Naïve Groups Can Solve the Hidden-Profile Problem

Reimer, Torsten; Reimer, Andrea; Hinsz, Verlin B.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01383.x

Cited by 40 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, group members in our study had to indicate their preference prior to the group discussion. Although this is common practice in HP studies and allowed us to check that participants actually preferred a suboptimal alternative prior to HP discussions, recent research has found that providing pre‐discussion preferences can have a detrimental effect on the decision quality (Reimer, Reimer, & Hinsz, ). In the present research, implementation intention groups managed to solve HP problems despite indicating their pre‐discussion preferences.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Self‐regulation Perspective on Hidden‐profile Problems: If–Then Planning to Review Information Improves Group Decisions

Thürmer

Wieber

Gollwitzer

2014

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In hidden‐profile (HP) problems, groups squander their potential to make superior decisions because members fail to capitalize on each other's unique knowledge (unshared information). A new self‐regulation perspective suggests that hindrances in goal striving (e.g., failing to seize action opportunities) contribute to this problem. Implementation intentions (if–then plans) are known to help deal with hindrances in goal striving; therefore, supporting decision goals with if–then plans should improve the impact of unshared information on group decisions. Indeed, in line with past research, control participants in two experiments rarely identified the best alternative despite monetary incentives and setting decision goals. In contrast, simply adding if–then plans to review advantages of the non‐preferred alternatives before making the final decision significantly increased solution rates. Process manipulations (Experiment 1) and measures (Experiment 2) indicate that conceptualizing HP problems as a self‐regulation challenge provides explanatory power beyond existing accounts. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Self‐regulation Perspective on Hidden‐profile Problems: If–Then Planning to Review Information Improves Group Decisions

Thürmer

Wieber

Gollwitzer

2014

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This result is of great practical importance, given the often observed difficulty that groups face when pooling and integrating many pieces of information (Reimer, Reimer, & Czienskowski, 2010;Reimer, Reimer, & Hinsz, 2010;Stasser & Titus, 2003;Tindale & Sheffey, 2002;Winquist & Larson, 1998). It implies that the performance of a group is not necessarily raised only by increasing the quantity of information exchanged, which was the goal of much previous research (e.g., Frey, SchulzHardt, & Stahlberg, 1996;Larson et al, 1994;Parks & Cowlin, 1996;Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna, 1989;Wittenbaum & Stasser, 1996; for a discussion see Reimer & Hoffrage, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The Adaptive Use of Recognition in Group Decision Making

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Applying the framework of ecological rationality, the authors studied the adaptivity of group decision making. In detail, they investigated whether groups apply decision strategies conditional on their composition in terms of task-relevant features. The authors focused on the recognition heuristic, so the task-relevant features were the validity of the group members' recognition and knowledge, which influenced the potential performance of group strategies. Forty-three threemember groups performed an inference task in which they had to infer which of two German companies had the higher market capitalization. Results based on the choice data support the hypothesis that groups adaptively apply the strategy that leads to the highest theoretically achievable performance. Time constraints had no effect on strategy use but did have an effect on the proportions of different types of arguments. Possible mechanisms underlying the adaptive use of recognition in group decision making are discussed.

show abstract

“…Various attempts have been made to provide theoretical explanations for the bias in group information processing, including information sampling, social cost, mutual enhancement, preference-based evaluation, and structure (cf., [8,9,18]). …”

Section: The Hidden Profile Modelmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For example, research on naïve groups done by Reimer et al [18] focused on the manner and timing of information distribution. They pointed out that memory versus access, common versus unique cues, and naïve versus predecided groups may be three major factors of the bias in group information processing.…”

Section: The Hidden Profile Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivated Information Processing in Groups: A Design of a Computational Model

Choi

2012

2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to group research, group members often fail to consider critical unique information in a group decision-making setting because of their motivated information-processing behavior. Given the complexity of experimental designs to investigate the problem, agent-based modeling can provide hypotheses that can work as theoretical guidance for future research. The purpose of this paper is to identify human motivations and biases in group information processing relevant to modeling the group decision-making process, and to develop a conceptual framework of a computational model. In this paper, we reviewed the group informationprocessing literature to identify commonly observed human motivations and biases in information processing. Specifically, we provided an integrated framework by combining the hidden profile model, the motivated information-processing model, and the information asymmetries model. Finally, we provided a design of agents for future modeling of group processes, which uses empirical findings from the literature as the fundamental assumptions about agent behavior.

show abstract

Naïve Groups Can Solve the Hidden-Profile Problem

Cited by 40 publications

References 56 publications

A Self‐regulation Perspective on Hidden‐profile Problems: If–Then Planning to Review Information Improves Group Decisions

A Self‐regulation Perspective on Hidden‐profile Problems: If–Then Planning to Review Information Improves Group Decisions

The Adaptive Use of Recognition in Group Decision Making

Motivated Information Processing in Groups: A Design of a Computational Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About