‘Social Sharedness’ as a Unifying Theme for Information Processing in Groups

Tindale, R. Scott; Kameda, Tatsuya

doi:10.1177/1368430200003002002

Cited by 188 publications

(180 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

165

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…knowledge that is known only to individual group members (for reviews see e.g. Mojzisch & Schulz-Hardt, 2006;Stasser & Birchmeier, 2003;Tindale & Kameda, 2000;Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004). As a consequence of this information pooling bias, groups consistently fail to detect the optimal solution in exactly those situations where they would have the greatest advantage over individual decision makers: hidden profiles.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative problem-solving with distributed information: The role of inferences from interdependent information

Deiglmayr

Spada

2010

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

President of the German Society of Psychology. His main fields of research include technology supported individual and collaborative problem-solving and learning, computer-mediated communication, cognitive psychology, and environmental psychology. Inferences from distributed information in group problem-solving COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING WITH DISTRIBUTED INFORMATION: THE ROLE OF INFERENCES FROM INTERDEPENDENT INFORMATIONWe study inferences from distributed, interdependent information in group problemsolving. Three inference types (collaborative, individual, and shared) are distinguished based on information sharedness and distribution, with a special focus on collaborative inferences that generate new information no individual group member could have inferred. In an experiment, n=27 dyads solved a specifically designed inference task. Inferences from shared information were the most likely, individual inferences from unshared information less likely, and collaborative inferences from unshared, distributed information the least likely to be drawn. An analysis of inference patterns in dyads' discussions points towards the individual-and grouplevel processes involved in drawing collaborative inferences, and explains why first support measures explored in this study were not optimally designed.KEYWORDS group problem-solving; group decision-making; distributed information; inferences Inferences from distributed information in group problem-solving In our increasingly specialized world, complex problems are usually tackled by groups of persons from diverse knowledge backgrounds. In such groups, the information, ideas, perspectives, and expertise relevant for solving a joint problem are thus distributed across group members. When groups pool and integrate their members' knowledge efficiently, substantial synergies may be reached (e.g. Brodbeck, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, & Schulz-Hardt, 2007;Stasser & Birchmeier, 2003). However, starting with the seminal work by Stasser & Titus (1985), a large body of research on decision making in small groups has demonstrated that groups focus on shared information, i.e. knowledge that is known to all members from the start, and neglect unshared information, i.e. knowledge that is known only to individual group members (for reviews see e.g. Mojzisch & Schulz-Hardt, 2006;Stasser & Birchmeier, 2003;Tindale & Kameda, 2000;Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004). As a consequence of this information pooling bias, groups consistently fail to detect the optimal solution in exactly those situations where they would have the greatest advantage over individual decision makers: hidden profiles. In a hidden profile, solution-relevant information is distributed in such a way that individual group members are led to prefer a suboptimal solution alternative, while only the combined information reveals the optimal solution (e.g. Stasser & Titus, 1985).In a hidden profile, each information item is known by at least one group member, and the main challenge faced by the group is to overcome members ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative problem-solving with distributed information: The role of inferences from interdependent information

Deiglmayr

Spada

2010

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is strong theoretical agreement that shared meanings in groups come from group communication and interaction (Allard-Poesi, 1998;Goodwin & Fiske, 1994;Higgins, 1992;Krauss & Fussell, 1991;Tindale & Kameda, 2000). However, little empirical work has been done to identify more precisely what aspects of the interaction prove to be influential in the development of shared cognition.…”

Section: Group Communication and Shared Mental Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To cite some examples, a study by Brauner (as cited in Tindale & Kameda, 2000), found that two groups with dissimilar mental models about their experimental task at the beginning of the project came to reach a large degree of convergence in their thinking 22 about the task after two group discussion sessions. Hastie and Pennington (1991) examined jurors' deliberation patterns and found that in evidence driven deliberation, jurors use group discussion to reveal differences in conclusions reached about the case and to "attempt to influence one another to reach consensus on a single group story of what happened" (p. 315).…”

Section: Group Communication and Shared Mental Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rentsch and Klimoski (2001) found some support for education similarity, position level similarity, team size, and previous experience with teams as antecedents to similar mental models (they use the term schema similarity). Most of the 3 theoretical treatment on shared mental models suggests rather in passing that it is through group communication and interaction that shared mental models are developed (AllardPoesi, 1998;Higgins, 1992;Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994;Rentsch & Hall, 1994;Tindale & Kameda, 2000). None, however, has explored what it is about how a group communicates that enables shared mental models to develop.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of group interaction on shared cognition: An analysis of small group communication

Matteson¹

2010

Advances in Library Administration and Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emerita, College of Information StudiesFlowing from research that shows that shared mental models have a significant impact on team performance, this research investigated how small group communication influences the development of shared mental models in a committee of public librarians addressing a problem-solving task. It is a qualitative research study that examines the influence of communication theme, function, role, channel, and rule, on the group!s development of shared mental models about their task and about their team interaction.Over a period of a year, data were collected from the group's meetings, email messages, group documents, and interviews with each participant. The data were analyzed using several existing coding schemes and qualitative coding. The data indicate that within the group there was a strong superficial convergence around the task mental model and the team interaction mental model but a weaker convergence at a deeper level. iii Acknowledgments Special thanks to the members of the Accountability Group who welcomed me with great warmth and respect, and to the Library Director, for inviting me in to the organization. Thanks also to the administrators from other organizations who enthusiastically volunteered their groups to participate. Your commitment to research is much appreciated.My grateful thanks go to my advisor, Dr. Marilyn Domas White, and to the members of my committee, Dr. Vedat Diker, Dr. Ping Wang, Dr. Ann Carlson Weeks, and Dr.Andrew Wolvin. Thank you for your encouragement, patience, and feedback.To my colleagues at Kent State University, particularly Dr. Richard Rubin, Dr.Carolyn Brodie, Dr. Belinda Boon, Ms. Camille Smith, and Ms. Tiffany Wang-thanks for your kind words and unwavering support this year.I wish to thank several faculty members who helped me in various ways through the program: Dr. Claude Walston, my first advisor; Dr. Delia Neuman, for introducing me to qualitative research methods; Dr. Eileen Abels, who mentored me and provided me the opportunity to work on a sponsored research project; and Dr. Douglas Oard for providing me funding and a unique opportunity to understand research from behind the scenes. And to my husband, Héctor García-no tengo palabras suficientes para decir cómo agradecida estoy por ti. Nunca haber pudiera terminado este programa sin tu apoyo, humor, inteligencia, ayuda, y más que todo, tu amor. Ahora comenzamos el resto de nuestra bella vida.v Table of List of Tables 221-222).This belief has lead to a growing body of literature aimed both toward further theoretical development (content, form, and function of shared mental models) and to empirical testing of the outcomes and consequences of shared mental models. Research exploring the antecedents to and formation of shared mental models has received less attention. Rentsch and Klimoski (2001) found some support for education similarity, position level similarity, team size, and previous experience with teams as antecedents to similar mental models (they use the term schema similarity)...

show abstract

“…Information processing in collaborative learning settings is characterized by active and conscious sharing (i.e., retrieving and explicating information), discussing (i.e., encoding and elaborating the information), and remembering (i.e., personalizing and storing the information) of valuable task-relevant information and knowledge held by each group member (Hinsz et al 1997;Tindale and Kameda 2000;Tindale and Sheffey 2002). According to the evolutionary perspective of CLT on human cognitive architecture, humans have evolved to communicate with each other and obtain most of their information from each other.…”

Section: Applying Cognitive Load Theory To Collaborative Learning: Admentioning

confidence: 99%

Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional research on collaborative learning employs a "black box" approach that makes it difficult to gain a deeper understanding of the differential effects of collaborative learning. To make the black box transparent, researchers have studied the process of collaboration, in order to establish which interaction features are likely to make learning more effective and efficient for group members. Although cognitive load theory has been developed in the context of individual learning situations, it may provide a promising new way of looking inside the black box, assuming that students working in groups have more processing capacity than students working individually. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the process-oriented and cognitive-load approaches to conducting collaborative learning research, to highlight their respective advantages and disadvantages, and to suggest how they can be combined in order to address new research questions.

show abstract

‘Social Sharedness’ as a Unifying Theme for Information Processing in Groups

Cited by 188 publications

References 61 publications

Collaborative problem-solving with distributed information: The role of inferences from interdependent information

Collaborative problem-solving with distributed information: The role of inferences from interdependent information

The impact of group interaction on shared cognition: An analysis of small group communication

Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About