The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision‐making groups: the effects of pre‐discussion dissent

Brodbeck, Felix C.; Kerschreiter, Rudolf; Mojzisch, Andreas; Frey, Dieter; Schulz‐Hardt, Stefan

doi:10.1002/ejsp.74

Cited by 168 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The full candidate information consisted of 12 attributes for each candidate (with the neutral information item "The candidate is married" being used for two candidates) and implied Candidate A to be the best decision (eight positive, one neutral, and three negative items), followed by Candidates B and C (five positive, four neutral, and three negative items, each). The pretest results regarding the candidates' attributes and the information distribution are reported in the article by Brodbeck et al (2002).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Faulmüller

Kerschreiter

Mojzisch

et al. 2010

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard 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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Faulmüller

Kerschreiter

Mojzisch

et al. 2010

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When individuals disagree they should be more likely to question their own or other's accuracy, and think further about available information as compared to when they agree. Agreement from another individual confirms one's belief in one's own opinion, leading to a low likelihood that the joint decision will differ from the individual decisions (e.g., Brodbeck et al 2002;Matz and Wood 2005;Stasser and Stewart 1992). Furthermore, individuals find agreement more pleasing than disagreement, even when this agreement comes from an unexpected source (e.g., Phillips 2003;Taylor 1968).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Social Category Diversity Promotes Premeeting Elaboration: The Role of Relationship Focus

Loyd

Wang

Phillips

et al. 2013

Organization Science

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A purported downside of social category diversity is decreased relationship focus (i.e., one’s focus on establishing a positive social bond with a coworker). However, we argue that this lack of relationship focus serves as a central mechanism that improves information processing even prior to interaction and, ultimately, decision-making performance in diverse settings. We introduce the construct of premeeting elaboration (i.e., the extent to which individuals consider their own and others’ perspectives in the anticipation of an interaction) and explore its link with social category diversity and relationship focus. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that when disagreement occurs, social category diversity increases premeeting elaboration, with relationship focus as a central causal mechanism. Experiment 3 shows that premeeting elaboration has important implications for performance: disagreeing dyads with social category diversity elaborate more prior to meeting and, as a result, perform better on a decision-making task than those with social category homogeneity. We discuss the value of studying early-stage interaction and propose a reconsideration of the “downside” of social category diversity.

show abstract

“…This should aid participants to develop new strategies or adjust existing ones. CCM builds upon literature in the field of organisational psychology, which shows that conflict in teams can lead to more creativity and better decision-making processes (Hoffman, 1959;Hoffman and Maier, 1961;Brodbeck et al, 2002). In our case, constructive conflict serves as a mechanism to explore creatively divergent future perspectives.…”

Section: A Participatory Exploratory Scenario Analysis Methodologymentioning

confidence: 94%

New future perspectives through constructive conflict: Exploring the future of gas in the Netherlands

Ligtvoet

Cuppen

Ruggero

et al. 2016

Futures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on the refinement of constructive conflict methodology (CCM) combining Q methodology and stakeholder dialogue workshops for gas futures for the Netherlands. Since the end of the 1950s, natural gas exploration and exploitation has been a major focus of the Dutch energy policy. Discussions about the future of energy in the Netherlands tend to focus either on pro-gas or pro-renewable energy. Using Q methodology we have constructed more nuanced perspectives on the future of energy in the Netherlands. We used these perspectives in a stakeholder dialogue, in which the participants further detailed the perspectives and discussed future policy options. Analysis of the outcomes of this process teaches us that the Netherlands remain gas-focused, that renewable energy sources are as much a dogma as nuclear power was in the 1960s, and that the prospect of an austere future is a non-debatable issue. From a methodological perspective it can be concluded that the refined methodology contributed to diversity in views, opened up the dominant discourse and led to learning among participating stakeholders.

show abstract

The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision‐making groups: the effects of pre‐discussion dissent

Cited by 168 publications

References 45 publications

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

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

Social Category Diversity Promotes Premeeting Elaboration: The Role of Relationship Focus

New future perspectives through constructive conflict: Exploring the future of gas in the Netherlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About