Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions.

Abstract

Common explanations for the failure of groups to solve so-called hidden profiles focus on group processes, namely insufficient discussion of unshared information and premature consensus on a suboptimal alternative. As 2 experiments show, even in the absence of such group processes, hidden profiles are hardly ever solved. In Experiment 1, participants first received individual information about a personnel selection task and then read a group discussion protocol containing full information exchange. If the individual information was misleading (hidden profile), most participants failed to detect the correct alternative. In Experiment 2, it was determined that this effect is due to preference-consistent evaluation of information that constitutes an individual-level process mediating the failure of group members to solve hidden profiles.

Social validation in group decision-making: Differential effects on the decisional impact of preference-consistent and preference-inconsistent information

“…The findings of our study also tie in with results from Greitemeyer and Schulz-Hardt (2003) who found that individuals tend to stick to their initial decision because they judge preference-consistent information to be more compelling than preference-inconsistent information. In our opinion, the processes outlined in the two studies complement each other.…”

“…Kerschreiter, Schulz-Hardt, Faulmüller, Mojzisch, & Frey, 2008). Thus, instead of showing effects of social validation, the results of these studies might be due to the fact that individuals evaluate preference-consistent information more favorably than preference-inconsistent information and, hence, accord less weight to preference-inconsistent information -a causal chain that has been shown by Greitemeyer and Schulz-Hardt (2003).…”

“…Obviously, such a situation is hard to realize in a real group experiment without introducing rather artificial constraints. Hence, in Experiments 1 and 2 we used a paradigm similar to the one used by Greitemeyer and Schulz-Hardt (2003;see also Cruz, Henningsen, & Williams, 2000).…”

“…Usually, information quality has positive values because preference-consistent information is judged to be of higher quality than preference-inconsistent information (e.g., Greitemeyer & Schulz-Hardt, 2003). However, social validation of preference-inconsistent information should decrease this difference or even change the sign by increasing the perceived quality of preference-inconsistent information.…”

Cognición de grupo y cognición de enjambre en la solución del problema del agente viajero

“…Se ha encontrado que estos se centran en analizar y sopesar sus acciones con base en la información compartida a expensas de la información no compartida, lo que puede potenciar o hacer decaer su rendimiento de acuerdo con el tipo de información (Greitemeyer & Schulz-Hardt, 2003;Kameda, Takezawa, Tindale & Smith, 2002).…”