Effects of Sensory Experience on Group Decision Making

Abstract

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.

Keywords

experience group decision making social influence

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Appelman

Sundar

S. S.

(2016). Measuring message credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015606057

Baumann

M. R.

Bonner

B. 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

Bonner

B. L.

(2000). The effects of extroversion on influence in ambiguous group tasks. Small Group Research, 31(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100205

Bonner

B. L.

Baumann

M. 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

Bonner

B. L.

Baumann

M. R.

Dalal

R. 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

Bonner

B. L.

Bolinger

A. 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

Bonner

B. L.

Soderberg

A. T.

Meikle

N. L.

Overbeck

J. 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

Boyd

R. L.

Ashokkumar

Seraj

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2022). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. University of Texas at Austin. https://www.liwc.app

Brase

G. L.

Richmond

(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.

Bucci

(1997). Psychoanalysis and cognitive science: A multiple code theory. Guilford Press.

11.

Chernyshenko

O. S.

Miner

A. G.

Baumann

M. R.

Sniezek

J. 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.

Davis

J. 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.

Harrison

D. A.

Mohammed

McGrath

J. E.

Florey

A. T.

Vanderstop

S. 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

14.

Hastie

Kameda

(2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112(2), 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.112.2.494

15.

Hirschman

E. C.

Holbrook

M. B.

(1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298204600314

16.

Jehn

K. A.

Northcraft

G. B.

Neale

M. 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

17.

Johnson

M. K.

Raye

C. L.

(1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.88.1.67

18.

Kacewicz

Pennebaker

J. W.

Davis

Jeon

Graesser

A. 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.

Kane

A. A.

Rink

(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.

Kane

A. A.

van Swol

L. 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.

Kardes

F. R.

Cronley

M. L.

Kim

(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.

Kensinger

E. A.

Garoff-Eaton

R. J.

Schacter

D. 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.

Kim

Y. J.

Hollingshead

A. 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.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Ilgen

D. 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.

Krishna

(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.

Kush

(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.

Lakoff

Johnson

(2020). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. In Sarasvathy

Dew

Venkataraman

(Eds.), Shaping entrepreneurship research (pp. 475–504). Routledge.

28.

Laughlin

P. 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.

Laughlin

P. 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.

Laughlin

P. R.

Ellis

A. 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.

Laughlin

P. R.

Hollingshead

A. 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.

Levitt

Korman

Angus

(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.

Liang

D. W.

Moreland

Argote

(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.

Littlepage

G. E.

Robison

Reddington

(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.

Littlepage

G. E.

Silbiger

(1992). Recognition of expertise in decision-making groups. Small Group Research, 23(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496492233005

36.

Lyddon

W. J.

Clay

A. L.

Sparks

C. L.

(2001). Metaphor and change in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79(3), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/J.1556-6676.2001.TB01971.X

37.

Mando

(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.

McGrath

J. E.

Arrow

Gruenfeld

D. H.

Hollingshead

A. B.

O’Connor

K. 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.

Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

Eyal

Lemus

D. R.

Mccann

R. 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.

Neumann

Philippot

(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.

Newman

M. L.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Berry

D. S.

Richards

J. 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.

Nisbett

R. E.

Ross

(1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.

43.

Ochs

Capps

(1996). Narrating the self. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.19

44.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2011). The secret life of pronouns. New Scientist, 211(2828), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0262-4079(11)62167-2

45.

Rasmussen

Angus

(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.

Reimer

Hoffrage

(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

47.

Reimer

Katsikopoulos

(2004). The use of recognition in group decision-making. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 1009–1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.06.004

48.

Reimer

Opwis

Bornstein

A.-L.

(2002). Routine problem solving in groups. In Gray

W. D.

Schunn

C. 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.

Reimer

Czienskowski

(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

50.

Rubin

D. C.

Kozin

(1984). Vivid memories. Cognition, 16(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(84)90037-4

51.

Schwarz

(2012). Feelings-as-information theory. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume 1 (pp. 289–308). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n15

52.

Sherif

(1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper.

53.

Shinebourne

Smith

J. 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.

Shutova

Devereux

B. J.

Korhonen

(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 Walker

S. D.

Bonner

B. 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.

Simonsohn

Karlsson

Loewenstein

Ariely

(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.

Stasser

(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.

Talarico

J. M.

Rubin

D. 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.

Tannen

(2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge University Press.

60.

Toma

C. L.

D’Angelo

J. D.

(2015). Tell-tale words. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14554484

61.

van Swol

L. M.

Kane

A. 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 Swol

L. M.

Prahl

Kolb

M. R.

Lewis

E. A.

Carlson

. (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.

Wittenbaum

G. M.

Park

E. 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.

0.00 MB

1.38 MB