-
Decision-making groups in organizations are often expected to function as a 'think tank' and to perform 'reality testing' to detect the best alternative. A biased search for information supporting the group's favored alternative impairs a group's ability to fulfill these requirements. In a two-factorial experiment with 201 employees and managers from various economic and public organizations, genuine and contrived dissent were investigated as counterstrategies to biased information seeking. Genuine dissent was manipulated by forming three-person groups whose members either all favored the same alternative individually (homogeneous groups) or consisted of a minority and a majority faction with regard to their favored alternative (heterogeneous groups). Contrived dissent was varied by the use or nonuse of the 'devil's advocacy' technique. The results demonstrate that heterogeneity was more effective in preventing a confirmatory information-seeking bias than devil's advocacy was. Confidence was identified as an important mediator. Implications for the design of the interventions aimed at facilitating reality testing in group decision making are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
-
Purpose: Hidden profiles are decision-making tasks in which groups have the potential to outperform individual decision-makers. This paper has two purposes: first, to provide a conceptual analysis of how the group potential for solving hidden profiles can be measured; second, to empirically determine the solution rates hidden profile groups would achieve: in the absence of any group processes (i.e. the group potential); and in the absence of any dysfunctional group processes. Design/methodology/approach: The group potential was determined by averaging the group members’ decision quality prior to the discussion. To determine the hidden profile solution rates in the absence of any dysfunctional group processes, the standard hidden profile procedure was modified so that nothing but the individual-level constraints could hamper the solution of hidden profiles. Findings: The actual group performance was significantly higher than the group potential, but significantly lower than the performance in the no dysfunctional group processes condition. Hence, dysfunctional group processes interfere with the realization of process gains. However, even in the absence of any dysfunctional group processes, groups did not always solve hidden profiles. Finally, the detrimental group process hampering the solution of hidden profiles does not seem to be biased information pooling favoring shared information but rather insufficient amount of information pooling. Practical implications: The results indicate that tools, which aim to facilitate the solution of hidden profiles, have to overcome both dysfunctional group processes, and individual-level constraints. Originality/value: This is the first attempt to quantify process gains in hidden profile groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
-
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
-
Abstract: A prominent finding in escalating commitment and entrapment research is the “responsibility effect”: people invest more in a losing course of action or persist with it for longer if they themselves initiated this action (responsibility) as opposed to if it was assigned to them. We argue that this effect is driven by participants’ preferences. Responsible participants usually prefer the chosen alternative since they have chosen it themselves. Non-responsible participants, in contrast, represent a mix of persons who either favor or disfavor the chosen alternative. In two experiments, we demonstrate that responsible participants favor the chosen course of action more strongly than non-responsible participants do, that these preferences facilitate reinvestment in and persistence with the chosen course of action, and that responsibility has no effect over and above this effect of preferences. Non-responsible participants preferring the chosen course of action made similar reinvestments and exhibited similar persistence as responsible participants. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]
-
Group discussions tend to focus on information that is already known to all group members prior to discussion (shared information) relative to information that is known to only one group member (unshared information). Further, group decisions are more strongly determined by shared information. However, in most of the pertinent studies, sharedness of information was confounded with preference-consistency; that is, most of the shared information supports the predominant sentiment in the group. A simulated group discussion revealed that shared information - independent of preference consistency - was evaluated as more credible and relevant and was intended to be repeated more often than unshared information. The same effect was observed for preference-consistency of information, independent of sharedness of information. In addition, participants preferred to discuss and request preference-consistent information. The results point out that individual processes of information evaluation and information preference contribute to the dominance of shared information in group discussions and group decisions.
-
-
Research in the judge-advisor-paradigm suggests that advice is generally utilized less than it should be according to its quality. In a series of four experiments, we challenge this widely held assumption. We hypothesize that when advice quality is low, the opposite phenomenon, namely overutilization of advice, occurs. We further assume that this overutilization effect is the result of anchoring: advice serves as an anchor, thus causing an adjustment toward even useless advice. The data of our four experiments support these hypotheses. Judges systematically adjusted their estimates toward advice that we introduced to them as being useless, and this effect was stable after controlling for intentional utilization of this advice. Furthermore, we demonstrate that anchoring-based adjustment toward advice is independent of advice quality. Our findings enhance our understanding of the processes involved in advice taking and identify a potential threat to judgment accuracy arising from an inability to discount useless advice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Groups often fail to solve so-called 'hidden profiles.' Common explanations for this failure focus on group processes. However, recent findings show that group members stick to their individual faulty preferences even in the absence of such group processes. The present study examines whether listing and structuring of discussion content improves individual decision quality in hidden profile tasks. We found that the probability of detecting the best and the worst alternative was higher in the experimental conditions where participants listed and structured all information concerning decision alternatives, as compared to a control condition without any listing and structuring. Additional structuring criteria, namely structuring according to valence and novelty of information did not affect solution rates. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Bezüge zwischen konfirmatorischer Informationssuche und Parteipräferenz wurden am Beispiel der Parteispendenaffäre der Christlich-Demokratischen Union (CDU) Ende des Jahres 1999 untersucht. In einem ersten Experiment mit 257 Anhängern von CDU und Sozialdemokratischer Partei Deutschlands (SPD) wurde ermittelt, dass beide Anhängergruppen meinungskonforme Informationssuche zeigten. In Übereinstimmung mit einer dissonanztheoretischen Erklärung des Phänomens ergab sich, dass dieser Effekt bei CDU-Wählern (die durch die Spendenaffäre mehr Dissonanz erfahren haben sollten als SPD-Wähler) stärker war als bei SPD-Wählern. Konträr zur dissonanztheoretischen Erklärung war der Effekt allerdings schwächer, wenn man schon vor der Informationssuche seinen politischen Standpunkt bekannt geben sollte. Die Vernachlässigung von meinungskonträren politischen Informationen könnte allerdings alternativ auch kognitiv erklärt werden: Aufgrund der asymmetrischen Argumentenstruktur im Kopf des Informationssuchenden erscheinen die meinungskonträren Informationen systematisch unglaubwürdiger und schwächer als die meinungskonformen - und werden daher seltener gewählt. Um diese Alternativerklärung gegen die dissonanztheoretische Hypothese zu testen, wurde ein weiteres Experiment durchgeführt, bei dem Parteimitglieder und Nicht-Parteimitglieder während der Informationssuche zusätzlich durch eine kognitive Zweitaufgabe belastet wurden. Parteimitglieder suchten selektiver nach standpunktkonsistenten Informationen als Nicht-Parteimitglieder; dieser Unterschied verschwand allerdings, sobald Parteimitglieder während der Informationssuche zusätzlich durch die ``Cognitive-Load''-Aufgabe belastet wurden. Dieser Befund spricht für eine kognitive Erklärung des Phänomens.
-
After having made a preliminary or final decision, people often prefer information that supports their chosen alternative to information that conflicts with their choice. Jonas, Schulz-Hardt, Frey, and Thelen (in press) found that sequential presentation of information leads to an even stronger preference for supporting information than the traditional form of simultaneous presentation. Their proposed explanation for this effect was that sequential presentation induces a focus on the prior decision, thereby increasing commitment to this decision. The present experiment was designed to rule out an alternative explanation: Being repeatedly confronted with pieces of information to select from could induce the participants to search for more information than they consider to be necessary, and because less effort is required to process supporting information the additional information requests are predominantly for these supporting pieces of information. To test this alternative explanation, in the present experiment - as in the Jonas et al. (in press) experiments - simultaneous vs. sequential information presentation following a preliminary decision was manipulated. In contrast to the former experiments, this time the number of information requests was fixed: Participants in both conditions had to choose 8 out of 16 pieces of information. The results show that once again a stronger preference for supporting information arises when the information is presented sequentially compared to simultaneously. The alternative explanation mentioned above could thus be ruled out.
-
Results from 4 experiments demonstrate that learning the other group members' preferences at the beginning of a discussion impedes the solution of hidden profiles. In Experiments 1-3, participants who were not informed about their fellow group members' preferences were more likely to solve a hidden profile than those who received bogus information about the others' preferences. The negative effect of learning the others' preferences on decision quality was mediated by participants paying less attention to the information exchanged when they had been made aware of the others' preferences. Experiments I and 2 further ruled out that the effect of learning the others' preferences is due to participants bolstering their position or due to an increase in informational load. Experiment 3 showed that learning the other group members' preferences impedes the solution of hidden profiles even if one of the other members favors the correct alternative. Finally, Experiment 4 replicated these results in face-to-face interacting 3-person groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
-
In zahlreichen Ländern der europäischen Währungsunion vermutet die Bevölkerung, die Währungsumstellung sei genutzt worden, um Preise zu erhöhen; dies bei gleich bleibenden Löhnen. Diese Wahrnehmung wird durch offizielle Statistiken nicht bestätigt, kann aber zum Empfinden eines Verlustes an Kaufkraft führen. In Deutschland fanden E. Traut-Mattausch und Mitarbeiter (2004) Evidenz für die Wahrnehmung von nicht-existenten Preissteigerungen trotz objektiver Vergleichsmöglichkeiten. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden Ergebnisse einer Studie vorgelegt, die zum Ziel hatte, die Existenz dieser Wahrnehmungsverzerrung auch in Österreich sowie deren Überdauern noch zwei Jahre nach der Einführung des Euro als Bargeld nachzuweisen. Im Weiteren wurde untersucht, ob auch auf der Seite der Einkommen Wahrnehmungsverzerrungen bestehen und ob diese Wahrnehmung kausal von Erwartungen beeinflusst wird. Insgesamt 308 Studierenden wurden Speisekarten eines fiktiven italienischen Restaurants beziehungsweise Stundensatzlisten für Studentenjobs in Schillingen und Euro vorgelegt. Die Euro-Beträge waren im Vergleich zu den Schilling-Beträgen entweder reduziert, gleich hoch oder erhöht. Die Studienteilnehmer schätzten Preis- und Einkommensunterschiede zwischen den in Schilling und Euro angeführten Beträgen und wählten Speisen beziehungsweise Nebenbeschäftigungen. Die Ergebnisse der deutschen Studie wurden bestätigt: Insbesondere wurden dort, wo die Preise tatsächlich stabil geblieben waren, illusionäre Preissteigerungen wahrgenommen. Diese ``Teuro-Illusion'' konnte auf die Erwartungen der Teilnehmer zurückgeführt werden und wirkte sich auch auf Verhaltensintentionen aus. Zusätzlich wurde gefunden, dass das Einkommen weitgehend als unverändert empfunden wird.
-
Managers evaluate their subordinates' performance on a regular basis. This is most obvious--and most formal--in personnel assessment procedures, serving the purposes of both evaluation and feedback--although the two purposes need not necessarily be pursued simultaneously. Less obviously, and far less formally, superiors evaluate their subordinates' performance on a day-to-day basis in order to plan personnel guidance measures. Both the cognitive processes involved in performance evaluation, as well as the consequences of causal attributions, are central to attribution theory. This in part accounts for the frequent use of this theory in organizational psychology and, in particular, in theories of organizational leadership. The purpose of the study was to provide a more unequivocal test of self-serving patterns in leaders' causal evaluations of their subordinates' performance other than the classical attributional asymmetry approach.
-
Aus theoretischer, empirischer und praktischer Sicht werden Prozesse des Informationsaustauschs in Gruppen analysiert und diskutiert. Zunächst wird erörtert, unter welchen Bedingungen in Gruppen ein individueller Zuwachs an Wissen möglich ist und in welchen Situationen Gruppen als Entscheidungsträger prinzipiell gegenüber Einzelentscheidern im Vorteil sind (``Information-Pooling''-Paradigma). Anschließend wird dargelegt, welche Erklärungsansätze es dafür gibt, dass es in vielen Entscheidungsprozessen dennoch nicht gelingt, den prinzipiell verfügbaren Wissensvorteil auch in individuellen Wissenszuwachs und bessere Gruppenentscheidungen umzusetzen. Das zentrale Interesse gilt dann den konkreten Interventionen, die Gruppen dazu zu befähigen, ihr Potential besser zu nutzen, wobei auf jene Interventionen im besonderen Maße eingegangen wird, die in Laborexperimenten erfolgreich und in der Praxis auch gut einsetzbar waren. Unterschieden wird dabei (1) zwischen Interventionen, die den Informationsaustausch in Gruppen verbessern und damit einen individuellen Wissenszuwachs ermöglichen, sowie (2) Interventionen, die darüber hinaus auch noch zu besseren Entscheidungen führen. Im Anhang ist ein Trainingsbaustein ``Gruppenentscheidungen'' (Hidden-Profile-Übung mit Anleitung) beigegeben.
-
[examine] the goal-oriented activities and decisions made by groups in business and politics [which] very frequently involve the search for and evaluation of information cognitive dissonance as a determinant of information seeking / selective information seeking in groups [should one expect groups to avoid a confirmation bias when seeking information, confirmation bias in group experiments, other dependent variables: evaluation of decision alternatives and evaluation of information] / theoretical mechanisms underlying selective information seeking in groups [conformity pressure in groups, striving for harmony, social comparison processes, diffusion of responsibility] / the relevance of these findings for business and politics / how can selective information seeking and its negative consequences be prevented (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Reviews the relationship between biased information sampling and biased decision-making processes in group decisions. A first part discusses two basic sampling biases in group information sampling: the tendency to focus on shared information and the tendency to discuss preference-consistent information. The relationship between these sampling biases and decision-making processes are discussed in a second part, in which the consequences of sampling biases for group decisions as well as the failure to make good group decisions despite unbiased information sampling are addressed. Suggestions for further research on group decision-making are given.
-
Group discussions tend to focus on information that was previously known by all members (shared information) rather than information known by only 1 member (unshared information). If the shared information implies a suboptimal alternative, this sampling bias is associated with inaccurate group decisions. The present study examines the impact of 2 factors on information exchange and decision quality: (a) an advocacy group decision procedure versus unstructured discussion and (b) task experience. Results show that advocacy groups discussed both more shared and unshared information than freediscussion groups. Further, with increasing experience, more unshared information was mentioned in advocacy groups. In contrast, there was no such increase in unstructured discussions. Yet advocacy groups did not significantly improve their decision quality with experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
-
The aim of the present report is to review research demonstrating the role played by expectations for observed illusory price increases after the euro introduction in Germany. In laboratory experiments when participants are asked to estimate price changes in a restaurant following the euro introduction, the price estimates are found to be biased in the direction of the expectation of rising prices. The research also examines the extent to which a similar judgment bias is evident in other areas and how interventions counteract the bias. A further focus of the research is on the underlying process. In this respect the results show that the bias is based on a selective outcome correction process not previously described. Theoretical implications and practical implications for consumer policy issues are highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
-
Möglichkeiten der Anwendung psychologischen Wissens auf den Bereich der Ideenfindung und Innovation in Betrieben und Unternehmen werden im Überblick erörtert. Dabei stehen die folgenden Punkte im Vordergrund: (1) Verfahren und Mittel zur Ideenfindung und Innovation (traditionelles versus modernes betriebliches Vorschlagswesen, der kontinuierliche Verbesserungsprozess und das japanische Kaizen-Konzept, der kontinuierliche Verbesserungsprozess und seine Beziehung zum betrieblichen Vorschlagwesen, TQM (Total Quality Management), weitere Strategien der Ideengenerierung und der Problemidentifikation), (2) Determinanten des Erfolgs der dargestellten Instrumente der Ideenfindung und Innovation (Führungsstrukturen, die Autonomie und Selbstständigkeit fördern; Organisation und Lernen; Teamklima und Innovation), (3) organisationale Veränderungen und Akkzeptanz.
-
