What if my colleague was wrong and I was right? The impact of counterfactual mindsets and interpersonal focus on written communication and decision making in a hidden profile task

Ditrich, Lara; Landkammer, Florian; Sassenberg, Kai

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.11.003

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When flexibility is applied to one's own thoughts, it can rule out biases that result from spontaneous processing, because considering alternatives in this case means deviating from one's own initial opinion. However, when flexibility is applied to another person with an opposing opinion, it can even increase bias, because considering alternatives in this case means deviating from the other person's opinion and, thus, sticking with one's own initial view (Ditrich et al, 2019). To test this idea, we conducted a study in which counterfactuals were generated with an interpersonal focus, that is participants imagined themselves to be the protagonist in a scenario and asked to note down thoughts the interaction partner in the scenario could have.…”

Section: Flexibility Mindsets Debias Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As usual, there remain some open questions, two of which we would like to discuss in the remainder of this article. First, the study by Ditrich et al (2019) summarised in the decision-making section showed that flexibility mindsets do not only have the potential to rule out, but also to increase biased decision-making. While this study suggests mentally simulating others' thoughts (to activate a flexibility mindset) might play a crucial role, it is premature to draw conclusions from a single study.…”

Section: Potential Boundaries Of Flexibility Mindsetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Flexibility mindsets: Reducing biases that result from spontaneous processing

Sassenberg

Winter

Becker

et al. 2021

European Review of Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spontaneous (i.e., heuristic, fast, effortless, and associative) processing has clear advantages for human cognition, but it can also elicit undesirable outcomes such as stereotyping and other biases. In the current article, we argue that biased judgements and behaviour that result from spontaneous processing can be reduced by activating various flexibility mindsets. These mindsets are characterised by the consideration of alternatives beyond one's spontaneous thoughts and behaviours and could, thus, contribute to bias reduction. Research has demonstrated that eliciting flexibility mindsets via goal and cognitive conflicts, counterfactual thinking,, recalling own past flexible thoughts or behaviour, and adopting a promotion focus reduces biases in judgements and behaviour. We summarise evidence for the effectiveness of flexibility mindsets across a wide variety of important phenomena -including creative performance, stereotyping and prejudice, interpersonal behaviour, and decision-making. Finally, we discuss the underlying processes and potential boundary conditions.

show abstract

Section: Flexibility Mindsets Debias Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Boundaries Of Flexibility Mindsetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexibility mindsets: Reducing biases that result from spontaneous processing

Sassenberg

Winter

Becker

et al. 2021

European Review of Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, Hirt, Kardes, and Markman (2004) found that alternative generation tasks did not activate a CFM in individuals high in need for structure. Ditrich, Landkammer, and Sassenberg (2019) also noted the effect of counterfactual thinking may be more complicated than previously elucidated, conditioned on, for example, the type of CFM induced, (e.g., additive vs. subtractive) and its relation to the subsequent task; levels of activation (e.g., group vs. individual) and the focus induced (e.g., interpersonal vs. intrapersonal). This recent work (recognizing limitations due to low power -67%) suggests that CFMs may actually be detrimental in certain social situations, including group decision-making.…”

Section: Mental Simulations and Counterfactual Thinking In Group Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 88%

‘I’ve Just Been Pretending I Can See This Stuff!’: Group member voice in decision‐making with a hidden profile

Nicholson

Hopthrow

Moura

et al. 2021

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research seeks to expand our knowledge of what underlies group performance in Hidden Profile decision tasks, adopting a mixed methods approach. We created a new mental simulation intervention designed to improve group decision outcomes and information exchange and tested it across two studies. We supplemented our quantitative statistical analysis with Thematic Analysis, to explore and better understand the motivations and utterances of individual group members, which we contend are key to increasing understanding of the challenges operating at individual and group levels in Hidden Profile decision tasks. Much group decision-making research uses quantitative methodologies, searching for causal explanations of why things happen as they do in group processes. As a subset of this area, existent Hidden Profile research is centred in the quantitative domain. Yet qualitative research can improve the understanding of group phenomena, such as communication style, which is important in groups' decision-making. To our knowledge, no Hidden Profile research has taken a similar approach, so this paper makes a unique contribution. Results indicated the mental simulation had a positive effect on information exchange and decision quality in a Hidden Profile hiring task.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

“…For example, Liljenquist et al (2004) found activating a CFM at the individual level negatively correlated with decision accuracy in HP groups and did not increase the number of shared and unique clues mentioned. Ditrich et al (2019) found the interaction of a CFM X interpersonal focus prime led participants to display stronger bias in communication and preference towards their initial candidate preference (i.e. effectively amplifying the IPE).…”

Section: Counterfactual Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 94%

Mental simulation and the individual preference effect

Nicholson

Hopthrow

Moura

2020

IJOTB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

What if my colleague was wrong and I was right? The impact of counterfactual mindsets and interpersonal focus on written communication and decision making in a hidden profile task

Cited by 7 publications

References 25 publications

Flexibility mindsets: Reducing biases that result from spontaneous processing

Flexibility mindsets: Reducing biases that result from spontaneous processing

‘I’ve Just Been Pretending I Can See This Stuff!’: Group member voice in decision‐making with a hidden profile

Mental simulation and the individual preference effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About