Individuals often underutilize the advice they receive from others, a phenomenon known as egocentric advice discounting. Recent research suggests that this tendency may be even stronger in groups (Minson & Mueller, 2012; Schultze, Mojzisch, & Schulz-Hardt, 2019). Using a quantity estimation task, we tested five hypotheses about advice taking by groups and individuals. Chief among these is that groups will discount advice more than individuals do when they have reached consensus on the quantity in question prior to receiving that advice, but will discount it less than individuals do when, in addition to being prevented from reaching consensus beforehand, their members initially have rather different opinions about that quantity. We also tested the hypothesis that advice received from groups will be discounted less than advice received from individuals. Individuals and two-person teams received advice on 15 general knowledge questions that each called for a percentage response. Half of the teams were required to reach an initial consensus judgment before receiving that advice, while the rest were prevented from doing so. Study results support most of our hypotheses, and are discussed in terms of the motivated cognitive closure likely induced by pre-advice consensus seeking in groups.
BednarikP.SchultzeT. (2015). The effectiveness of imperfect weighting in advice taking. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 265–276. Retrieved from http://journal.sjdm.org/14/14731/h2.html
2.
BonaccioS.DalalR. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision making: An integrative literature review and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 127–151. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001
3.
BudescuD. V.RantillaA. K. (2000). Confidence in aggregation of expert opinions. Acta Psychologica, 104, 371–298. doi:10.1016/S0001–6918(00)00037–8
4.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
5.
ChaikenS.StangorC. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575–630. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.003043
6.
Gheondea-EladiA. (2016). The evolution of certainty in a small decision-making group by consensus. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25, 127–155. doi:10.1007/s10726–015–9436–8
7.
HarkinsS. GPettyR. E. (1987). Information utility and the multiple source effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 260–268. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.52.2.260
8.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028
9.
HogarthR. M. (1978). A note on aggregating opinions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 40–46. doi:10.1016/0030–5073(78)90037–5
KamedaT.TindaleR. S. (2004). Evolutionary/adaptive thinking as a meta-theory for systematic group research: An extended ‘fungus-eater’ approach. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 299–304. doi:10.1177/1368430204046139
13.
KamedaT.TindaleR. S. (2006). Groups as adaptive devices: Human docility and group aggregation mechanisms in evolutionary context. In SchallerM.SimpsonJ. A.KenrickD. T. (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 317–342). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
14.
KerrN. L.TindaleR. S. (2004). Small group decision making and performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–656. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009
15.
KoriatA. (2015). When two heads are better than one and when they can be worse: The amplification hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 934–950. doi:10.1037/xge0000092
16.
KruegerJ. L. (2003). Return of the ego – Self-referent information as a filter for social prediction: Comment on Karniol (2003). Psychological Review, 110, 585–590. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.585
17.
KruglanskiA. W. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. In HigginsE. T.SorrentinoR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (vol. 2, pp. 333–368). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
18.
KruglanskiA. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
19.
KruglanskiA. W.FishmanS. (2009). The need for cognitive closure. In LearyM. R.HoyleR. H. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 343–353). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
KruglanskiA. W.OrehekE.DechesneM.PierroA. (2010). Lay epistemic theory: Motivational, cognitive, and social aspects of knowledge formation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 939–950. doi:10.1111/j.1751–9004.2010.00308.x
21.
KruglanskiA. W.PierroA.MannettiL.De GradaE. (2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review, 113, 84–100. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.113.1.84
22.
KruglanskiA. W.WebsterD. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.”Psychological Review, 103, 263–283. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.103.2.263
23.
LarrickR. P.MannesA. E.SollJ. B. (2012). The social psychology of the wisdom of crowds. In KruegerJ. I. (Ed.), Social judgment and decision making (pp. 227–242). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
24.
LarrickR. P.SollJ. B. (2006). Intuitions about combining opinions: Misappreciation of the averaging principle. Management Science, 52, 111–127. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0459
25.
LarsonJ. R.Jr. (2010). In search of synergy in small group performance. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
26.
MannesA. E. (2009). Are we wise about the wisdom of crowds? The use of group judgments in belief revision. Management Science, 55, 1267–1279. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1090.1031
27.
MinsonJ. A.MuellerJ. S. (2012). The cost of collaboration: Why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information. Psychological Science, 23, 219–224. doi:10.1177/0956797611429132
28.
MinsonJ. A.MuellerJ. S.LarrickR. P. (2018). The Contingent wisdom of dyads: When discussion enhances vs. undermines the accuracy of collaborative judgments. Management Science, 64, 4177–4192. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2823
29.
PuncocharJ. M.FoxP. W. (2004). Confidence in individual and group decision making: When “two heads” are worse than one. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 582–591. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.96.3.582
30.
RoetsA.KruglanskiA. W.KossowskaM.PierroA.HongY-Y. (2015). The motivated gatekeeper of our minds: New directions in need for closure theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 221–283. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.001
31.
SalancikG. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In StawB. M.SalancikG. R. (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 1–54), Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press.
32.
SchallerM.SimpsonJ. A.KenrickD. T. (Eds.) (2006). Evolution and social psychology. Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.
33.
SchuldtJ. P.ChabrisC. F.WoolleyA. W.HackmanJ. R. (2017). Confidence in dyadic decision making: The role of individual differences. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 168–180. doi:10.1002/bdm.1927
34.
SchultzeT.MojzischA.Schulz-HardtS. (2013). Groups weight outside information less than individuals do because they should: Response to Minson and Mueller (2012). Psychological Science, 24, 1373–1374. doi:10.1177/0956797612472206
35.
SchultzeT.MojzischA.Schulz-HardtS. (2019). Why dyads heed advice less than individuals do. Judgment and Decision Making, 14, 349–363. Retrieved from http://journal.sjdm.org/18/181106/jdm181106.html
36.
SniezekJ. A. (1990). A comparison of techniques for judgmental forecasting by groups with common information. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 5–19. doi:10.1177/105960119001500102
37.
SniezekJ. A. (1992). Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 124–155. doi:10.1016/0749–5978(92)90048-C
38.
SniezekJ. A.BuckleyT. (1995). Cueing and cognitive conflict in Judge-Advisor decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 159–174. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1040
39.
SollJ. B.LarrickR. P. (2009). Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 780–805. doi:10.1037/a0015145
40.
SollJ. B.MannesA. E. (2011). Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved. International Journal of Forecasting, 27, 81–102. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.003
41.
StasserG.DavisJ. H. (1977). Opinion change during group discussion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 252–256. doi:10.1177/014616727700300220
42.
StasserG.DavisJ. H. (1981). Group decision-making and social influence—A social interaction sequence model. Psychological Review, 88, 523–551. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.88.6.523
43.
SunsteinC.HastieR. (2015). Wiser: Getting beyond groupthink to make groups smarter. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
44.
TindaleR. S. (1989). Group vs. individual information processing: The effects of outcome feedback on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 454–473. doi:10.1016/0749–5978(89)90019–8
45.
TindaleR. S.KamedaT.HinszV. B. (2003). Group decision making. In CooperJ.HoggM. (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 381–403). London: SAGE.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
48.
Van SwolL. M.PaikJ. E.PrahlA. (2018). Advice recipients: The psychology of advice utilization. In MacGeorgeE. L.Van SwolL. M. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of advice (pp. 21–41). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
49.
WanzelS. K.SchultzeT.Schulz-HardtS. (2017). Disentangling the effects of advisor consensus and advice proximity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1669–1675. doi:10.1037/xlm0000396
50.
WebsterD. M.KruglanskiA. W. (1994). Individual differences in the need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1122–1131. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.67.6.1049
51.
WilderD. A. (1977). Perception of groups, size of opposition, and social influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 253–268. doi:10.1016/0022–1031(77)90047–6
52.
YanivI. (2004). Receiving other people’s advice: Influence and benefits. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.08.002
53.
YanivI.Choshen-HillelS. (2012). Exploiting the wisdom of others to make better decisions: Suspending judgment reduces egocentrism and increases accuracy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 427–434. doi:10.1002/bdm.740
54.
YanivI.Choshen-HillelS.MilyavskyM. (2009). Spurious consensus and opinion revision: Why might people be more confident in their less accurate judgments?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 558–563. doi:10.1037/a0014589
55.
YanivI.MilyavskyM. (2007). Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 104–120. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.006
56.
ZarnothP.SniezekJ. A. (1997). The social influence of confidence in group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 345–366. doi:10.1006/jesp.1997.1326
57.
ZimmermanD. W. (1997). A note on interpretation of the paired-samples t-test. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 349–360. doi:10.2307/1165289
