The individual preference effect supplements the predominant group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles. Even in the absence of dysfunctional group-level processes, group members tend to stick to their suboptimal initial decision preferences due to preference-consistent evaluation of information. However, previous experiments demonstrating this effect retained two group-level processes, namely (a) social validation of information supporting the group members’ initial preferences and (b) presentation of the additional information in a discussion format. Therefore, it was unclear whether the individual preference effect depends on the co-occurrence of these group-level processes. Here, we report two experiments demonstrating that the individual preference effect is indeed an individual-level phenomenon. Moreover, by a comparison to real interacting groups, we can show that even when all relevant information is exchanged and when no coordination losses occur, almost half of all groups would fail to solve hidden profiles due to the individual preference effect.
Brodbeck, F.C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2002). The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: The effects of pre-discussion dissent. European Journal of Social Psychology,32, 35-56.
2.
Brodbeck, F.C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2007). Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model . Academy of Management Review, 32, 459-479.
3.
Chernyshenko, O.S., Miner, A.G., Baumann, M.R., & Sniezek, J.A. ( 2003). The impact of information distribution, ownership, and discussion on group member judgment: The differential cue weighting model . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,91, 12-25.
4.
Davis, J.H. ( 1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review,80, 97-125.
5.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review,12, 22-49.
6.
Dennis, A.R. ( 1996). Information exchange and use in small group decision making. Small Group Research,27, 532-550.
7.
Ditto, P.H., & Lopez, D.F. ( 1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63, 568-584.
8.
Ditto, P.H., Scepansky, J.A., Munro, G.D., Apanovitch, A.M., & Lockhart, L.K. (1998). Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 53-69.
9.
Edwards, K., & Smith, E.E. ( 1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,71, 5-24.
10.
Galinsky, A.D., & Kray, L.J. ( 2004). From thinking about what might have been to sharing what we know: The effects of counterfactual mind-sets on information sharing in groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,40, 606-618.
11.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. ( 1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65, 959-974.
12.
Greitemeyer, T., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2003). Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 322-339.
13.
Greitemeyer, T., Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F.C., & Frey, D. ( 2006). Information sampling and group decision making: The effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,12, 31-42.
14.
Greitemeyer, T., Schulz-Hardt, S., & Frey, D. ( 2003). Präferenzkonsistenz und Geteiltheit von Informationen als Einflussfaktoren auf Informationsbewertung und intendiertes Diskussionsverhalten bei Gruppenentscheidungen [Preference consistency and sharedness of information as predictors of information evaluation and intended behavior in group discussions] . Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 34, 9-23.
15.
Hollingshead, A.B. ( 1996). The rank-order effect in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,68, 181-193.
16.
Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. ( 2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80,557-571.
17.
Kerr, N.L., & Tindale, R.S. ( 2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623-656.
18.
Klocke, U. ( 2007). How to improve decision making in small groups: Effects of dissent and training interventions. Small Group Research ,6, 437-468.
19.
Larson, J.R., Jr., Christensen, C., Franz, T.M., & Abbott, A.S. ( 1998). Diagnosing groups: The pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 93-108.
20.
Laughlin, P.R., & Ellis, A.L. ( 1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology ,22, 177-189.
21.
Lavery, T.A., Franz, T.M., Winquist, J.R., & Larson, J.R., Jr. (1999). The role of information exchange in predicting group accuracy on a multiple judgment task. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,21, 281-289.
22.
Mojzisch, A., Grouneva, L., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (in press). Biased evaluation of information during discussion: Disentangling the effects of preference consistency, social validation, and ownership of information. European Journal of Social Psychology.
23.
Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2006). Information sampling in group decision making: Sampling biases and their consequences . In K. Fiedler & P. Juslin (Eds.), Information sampling and adaptive cognition (pp. 299-325). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Knowing others’ preferences degrades the quality of group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 794-808.
25.
Mojzisch, A., Schulz-Hardt, S., Kerschreiter, R., Brodbeck, F.C., & Frey, D. ( 2008). Social validation in group decision making: Differential effects on the decisional impact of preference-consistent and preference-inconsistent information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,44, 1477-1490.
26.
Nijstad, B.A., & Kaps, S.C. ( 2008). Taking the easy way out: Preference diversity, decision strategies, and decision refusal in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,94,860-870.
27.
Parks, C.D., & Cowlin, R.A. ( 1996). Acceptance of uncommon information into group discussion when that information is or is not demonstrable. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 307-315.
28.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. ( 2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80, 918-930.
29.
Reimer, T., Kuendig, S., Hoffrage, U., Park, E., & Hinsz, V. ( 2007). Effects of the information environment on group discussions and decisions in the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 74, 1-28.
30.
Scholten, L., van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B.A., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,43, 539-552.
31.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F.C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. ( 2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,91, 1080-1093.
32.
Stasser, G. ( 1992). Pooling of unshared information during group discussion . In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 48-67). Newbury Park, CA : Sage.
33.
Stasser, G., & Birchmeier, Z. (2003). Group creativity and collective choice. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity (pp. 85-109). New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
Stasser, G., Stewart, D.D., & Wittenbaum, G.M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,31, 244-256.
35.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. ( 1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,48, 1467-1478.
36.
Steiner, I.D. ( 1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
37.
Toma, C., & Butera, F. ( 2009). Hidden profile and concealed information: Strategic information sharing and use in group decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35, 793-806.
38.
Van Swol, L.M. ( 2007). Perceived importance of information: The effects of mentioning of information, shared information bias, ownership bias, reiteration, and confirmation bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations ,10, 239-256.
39.
Van Swol, L.M., Savadori, L., & Sniezek, J.A. ( 2003). Factors that may affect the difficulty of uncovering hidden profiles. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations ,6, 285-304.
40.
Voigtlaender, D., Pfeiffer, F., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2009). Listing and structuring of discussion content as a means of improving individual decision quality in hidden profiles.Social Psychology,40, 79-87.
41.
Wittenbaum, G.M., Hollingshead, A.B., & Botero, I.C. ( 2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71, 286-310.
42.
Wittenbaum, G.M., Hubbell, A.P., & Zuckerman, C. ( 1999). Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 967-978.
