Interpersonal cognitive consistency is a driving force in group behavior. In this article, we propose a new model of interpersonal cognitive consistency in collective decision making. Building on ideas from the mutual enhancement model (Wittenbaum, Hubbell, & Zuckerman, 1999), we argue that group members evaluate one another more positively when they mention information confirming each other's preferences instead of information disconfirming these preferences. Furthermore, we argue that this effect is mediated by perceived information quality: Group members evaluate one another more positively when they mention information confirming each other's preferences because they perceive this information to be more important and accurate than information disconfirming each other's preferences. Finally, we hypothesize that group members who communicate information confirming each other's preferences receive positive feedback for doing so, which, in turn, leads group members to mention even more of this information. The results of 3 studies with pseudo and face-to-face interacting dyads provide converging support for our model.

Entrapment occurs if people persist with losing courses of action. In two experiments, we show how elaborating social feedback (i.e., premature praise or forewarning regarding the chosen course of action) can have paradoxical effects on entrapment. The participants acted as head of a translation department and had to choose one out of four possible translation strategies for their employees. After choosing, they read four arguments (presumably written by former participants) which were either all in favor of the strategy chosen, all against it, or mixed. Half of the participants only read these arguments, whereas the other half elaborated on them by providing written comments (Experiment 1). The results showed that elaborating on other persons' arguments led to stronger entrapment, independently of whether the arguments were positive or negative. This pattern was due to biased argument processing: Whereas confirming thoughts were generated for positive arguments, negative arguments were refuted. Experiment 2 confirmed that this biased argument processing caused subsequent entrapment. These results indicate that elaborating any type of argument can lead to heightened entrapment and, hence, forewarning can backfire.

No abstract

No abstract