Three experiments examined three factors that may impede the discovery of hidden profiles: commitment to initial decision, reiteration effect, and ownership bias. Experiment 1 examined whether groups in which members are not asked to make an initial decision before group discussion are more likely to uncover hidden profiles than groups in which members are asked to make an initial decision. Experiment 2 examined this commitment to an initial decision and also the repetition of information for individuals. Experiment 3 explored the reiteration effect in groups and examined whether information that is usually repeated more in groups is viewed as more truthful. Experiments 1 and 2 found no support for the commitment to initial decision hypothesis for uncovering hidden profiles. Experiment 2 found that repetition of `common'information significantly reduced individuals' ability to uncover hidden profiles. Experiment 3 found that information individuals owned (both common and unique) before discussion was rated as more valid than other information. Experiment 3 did not find that common information, which is generally repeated more, was rated as more valid than unique information. Limitations of the current studies and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alba, J. W., Chromiak, W., Hasher, L., & Attig, M. S. (1980). Automatic encoding of category size information . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 370-378 .
2.
Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vrendenburg, D. S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation, and the better- than-average effect . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 804-825 .
3.
Arkes, H. L. (1993). Some practical judgment and decision-making research. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 3-18). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
4.
Arkes, H. R., Boehm, L. E., & Xu G. (1991). Determinants of judged validity . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 576-605 .
5.
Arkes, H. R., Hackett, C., & Boehm L. (1989). The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity . Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 81-94 .
6.
Boehm, L. E. (1994). The validity effect: A search for mediating variables . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 285-293 .
7.
Chernyshenko, O. S., Miner, A. G., Baumann, M. R., & Sniezek, J. A. (2003). The impact of information distribution and group discussion on member judgment: The differential cue weighting model. Manuscript under review . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 12-25 .
8.
Clark, N. K., & Stephenson, G. M. (1989). Group remembering. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 357-391). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
9.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636 .
10.
Echabe, A. E., & Rovira, D. P. (1989). Social representations and memory: The case of AIDS . European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 543-551 .
11.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959-974 .
12.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition and decision-making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 1-15 .
13.
Hasher, L., & Chromiak, W. (1977). The processing of frequency information: An automatic mechanism? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 173-184 .
14.
Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107-112 .
15.
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1984). Automatic processing of fundamental information: The case of frequency of occurrence . American Psychologist, 39, 1372-1388 .
16.
Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment is memory-based or on-line . Psychological Review, 93, 258-268 .
17.
Hertwig, R., Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1997). The reiteration effect in hindsight bias . Psychological Behavior, 104, 194-202 .
18.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1996a). The rank-order effect in group decision making . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 181-193 .
19.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1996b). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media . Human Communication Research, 23, 193-219 .
20.
Julian, J. W., Regula, C. R., & Hollander, E. P. (1968). Effects of prior agreement by others on task confidence and conformity . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 171-178 .
21.
Karau, S. J. (1994). Group interaction and group decision making: The effects of time pressure, consensus, and awareness of common ground (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1994) . Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(9-B), 4966 .
22.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and the status quo bias . Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193-206 .
23.
Larson, J. R., Jr., Christensen, C., Abbott, A. S., & Franz, T. M. (1996). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 315-330 .
24.
Larson, J. R., Jr., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). The discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 446-461 .
25.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109 .
26.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag .
27.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918-930 .
28.
Savadori, L., Van Swol, L. M., & Sniezek, J. A. (2001). Information sampling and confidence within groups and judge advisor systems . Communication Research, 28, 737-771 .
29.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Luthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 655-669 .
30.
Sniezek, J. A. (1992). Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 124-155 .
31.
Stasser, G. (1988). Computer simulation as a research tool: The DISCUSS model of group decision making . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 393-422 .
32.
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426-434 .
33.
Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244-265 .
34.
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 .
35.
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 .
36.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during discussion . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81-93 .
37.
Staw, B. M. (1997.) The escalation of commitment: An update and appraisal. In Z. Shapira (Ed.), Organizational decision making. Cambridge series on judgment and decision making (pp. 191-215). New York: Cambridge University Press .
38.
Stewart, D. D., Billings, R. S., & Stasser, G. (1998). Accountability and the discussion of unshared, critical information in decision-making groups . Group Dynamics, 2, 18-23 .
39.
Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1974). The effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group induced shifts: A group problem solving approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 305-315 .
40.
Wittenbaum, G. M. (1998). Information sampling in decision-making groups: The impact of members' task relevant status . Small Group Research, 29, 57-84 .
41.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P., & Zuckerman, C. (1999). Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 967-978 .
42.
Wittenbaum, G. M., & Stasser, G. S. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What's social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
43.
Woehr, D. J., & Feldman, J. (1993). Processing objective and question order effects on the causal relation between memory and judgment in performance appraisal: the tip of the iceberg . Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 232-241 .
