No abstract

Several hypotheses derived from an information sampling model of group discussion were tested with 3-person teams of physicians given 2 hypothetical medical cases to diagnose. Some of the information about each case was given to all 3 team members before discussion (shared information), whereas the rest was divided among them (unshared information). As predicted, shared information was, overall, more likely to be discussed than unshared information, and it was brought into discussion earlier. In addition, it was found that team leaders repeated substantially more case information than did other members and that, over time, they repeated unshared information at a steadily increasing rate. The latter findings are interpreted as evidence of leaders' information management role in problem-solving discussions.

In this paper we take the position that cognition can be meaningfully understood at the group level of analysis. We refer to group-level cognitive activity as social cognition, a term that we apply collectively to those social processes involved in the acquisition, storage, transmission, manipulation and use of information for the purpose of creating a group-level intellective product. In this context, the word 'social' is used to denote how cognition is accomplished, not its content. It is proposed that at least some social cognition occucs in every kind of group problem-solving situation, though the amount and type depends on the specific problem-solving functions that need to be addressed in order to reach a problem solution. We examine a number of these functions, and consider how they are served by various group member actions. This analysis is informed (though not determined) by certain functional analogies that can be found between individual-level and group-level (i.e. social) cognition. The benefits of adopting a functional orientation to understanding group problem solving are discussed.

The impact of group discussion on the decision-making effectiveness of medical teams was examined. Three-person teams of physicians diagnosed 2 hypothetical medical cases. Some of the information about each case was given to all team members prior to discussion (shared information), whereas the rest was divided among them (unshared information). Compared with unshared information, shared information was more likely to be pooled during discussion and was pooled earlier. In addition, team leaders were consistently more likely than other members to ask questions and to repeat shared information and, over time, also became more likely than others to repeat unshared information. Finally, pooling unshared (but not shared) information improved the overall accuracy of the team diagnoses, whereas repeating both shared and unshared information affected bias (but not accuracy) in the diagnoses.

No abstract