.3.438
48.
Van SwolL. M. (2007). Perceived importance of information: The effects of mentioning information, shared information bias, ownership bias, reiteration, and confirmation bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207074730
49.
Van SwolL. M.CarlsonC. (2017). Language use and influence among minority, majority, and homogeneous group members. Communication Research, 44, 512-529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215570658
50.
Van SwolL. M.MalhotraD.BraunM. T. (2012). Deception and its detection effects of monetary incentives and personal relationship history. Communication Research, 39, 217-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210396868
51.
Van SwolL. M.SeinfeldE. (2006). Differences between minority, majority, and unanimous group members in the communication of information. Human Communication Research, 32, 178-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00008.x
52.
WagemanR. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145-180. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393703
53.
WittenbaumG. M.HollingsheadA. B.BoteroI. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71, 286-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000299894
54.
YuanY. C.FulkJ.MongeP. R.ContractorN. (2010). Expertise directory development, shared task interdependence, and strength of communication, network ties as multilevel, predictors of expertise, exchange in transactive, memory work groups. Communication Research, 37, 20-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209351469
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
