Perceived Importance of Information: The Effects of Mentioning Information, Shared Information Bias, Ownership Bias, Reiteration, and Confirmation Bias

Abstract

Participants were given information for and against the decriminalization of marijuana and discussed the issue in groups. Factors affecting rated importance of information after the group discussion were examined. Participants did not rate information that was mentioned during the discussion as more important than information not mentioned, and participants did not rate shared information they mentioned as more important than unshared information. Participants did rate shared information other group members mentioned as more important than unshared information others mentioned. Participants did not rate their own information as more important than other's information, and information that was repeated was not rated as more important. Participants did perceive information supporting their individual position as more important than information against their position, and this confirmation bias was lessened in groups containing an opinion minority. A comparison of minority and majority members in minority-containing groups found that minority members were more open to information than majority members

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

“…Our proposition is in line with other recent studies suggesting that the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles may not only be a function of problems with group interaction, but also due to individual-level processes (see also Klocke, 2007;van Swol, 2007). Of course, this does not mean to say that we deny the existence of hindering group-level processes.…”

“…However, research suggests that the individual preference effect also operates in interacting groups, since preference-inconsistent information is devalued by group members interacting face-to-face (Klocke, 2007;Mojzisch et al, 2008;Toma & Butera, 2009;van Swol, 2007). Moreover, it has been shown that even if an advocacy group decision procedure is applied that precludes members from prematurely aggregating their preferences and that leads to more comprehensive information pooling, group decisions are not improved in hidden profile situations (Greitemeyer et al, 2006), which could be due to the individual preference effect.…”

Biased evaluation of information during discussion: Disentangling the effects of preference consistency, social validation, and ownership of information

“…Again, preference-consistent items were evaluated as more important than preference-inconsistent items. Although Van Swol (2007) did not confound preference consistency and ownership, the data are still equivocal. Note that preferenceconsistent items are introduced and repeated in discussions more often than preference-inconsistent items (e.g., Dennis, 1996;Klocke, 2007;Schulz-Hardt, Brodbeck, Mojzisch, Kerschreiter, & Frey, 2006).…”

“…Three studies have focused on the ownership bias (Chernyshenko, Miner, Baumann, & Sniezek, 2003;Van Swol et al, 2003;Van Swol, 2007). In each study, participants discussed a decision case face-to-face.…”

“…Thus, preference consistency and ownership were confounded. The second study (Van Swol, 2007) used real interacting groups. Again, preference-consistent items were evaluated as more important than preference-inconsistent items.…”