Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making

Sniezek, Janet A.

doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90048-c

Cited by 229 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, confidence can be an important source of information (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006;Yaniv, 1997). Confidence and accuracy often co-vary (Sniezek, 1992) but the relationship can be weak (Deffenbacher, 1980;Kassin, 1985;Klayman, Soll, González-Vallejo, & Barlas, 1999;Shaw & McClure, 1996;Wells, Lindsay, & Ferguson, 1979;Wells, 1993) and sometimes they are uncorrelated (Brewer & Wells, 2006;Ekman & O'Sullivan, 1991).…”

Section: Confidence Accuracy and Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cheap Talk and Credibility: The Consequences of Confidence and Accuracy on Advisor Credibility and Persuasiveness

Sah

MacCoun

2011

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Confidence Accuracy and Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cheap Talk and Credibility: The Consequences of Confidence and Accuracy on Advisor Credibility and Persuasiveness

Sah

MacCoun

2011

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We recognize both shared consensus, where all group members participate in the decision process and converge towards a decision, and unshared consensus, where one or several dominant group members make the final decision (Conradt and Roper 2009). In the latter case, there may be an advisory process where group members discuss an item, but one or a few point persons make the actual decision (Sniezek 1992, Sniezek and Buckley 1995, Budescu and Rantilla 2000. One point person referred to it as having to "flex our muscle" over advisors when consensus is not reached.…”

Section: Decision Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Watkins¹,

Massey²,

Brooks³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Ecological restoration, particularly in urban contexts, is a complex collective decision-making process that involves a diversity of stakeholders and experts, each with their own perceptions and preferences about what landscapes should and can look like, how to get them to the desired state, and on what timeline. We investigate how structural and behavioral factors may influence collective decision making in the context of ecological restoration, with the purpose of establishing general relationships between management styles (defined by structural and behavioral factors of the organization) and decision outcomes. Informed by existing literature on collective decision making and by empirical data from the Chicago Wilderness region, we present a stylized agent-based model that maps out and simulates the processes by which individuals within restoration organizations communicate, discuss, and ultimately make a decision. Our study examines how structural and behavioral characteristicsincluding: (a) the number of actors and groups involved in decision making, (b) the frequency and type of interactions among actors, (c) the initial setup of positions and respect, (d) outside information, and (e) entrenchment and cost of dissent-lead to or prohibit group convergence in terms of collective position, variation in position across actors, and final decision strategies. We found that formal meetings and group leaders are important facilitators of convergence, especially when multiple groups are present, new information is introduced in the process, and participants are polarized around an issue. Also, intergroup interactions are particularly important for overall convergence. Position entrenchment slows the convergence process and increases the need for decision strategies involving outside intervention. Cost of dissent can reinforce these effects. Our study formalizes collective decision-making processes within the context of ecological restoration, establishes generalizable relationships between these processes and decision outcomes, and provides a foundation for further empirical and modeling research.

show abstract

“…Researchers have begun to consider that, much like individuals, groups process relevant and available information to perform intellectual tasks (Bazerman, Mannix, & Thompson, 1988;Chalos & Pickard, 1985;Hastie, 1986;Hinsz, Vollrath, Nagao, & Davis, 1988;Hirokawa, 1990;Larson & Christensen, 1993;Laughlin, VanderStoep, & Hollingshead, 1991;Levine, Resnick, & Higgins, 1993;McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994;Sniezek, 1992;Streufert & Nogami, 1992;Tindale, 1989;Vollrath et al, 1989;Von Cranach, Ochsenbein, & Valach, 1986;Wegner, 1987). This research has focused on the complex information processing associated with group performance of a variety of cognitive tasks (e.g., problem solving, judgment, inference, and decision making).…”

Section: Groups As Information Processorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This conflict of ideas is part of the rationale given for why organizations should use groups to perform cognitive tasks (e.g., boards, committees, and juries). Sniezek (1992) argued that the conflict inherent in the move from a diversity of opinion to a convergence of ideas can increase group performance quality by increasing the depth of information processing.…”

Section: Convergence-diversity Of Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors.

Hinsz

Tindale²,

Vollrath³

1997

Psychological Bulletin

1,176

1,136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A selective review of research highlights the emerging view of groups as information processors. In this review, the authors include research on processing objectives, attention, encoding, storage, retrieval, processing, response, feedback, and learning in small interacting task groups. The groups as information processors perspective underscores several characteristic dimensions of variability in group performance of cognitive tasks, namely, commonality-uniqueness of information, convergence-diversity of ideas, accentuation-attenuation of cognitive processes, and belongingnessdistinctiveness of members. A combination of contributions framework provides an additional conceptualization of information processing in groups. The authors also address implications, caveats, and questions for future research and theory regarding groups as information processors.In this information age, groups increasingly perform cognitive tasks (Galegher, Krant, & Egido, 1990;Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992;Walsh & Ungson, 1991;Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). The nature of small-group research has changed correspondingly (see Bettenhausen, 199 l;Guzzo & Shea, 1992;Levine & Moreland, 1990; and Moreland, Hogg, & Halns, 1994, for reviews) to emphasize intellectual and cognitive tasks (e.g., Hinsz, 1990;Sniezek & Henry, 1989;Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna, 1989;Tindale, 1989;and Vollrath, Sheppard, Hinsz, & Davis, 1989). This change resembles a paradigm shift (Ktthn, 1970), albeit not as dramatic, perhaps because no one paradigm dominates small-group performance research (McGrath, 1993). The emerging view of groups as information processors extends methodological and theoretical developments in cognitive psychology to research in small-group performance. In this article, we selectively review relevant research to highlight how taskperforming groups process information. Rather than advocate that small-group research ought to examine groups as information processors, we document how research has already moved in that direction. To integrate our review, we identify several important dimensions of information processing in groups and

show abstract

Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making

Cited by 229 publications

References 57 publications

Cheap Talk and Credibility: The Consequences of Confidence and Accuracy on Advisor Credibility and Persuasiveness

Cheap Talk and Credibility: The Consequences of Confidence and Accuracy on Advisor Credibility and Persuasiveness

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About