Week 3 Flashcards
what does this refer to: Even if no member has the right answer, by sharing the unique
information different members have, the group can figure out the
correct answer
Process Gain
Hidden profile tasks
The correct solution is initially hidden from group members and can only
be detected if group members exchange their unshared information
epistemic motivation vs social motivation
epistemic motivation: you want to reach an accurate understanding of the world
social motivation: proself vs prosocial
social motivation is going to affect (3 parts)
- information search and processing
- information sharing
- idea generation and problems solving
epistemic motivation is going to affect (3 things)
- group reliance on decision heuristics
- group centeredness
- idea generation and problem solving
social motivation x epistemic motivation
Proself SM & Low EM
Proself SM & High EM
Prosocial SM & Low EM
Prosocial SM & High EM
Proself SM & Low EM:
- Vetoing
- Indecision
- Ignoring ideas
Proself SM & High EM:
- Arguing and
counterarguing
- Independence
Prosocial & Low EM:
- Pressure on deviants
- Lazy compromising
Prosocial SM & High EM:
- Information pooling
- Attention to others’
ideas
Process Gain of Group
Brainstorming
Cognitive stimulation: Group members can
build off of each others
ideas to come up with
ideas that one wouldn’t
normally think of and
help start new trains of
thought
Process Losses of Group
Brainstorming
- Increase with group size
(Ringelmann effect) and explained
more by coordination losses than
motivation losses (brainstorming is
fun!)
Types of coordination losses in
brainstorming in groups:
* Evaluation apprehension,
especially in high-anxiety
groups
* Production blocking (from turntaking in groups, causes
cognitive interference)
IS GROUP IDEA GENERATION A GOOD
IDEA?
Groups generally do worse than individuals at brainstorming
(process losses > process gain)
BUT: people often think groups do better
* Why? Brainstorming feels subjectively easier in groups!
Group creativity: on a feasibility x originality graph
low feasibility and low originality: bad ideas
high feasibility and low originality: conventional ideas
low feasibility and high originality: crazy ideas
high feasibility and high originality: good ideas
Team creativity: difference between the additive model and the disjunctive model
additive model: Creativity is the result of the team average, meaning Average
individual creativity predicts team
creativity
disjunctive model: Creativity is promoted by the most creative members alone, meaning Highest
individual creativity predicts team
creativity
moderators for relationship between individual creativity and group creativity
- task interdependence: Average individual creativity has a stronger relationship with
team creativity when task interdependence is high, whereas
highest individual creativity has a stronger relationship with
team creativity when task interdependence is low. - Task creativity requirements: Average individual creativity is more positively associated with
team creativity when creativity requirements are lower BUT NOT ON THE OTHER SIDE - Idea implementation: Average individual creativity is less positively associated with
team creativity when team tasks require the implementation BUT NOT OTHER WAY AROUND - Team size: not supported by research
- Team longevity: Average individual creativity has a more positive relationship with
team creativity in teams with higher longevity. SIMILARLY
Highest individual creativity has a more positive relationship with
team creativity in teams with higher longevity
2 types of group member resources (inputs!) to make decisions
- member preferences
- member information
TYPES OF SOCIAL DECISION
SCHEMES
1.Unanimity wins
2. Majority wins
3. Proportionality wins
4. Truth wins
SOCIAL DECISION SCHEME (SDS)
THEORY
Individual preference affects groups composition (how many
people in a group
prefer each alternative)
Group composition leads to group decision
Social Decision Scheme mediates relationship between group composition and group decision
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS:
LEPINE ARTICLE
you have individual differences in teams in regards to
- member cognitive ability
- member conscientiousness (achievement + dependability)
- member openness to experience
they all have a positive correlation with post change performance, EXCEPT FOR member dependability ( careful consideration
before making changes to
routine)
role structure adaptation also has a positive relationship with post change performance
GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING: eureka task
▪When someone finds a solution, everyone knows it is the correct
one immediately (=demonstrable right answer): truth wins
▪ Mean group performance determined by having at least one smart
member
▪ Groups do better than individuals (more chance of a smart member)
GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING: Collective Induction Tasks
Groups must induce a general rule based on evidence
* Groups do better than individuals because they can process large quantities of
information better than individuals and can have process gains because they use
more complex strategies
Two reasons why groups are better than individuals at problem
solving:
- Greater chance of having someone who knows how to solve the
problem - The ability to correct errors
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
causes, symptoms and outcomes of groupthink
Causes: cohesion, structural faults (high pressure, biased leader), high
internal stress (i.e., from recent failures); all 3 conditions TOGETHER
lead to groupthink
Symptoms: Illusion of invulnerability, pressure on deviants, illusion that
all agree
Outcomes: Groups do not evaluate all alternatives and make faulty
decisions
instead of groupthink, group
members need to engage in
independent thinking. groups need to emphasize an atmosphere in which individuality and
uniqueness are valued in order to be creative
Solutions to overcome biases towards shared information:
MIP-G: motivated information processessors in groups
social motivation leads to some biaises. epistemic motivation will guide how in depth you’ll processes the information. together these inform how the information will be treated, and then the quality of group judgment and decision
