The consistency principle in interpersonal communication: Consequences of preference confirmation and disconfirmation in collective decision making.

Abstract

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.

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

“…Recent evidence also suggests that caffeine helps to build long-term memory ( Borota et al, 2014 ). Moreover, another study found that caffeine led to a fast and frugal verbal generation of options for action in decision-making situations ( Häusser, Schlemmer, Kaiser, Kalis, & Mojzisch, 2014 ). It also helps in logically evaluating verbal statements ( A. P. Smith, 1994 ) and in systematic information processing—the latter leading to increased attitude change when being presented with high-quality arguments ( Martin, Laing, Martin, & Mitchell, 2005 ; Mintz & Mills, 1971 ).…”

“…In addition to the positive effects of the mere presence of other in-group members, groups can provide more tangible support to help deal with stress. Social support has been suggested as a very powerful resource for coping with stress ( Cohen & McKay, 1984 ), and numerous empirical studies have found that it indeed attenuates psychophysiological stress reactions (e.g., Ditzen et al, 2008 ; Frisch, Häusser, van Dick, & Mojzisch, 2014 ; Heinrichs, Baumgartner, Kirschbaum, & Ehlert, 2003 ; Kirschbaum, Klauer, Filipp, & Hellhammer, 1995 ). Thus, ceteris paribus, groups are relatively less likely to experience stress as a result of a particular task-related threat than individuals are.…”

Tell Me What I Wanted to Hear: Confirmation Effect in Lay Evaluations of Financial Expert Authority

“…Research in group behaviour also suggests that interpersonal cognitive consistency plays an important role in how people perceive and evaluate one another. Mojzisch, Kerschreiter, Faulmüller, Vogelgesang and Schulz‐Hardt () have studied collective decision processes and found that participants evaluated their partners in dyads as more competent when these partners communicated information that was consistent with participants' preferences. Preference‐consistent information itself was also perceived as more important and accurate than preference‐inconsistent information.…”

Group membership: Who gets to decide?

“…Empirical research, although not directly addressing this, also implies reputational concerns are a motive in information exchange. Group members' communication is driven by their wish to be seen as having comprehensible reasoning (Faulmüller et al 2012), and they tend to adjust the information they share so that they are perceived as more competent (Mojzisch et al 2014), both leading to biased information exchange. When group members are familiar with one another and hence have to worry less about their social acceptance within the group, communication becomes less biased (Gruenfeld et al 1996).…”