Recognition and utilization of expertise in problem-solving groups: Expert characteristics and behavior.

Littlepage, Glenn E.; Mueller, Amy L.

doi:10.1037/1089-2699.1.4.324

Cited by 72 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The explanation based on the recognition of an expert is also hard to reconcile with the presence and importance of such conflicts. One could even argue that the opposite in fact happens: a person is recognised as an expert because she uses good arguments-so participants must use reasoning to discern good arguments in the first place (see Littlepage & Mueller, 1997 for evidence in that direction).…”

Section: Abstract Vs Argumentative Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intuitive and reflective inferences

Mercier¹,

Sperber²

2009

In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much evidence has accumulated in favor of such a dual view of reasoning (Evans, 2003, in press; for arguments against, see Osman, 2004). There is however some vagueness in the way the two systems are characterized. Instead of a principled distinction, we are presented with a bundle of contrasting featuresslow/fast, automatic/controlled, explicit/implicit, associationist/rule based, modular/central -that, depending on the specific dual process theory, are attributed more or less exclusively to one of the two systems. As Evans states in a recent review, "it would then be helpful to have some clear basis for this distinction"; he also suggests that "we might be better off talking about type 1 and type 2 processes" rather than systems (Evans, in press). We share the intuitions that drove the development of dual system theories. Our goal here is to propose in the same spirit a principled distinction between two types of inferences: 'intuitive inference' and 'reflective inference' (or reasoning proper). We ground this distinction in a massively modular view of the human mind where metarepresentational modules play an important role in explaining the peculiarities of human psychological evolution. We defend the hypothesis that the main function of reflective inference is to produce and evaluate arguments occurring in interpersonal communication (rather than to help individual ratiocination). This function, we claim, helps explain important aspects of reasoning. We review some of the existing evidence and argue that it gives support to this approach. Disciplines Cognition and Perception | Philosophy of Mind | Social Psychology | Theory and PhilosophyThis book chapter is available at

show abstract

Section: Abstract Vs Argumentative Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intuitive and reflective inferences

Mercier¹,

Sperber²

2009

In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individuals who are confident may appear socially skilled by acting more engaged, speaking more often, and participating actively. Communication is a key aspect of social skill (Hall, 1979;Riggio, 1986) and individuals who communicate more are often seen as more skilled (Breland & Jones, 1984;Littlepage & Mueller, 1997;Littlepage, Schmidt, Whisler, & Frost, 1995). Consequently, these individuals receive attributions of greater leadership ability (Mullen, Salas, & Driskell, 1989;Sorrentino & Boutillier, 1975;Sorrentino & Field, 1986).…”

Section: The Case Against Punitivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence

Kennedy

Anderson

Moore

2013

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

134

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Team members with low language proficiency or a tendency to withhold opinions at meetings also need to realize that if they do not speak up, they will be seen as less competent, which can have adverse career implications (Littlepage & Mueller, 1997). In order to contribute more during team meetings, members with low language proficiency may contribute more actively though other channels, such as one-on-one discussions, emails, reports, and presentations (Baltes et al, 2002).…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Talk and Let Talk: The Effects of Language Proficiency on Speaking Up and Competence Perceptions in Multinational Teams

Yuan

Bazarova

et al. 2018

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration within multinational teams necessitates the adoption of a common language, typically English, which often leads to significant differences in language proficiency across members. We develop and test a multilevel model of the effects of language proficiency within multinational teams. An experimental study of 51 teams (102 American and 102 Chinese participants) revealed that, at the individual level, members with higher levels of language proficiency were more likely to speak up, which led to more positive perceptions of their competence. At the team level, greater dispersion in language proficiency across members was associated with less accurate competence recognition, which, in turn, led to lower overall team performance. Moreover, communication medium moderated these relationships, such that the effects of language proficiency were more potent in face-to-face than in computer-mediated teams. We discuss the implications of these findings for future research and for managing participation, competence, and technology in multinational teams. typically English, which often leads to significant differences in language proficiency across members. We develop and test a multilevel model of the effects of language proficiency within multinational teams. An experimental study of 51 teams (102 American and 102 Chinese participants) revealed that, at the individual level, members with higher levels of language proficiency were more likely to speak up, which led to more positive perceptions of their competence. At the team level, greater dispersion in language proficiency across members was associated with less accurate competence recognition, which, in turn, led to lower overall team performance. Moreover, communication medium moderated these relationships, such that the effects of language proficiency were more potent in face-to-face than in computer-mediated teams. We discuss the implications of these findings for future research and for managing participation, competence, and technology in multinational teams.Keywords: team; language proficiency; speaking up; competence perception; computer-mediated communication 3Talk and Let Talk: The Effects of Language Proficiency on Speaking up and Competence Perceptions in Multinational TeamsMultinational teams are becoming an increasingly prevalent and important part of the global economy (Kozlowski & Bell, 2013). These teams, often enabled by technology, allow organizations to bring together the diverse capabilities needed to accomplish a variety of critical tasks (Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007;Wilson & Doz, 2012). Although multinational teams offer numerous benefits, they also face some significant challenges. In particular, the different national languages spoken by team members can create barriers to effective communication and decision making (Harzing, Köster, & Magner, 2011). Multinational teams typically adopt a common language, most often English, which can lead to significant differences in language proficiency between native and non-native speake...

show abstract

Recognition and utilization of expertise in problem-solving groups: Expert characteristics and behavior.

Cited by 72 publications

References 13 publications

Intuitive and reflective inferences

Intuitive and reflective inferences

When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence

Talk and Let Talk: The Effects of Language Proficiency on Speaking Up and Competence Perceptions in Multinational Teams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About