Beyond group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles: The individual preference effect revisited

Abstract

The individual preference effect supplements the predominant group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles. Even in the absence of dysfunctional group-level processes, group members tend to stick to their suboptimal initial decision preferences due to preference-consistent evaluation of information. However, previous experiments demonstrating this effect retained two group-level processes, namely (a) social validation of information supporting the group members’ initial preferences and (b) presentation of the additional information in a discussion format. Therefore, it was unclear whether the individual preference effect depends on the co-occurrence of these group-level processes. Here, we report two experiments demonstrating that the individual preference effect is indeed an individual-level phenomenon. Moreover, by a comparison to real interacting groups, we can show that even when all relevant information is exchanged and when no coordination losses occur, almost half of all groups would fail to solve hidden profiles due to the individual preference effect.

Social network analysis in the science of groups: Cross-sectional and longitudinal applications for studying intra- and intergroup behavior.

“…Moreover, given that conformity is shaped by the direct influence of close network members, it is useful to identify individual's closest members in a network. Finally, social network data equip researchers to examine the flow of information with regard to the role of group members' motivations (cf., Faulmüller, Mojzisch, Kerschreiter, & Schulz-Hardt, 2012) or to disentangle individual-and group-level factors that are responsible for the process of group decision making (cf., Faulmüller, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, & Schulz-Hardt, 2010).…”

Sleep Deprivation Impairs and Caffeine Enhances My Performance, but Not Always Our Performance

“…Hence, under sleep deprivation, group members are presumably more likely to stick to single aspects of the interaction, whether it is a certain category of ideas in brainstorming or a specific suggestion for a solution to a decision problem. Individuals being able to revise their own thoughts and preferences can be crucial for high performance in groups, for example, to avoid cognitive restriction (e.g., Kohn & Smith, 2011 ) or a suboptimal decision alternative being chosen (e.g., Faulmüller, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, & Schulz-Hardt, 2010 ; Greitemeyer & Schulz-Hardt, 2003 ). Moreover, fatigue seems to reduce epistemic motivation (for a review, see Kruglanski & Webster, 1996 ).…”

Intentional Action Control in Individuals and Groups

“…Adequate consideration of unshared information becomes even more difficult when information load is high (Stasser & Titus, 1987). Moreover, in hiddenprofile situations, suboptimal individual preferences can lead to biased information search (Schulz-Hardt, Frey, Lüthgens, & Moscovici, 2000), biased information processing (Faulmüller, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, & Schulz-Hardt, 2010), or even strategic information sharing influenced by individual decision preferences (e.g., concealing information; Steinel, Utz, & Koning, 2010). All of these factors can lead groups to make suboptimal decisions in hidden-profile situations.…”