Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Van Swol, L. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 10, No. 2, 239-256 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430207074730
© 2007 SAGE Publications

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

Lyn M. Van Swol

Northwestern University, s-van2{at}northwestern.edu

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.

Key Words: common information sampling bias • confirmation bias • minority • shared information

References

  • Alba, J.W., Chromiak, W., Hasher, L., & Attig, M.S. (1980). Automatic encoding of category size information . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 6, 370—378.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Alicke, M.D., Klotz, M.L., Breitenbecher, D.L., Yurak, T.J., & Vrendenburg, D.S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 804—825.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Arkes, H.L. (1993). Some practical judgment and decision-making research . In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues. (pp. 3—18). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Boehm, L.E. (1994). The validity effect: A search for mediating variables . Personality and Social Psychology Bullettin, 20, 285—293.[CrossRef]
  • Brodbeck, F.C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2002). The dissemination of critical unshared information in decision-making groups: The effect of prediscussion dissent. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 35—56.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Chernyshenko, O.S., Miner, A.G., Baumann, M.R., & Sniezek, J.A. (2003). The impact of information distribution and group discussion on member judgment: The differential cue weighting model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 12—25.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Cruz, M.G., Boster, F.J., & Rodriguez, J.I. (1997). The impact of group size and proportion of shared information on the exchange and intergration of information in groups. Communication Research, 24, 291—313.[Abstract]
  • De Dreu, C.K.W., & De Vries, N.K. (1996). Differential processing and attitude change following majority versus minority arguments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 77—90.[ISI]
  • Dennis, A.R. (1996). Information exchange and use in small group decision making. Small Group Research, 27, 532—550.[Abstract]
  • Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 41—80). New York: Academic Press.
  • Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993) The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65, 959—974.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). The impact of information on small group choice . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 132—140.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Greitemeyer, T., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2003). Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 322—339.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Gruenfeld, D.H., Mannix, E.A., Williams, K.Y., & Neale, M.A. (1996). Group composition and decision-making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 1—15.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47—58.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hasher, L., & Chromiak, W. (1977). The processing of frequency information: An automatic mechanism? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 16, 173—184.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107—112.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Hasher, L., & Zacks, R.T. (1984). Automatic processing of fundamental information: The case of frequency of occurrence. American Psychologist , 39, 1372—1388.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Henningsen, D.D., & Henningsen, M.L.M. (2003). Examining social influence in information-sharing contexts. Small Group Research, 34, 391—412.[Abstract]
  • Hertwig, R., Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1997). The reiteration effect in hindsight bias. Psychological Behavior, 104, 194—202.
  • Hollingshead, A.B. (1996a). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media. Human Communications Research, 23, 193—219.[CrossRef]
  • Hollingshead, A.B. (1996b). The rank-order effect in group decision making . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 181—193.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., & Thaler, R.H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and the status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 5, 193—206.
  • Larson, J.R., Jr., Christensen, C. , Abbott, A.S., & Franz, T.M. (1996). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 315—330.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Larson, J. R. Jr., Foster-Fishman, P.G., & Franz, T.M. (1998). Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 482—495.[Abstract]
  • Larson, J.R., Jr., Foster-Fishman, P.G., & Keys, C.B. (1994). The discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 446—461.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Lord, C.G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M.R. (1979). Biases assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098—2109.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Meyers, R.A., Brashers, D.E., & Hanner, J. (2000). Majority—minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication, 50, 3—30.[ISI]
  • Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13). New York: Academic Press.
  • Nemeth, C.J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23—32.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Nemeth, C.J., & Rogers, J. (1996). Dissent and the search for information. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 67—76.[ISI]
  • Nezlek, J.B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event- and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology research . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771—785.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Parks, C.D., & Cowlin, R.A. (1996). Acceptance of uncommon information into group discussion when that information is or is not demonstrable. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 307—315.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918—930.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Propp, K.M. (1997). Information utilization in small group decision making: A study of the evaluative interaction model. Small Group Research, 28, 424—453.[Abstract]
  • Russo, J.E., Medvec, V.H., & Meloy, M.G. (1996). The distortion of information during decisions . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 102—110.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Savadori, L., Van Swol, L.M., & Sniezek, J.A. (2001). Information sampling and confidence within groups and judge advisor systems. Communication Research, 28, 737—771.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Schittekatte, M., & Van Hiel, A. (1996). Effects of partially shared information and awareness of unshared information on information sampling. Small Group Research, 27, 431—449.[Abstract]
  • Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Lüthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 655—669.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 88, 563—586.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426—434.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Stasser, G., Stewart, D.D., & Wittenbaum, G.M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244—265.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Stasser, G., Taylor, L.A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67—78.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467—1478.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81—93.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Stewart, D.D. (1998). Stereotypes, negativity bias, and the discussion of unshared information in decision-making groups. Small Group Research, 29, 643—668.[Abstract]
  • Stewart, D.D., Billings, R.S., & Stasser, G. (1998). Accountability and the discussion of unshared, critical information in decision-making groups. Group Dynamics 2, 18—23.[CrossRef]
  • Stewart, D.D., & Stasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 619—628.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York: Doubleday .
  • Tindale, R.S., & Kameda, T. (2000). `Social sharedness' as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 3, 123—140.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Van Hiel, A., & Schittekatte, M. (1998). Information exchange in context: Effects of gender composition of group, accountability, and intergroup perception on group decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 2049—2067.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Van Swol, L.M., Savadori, L., & Sniezek, J.A. (2003). Factors that may affect the difficulty of uncovering hidden profiles. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 6, 285—304.[Abstract]
  • Van Swol, L.M., & Sniezek, J.A. (2002, May). Trust me, I'm an expert: Trust and confidence in the acceptance of expert advice. Presented at the Behavioral Decision Research in Management Conference, Chicago, IL.
  • Wittenbaum, G.M. (1998). Information sampling in decision-making groups: The impact of members' task relevant status. Small Group Research , 29, 57—84.[Abstract]
  • Wittenbaum, G.M., & Bowman, J.M. (2004). A social validation explanation for mutual enhancement . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 169—184.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Wittenbaum, G.M., Hubbell, A.P., & Zuckerman, C. (1999). Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 967—978.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Wittenbaum, G.M., & Stasser, G.S. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J.L. Nye & A.M. Brower (Eds.), What's social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 3—28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J.A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323—345.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Yaniv, I., & Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice taking in decision making: Egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 260—281.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Van Swol, L. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?