Mental simulation and the individual preference effect

Abstract

PurposeThe “Individual Preference Effect” (IPE: Faulmüller et al., 2010; Greitemeyer and Schulz-Hardt, 2003; Greitemeyer et al., 2003), a form of confirmation bias, is an important barrier to achieving improved group decision-making outcomes in hidden profile tasks. Group members remain committed to their individual preferences and are unable to disconfirm their initial suboptimal selection decisions, even when presented with full information enabling them to correct them, and even if the accompanying group processes are perfectly conducted. This paper examines whether a mental simulation can overcome the IPE.Design/methodology/approachTwo experimental studies examine the effect of a mental simulation intervention in attenuating the IPE and improving decision quality in an online individual hidden profile task.FindingsIndividuals undertaking a mental simulation achieved higher decision quality than those in a control condition and experienced a greater reduction in confidence in the suboptimal solution.Research limitations/implicationsResults suggest a role for mental simulation in overcoming the IPE. The test environment is an online individual decision-making task, and broader application to group decision-making is not tested.Practical implicationsSince mental simulation is something we all do, it should easily generalise to an organisational setting to improve decision outcomes.Originality/valueTo the authors' knowledge, no study has examined whether mental simulation can attenuate the IPE.

Gender, hidden profiles, and the individual preference effect

“…All studies used a specially designed and tested online HP paradigm as noted (Nicholson et al., 2020).…”

“…The experiment was delivered online in a tool designed to induce the IPE (Nicholson et al., 2020). The survey software randomly allocated participants to condition, who then provided informed consent within the software and completed the items in their own time, in any location with Internet access.…”

“…On the other hand, decision‐making training and the introduction of artificial dissent improved information sharing, but not decision‐making outcomes (Greitemeyer et al., 2006; Larson et al., 1994). Forced rank‐ordering of the alternatives (e.g., Hollingshead, 1996), and interventions founded on counterfactual thinking and mental simulation were successful in improving both information sharing and decision‐making outcomes (Galinsky & Kray, 2004; Nicholson et al., 2020, 2021). Overall, however, the task's stubbornness to attempted solutions and interventions means that the HP and the IPE remain an important area of decision‐making research.…”