Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kerr, N. L.
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, M. F.
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. 3, No. 2, 203-217 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430200003002006

On the Virtues of Assuming Minimal Differences in Information Processing in Individuals and Groups

Norbert L. Kerr

Michigan State University, kerr{at}pilot.msu.edu

Keith E. Niedermeier

Pennsylvania State University

Martin F. Kaplan

Northern Illinois University

The metaphor of groups as information processors has been gaining in popularity. If this metaphor’s utility is to be fully exploited, it is first necessary to distinguish - conceptually, theoretically, and empirically - when and how information processing in groups is any different from information processing in individuals. In this paper, several varieties or levels of group information processing are first conceptually distinguished. It is argued that differences between individual and group information processing which are manifest in differences between individual and group output are of greatest interest. However, it is further argued that such individual-group differences in output are not unfailing indicators of such interesting differences in processing. Two empirical illustrations are provided. It is further argued that (a) predictive models assuming little or no individual-group difference in information processing are particularly useful for detecting genuine instances of distinctive group information processing, and (b) that social combination models (such as Davis’ social decision scheme model, 1973) provide one particularly useful class of such models.

Key Words: jury • social decision scheme • social combination

References

  • Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
  • Carroll, J. S., Kerr, N. L., Alfini, J., Weaver, F.,MacCoun, R., & Feldman, V. (1986). Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 187-202.
  • Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97-125.[CrossRef]
  • Davis, J. H. (1980). Group decision and procedural justice. In M. L. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 157-229). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Davis, J. H. (1982). Social interaction as a combinational process in group decision. In H. Brandstätter, J. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Group decision making. London: Academic Press.
  • Davis, J. H., & Restle, F. (1963). The analysis of problems and prediction of group problem solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 103-116.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Hinsz, V., Tindale, S., & Vollrath, D. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443-1455.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Kerr, N. L. (1981a). The effects of prior juror experience on juror behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 175-193.[CrossRef]
  • Kerr, N. L. (1981b). Social transition schemes: Charting the group’s road to agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 684-702.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Kerr, N. L. (1982). Social transition schemes: Model, method, and applications. In H. Brandstätter, J. H. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Group decision making. London: Academic Press.
  • Kerr, N. L., Davis, J. H., Meek, D., & Rissman, A. (1975). Group position as a function of member attitudes: Choice shift effects from the perspective of social decision scheme theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 574-593.
  • Kerr, N. L., Hymes, R., Anderson, A. B., & Weathers, J. (1995). Juror-defendant similarity and juror judgments. Law & Human Behavior, 19, 545-567.[CrossRef]
  • Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R., & Kramer, G. P. (1996a) Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687-719.[CrossRef]
  • Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996b). When are N heads better than one? Bias in individuals vs. groups. In E. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kerr, N. L., Niedermeier, K. E., & Kaplan, M. F. (1999). Bias in jurors vs. bias in juries: New evidence from the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes80, 70-86.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438.[CrossRef]
  • Larson, R., & Christensen, C. (1993). Groups as problem solving units: Toward a new meaning of social cognition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 5-30.
  • Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In M. L. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Lindsay, P., & Norman, D. (1972). Human information processing: An introduction to psychology. New York: Academic Press.
  • Lorge, I., & Solomon, H. (1955). Two models of group behavior in the solution of eureka-type problems. Psychometrika, 20, 139-148.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Mackie, D. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.[CrossRef]
  • Myers, D. G., & Kaplan, M. F. (1976). Group- induced polarization in simulated juries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 63-66.
  • Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602-627.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Shaw, M. E. (1932). Comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. American Journal of Psychology, 44, 491-504.[CrossRef]
  • Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
  • Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Davis, J. H. (1989). Influence processes and consensus models in decision-making groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Taylor, D. W. (1954). Problem solving by groups. Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Psychology. Amsterdam: North Holland.
  • Witte, E., & Davis, J. H. (1996). Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Wright, S., Luus, C., & Christie, S. (1990). Does group discussion facilitate the use of consensus information in making causal attributions?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 261-269.[CrossRef]

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 has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
J. R. Kelly and J. R. Spoor
Naive Theories About the Effects of Mood in Groups: A Preliminary Investigation
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, April 1, 2007; 10(2): 203 - 222.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kerr, N. L.
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, M. F.
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?