Lecture 6 - Team Information Processing and Decision Making Flashcards
What is the common knowledge effect?
Disproportional influence of shared (compared to) unshared information in group settings.
- This information is mentioned and repeated more frequently.
What are the three main aspects that increase the probability of common shared knowledge effect to occur?
- Collective information knowledge (probabilistic)
- Preference-consistent evaluation of information (confirmation bias)
- Social costs vs. benefits - no one goes against the group (no superior/inferior level of expertise) because that makes you an outlier and breaks group harmony.
Why would organizations delegate decisions to teams rather than to individuals?
- Broader knowledge base
- Shared responsibility
- Motivational benefits
- More oversight
Why is collective information sampling problematic?
Individuals randomly derive information from memory.
any recalled information would be mentioned => higher likelihood of shared information to be mentioned and approved.
What is the probabilistic explanation for the common knowledge effect?
Collective information sampling/knowledge
What factors can help overcome the common knowledge effect, based on logic-collective information sampling?
Info - low percentage of overall and shared info
Tasks - recalling requirements and increased salience (dominance) of unshared info
Temporal factor - the absence of time pressure/length discussion (this factor can be both negative and positive depending on context).
What is confirmation bias?
People seek and prefer information that corresponds to their expectations, hypotheses etc. (mindset) even if disconfirming information (different from their views) is more valuable.
Why is shared information more likely to be mentioned?
Because it corresponds to preference-consistent evaluation and initial preferences.
Common knowledge effect is the result of what?
The result of cognitive bias, socio-motivational influences, or confirmation bias.
What are the two directions that explain the common knowledge effect?
Logic-collective information sampling and preference-consistent evaluation of information sampling
How can confirmation bias affect interviewing?
More positive and favorable style of interviewing, less intimidating questions, more selling of the company and the role, and less questions overall.
What factors can help overcome the common knowledge effect, based on preference-consistent evaluation of information sampling?
Type and distribution of information - divergent initial preferences
RANKING alternatives rather than choosing the best one
Identifying the correct answer, rather than judging the incorrect ones.
Which procedures help to switch perspectives and diversify input (based on preference-consistent evaluation of info)?
Mental - switch of perspective and frames
Personal - being Devil’s advocate (provoking opposite opinion to ignite debate or test the strengths of opposing arguments)
Temporally - look into every possible twist and angle of a situation, and have hindsight for the future.
Why is preference-consistent evaluation of information sampling problematic?
Because of the confirmation bias.
Shared information is more likely to be mentioned because it corresponds to initial preferences.
Why is social costs vs benefits sampling of information problematic?
Sharing unshared information might not find enough support and credibility in a team while sharing shared information helps keep the status quo through its credibility.
What factors can help overcome the common knowledge effect, based on social costs vs benefits sampling of information?
- Consensus norm RATHER than critical evaluation
- Expert roles
- High role - both shared and unshared info
- Low role - mostly shared information
Equality (+/-) - depending on context
Partial sharedness (an informed minority in a team)
What are the two motivations that shape the way teams process information?
Social motivation and epistemic motivation (always together, not separate)
How is social motivation divided?
Pro-self - prioritizing own goals rather than team goals
Pro-social - prioritizing team goals rather than own goals
What does epistemic motivation mean?
The amount of effort the individual is ready to put to understand/research/go-in depth in the processing of certain information. (motivation divided by low/high)
What do the different combinations of social and epistemic motivation translate to?
Pro-social, high epistemic motivation - asking the right questions, the team succeeds - TEAM SUCESS
Pro-social, low epistemic motivation - agreeing to team decisions but not giving any input.
Pro-self, high-epistemic motivation - advocating dominantly own interest and knowledge with an interest of the self rather than team performance.
Pro-self, low epistemic motivation - having your own interests and little interest in the team topic - SLACKING
What types of processing are associated with low and high epistemic motivation?
Low epistemic motivation - heuristic processing
High epistemic motivation - deep processing
What variables do epistemic and social motivations take?
Personality variables (agreeableness, need for affiliation, and cognition) and structure variables (time pressure, accountability, incentive schemes, cultural values).
What are the intermediate factors between Informational dissemination and Integration and the Quality of group judgment and decision?
Decision urgency and Member input indispensability.
What is the positive attribute of decision urgency?
It establishes cohesion and smooths coordination between members (prosocial).
