Social validation in group decision-making: Differential effects on the decisional impact of preference-consistent and preference-inconsistent information

Grouneva

Schulz‐Hardt

2009

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

Group members tend to be biased in their evaluation of the information discussed. The present study aimed to disentangle the effects of preference consistency, social validation, and ownership on information evaluation in a single experimental design. Participants first received information about a personnel selection task. After having made a decision, they read a transcript of a fictitious discussion. In the transcript, preference consistency, social validation, and ownership of information were orthogonally manipulated as within-subjects factors. As hypothesized, preference consistency, social validation, and ownership all increased the perceived quality of information. Furthermore, participants intended to discuss a larger proportion of their preference-consistent information than of their preference-inconsistent information. This discussion bias was significantly associated with the evaluation bias favoring preference-consistent information. These results provide the first empirical demonstration that the evaluation of information in groups is characterized by three distinct biases and that biased evaluation of information may contribute to biased discussion of information. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.One of the most consistent findings in the group decision-making literature is that groups talk more about information that is shared and preference-consistent than about information that is unshared and preference-inconsistent (for reviews, see Brodbeck, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, & Schulz-Hardt, 2007;Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004). Shared information is information that all group members are aware of prior to the discussion, whereas unshared information is held by only one member. Preference-consistent information refers to information that supports the group members' initial preferences, whereas preference-inconsistent information contradicts these preferences.Recent evidence suggests that group discussions are not only characterized by biased discussion but also by biased evaluation of information. Three types of evaluation biases have been proposed in the literature: The first one is the bias favoring preference-consistent information . Thus, group members are proposed to evaluate the information in favor of their initial preferences. Second, it has been argued that hearing that others possess the same information provides social validation of that information (Larson,

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Grouneva

Schulz‐Hardt

2009

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

“…As proposed by Wittenbaum, Hubbell, and Zuckerman (1999), social validation fuels a group's tendency to repeat previously mentioned shared information. In addition, there is evidence that social validation increases the perceived accuracy and relevance of information which, in turn, increases the decisional impact of information (Mojzisch, Schulz-Hardt, Kerschreiter, Brodbeck, & Frey, 2008).…”

Section: Group-level Explanations For the Failure Of Groups To Solve mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Faulmüller

Kerschreiter

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

et al. 2010

Self Cite

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.

“…The decision case was adapted from the material used by Mojzisch, Schulz-Hardt, Kerschreiter, Brodbeck, and Frey (2008). Participants read descriptions of two candidates applying for a job in a travel agency.…”

Section: Procedures and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Consensus Information and Task Demonstrability on Preference-Consistent Information Evaluation and Decision Quality in Group Decision Making

Rothmund

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

Schulz‐Hardt

2011

Self Cite

Groups often fail to solve hidden profiles even when all information is exchanged. This is partly due to biased evaluation of information. We examined the effects of consensus information and task demonstrability on preference-consistent information evaluation and decision quality. The results showed that the evaluation of unshared but not shared information was moderated by consensus information and task demonstrability. For unshared information, majority members exhibited a higher evaluation bias favoring preference-consistent information than minority members. Task demonstrability reduced the evaluation bias only when group members received no information about the other members' preferences. Finally, majority members were less likely to solve the hidden profile than minority members, and this was partially mediated by the evaluation bias favoring preference-consistent unshared information.