Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality.

The effect of diversity in individual prediscussion preferences on group decision quality was examined in an experiment in which 135 three-person groups worked on a personnel selection case with 4 alternatives. The information distribution among group members constituted a hidden profile (i.e., the correct solution was not identifiable on the basis of the members' individual information and could be detected only by pooling and integrating the members' unique information). Whereas groups with homogeneous suboptimal prediscussion preferences (no dissent) hardly ever solved the hidden profile, solution rates were significantly higher in groups with prediscussion dissent, even if none of these individual prediscussion preferences were correct. If dissent came from a proponent of the correct solution, solution rates were even higher than in dissent groups without such a proponent. The magnitude of dissent (i.e., minority dissent or full diversity of individual preferences) did not affect decision quality. The beneficial effect of dissent on group decision quality was mediated primarily by greater discussion intensity and to some extent also by less discussion bias in dissent groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

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

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Vicarious moral licensing: The influence of others' past moral actions on moral behavior.

This article investigates the effect of others' prior nonprejudiced behavior on an individual's subsequent behavior. Five studies supported the hypothesis that people are more willing to express prejudiced attitudes when their group members' past behavior has established nonprejudiced credentials. Study 1a showed that participants who were told that their group was more moral than similar other groups were more willing to describe a job as better suited for Whites than for African Americans. In Study 1b, when given information on group members' prior nondiscriminatory behavior (selecting a Hispanic applicant in a prior task), participants subsequently gave more discriminatory ratings to the Hispanic applicant for a position stereotypically suited for majority members (Whites). In Study 2, moral self-concept mediated the effect of others' prior nonprejudiced actions on a participant's subsequent prejudiced behavior such that others' past nonprejudiced actions enhanced the participant's moral self-concept, and this inflated moral self-concept subsequently drove the participant's prejudiced ratings of a Hispanic applicant. In Study 3, the moderating role of identification with the credentialing group was tested. Results showed that participants expressed more prejudiced attitudes toward a Hispanic applicant when they highly identified with the group members behaving in nonprejudiced manner. In Study 4, the credentialing task was dissociated from the participants' own judgmental task, and, in addition, identification with the credentialing group was manipulated rather than measured. Consistent with prior studies, the results showed that participants who first had the opportunity to view an in-group member's nonprejudiced hiring decision were more likely to reject an African American man for a job stereotypically suited for majority members. These studies suggest a vicarious moral licensing effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

The psychological reality of the body schema: A test with normal participants.

Neuropsychological dissociations suggest the existence of a body schema, a representation of the spatial relations among body parts, not used for other spatial stimuli. Four experiments verify the psychological reality of the body schema in normal participants. In Experiments 1 and 2, proprioceptive information concerning one's own body position influences visual perception of others' body positions. Contrary to expectations, facilitation is observed rather than interference in the dual-performance task. Experiment 3 eliminates the possibility that the effect is due to a particular mnemonic strategy. In Experiment 4, this effect is shown to be specific to the perception of bodies, as opposed to other complex 3-dimensional forms. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Temporal Construal Effects on Abstract and Concrete Thinking: Consequences for Insight and Creative Cognition.

Six studies investigate whether and how distant future time perspective facilitates abstract thinking and impedes concrete thinking by altering the level at which mental representations are construed. In Experiments 1-3, participants who envisioned their lives and imagined themselves engaging in a task 1 year later as opposed to the next day subsequently performed better on a series of insight tasks. In Experiments 4 and 5 a distal perspective was found to improve creative generation of abstract solutions. Moreover, Experiment 5 demonstrated a similar effect with temporal distance manipulated indirectly, by making participants imagine their lives in general a year from now versus tomorrow prior to performance. In Experiment 6, distant time perspective undermined rather than enhanced analytical problem solving. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social Motives and Strategic Misrepresentation in Social Decision Making.

In 4 experiments, the authors studied the influence of social motives on deception and strategic misrepresentation. In a newly developed information provision game, individuals faced a decision maker whose decision would affect both own and other's outcomes. By withholding information or by giving (in)accurate information about payoffs, participants could try to influence other's decision making. Less accurate and more inaccurate information was given when the decision maker was competitive rather than cooperative (Experiment 1), especially when participants had a prosocial rather than selfish value orientation (Experiments 3 and 4). Accurate information was withheld because of fear of exploitation and greed, and inaccurate information was given because of greed (Experiment 2). Finally, participants engaged in strategic misrepresentation that may trick competitive others into damaging their own and increasing the participant's outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Concern for the in-group and opposition to affirmative action.

The present experiments suggest that the desire to benefit the in-group drives dominant-group members' policy preferences, independent of concern for out-groups' outcomes. In Experiment 1, the effect of a manipulation of affirmative action procedures on policy support was mediated by how Whites expected the policy to affect fellow Whites, but not by the expected effect on minorities. In Experiments 2 and 3, when focused on losses for the White in-group, Whites' racial identity was negatively related to support for affirmative action. However, when focused on gains for the Black out-group or when participants were told that Whites were not affected by the policy, racial identity did not predict attitudes toward the policy. In Experiments 2 and 3, perceived fairness mediated these effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social Exclusion Impairs Self-Regulation.

Six experiments showed that being excluded or rejected caused decrements in self-regulation. In Experiment 1, participants who were led to anticipate a lonely future life were less able to make themselves consume a healthy but bad-tasting beverage. In Experiment 2, some participants were told that no one else in their group wanted to work with them, and these participants later ate more cookies than other participants. In Experiment 3, excluded participants quit sooner on a frustrating task. In Experiments 4-6, exclusion led to impairment of attention regulation as measured with a dichotic listening task. Experiments 5 and 6 further showed that decrements in self-regulation can be eliminated by offering a cash incentive or increasing self-awareness. Thus, rejected people are capable of self-regulation but are normally disinclined to make the effort. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Biased information search in group decision making.

Research has shown that people prefer supporting to conflicting information when making decisions. Whether this biased information search also occurs in group decision making was examined in three experiments. Experiment 1 indicated that groups as well as individuals prefer supporting information and that the strength of this bias depends on the distribution of the group members' initial decision preferences. The more group members had chosen the same alternative prior to the group discussion (group homogeneity), the more strongly the group preferred information supporting that alternative. Experiment 2 replicated these results with managers. Experiment 3 showed that the differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups reflect group-level processes. Higher commitment and confidence in homogeneous groups mediated this effect. Functional and dysfunctional aspects of biased information seeking in group decision making are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Positive Reactions to Working in Groups in a Study of Group and Individual Goal Decision Making.

The authors explored group members' positive reactions to working in groups that performed a card-sorting task for which they set goals. They also tested predictions regarding observed differences between the goal decisions of groups and individuals for their own and others' performance. Consistent with predictions, group members had more goal commitment, more positive attitudes toward goal attainment, and greater satisfaction with their performance than individuals. Moreover, groups chose goals that were less difficult than the goals of individuals both for their own and for others' performance. The ways in which group decision processes and other factors may account for differences in group and individual goal decisions are considered. In addition, the social-emotional and task-related benefits members perceive of working in their groups are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Too much information: The perils of nondiagnostic information in negotiations.

Two studies showed that possessing information about a negotiation counterpart that is irrelevant to the negotiation task can impair negotiators' effectiveness because such knowledge impedes effective information exchange. In Study 1, negotiators who possessed diagnostic and nondiagnostic forms of information were each less likely to exchange information about their preferences within the negotiation. However, only those negotiators who possessed nondiagnostic information achieved inferior negotiation outcomes as a result. In Study 2, negotiators possessing nondiagnostic information about their counterparts in electronically mediated negotiations were more likely to terminate the search for mutually beneficial outcomes prematurely and declare impasses. They were also less able to use diagnostic forms of information to make mutually beneficial trade-offs. As a result, negotiators in these dyads achieved inferior outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effects of an implemental mind-set on attitude strength.

The authors investigated whether an implemental mind-set fosters stronger attitudes. Participants who made a decision about how to act (vs. those who held off) expressed a more extreme attitude toward an issue unrelated to the decision (Experiment 1). Participants who planned the implementation of a decision (vs. deliberated vs. control) exhibited less ambivalent (Experiment 2) and more accessible (Experiment 3) attitudes toward various objects unrelated to the decision. Moreover, an attitude reported by planning participants better predicted self-reported behavior 1 week later (Experiment 4). Finally, results suggest that the effect of an implemental mind-set on attitude strength toward unrelated objects is driven by a focus on information that supports an already-made decision (Experiment 5). Implications for attitudes, goals, and mind-sets are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Preexposure effects in the spatial domain: Dissociation between latent inhibition and perceptual learning.

In 4 experiments, rats were given intermixed or blocked preexposure to an array of landmarks that subsequently defined the location of a hidden goal in a Morris pool task. Previous research has shown that intermixed preexposure to pairs of adjacent landmarks retards learning whereas preexposure to individual landmarks facilitates subsequent learning (J. Prados, V. D. Chamizo, & N. J. Mackintosh, 1999). Accordingly, in Experiment 1, intermixed and blocked preexposure to pairs of adjacent landmarks was found to retard learning. In Experiment 2, however, a scheduling effect was found: Rats given intermixed preexposure to the individual landmarks learned faster than rats given blocked or no preexposure. Experiment 3 showed that intermixed (but not blocked) preexposure to pairs of landmarks resulted in a facilitatory effect when preexposure and test were carried out in different contexts. Experiment 4 replicated within a single experiment the main results observed in Experiments 1 and 3. This pattern of results suggests that intermixed preexposure engages learning processes other than latent inhibition that facilitate subsequent learning of the navigation task. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Group Decision Making and Perceived Decision Success: The Role of Communication Medium.

The authors investigated the role of communication medium on the relationship between team member perceptions and decision success. Seventy-three 3-person groups participated in a consensus intellective task either face-to-face (FTF) or via computer-mediated communication (CMC). The participants also assessed their group's decision success and team member competencies. CMC group members' success perceptions significantly predicted their group's performance, but FTF group members' perceptions did not. Furthermore, only CMC group members' judgments regarding their group's problem-solving ability significantly predicted their decision success. Last, judgments of decision success mediated the relationship between perceptions of members' problem-solving ability and decision success only for CMC group members. Implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Co-witness information can have immediate effects on eyewitness memory reports

When questioning a reluctant witness, investigators sometimes encourage the witness by providing information about what other witnesses have said. Three experiments were conducted to test the combined effects of such co-witness information and suggestive questioning on the accuracy of eyewitness memory reports. Experiment 1 was analogous to the experience of a witness who receives information from an interviewer or questioner about what other witnesses have already said, whereas Experiments 2 and 3 simulated the situation in which a witness receives information directly from a co-witness. In all three experiments, when participants received incorrect information about a co-witness's response, they were significantly more likely to give that incorrect response than if they received no co-witness information. This effect persevered in a delayed memory test 48 h after the initial questioning session in Experiment 3. Accuracy rates were lowest of all when incorrect co-witness information was paired with questioning that suggested an incorrect response. These results have implications not only for the immediate effects on the accuracy of witnesses' memory reports, but also for the impact that even one such inaccurate report can have on the manner in which a case is investigated by the police or other authorities.     

Pragmatic use of stereotyping in teamwork: Social loafing and compensation as a function of inferred partner–situation fit.

Using 4 experiments, the authors examined how stereotypic information about teammates influences social loafing and compensation during collective tasks. In each experiment, participants performed better on cognitive tasks when there was a poor (vs. good) fit between the stereotypic strengths of their partner and the requirements of the task. This pattern. occurred whether participants used gender stereotypes (Experiment 1) or occupational stereotypes (Experiments 2 to 4) and occurred even when participants only anticipated working on a collective task (Experiment 4). In Experiment 3, the pattern occurred only in the collective (not in the coactive) condition, providing direct evidence for social loafing. Together, these results suggest that people use stereotypes to tune their motivation to optimize the ratio of their own individual effort to the team's expected output. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

It's the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion.

Prior research has confirmed a casual path between social rejection and aggression, but there has been no clear explanation of why social rejection causes aggression. A series of experiments tested the hypothesis that social exclusion increases the inclination to perceive neutral information as hostile, which has implications for aggression. Compared to accepted and control participants, socially excluded participants were more likely to rate aggressive and ambiguous words as similar (Experiment 1a), to complete word fragments with aggressive words (Experiment 1b), and to rate the ambiguous actions of another person as hostile (Experiments 2-4). This hostile cognitive bias among excluded people was related to their aggressive treatment of others who were not involved in the exclusion experience (Experiments 2 and 3) and others with whom participants had no previous contact (Experiment 4). These findings provide a first step in resolving the mystery of why social exclusion produces aggression. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stereotype formation: Biased by association.

We propose that biases in attitude and stereotype formation might arise as a result of learned differences in the extent to which social groups have previously been predictive of behavioral or physical properties. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that differences in the experienced predictiveness of groups with respect to evaluatively neutral information influence the extent to which participants later form attitudes and stereotypes about those groups. In contrast, Experiment 3 shows no influence of predictiveness when using a procedure designed to emphasize the use of higher level reasoning processes, a finding consistent with the idea that the root of the predictiveness bias is not in reasoning. Experiments 4 and 5 demonstrate that the predictiveness bias in formation of group beliefs does not depend on participants making global evaluations of groups. These results are discussed in relation to the associative mechanisms proposed by Mackintosh (1975) to explain similar phenomena in animal conditioning and associative learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: Evidence for a retrieval-based account.

In Experiment 1 participants gave 3 successive free recalls of items learned either individually or in pairwise collaboration. The first and third recalls were performed individually, the second alone or in collaboration. Collaborative recall led to an inhibitory effect after individual learning but not after collaborative learning, in which partners had similar retrieval strategies. Consistent with a retrieval locus for collaborative inhibition, non-recalled items reappeared in subsequent individual recall. Experiment 2 showed that collaborative inhibition was eliminated when a separate retrieval cue was given for each item. Experiments 2 and 3 also showed that when participants learned items in the same order, their retrieval strategies were more similar and they showed less collaborative inhibition. It is concluded that mutual interference in collaborative recall is due to the mutual disruption of individual retrieval strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social influences on metacognition: Effects of colearner questioning on comprehension monitoring.

Four experiments examined social influences on metacognition, testing whether learners' knowledge that colearners have questions about material they are simultaneously viewing affects learners' own judged levels of comprehension. In Experiment 1 (n?=?88), the frequency with which learners indicated they were confused increased with the number of questions they believed colearners had about the material. Experiment 2 (n?=?38) determined that the effect of colearner questioning on self-judged comprehension was not due to distraction or social facilitation. Experiment 3 (n?=?100) replicated the results of Experiment 1 and found that the social impact on learners' judgments of comprehension was less when questions were believed to have come from 3 colearners rather than 1. Experiment 4 (n?=?60) suggested that the number of questions per colearner determines their impact on others' comprehension judgments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)