Gwen M. Wittenbaum

From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm

A seminal study conducted by Stasser and Titus (1985) found that groups often make suboptimal decisions on tasks structured as hidden profiles because they tend to discuss and incorporate into their decisions information that is shared (known to all members) at the expense of information that is unshared (known to a single member). In other words, groups are not able to take advantage of the unique knowledge and expertise of their members. Over the past 19 years this unsettling finding has stimulated much research that seeks answers to the questions: why and under what conditions will groups favor shared information over unshared information in their collective decisions? This article presents a review and a critique of the literature on collective information sharing that was initiated by the Stasser and Titus study. The preponderance of research in the Stasser and Titus tradition carries with it strong theoretical assumptions that bear little mundane realism to natural decision‐making groups. For example, group members are presumed to work cooperatively with one another, to be unbiased, and to present information in an objective manner. In contrast, this paper lays out the perspective that information exchange is a motivated process whereby members deliberately select what information to mention and how to mention it to particular members in order to satisfy goals.

The Functional Perspective as a Lens for Understanding Groups

The functional perspective is a normative approach to describing and predicting group performance that focuses on the functions of inputs and/or processes. The aim of theory and research from this perspective is to understand why some groups are successful and others are not. This article investigates theory and, to a lesser extent, research of small groups based on the functional perspective. The authors present the underlying theoretical assumptions and review theories that fit into the functional perspective from several representative areas of research. They conclude by outlining notable strengths and weaknesses associated with viewing groups from this perspective and propose some directions for future theory development.

A social validation explanation for mutual enhancement

Abstract Group members experience mutual enhancement when they evaluate one another’s task capabilities more positively because they are discussing shared as compared to unshared information. Two experiments investigated a social validation explanation for mutual enhancement. In Experiment 1, members of dyads read and discussed either shared or unshared information and collectively recalled this information under conditions where accuracy was important or not. Mutual enhancement occurred when need for accuracy was higher, but not when it was lower. In Experiment 2, members of dyads read validating or non-validating information from an outsider after they collectively recalled shared or unshared information. Members who discussed unshared information and received no validating communication from the outsider gave one another the lowest task capability ratings compared to members who discussed shared information and/or received validating communication from the outsider. All of these results are consistent with a social validation explanation for mutual enhancement.

Social Ostracism in Task Groups: The Effects of Group Composition

Social ostracism—being ignored or excluded—threatens needs for self-esteem, belongingness, control, and meaningful existence. In the conventional laboratory paradigms, a lone participant is ostracized by either confederates or imagined group members and then completes measures of threatened needs. This approach prohibits asking questions about the group dynamics involved in ostracism situations, such as conditions under which sources of ostracism choose to ignore targets and the communication between them. This new paradigm for studying social ostracism uses unstructured group discussions in which an uninformed member is ignored. In an experiment using three-person, mixed-gender groups, we found that the psychological threat associated with being ignored during group discussion depended on the group’s composition. Being a target of ostracism hurt more when the pair of sources included one in-group (same sex) and one out-group (opposite sex) member compared with when both sources belonged to the out-group (opposite sex).

Time Pressure Affects Process and Performance in Hidden-Profile Groups

In the present experiment, members of three-person groups read information about two hypothetical cholesterol-reducing drugs and collectively chose the better drug under high or low time pressure. Information was distributed to members as a hidden profile such that the information that supported the better drug was unshared before discussion. Correct solution of the hidden profile required members to pool their unshared knowledge. Some groups discussed the drug information from memory (memory condition). Others kept the drug information during discussion, accessing sheets that either indicated which pieces of information were shared and unshared (informed access condition) or did not (access condition). Low time pressure groups chose the better drug more often than high time pressure groups, particularly when groups had access to information. Groups in the informed access condition chose the correct drug more often than groups in the memory and access conditions. Memory groups showed the typical discussion bias favoring shared over unshared information, whereas groups with access to information during discussion reversed this bias. This effect was stronger under low than high time pressure.

Member Status and Information Exchange in Decision-Making Groups

Two decades of research have identified a robust effect: Members of decision-making groups mention and repeat shared information that all members know more so than unshared information that a single member knows. This chapter explores the idea that processes related to member status both affect and explain information exchange in decision-making groups. First, we offer five propositions that identify information sharing patterns and their implications for high- and low-status group members. Second, we highlight three theoretical explanations for the group preference for shared information and examine how well each theory accounts for the proposed member status processes.

A new era for group research: The formation of INGRoup

One hundred and fifty-three scholars interested in gro ered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on July 27 to 29, 200 To attend the inaugural conference of the Interdisciplinary N Research (INGRoup). INGRoup was formed to unite scho plines to improve the understanding of human behavior, dy comes in groups. Scholars who study groups and teams ar many disciplines, such as communication, education, his systems, nursing, organizational behavior, philosophy, ps cal science, public health, and sociology. INGRoup prov scholars to (a) communicate about group research across f (b) advance understanding about group dynamics through res theory and methods for understanding groups, and (d) pr plinary research. By all indicators, the first INGRoup con cessful in accomplishing these goals. The inaugural INGRoup conference attracted participa demic institutions spanning at least eight disciplines history, industrial science, information systems, organiz philosophy, psychology, and sociology). Of the particip faculty, 26% were students, and 3% were professionals. A participants came from the United States, the conference pants from as far away as Canada, Germany, the Nethe Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, and the United King shared ideas during formal paper sessions, an interactiv and communal meals. Formal paper sessions, in most c combination of papers from scholars in different discipl each of the two plenary sessions included a mix of invite from different fields to address two questions: How do dif approach the study of groups? and What methodologica used in these fields to do so? What may not have been app gural INGRoup participants is how many years it took to forum. 10.1177/1046496406294317