Motivated Information Processing in Groups: A Design of a Computational Model

According to group research, group members often fail to consider critical unique information in a group decision-making setting because of their motivated information-processing behavior. Given the complexity of experimental designs to investigate the problem, agent-based modeling can provide hypotheses that can work as theoretical guidance for future research. The purpose of this paper is to identify human motivations and biases in group information processing relevant to modeling the group decision-making process, and to develop a conceptual framework of a computational model. In this paper, we reviewed the group information-processing literature to identify commonly observed human motivations and biases in information processing. Specifically, we provided an integrated framework by combining the hidden profile model, the motivated information-processing model, and the information asymmetries model. Finally, we provided a design of agents for future modeling of group processes, which uses empirical findings from the literature as the fundamental assumptions about agent behavior.

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

[2]  Gwen M. Wittenbaum,et al.  The Bias Toward Discussing Shared Information , 2000, Commun. Res..

[3]  Tobias Greitemeyer,et al.  Information sampling and group decision making: the effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task experience. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

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

[5]  A. Hollingshead,et al.  From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm , 2004 .

[6]  D. Yankelovich,et al.  The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation , 1999 .

[7]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Diagnosing groups: charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  T. Postmes,et al.  Quality of decision making and group norms. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Garold Stasser,et al.  Computer simulation as a research tool: The DISCUSS model of group decision making , 1988 .

[10]  Tobias Greitemeyer,et al.  Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  Raymond E. Levitt,et al.  Computational Modeling of Organizations Comes of Age , 2004, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[12]  G. Stasser,et al.  Hidden Profiles: A Brief History , 2003 .

[13]  Fabrizio Butera,et al.  Hidden Profiles and Concealed Information: Strategic Information Sharing and Use in Group Decision Making , 2009, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[14]  Samuel N Fraidin,et al.  When is one head better than two? Interdependent information in group decision making , 2004 .

[15]  Tatsuya Kameda,et al.  Procedural influence in small-group decision making: Deliberation style and assigned decision rule. , 1991 .

[16]  Arantxa Etxeverria The Origins of Order , 1993 .

[17]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  P. Senge THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE , 1997 .

[19]  John R. Koza,et al.  Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. , 1995, Artificial Life.

[20]  L. Argote Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge , 1999 .

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

[22]  Felix C. Brodbeck,et al.  Group Decision Making Under Conditions of Distributed Knowledge: The Information Asymmetries Model. , 2007 .

[23]  P. Robertson,et al.  Deliberation, Consensus, and Stakeholder Satisfaction , 2012 .

[24]  Charles E. Miller,et al.  Effects of group decision rules on decisions involving continuous alternatives: The unanimity rule and extreme decisions in mock civil juries. , 2004 .

[25]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. , 2010, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  T. Postmes,et al.  Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity on Group Behavior , 2001 .

[27]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Diagnosing groups: the pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  B. Baltes,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis , 2002 .

[29]  B. Beersma,et al.  The more (complex), the better? The influence of epistemic motivation on integrative bargaining in complex negotiation , 2009 .

[30]  Verlin B. Hinsz,et al.  Naïve Groups Can Solve the Hidden‐Profile Problem , 2010 .

[31]  J. A. Sniezek,et al.  Factors that May Affect the Difficulty of Uncovering Hidden Profiles , 2003 .

[32]  Garold Stasser,et al.  Information distribution, participation, and group decision: Explorations with the DISCUSS and SPEAK models. , 2000 .

[33]  R. Abelson Beliefs Are Like Possessions , 1986 .

[34]  Dean Tjosvold,et al.  Effects of Social Context on Consensus and Majority Vote Decision Making , 1982 .

[35]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. , 1996 .

[36]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the psychology of prediction , 1973 .

[37]  David M. Messick,et al.  Social values and cooperative response to a simulated resource conservation crisis , 1986 .

[38]  G. Huber Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures , 1991 .

[39]  Sonja Utz,et al.  The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Thing to Do When Sharing Information: Revealing, Concealing and Lying Depend on Social Motivation, Distribution and Importance of Information , 2010 .

[40]  S. Schulz-Hardt,et al.  Beyond group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles: The individual preference effect revisited , 2010 .

[41]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  The origins of order , 1993 .

[42]  Daniel H. Kim The Link between individual and organizational learning , 1997 .

[43]  Gwen M. Wittenbaum,et al.  The Collective Preference for Shared Information , 2001 .

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

[45]  P. Robertson,et al.  DELIBERATION, CONSENSUS, AND STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION: A SIMULATION OF COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE. , 2010 .

[46]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Motivated Information Processing in Group Judgment and Decision Making , 2008, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[47]  Joshua M. Epstein,et al.  Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up , 1996 .

[48]  S. Schulz-Hardt,et al.  Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[49]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[50]  S. Schulz-Hardt,et al.  The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: the effects of pre-discussion dissent , 2002 .

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

[52]  Gwen M. Wittenbaum,et al.  Information Sampling in Decision-Making Groups , 1998 .