1 / 29

Decision making in groups: strategic behaviour, biased processing and interpersonal emotions

Decision making in groups: strategic behaviour, biased processing and interpersonal emotions. Claudia Toma Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale, Grenoble University. Louvain, May the 10th, 2007. Overview of this talk. Research Directions I. Strategic information sharing and decision quality

ella-kirkland
Télécharger la présentation

Decision making in groups: strategic behaviour, biased processing and interpersonal emotions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Decision making in groups:strategic behaviour, biased processing and interpersonal emotions Claudia Toma Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale, Grenoble University Louvain, May the 10th, 2007

  2. Overview of this talk • Research Directions I. Strategic information sharing and decision quality 3 Studies ( I.1, I.2, & I.3) II. Biased processing in decision making 3 Studies (II.1, II.2, & II.3) • Possible contributions to ADSR

  3. Decision making in groups • Decision making involves information processing, namely sharing and use of available information that group members possess (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997). • The added value of decision making in groups (McGrath, 1984): information gains & improved decision quality ▪Hidden profile studies: - groups are less than optimal users of information - group decisions are often suboptimal (Stasser, 1999).

  4. Decision1 Unshared information 1 (Member 1) Decision 3 Shared information (Member 3) Unshared information 3 Unshared information 2 Decision 2 Optimal Decision (Member 2) (Group) Hidden profile paradigm (Stasser & Titus, 1985, 1987, 2003) PHASE I : individual decisions PHASE II: group discussion

  5. Poor decision quality (Stasser & Stewart, 1992; Stewart & Stasser, 1998; Stasser, Stewart, & Wittenbaum, 1995; Hollingshead, 1996; Larson, Christensen, Abbott, & Franz, 1996; Brodbeck, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, Frey, & Schulz-Hardt, 2002) Biased sampling effect POOLING:Shared  Unshared information REPETITION: Shared > Unshared information DISCUSSION TIME: Shared > Unshared information

  6. Theoretical explanations • BIASED SHARING and PROCESSING • Collective sampling bias (Stasser & Titus, 1985, 1987) • Confirmation bias (individual decisions focusing) (Greitemeyer & Schulz-Hardt, 2003 ) SOCIAL VALUE of SHARED INFORMATION • Social validation (Wittenbaum, Hubbell, & Zuckerman, 1999)

  7. Toward a “SOCIAL VALUE of UNSHARED INFORMATION”explanation • The control of information is an important base of social power(French & Raven, 1959). • Competition is likely to occur in hidden profiles (Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004). • Group members should be motivated to strategically • use their information in order to get a competitive advantage • in group.

  8. Motivated information sharing and use (Wittenbaum et al., 2004) OUTPUTS PROCESSES TASK What Information is Mentioned? Unshared Shared Hidden Profile Discovery Decision Quality INPUTS Disconfirmation of initial decisions How Information Is Used? Features of Context Cooperation vs. Competition Goals Interdependence + and - Members’ Goals AFFECTIVE Mistrust Harmful Intentions Members Relations To Whom ?

  9. I. Strategic information sharing and decision quality:Main Hypotheses Competition, compared to cooperation, leads to: Hypothesis 1: less information sharing, especially unshared information. Hypothesis 2: a) lesser use of disconfirmation; b) mediation by expressed initial decisions (dissent). Hypothesis 3: a) suboptimal decisions; b) mediation by unshared information and disconfirmation.

  10. Member 1 Decision 1 Dissent Member 2 Decision 2 Decision 3 Member 3 PHASE II: group decision COOPERATION Group Discussion videotaped and coded = COMPETITION Procedure PHASE I: individual decisions PHASE III: interpersonal emotions measures

  11. Results on group processes: informationsharing (H1) F(1,26) = 7.42, p < .05. Similar results were found for information repetition.

  12. Results on group processes: disconfirmation of initial decisions (H2a & H2b): Initial decisions (dissent) zSobel = 3.60 p<.001 .82*** .85*** Cooperation (+1) Competition (-1) Disconfirmation .70*** .70*** (.01 ns)

  13. Results on outcome : Decision quality (H3a & H3b) Disconfirmation Unshared information 1.38* .23* .70*** .60** Cooperation (+1) Competition (-1) Decision quality 1.74** (1.10 ns) 1.74** (.69 ns) 1.74** zSobel = 2.18 p<.05 zSobel = 2.31 p<.05

  14. Mistrust, harmful intentions and decision making • Mood influence information processing (Forgas, 1992). • And focusing in hypothesis testing (Gangemi & Mancini, 2007).

  15. Preliminary Conclusions • In competition (compared to cooperation) group members are strategic when pooling less unshared but not less shared information. • Initial decisions are less mentioned in competition which explain that disconfirmation and unshared information were ineffective, leading to poor decision quality. • Mistrust and harmful intentions are linked to decision quality. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS : • Is competition responsible for the biased sampling effect ? Under which conditions? Study I.3 • Ineffective disconfirmation (in competition) might reflect a biased processing, namely focusing on initial decisions. Study II.1

  16. Study I.3 We manipulated task uncertainty with regard to the final decision: - High uncertainty (four alternatives are equally probable) - Low uncertainty (one alternative is probable) • Reducing uncertainty is a main concern when taking decisions (Raiffa, 1968; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). • Uncertainty leads to two distinct effects: • motivates information search (Lanzetta & Driscoll, 1966, 1968); • COOPERATION : unshared > shared information • results in higher levels of threat (Conolley, Gerard, & Kline, 1978). • COMPETITION : shared > unshared information

  17. Results on information sharing Low uncertainty High uncertainty F (1,43) = 4.43, p <.05 Participants’ ratings : more information was needed and more competition was perceived under high uncertainty.

  18. Incomplete information ↓ Decision 1 (suboptimal) Manipulation Coop, Comp Dissent All information available ↓ Final decision Subsequent information evaluation (consistent inconsistent) Phase I Phase II Phase IV Phase III II. Biased processing: Study II.1. • Hypothesis : Less disconfirmation in competition reflects more focusing on initial decisions (confirmation bias). • We manipulated: Cooperation vs. Competition • Dissent (Yes vs. No) • using an individual task with fictitious group discussion.

  19. Confirmation bias: focusing on initial decisions χ²Wald (1, N=80) = 3.99, p < .05

  20. Mediated moderation hypothesis Dissent Information value Confirmation Cooperation Competition Information value = consistent information – inconsistent information

  21. Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt (2005)

  22. General Conclusions • In decision making tasks involving social threat (competition) and interdependence with others (hidden profile) : • people are strategic when pooling information; this effect is reinforced under high uncertainty; • people are biased when processing subsequent information; • strategic information pooling and biased processing result in poor decision quality; • mistrust and harmful intentions are linked to strategic and biased processing in decision making.

  23. Possible contributions to ADSR • Emotion perception and decision making : • others’ emotions as a source of information • Aim: Directly investigating the effect of mistrust and others’ • harmful intentions on post-decisional information search and • biased processing. • General Hypothesis: Mistrust and harmful intentions should • lead to focus on initial decision and increase in search for • consistent information.

  24. 2) Emotion perception and decision making : biases in decoding others’ emotions Aim:Investigating when and why biases occur in decoding emotions (e.g., fear of exploitation) in threatening situations involving social interdependence and how this impacts decisions (e.g., playing cooperatively). General Hypothesis: Biases in decoding others emotions should occur more likely when there is high similarity between self and others with impact on decision processes.

  25. 3) Empathy and decision making : affective forecasting Aim:Investigating the role of expectations on affective forecasting and empathetic responses in cooperation and competition and how this impact behavioral decisions (e.g., information sharing). General Hypothesis: In competition, compared to cooperation, individuals underestimate others cooperative behavior and therefore they should primarily infer negative emotional state (e.g., distress), manifest counter empathetic responses leading to information withholding and distortion.

  26. Decision making in groups:strategic behaviour, biased processing and interpersonal emotions Claudia Toma Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale, Grenoble Louvain, May the 10th, 2007

  27. Task characteristics • Dissent between individual decisions and a disconfirmation strategy leading to an optimal decision; (pilot studies 1- 4) • Known diagnostic value of unshared information and possibility • to identify shared from unshared information; • (pilot study 5) • Perceived intragroup interdependence. (pilot study 6)

  28. Results on outcome: decision quality (H3a) χ² (1, N=28) = 12.85, p < .001

  29. Mistrust and jealousy t(26)= 4.48 p < .001 t(26)= 1.70 p = .10

More Related