R. Scott Tindale

The Emerging Conceptualization of Groups as Information Processors

A selective review of research highlights the emerging view of groups as information processors. In this review, the authors include research on processing objectives, attention, encoding, storage, retrieval, processing, response, feedback, and learning in small interacting task groups. The groups as information processors perspective underscores several characteristic dimensions of variability in group performance of cognitive tasks, namely, commonality-uniqueness of information, convergence-diversity of ideas, accentuation-attenuation of cognitive processes, and belongingness-distinctiveness of members. A combination of contributions framework provides an additional conceptualization of information processing in groups. The authors also address implications, caveats, and questions for future research and theory regarding groups as information processors.

Bias Against Overweight Job Applicants in a Simulated Employment Interview

This study assessed whether moderately obese individuals, especially women, would be discriminated against in a mock employment interview. Potential confounding factors were controlled by having 320 Ss rate videotapes of a job interview that used the same professional actors appearing as normal weight or made up to appear overweight by the use of theatrical prostheses. Results suggested that bias against hiring overweight job applicants does exist, especially for female applicants. Bias was most pronounced when applicants were rated by Ss who were satisfied with their bodies and for whom perceptions of their bodies were central to self-concept. The decision not to hire an obese applicant was, however, only partially mediated by personality attributions. Implications and limitations of these results are discussed.

'Social Sharedness' as a Unifying Theme for Information Processing in Groups

Although much of the research on small groups in social psychology has emphasized cognitive, information-processing tasks (decision-making and problem solving), only recently have groups been conceptualized as information-processing systems. Partially due to this new conceptualization, group research is on the rise, yet much of this research is discipline specific. Few attempts have been made to integrate this research to provide common themes or frameworks across disciplinary boundaries. We propose that one potential unifying theme underlying much of the recent research on groups is ‘social sharedness’: the degree to which cognitions, preferences, identities, etc. are shared and are being shared within groups. Through a targeted review of the literature, we attempt to demonstrate that social sharedness is central to understanding group decision-making, provides a tie between past and current group research, and can serve a unifying function for future endeavors.

Shared Information, Cognitive Load, and Group Memory

One of the key findings concerning how groups process information is the ‘common knowledge effect’—information shared by many group members plays a larger role in group process and performance than unshared information. However, in an information rich environment, assigning all information to all members may overload each member’s cognitive capabilities. Thus, the question addressed here is how to optimally assign information to group members. Following a model proposed by Zajonc and Smoke (1959), we assessed the effects of information assignment redundancy and group interaction on group memory performance. Participants in five-person groups either received a full list of consonant-verb-consonant non-word trigrams to memorize, or a partial list with each trigram distributed to two group members. Groups recalled the trigrams as either coacting or interacting groups. In terms of correct recall, coacting groups outperformed interacting groups, and partial redundancy produced better recall than total redundancy. However, intrusion errors were greatly reduced by group interaction and/or a reduction in the cognitive load on the individual group members (i.e. partial redundancy). Groups in the partial redundancy condition tended to perform near optimal levels. Implications for future research on information distribution in groups are discussed.

Reasons for the trend toward null findings in research on type A behavior

The findings of many studies conducted before 1978 suggest that Type A behavior (TAB) contributes to the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). In contrast, many recent studies have found no association between these variables. Through meta-analysis, several reasons for null findings are identified. First, a type of range restriction bias, disease-based spectrum (DBS) bias, produced many null findings. A study is vulnerable to DBS bias when researchers select only high-risk or diseased Ss for study. Second, self-report measures of TAB were often associated with null findings. Finally, null results were found for all studies that used fatal myocardial infarction as a disease criterion. In addition to identifying the reasons for null findings, this research suggests that TAB, as assessed by the structured interview, is associated with CHD. More Type As (70%) were found in diseased populations of middle-aged men than in healthy populations of middle-aged men (46%).

Applications of Heuristics and Biases to Social Issues

Heuristics and Biases in Applied Settings: An Introduction L. Heath, R.S. Tindale. Heuristics and Biases in Health Decision Making: Their Expression in Genetic Counseling S. Shiloh. AIDS, Sterile Needles, and Ethnocentrism R.M. Dawes. Heuristics and Biases in Medical Judgment and Decision Making S. Schwartz. Cognitive Heuristics and Biases in Personality Assessment H.N. Garb. Negligence Law and Mental Mutation: A Social Inference Model of Apportioning Fault R.L. Wiener, C.C. Pritchard. Lay Evaluations of Encounters with Government Officials: Do Expectations Serve as Filters and Standards? L.J. Stalans. Biases and Rationality in the Mediation Process K. Gibson, et al. Heuristic Processing in Organizational Judgments C.T. Kulik. 7 additional articles. Index.

Social sharing and risk reduction : Exploring a computational algorithm for the psychology of windfall gains

Sharing important resources widely beyond direct kin group members is one of the core features characterizing human societies. Moreover, generalized exchange involving many community members (e.g., meat sharing in bands) seems to be a uniquely human practice. This paper explores a computational algorithm for the psychology of social sharing that may underlie such practices, based on the risk-reduction hypothesis in food sharing of Kaplan and Hill [Curr. Anthropol. 26 (1985) 223]. We predicted that, independent of the amount of effort actually invested, uncertainty involved in resource acquisition is a key factor that triggers the psychology of social sharing for both acquirers and nonacquirers of a resource. It was also predicted that the ‘‘windfall effect’’ is independent of individual preferences as to modern distributive ideologies. Four multisample/multimethod studies, using Japanese and American participants, and laboratory as well as vignette experiments, supported these predictions: although the identical fungible resource (money) was under consideration, different psychological processes were triggered, depending on the degree of uncertainty involved in the money acquisition. Implications of the windfall effect for egalitarianism in resource sharing, observed not only in

Methodological issues in applied social psychology

Resource Planning for Applied Research L. Bickman. Problem Identification in Social Intervention Research Y. Suarez-Balcazar, et al. Ethical Issues in CommunityBased Research and Intervention J.E. Sieber, J.L. Sorensen. Lessons from the Meta-Analysis of Quasi-Experiments P.M. Wortman. A Structure Diary Methodology for the Study of Daily Events A. DeLongis, et al. Time Series Methods in Applied Social Research M.M. Mark, et al. Structural Equations Modeling R.E. Olmstead, P.M. Bentler. Research Without Control Groups J. McKillip. Statistical Analysis for SingleCase Designs P.R. Yarnold. Qualitative Activist Research M. Fine, V. Vanderslice. Thought Experiments and Applied Social Research R.S. Tindale, D.A. Vollrath. Computer Networks in Field Research S. Kiesler, et al. Communicating Applied Social Psychology to Users E.J. Posavac. Index.

Investment Decisions by Individuals and Groups in `Sunk Cost' Situations: The Potential Impact of Shared Representations:

Past research has shown that individuals prefer to continue investing resources into a failing endeavor once a considerable investment has been made, even when abandoning the project would be more rational economically. This phenomenon has been labeled the sunk cost effect (Arkes & Blumer, 1985). Since investment decisions are often made by groups, we compared individual and group propensities for falling prey to the sunk cost effect. We also varied whether or not individuals and groups needed to justify their investment decision to a superior. Both individuals and groups showed the sunk cost effect. Group process analyses showed that error-prone majorities were more powerful than more rational minorities. In addition, group decisions seemed to be a function of two competing task representations - one favoring the sunk cost interpretation and the other favoring economic rationality.

Framing of majority and minority source information in persuasion - When and how "consensus implies correctness"

Information about source consensus may either create expectancies of message validity that bias subsequent processing, or may determine the amount of message processing. The authors propose that which of the two effects occurs depends on the framing of consensus information. Undergraduates (N = 242) read strong, ambiguous, or weak arguments on an issue; the source was framed as either knowledgeable or similar to participants; source consensus was either low (minority) or high (majority). Dependent variables were the favorability of cognitive responses and postmessage attitudes. As predicted, knowledge framing caused consensus-based assimilation for ambiguous arguments, and contrast for both strong and weak arguments, whereas similarity framing caused extensive processing of minority arguments, but uncritical acceptance of majority arguments.