L3: Group Decision-Making & Brainstorming Flashcards
how do groups share & process info?
- groups can access more info than individuals
- groups have shared & unshared info within them: some knwoledge is common to all members, but each person may also have unique info
- utilizing this group knowledge requires proper info sharing
- even if no individual member knows the answer, the group can find it by working together = process gain!
what does the generic info processing model say are the steps to groups processing info?
groups process info like a memory system:
1. search for info
2. encode it
3. store it
4. retrieve it when needed
what is the message behind the parable of the blind men and the elephant?
that one’s subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth
what is the hidden profile task?
- a group must choose between candidate A and B for a job
- if members dont share their unique info, they might make the wrong choice
what has research using the hidden profile task revealed?
groups
- often fail to exchange unique info
- focus more on common knowledge than important new facts
- tend to discount unique info that is different from their own & even argue against it to defend their own preference (advocacy)
these biases are higher when groups are large & info load is high (less time/room to talk about unique infoà
define transactive memory
team members know who knows what in their team, who is an expert on which subject etc
what are shared mental models
team members have a shared understadning of what the task is, what the collective goals are
What do we mean when we say “groups are motivated info processors”?
they have both:
- epistemic motivation
- social motivation
define epistemic motivation
willingness to expend effort to achieve a thorough, rich, and accurate understanding of the world
aka desire to thoroughly understand the task
define social motivation
preference for outcome distributions between oneself & other group members. pro self or pro social
aka desire to achieve a fair or selfish outcome
what are the key effects of epistemic motivation in group decision making?
- high epistemic motivation leads to better problem solving & idea generation
- low epistemic motivation leads to group reliance on decision heuristics & high group centerdness (so pressure for conformity)
what are the key effects of social motivation on group decision making?
- high social motivation can enhance cooperation but also lead to biases
what happens to groups when its members’ epistemic motivaiton is low & proself motivation?
- vetoing
- indecision
- ignoring ideas
- social loafing, inaction
what happens to groups when its members epistemic motivation is low & prosocial motivation?
- pressure on deviants
- lazy compromising
- harmony
what happens to groups when its members epistemic motivation is high & prosocial motivation?
- info pooling
- attention to others’ ideas
- effective problem solving
what happens to groups when its members epistemic motivation is high & proself motivation?
- arguing & counteracting
- independence
- advocacy, spinning
what characteristics define brainstorming?
- idea generation separate from idea evaluation (better judge later)
- generate as many ideas as possible (first ideas are most conventional)
- is an additive & maximizing task (group performance = sum of individual ideas)
what are rules for effective brainstorming?
- Separate idea generation from evaluation – Don’t judge ideas immediately.
- Encourage many ideas – The first ideas are usually the most obvious.
- Use a structured approach to maximize participation.
what are the process gains & losses in brainstorming?
gains: cognitive stimulation, inspo from teammates
losses:
- motivaiton loss: ppl free ride or sucker effect (match effort to the lowest performing member)
- coordination loss: evaluation apprehension, production blocking cause of turn taking, due to group size
is group idea generation (brainstorming) a good practice?
- groups generally do worse than individuals at brainstorming (process losses > process gains)
- but ppl often think that groups do better cause brainstorming feels subjetively easier in gropus
why does brainstorming feel subjectively easier in groups?
- social comparison: when ur alone u feel more insecure cause u dont have a comparison point
- overestimating performance in groups: claiming credit for ideas that werent ur own
- avoiding difficulties: easier in groups when ur stuck to sit back & listen to others and u dont have to acknowledge that ur stuck
define creativity
the generation of novel & useful outcomes
what 2 factors influence whether ur idea is good?
high feasability & high originality
what does the additive model say on creativity in groups?
- sum the creative potential of all members = team creativity
- the prediction: average individual creativity predicts team creativity
what does the disjunctive model say on creativity in groups?
- one or a few creative members leads to team creativity
- the prediction: highest individual creativity predicts team creativity
does the literature align with the additivie or the disjunctive model of creativity in groups?
its inconsistent
so maybe there are moderators in the individual to team creativity realtionshiop
what does Yuan study in team creativity?
the impact of 3 task characteristics (eg task interdependence, task creativity requirements, idea implementation) & two general features of teams (team longevity, team size) on team creativity
in both the Additive & Injunctive model
define task interdependence
The extent to which members depend on each other’s resources and effort to accomplish the team task
how did Yuan expect task interdependence to influence team creativity?
Additive: thought that average individual creativity has a stronger relationship with team creativity when task interdependence is high
Injunctive: while high individual creativity has a stronger relationship with team creativity when task interdependence is low
BOTH SUPPORTED
define task creativity requirements
The extent to which the performance environment is creativity demanding
basically is creativity by definition part of the task? like advertisement teams are probs more creative than wall construction teams
what is high vs low task creativity requirement
high: members are focused on highly creative ideas and members are pushed to express creative ideas as much as possible.
low: members are focused on ideas that are sufficiently creative to address an issue at hand.
How did Yuan think task creativity requirements influenced team creativity,
additive: when creativity requirements are lower, SUPPORTED
injunctive: when creativity requirements are higher. NOT SUPPORTED
what are the characteristics of larger teams?
- More likely to experience conflict and divide into subgroups, which makes integrating individual inputs of team members tough.
- Also, star members’ inputs may receive more attention (it’s more efficient!).
what are the characteristics of smaller teams?
Less likely to experience conflict and divide into subgroups, which makes it easier to attend to individual inputs and make
integrative decisions.
how did Yuan expect team size to influence team creativity?
Additive: more predictive in smaller teams
Injunctive: more predictive in larger teams
BOTH NOT SUPPORTED
define idea implementation requirement
The extent to which novel ideas need to be put into practice
This tends to shift the focus from ‘as many creative ideas as possible’ (as in ideation-only tasks) to ‘one best idea to solve the problem
what is high vs low idea implementation requirement
high: Ideas need to be carried out by the team, put into practice to address organizational problems.
low: members focus on generating as many ideas as possible.
how did Yuan expect idea implementation requirement to influence team creativity?
Additive: lesswhen team tasks require the implementation SUPPORTED
Injunctive: whereas more positively associated with team
creativity when team tasks require the implementation. NOT SUPPORTED
what is high vs low task interdependence
high: members need to draw on and combine each other’s contribution, sharing & synergizing info is central
low: members dont need to rely on each other, they rely on the best contribution of individuals
what is team longevity
how long the team members have been working together
aka tenure
what is high vs low team longevity
high: worked together long time, so members have shared understanding & common perspectives
low: members need to dev communication norms, and get to know different creative values of the team members
how did Yuan expect team longevity to influence team creativity?
Both additive and disjunctive models require teams to
coordinate and integrate each other’s ideas. Longevity helps
in either case because teams become more effective at this in
time
BOTH SUPPORTED
so when does higher creativity in teams happen?
- when task interdependence is high, ppl rely on each others ideas
- teams work together longer, they dev better communication & trust
why do groups make decisions?
- consensus building: agreeing on one option
- info integration: using collective knowledge
what are 2 types of group member resources (inputs)?
- member preferences
- member info
task of group is to combine preferences (so reach consensus) & info
what is a Social Decision Scheme?
a rule specifiying how preferences result in group decisions
how does group decision making go?
ind preferences for each alternative -> group composition (how many ppl in a grou prefer each alternative) -> group response
this last relationship is influence by social decision scheme
all influenced by changes in environment
what are the 4 types of social decision schemes?
- unanimity wins
- majority wins
- proportionality wins
- truth wins
or a combination!
what is role structure adaptation?
effectively adapting member role structures in response to unforeseen changesin the environment
-> an advantage of teams and majorely influences post change deicsion making
according to Lepine, what 4 member factors influence role structure adaptation?
- cognitive ability (positively)
- conscientiousness: achievement (positively) & dependability (negatively)
- opennes to experience (positively)
define member cognitive ability
- Capacity to process info
- Better able to learn/unlearn upon change
define member conscientiousness
Achievement (sense of competence, striving for achievement and selfdiscipline)
Dependability (need for order, careful consideration before making changes to routine)
define member opennes to experience
Personality characteristics related to creativity, broadmindedness and willingness to try new things
what are the 2 types of group problem solving tasks?
- eureka tasks
- collective induction tasks
what are eureka tasks? how do they influence group performance?
When someone finds a solution, everyone knows it is the correct one immediately (=demonstrable right answer): truth wins.
* Mean group performance determined by having min. one “smart” member.
* Groups do better than individuals (more chance of a smart member).
what are collecitve induction tasks? how do they influence group performance?
Groups must induce a general rule based on evidence.
* Groups do better than individuals (cause more info, process gains (e.g., more complex strategies))
* Observe, generate a hypothesis, and test the hypothesis (e.g., a patient may have disease X, order blood test).
define groupthink
A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in group, when members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action
what are the causes of groupthink
- cohesion
- structural faults (high pressure, biased leader)
- high internal stress (i.e., from recent failures)
-all 3 conditions TOGETHER lead to groupthink
what are the symptoms of groupthink?
Illusion of invulnerability, pressure on deviants, illusion
that all agree
what are the outcomes of groupthink?
Groups do not evaluate all alternatives and make faulty decisions
how do you avoid groupthink & conformity?
engage in independent thinking, which occurs when
- groups are competitive
- group membership has recently changed
- group members are individualistic
-> so groups need to emphasize an atmosphere in which individuality & uniqueness are valued in order to be creative, which creates divergent thinking rather than conformity
+ need to have effective group processes (communication & coordination)
what are some solution to overcome biases towards shared info?
- Initial preference diversity (conflict?!)
- Framing the task as a problem to be solved rather than a decision to be made
- Having effective leaders/devil’s advocates who can stimulate the exchange and discussion of unshared information
- Creating expert roles (a sort of transactive memory system), where people know what type of unshared information other members should have, making them respect it more and making it easier for these members to dare to share their unique info
- Improving epistemic motivation?
what are the main biases found in group problem solving?
- availability heuristic (groups less susceptible)
- sunk cost effect (groups more susceptible)
- conjunction fallacy/error
- base rate fallacy
- positive framing
- fundamental attribution error (groups less susceptible)
- hindisght bias (groups less suceptible)
define availabiltiy heuristic
Overreliance on highly salient info
define sunk cost effect
Oversensitivity to previously made costs
define conjunction fallacy/error
Estimating the likelihood of a joint event as larger than the likelihood of a single event. Findings on whether groups are more susceptible than individuals are mixed.
define base rate fallacy
A tendency to ignore base-rate information when judgements
define positive framing
The same information that is more positively framed [10% will dies, vs. 90% will survive] is preferred.
define fundamental attribution error
under-use of situational information when making attributions
define hindsight bias
estimating the probability of an unlikely event larger after you know it has happened
what did Lepine study?
how team composition - specifically members cognitive ability & personality traits - affects a teams ability to adapt to unforeseen changes (role structure adaptation) & perform well post change
what were the key findings of Lepine?
- Teams with higher cognitive ability, achievement, and openness performed better after the change.
- Teams with higher dependability performed worse because they resisted changing routines.
- The ability to quickly adapt role structures was crucial in postchange performance.
define role structure adaptation
the reactive, unscripted adjustments teams make in response to change
- involves members modifying how they communicate, share info, and coordinate
- essential for teams in high stakes environments
what is the conjunctive model of team composition?
performance is based on the weakest team member
why does dependability negatively affect adaptation?
dependable team members prefer routines & resitst change, making it harder for the team to adjust quickly
Which personality traits improve team adaptation and why?
Achievement and openness to experience improve adaptation because they lead to higher effort, creativity, and a willingness to try new things.
How does cognitive ability influence postchange team performance?
Teams with higher cognitive ability can process new information faster and develop better strategies for handling unexpected changes.
What was the experimental setup used in the study by Lepine?
Teams worked on a computer-based command and control simulation, where they had to classify aircraft threats. Halfway through, a communication breakdown occurred, forcing teams to adapt.
on what 2 main principles is brainstormingb ased?
- deferment of judgment
- quantity breeds quality
when is creativity limited?
- when u judge ur ideas
- when u dont think long enough (cause u first get conventional ideas and then start getting more creative)
why was it found that groups are less productive?
- partly motivation losses (free riding, mixed evidence on downward matching) but this isnt a big influence since most ppl find idea generation an enjoyable task
- coordination losses more important (evaluation apprehension, production blocking)
when is evaluation apprehension extra high?
when interaction anxiety is high among members
what is production blocking & its effect on group prodcutivity?
turn taking in groups
leads to coordination losses in group brainstorming exercises
what happens when production blocking is eliminated (so when ideas are shared through computer systems or on written notes)?
no productiviy loss, and productivity gains can even occur due to cognitive stimulation!
what are the stages of idea generation?
- divergent stage
- convergent stage, in which most promising ideas are selected for further consideration (but these selection criteria not always effective as many ppl have biases for feasability rather than creativity)
how come there is coordination losses in group brainstorming?
- evaluation apprehension
define evaluation apprehension
fear of being negatively evaluated by fellow group members
how can downward matching explain motivation losses in group work?
members will generally not be motivated to do most of the work, they dont want to be the sucker so they adjust their performance in order to be about as productive as the least prod group member (through social comparison)
so group performance suffers
mixed evidence
define free riding
group members may feel that their contribution is dispensable so leave work to others
how was free riding tested as a reason why groups perform less well on brainstorming?
- study 1: maniulated perceived expertness by telling some grou members that the other members had more experience with brainstorming. these groups were less producitve than groups in which this wasnt said
- study 2: participants had to generate ideas in real & nominal groups (members who work individually & whose ideas are pooled) & told some members that their ind performance would be evaluated/would matter. so if free riding was responsible for prod loss, members who were told they were ind evaluated should do as well as nominal groups. this didnt happen! these groups (ind evaluation) still had some productiive loss and diff between real & nominal groups was much larger than difference between accountable & non accountable groups
how was evaluation apprehension studied? (as a reason for groups productivity loss in brainstorming) by Diehl & Stroebe
using real & nominal groups
- half of them were told that there were judges behind a one way screen evaluating their ideas
- reasoning: in real groups high levels of evaluation apprehension will already be present (stemming from fellow group members), so the additional evaluation of the judges shouldnt have a big effect. in individuals it should.
- found: no support for evaluation apprehension as an important cause of the productivity loss
define epistemic motivation
the willingness to expend effort to achieve a thorough, rich, and accurate understanding of the world, including the gorpu task or decision problem at hand
define social motivation
the individual preference for outcome distributions between oneself & other group members and can be proself (ind is concenred w own outcomes only) or prosocial (ind is concerned w joint outcomes & fairness)
what does epistemic motivation depend on?
the percieved sufficiency of the info that is already available to the decision maker aka sufficiency pricniple
the more decizion makers perceived their current state of knowledge & info as insufficient to make a decision of satisfactory quality, the more they are motivated to engage in systematic processing of decision relevant info. when deicison makers feel they already have the info they need to make a decision, epistemic needs are satisfied & there will be no additional search for and processing of new info
but time pressure also plays role (lowers epistemic motivation)
what does the motivated information processing in groups model (mip g) do?
it integrates cognitive & motivational perspectives on group deicison making
authors argue that group decisions can be either high quality (innovative, creative, accurate) or suboptimal (biased, flawed, or driven by faulty reasoning). 2 main motivations drive group deicsion making: epistemic & social
how are groups information processors?
- groups are expected to combine individual knowledge to make better decisions
- but biases can distort info processing
what are the 4 main findings of Ledreu’s research on the MIP G model?
- high epistemic motivation leads to better group decisions
- social motivation shapes how info is processed (proself may withold/distort info, prosocial may avoid conflict by ignoring controversial but important info)
- creativity in groups depends on motivation (proself more competitie so more diverse ideas, prosocial more collaboration but maybe less creativity)
- decision making quality depends on urgency & indispensability
how does deicison urgency affect decision making quality?
if decision is urgent, epistemic motviation is lower so less quality
how does member indispensablity affect decision making quality
high indispensability leads to more systematic processing in the group
how does group atmosphere affect creativity?
atmosphere in which individuality rather than conformity is valued, seems more conductive to creativity
but individual level creativity will lead to creative group prodcuts only when groups use effective group processes
what is the “majority wins” social decision scheme?
group chooses the alternative that is endorsed by the majority w a probability of 100% (always)
- initial majorities at the ind level can be augmented at the group level
what is the “proportionality” social decision scheme?
the probability that an alternative is chosen is equal to the proportion of group members endorsing that alternative
what is the “truth wins” social decision scheme
Given that one alternative represents the truth (the “best” alternative), the group always chooses it (with a probability of 100%) when at least one member in the group endorses that alternative
occasionally minorities will be influential when group suse this SDS
what are the 2 reasons why groups are used to make decisions?
- consensus building
- info integration
what does social decision scheme theory specify?
how ind preferences are transformed to a group decision, and consists of 4 elements: ind preferences, group composition, social decision schemes, group resposne
its a decision rule that links group composition to group response
when are minorities likely to be influential in group decision making?
when groups use a “truth wins” SDS or when a certain position is more easily defended than another position
what is the leniency bias?
in jury decision makign, when pro aqcuittal factions are more influential than pro convinction factions
what is the common knowledge effect?
share info has more impact on group choice than unshared info, and even when unshared info is discussed it does not recieve the same weight as shared info
when are biases in group discussion weaker?
- when groups have diverse preferences
- when the decision is framed as a problem to be solved
- when group leaders function as info managers
- when group members have mutually recognized areas of expertise
what does Janis’ groupthink model argue?
that decision fiascos may occur
when excessive concurrence-seeking interferes with a careful
evaluation of the decision
the model distinguishes among
antecedents (high cohesion, structural faults, high stress), symptoms, and consequences of groupthink, and has attracted much attention.
However, experimental research has not yielded unequivocal support for the model, although case-studies have been more supportive.
what are 2 reasons why gropus outperform individuals when solving problems?
- correction of errors
- recognition (or generation) of the correct resposne
what is demonstrability
a characteristic of tasks
the extent to which a correct solution to a problem can be clearly identified, explained, and accepted by a group.
when is a task demonstrable?
- group members agree on a formal system to solve the problem
- enough info is present to solve it
- incorrect members recognize the correct solution when its proposed
- correct members are willing & able to share their answer w the others
