Effects of sensory experiences on social influence processes in decision-making groups are explored. In two experiments, members of three-person groups selected auditory samples such as background music for a hotel. While all members had access to written descriptions of the auditory samples, one designated member could also listen to the auditory samples (member with sensory experience). Experienced members exerted more influence on group decisions than inexperienced members. Exploratory analyses revealed that experienced members’ narratives were perceived as more credible, but not more vivid than those of inexperienced members. A linguistic analysis of group discussions showed that members with sensory experience used more auditory words and metaphors than inexperienced members. Future directions to study the role of sensory experience in group decision making are discussed.
BaumannM. R.BonnerB. L. (2013). Member awareness of expertise, information sharing, information weighting, and group decision making. Small Group Research, 44(5), 532–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413494415
BonnerB. L.BaumannM. R. (2008). Informational intra-group influence: The effects of time pressure and group size. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), 46–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.400
5.
BonnerB. L.BaumannM. R.DalalR. S. (2002). The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(2), 719–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00010-9
6.
BonnerB. L.BolingerA. R. (2013). Separating the confident from the correct: Leveraging member knowledge in groups to improve decision making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.005
7.
BonnerB. L.SoderbergA. T.MeikleN. L.OverbeckJ. R. (2022). The effects of experience, expertise, reward power, and decision power in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 26(4), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000156
8.
BoydR. L.AshokkumarA.SerajS.PennebakerJ. W. (2022). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. University of Texas at Austin. https://www.liwc.app
9.
BraseG. L.RichmondJ. (2004). The white–coat effect: Physician attire and perceived authority, friendliness, and attractiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(12), 2469–2481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01987.x
10.
BucciW. (1997). Psychoanalysis and cognitive science: A multiple code theory. Guilford Press.
11.
ChernyshenkoO. S.MinerA. G.BaumannM. R.SniezekJ. A. (2003). The impact of information distribution, ownership, and discussion on group member judgment: The differential cue weighting model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00533-2
12.
DavisJ. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80(2), 97–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033951
13.
HarrisonD. A.MohammedS.McGrathJ. E.FloreyA. T.VanderstopS. W. (2003). Time Matters in team performance: Effects of member familiarity, entrainment, and task discontinuity on speed and quality. Personnel Psychology, 56(3), 633–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00753.x
HirschmanE. C.HolbrookM. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298204600314
16.
JehnK. A.NorthcraftG. B.NealeM. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667054
KacewiczE.PennebakerJ. W.DavisM.JeonM.GraesserA. C. (2013). Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x13502654
19.
KaneA. A.RinkF. (2015). How newcomers influence group utilization of their knowledge: Integrating versus differentiating strategies. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000024
20.
KaneA. A.van SwolL. M. (2023). Using linguistic inquiry and word count software to analyze group interaction language data. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 27(3), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000195
21.
KardesF. R.CronleyM. L.KimJ. (2006). Construal-level effects on preference stability, preference-behavior correspondence, and the suppression of competing brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1602_4
22.
KensingerE. A.Garoff-EatonR. J.SchacterD. L. (2006). Memory for specific visual details can be enhanced by negative arousing content. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.05.005
23.
KimY. J.HollingsheadA. B. (2015). Online social influence: Past, present, and future. Annals of the International Communication Association, 39(1), 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11679175
24.
KozlowskiS. W. J.IlgenD. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
25.
KrishnaA. (2011). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.003
26.
KushJ. (2023). A practical guide to performing transcript analysis on group conversations in both LIWC and R. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 27(3), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000204
27.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (2020). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. In SarasvathyS.DewN.VenkataramanS. (Eds.), Shaping entrepreneurship research (pp. 475–504). Routledge.
28.
LaughlinP. R. (1999). Collective induction: Twelve postulates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2854
29.
LaughlinP. R. (2011). Social choice theory, social decision scheme theory, and group decision-making. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210372524
30.
LaughlinP. R.EllisA. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(3), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90022-3
31.
LaughlinP. R.HollingsheadA. B. (1995). A theory of collective induction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1008
32.
LevittH.KormanY.AngusL. (2000). A metaphor analysis in treatments of depression: Metaphor as a marker of change. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 13(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070050011042
33.
LiangD. W.MorelandR.ArgoteL. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295214009
34.
LittlepageG. E.RobisonW.ReddingtonK. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2677
35.
LittlepageG. E.SilbigerH. (1992). Recognition of expertise in decision-making groups. Small Group Research, 23(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496492233005
MandoJ. (2016). Constructing the vicarious experience of proximity in a Marcellus Shale Public Hearing. Environmental Communication, 10(3), 352–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1133438
38.
McGrathJ. E.ArrowH.GruenfeldD. H.HollingsheadA. B.O’ConnorK. M. (1993). Groups, tasks, and technology: The effects of experience and change. Small Group Research, 24(3), 406–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496493243007
39.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.EyalK.LemusD. R.MccannR. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), 293–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029
40.
NeumannA.PhilippotP. (2007). Specifying what makes a personal memory unique enhances emotion regulation. Emotion, 7(3), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.566
41.
NewmanM. L.PennebakerJ. W.BerryD. S.RichardsJ. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005010
42.
NisbettR. E.RossL. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.
RasmussenB.AngusL. (1996). Metaphor in psychodynamic psychotherapy with borderline and non-borderline clients: A qualitative analysis. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 33(4), 521–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.33.4.521
46.
ReimerT.HoffrageU. (2006). The ecological rationality of simple group heuristics: Effects of group member strategies on decision accuracy. Theory and Decision, 60(4), 403–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-005-4750-2
ReimerT.OpwisK.BornsteinA.-L. (2002). Routine problem solving in groups. In GrayW. D.SchunnC. D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 780–785). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315782379-169
49.
ReimerT.ReimerA.CzienskowskiU. (2010). Decision-making groups attenuate the discussion bias in favor of shared information: A meta-analysis. Communication Monographs, 77(1), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903514318
SchwarzN. (2012). Feelings-as-information theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume 1 (pp. 289–308). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n15
52.
SherifM. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper.
53.
ShinebourneP.SmithJ. A. (2010). The communicative power of metaphors: An analysis and interpretation of metaphors in accounts of the experience of addiction. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 83(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1348/147608309X468077
54.
ShutovaE.DevereuxB. J.KorhonenA. (2013). Conceptual metaphor theory meets the data: A corpus-based human annotation study. Language Resources and Evaluation, 47(4), 1261–1284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-013-9238-z
55.
Sillito WalkerS. D.BonnerB. L. (2021). An approach–avoidance lens on sexual harassment: The effects of relative attractiveness, gender, relationship status, and role. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(1), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09729-w
56.
SimonsohnU.KarlssonN.LoewensteinG.ArielyD. (2008). The tree of experience in the forest of information: Overweighing experienced relative to observed information. Games and Economic Behavior, 62(1), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2007.03.010
57.
StasserG. (1999). A primer of social decision scheme theory: Models of group influence, competitive model-testing, and prospective modeling. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2851
58.
TalaricoJ. M.RubinD. C. (2007). Flashbulb memories are special after all; in phenomenology, not accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(5), 557–578. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1293
59.
TannenD. (2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge University Press.
van SwolL. M.KaneA. A. (2018). Language and group processes: An integrative, interdisciplinary review. Small Group Research, 50(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496418785019
62.
van SwolL. M.PrahlA.KolbM. R.LewisE. A.CarlsonC. (2016). The language of extremity: The language of extreme members and how the presence of extremity affects group discussion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(6), 603–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16629788
63.
WittenbaumG. M.ParkE. S. (2001). The collective preference for shared information. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(2), 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00118
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.
