The purpose of this study was to determine the factors, both communicative and noncommunicative, that lead to the utilization of information in a decision-making group. The study posited that the evaluative interaction model could explain a group 's acceptance or rejection of information. Three primary variables incorporated in the model were the focus of this study: (a) prediscussion preference structure, (b) information redundancy, and (c) valence of information items. The results of statistical analyses supported hypothesized relationships between the variables and infonmation acceptance. First, groups with conflicting prediscussion preference structures accepted significantly more information than consensus groups. Second, higher levels of redundancy increased the likelihood of information acceptance. Third, the best predictor by far was an item of information 's valence, accounting for almost 40% of the variance in acceptance. Finally, the full evaluative interaction model was able to accountfor almost 50% of the variance in information acceptance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aronsson, K. , & Nilholm, C. (1990). On memory and the collaborative construction and deconstruction of custody case arguments. Human Communication Research, 17, 289-314.
2.
Berger, J. , Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1973). Status characteristics and social interaction. In R. Ofshe (Ed.), Interpersonal behavior in small groups (pp. 194-216). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Berger, J. , Conner, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (1974). Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
4.
Berger, J. , Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Wagner, D. G. (1985). The formation of reward expectation in status situations. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 215-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Bodenhausen, G. V. , & Lichtenstein, M. (1987). Social stereotypes and information-processing strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 871-880.
6.
Burmstein, E. , & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 315-332.
7.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
8.
Fishbein, M. , & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
9.
Gigone, D. , & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959-974.
10.
Gouran, D. S. (1973). Group communication: Perspectives and priorities for future research. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 22-29.
11.
Gouran, D. S. (1986). Inferential errors, interaction, and group decision-making. In R. Y Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 93-111). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47-58.
13.
Hastie, R. , & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
14.
Hastie, R. , Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Hewes, D. E. (1986). Asocioegocentric theory of group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 265-291). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1987). Why informed groups make faulty decisions: An investigation of possible interaction-based explanations. Small Group Behavior, 18, 3-29.
17.
Hirokawa, R. Y. , & Pace, R. (1983). Adescriptive investigation of the possible communication-based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making. Communication Monographs, 50, 363-379.
18.
Hirokawa, R. Y. , & Scheerhorn, D. R. (1986). Communication in faulty group decisionmaking. In R. Y Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decisionmaking (pp. 63-80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
Hoffman, L. R. (1961). Conditions for creative problem solving. Journal of Psychology, 52, 429-444.
20.
Hoffman, L. R. (1979). The group problem solving process: Studies of a valence model. New York: Praeger.
21.
Janis, I. L. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management. New York: Free Press.
22.
Janis, I. L. , & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. New York: Free Press.
23.
Jarboe, S. (1988). A comparison of input-output, process-output, and input-process-output models of small group problem-solving effectiveness. Communication Monographs, 55, 121-142.
24.
Kelley, H. H. , & Thibaut, J. W. (1969). Group problem-solving. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1-101). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
25.
Larson, J. R. , Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,446-461.
26.
Leavitt, H. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 38-50.
27.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
Pennington, N. , & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258.
29.
Pennington, N. , & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 521-533.
30.
Propp, K. M. (1995). An experimental examination of biological sex as a status cue in decision-making groups and its influence on information utilization. Small Group Research, 26, 451-474.
31.
Propp, K. M. , & Julian, K. M. (1994). Enhancing accurate information processing: An investigation of the role of verbal information probes in decision making. Communication Reports, 7, 145-152.
32.
Riecken, H. W. (1958). The effects of talkativeness on ability to influence group solutions to problems. Sociometry, 21, 309-321.
33.
Roseborough, M. E. (1953). Experimental studies of small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 275-303.
34.
Schul, U. , & Burnstein, E. (1985). When discounting fails: Conditions under which individuals use discredited information in making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 894-903.
35.
Shaw, M. E. , & Penrod, W. T. (1962). Does more information available to a group always improve group performance?Sociometry, 25, 377-390.
36.
Stasser, G. , Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three-and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67-78.
37.
Stasser, G. , & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.
38.
Stasser, G. , & Titus, W. (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.
39.
Stone, V. A. (1969). A primacy effect in decision-making by jurors. Journal of Communication, 19, 239-247.
40.
Thibaut, J. W. , & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley.
