Groups tend to discuss and repeat information known by all members (shared) more than they do. information known by one member (unshared). One factor that may influence this effect is the tendency for members to positively evaluate one another when mentioning shared information. Three experiments demonstrated this "mutual enhancement" effect. Experiment 1 showed that mutual enhancement was related to participants' and their partners' exchanging the same pieces of information. Experiment 2 illustrated that mutual enhancement was not related to the extent that participants liked partners or saw them as having similar opinions. Experiment 3 showed mutual enhancement in face-to-face dyads that discussed shared information. A combined analysis across the 3 experiments showed the robustness of mutual enhancement. Implications of mutual enhancement for group discussion are considered.Small-group discussion has the potential to inform group members of information that they previously did not know, as each group member likely knows some information that other members do not. Whereas this is most obvious in groups with members of diverse backgrounds and expertise, even homogeneous groups rarely have members with identical knowledge. Conversational norms, which dictate that communicators be informative and avoid telling others information that the others already know (Grice, 1989), seem to push group members toward sharing novel information during discussion. Moreover, if members share their unique knowledge with each other, their enlightenment could lead to better group decisions (Stasser, 1992;Wittenbaum & Stasser, 1996). With this considered, it is surprising that group members do not effectively pool their unique knowledge. Instead, they tend to discuss information that all members know (shared information) at the expense of discussing information that one member uniquely knows (unshared information; see, e.g.,

No abstract

Occupational noise-induced hearing loss is the second most self-reported occupational illness or injury in the United States. Among coal miners, more than 90% of the population reports a hearing deficit by age 55. In this formative evaluation, focus groups were conducted with coal miners in Appalachia to ascertain whether miners perceive hearing loss as a major health risk and if so, what would motivate the consistent wearing of hearing protection devices (HPDs). The theoretical framework of the Extended Parallel Process Model was used to identify the miners' knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and current behaviors regarding hearing protection. Focus group participants had strong perceived severity and varying levels of perceived susceptibility to hearing loss. Various barriers significantly reduced the self-efficacy and the response efficacy of using hearing protection.

A theoretically based formative evaluation was conducted with coal miners in the Appalachian Mountains who were at high risk for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). The results of four focus groups indicate that despite high levels of knowledge, strong perceived severity of negative consequences, and strong perceived susceptibility to hearing loss, two main categories of barriers (environmental and individual) keep coal miners from using their hearing protection devices (HPD). Further analysis suggests that the environmental factors, rather than individual variables, more strongly influence decisions against protective actions. Recommendations and practical implications are offered.

Two studies examined the effects of initial nonconscious affective responses on subsequent evaluations made by conversational participants and observers. Participants either first engaged in a subliminal priming task to induce a positive or negative affective response toward a confederate or were in a control (no priming) condition. After the priming task, participants either engaged in an interaction with the confederate or watched the interaction on videotape and then evaluated the confederate. The confederate used an uninvolved interaction style in Study 1 (N = 240) and a more involved style in Study 2 (N = 180). Results for conversational participants suggest that the nonconscious negative prime made the involved interaction seem more positive and the uninvolved interaction seem more negative. As predicted, results were stronger for participants than for observers and were stronger for negative rather than positive nonconscious affect.