The impact of information distribution, ownership; and discussion on group member judgment: The differential cue weighting model

Abstract It is often assumed that groups or teams pool knowledge and consider more information than individuals. However, numerous group decision-making studies have found that groups tend to focus on information that members had in common before group discussion instead of exchanging members’ unique information. This paper extends previous research and introduces the differential cue weighting (DCW) model to explain how group members form and revise their judgments during group discussion. It is proposed that information cues are differentially weighted depending on the combination of three factors: the cue’s initial distribution, its ownership by the member, and its addition to group discussion. An empirical study provides support for the DCW model, demonstrating that, for individual judgment, unique information can be just as influential as common information, but only for the member who contributed it to discussion.

[1]  John P. Campbell,et al.  Productivity in Organizations: New Perspectives from Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 1988 .

[2]  Arthur L. Dudycha,et al.  The Effect of Variations in the Cue R Matrix Upon the Obtained Policy Equation of Judges , 1966 .

[3]  C. Judd,et al.  The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  B. Brehmer.  Effect of cue validity on learning of complex rules in probabilistic inference tasks , 1980 .

[5]  Douglas H. Wedell,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Using Judgments to Understand Decoy Effects in Choice Location of Alternatives in a Two Dimensional Space. in B on Dimension 2 but Not on Dimension 1. the Arrow , 2022 .

[6]  C. Judd,et al.  The Communication of Social Stereotypes: The Effects of Group Discussion and Information Distribution on Stereotypic Appraisals , 2001 .

[7]  G. Stasser,et al.  Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion , 1985 .

[8]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Revision, Weighting, and commitment in consensus group judgment , 1990 .

[9]  G. Stasser,et al.  Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  G. Stasser,et al.  Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. , 1989 .

[11]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making☆ , 1992 .

[12]  J. H. Davis.  Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. , 1973 .

[13]  M. L. Klotz,et al.  Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. , 1995 .

[14]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups , 1994 .

[15]  R. Hastie,et al.  The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. , 1993 .

[16]  G. Stasser,et al.  Expert Roles and Information Exchange during Discussion: The Importance of Knowing Who Knows What , 1995 .

[17]  James M. Olson,et al.  Attitude Importance as a Function of Repeated Attitude Expression , 1994 .

[18]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Diagnosing groups : Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams , 1996 .

[19]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[20]  G. Stasser,et al.  Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. , 1987 .

[21]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  A Theory of Collective Induction , 1995 .

[22]  Ellen Tobey Klass,et al.  Psychological effects of immoral actions: the experimental evidence. , 1978 .

[23]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and Performance , 1996 .

[24]  Michael H. Kutner.  Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1974 .

[25]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Information Sampling and Confidence Within Groups and Judge Advisor Systems , 2001, Commun. Res..

[26]  M. Ross,et al.  Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution , 1979 .

[27]  A. Van Hiel,et al.  Effects of Partially Shared Information and Awareness of Unshared Information on Information Sampling , 1996 .

[28]  Rebecca A. Henry,et al.  Accuracy and confidence in group judgment , 1989 .

[29]  Reid Hastie,et al.  The impact of information on small group choice. , 1997 .

[30]  Yaniv,et al.  Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[31]  A. Hollingshead.  The Rank-Order Effect in Group Decision Making , 1996 .

[32]  D. Bem.  Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. , 1967, Psychological review.

[33]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Cueing and Cognitive Conflict in Judge-Advisor Decision Making , 1995 .

[34]  G. M. Wittenbaum,et al.  Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information , 1999 .

[35]  N. Harvey,et al.  Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility☆☆☆ , 1997 .

[36]  Gerald R. Ferris,et al.  Handbook of human resource management , 1995 .

[37]  J. A. Sniezek,et al.  Cue measurement scale and functional hypothesis testing in cue probability learning , 1978 .

[38]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  Interaction with Others Increases Decision Confidence but Not Decision Quality: Evidence against Information Collection Views of Interactive Decision Making , 1995 .

[39]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Trust, Confidence, and Expertise in a Judge-Advisor System. , 2001, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.