Presentation on theme: "Decision making in groups: strategic behaviour, biased processing and interpersonal emotions Claudia Toma Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale, Grenoble."— Presentation transcript:
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 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
Decision making in groups Decision making involves information processing, namely sharing and use of available information that group members possess (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997). ▪ Hidden profile studies: - groups are less than optimal users of information - group decisions are often suboptimal (Stasser, 1999). The added value of decision making in groups (McGrath, 1984): information gains & improved decision quality
Hidden profile paradigm (Stasser & Titus, 1985, 1987, 2003) Decision1 (Member 1) Decision 2 (Member 2) Decision 3 (Member 3) Optimal Decision (Group) PHASE I : individual decisionsPHASE II: group discussion Shared information Unshared information 1 Unshared information 2 Unshared information 3
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)
Toward a “ SOCIAL VALUE of UNSHARED INFORMATION ” explanation The control of information is an important base of social power (French & Raven, 1959). Group members should be motivated to strategically use their information in order to get a competitive advantage in group. Competition is likely to occur in hidden profiles (Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004).
Motivated information sharing and use (Wittenbaum et al., 2004) Features of Context Members’ Goals What Information is Mentioned ? How Information Is Used? To Whom ? Decision Quality Members Relations TASK AFFECTIVE OUTPUTS PROCESSES INPUTS Cooperation vs. Competition Unshared Shared Hidden Profile Discovery Mistrust Harmful Intentions Disconfirmation of initial decisions Goals Interdependence + and -
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. I. Strategic information sharing and decision quality: Main Hypotheses Competition, compared to cooperation, leads to:
Procedure PHASE I: individual decisions Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 Decision 1 Decision 2 Decision 3 Dissent PHASE III: interpersonal emotions measures PHASE II: group decision COOPERATION COMPETITION Group Discussion videotaped and coded =
Results on group processes: information sharing (H1) F(1,26) = 7.42, p <.05. Similar results were found for information repetition.
Results on group processes: disconfirmation of initial decisions (H2a & H2b): Cooperation (+1) Competition (-1) Disconfirmation.70*** (.01 ns) Initial decisions (dissent).85***.82*** z Sobel = 3.60 p<.001.70***
Mistrust, harmful intentions and decision making Mood influence information processing (Forgas, 1992). And focusing in hypothesis testing (Gangemi & Mancini, 2007). 23456 1. Decision quality.74***.69***-.49**-.44*-.46* 2. Disconfirmation.81***-.48**-.42*-.44* 3. Unshared info-.55**-.48**-.51** 4. Mistrust91.***.84*** 5. Self harmful intentions.78*** 6. Others’ harmful intentions
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
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: a) motivates information search (Lanzetta & Driscoll, 1966, 1968); COOPERATION : unshared > shared information b) results in higher levels of threat (Conolley, Gerard, & Kline, 1978). COMPETITION : shared > unshared information
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.
II. Biased processing: Study II.1. Hypothesis : Less disconfirmation in competition reflects more focusing on initial decisions (confirmation bias). Incomplete information ↓ Decision 1 (suboptimal) Phase I Manipulation Coop, Comp Dissent Phase II All information available ↓ Final decision Phase IV Subsequent information evaluation (consistent inconsistent) Phase III We manipulated: Cooperation vs. Competition Dissent (Yes vs. No) using an individual task with fictitious group discussion.
Confirmation bias: focusing on initial decisions χ² Wald (1, N=80) = 3.99, p <.05
Mediated moderation hypothesis Information value = consistent information – inconsistent information Cooperation Competition Confirmation Information value Dissent
PREDICTORS Equation 1 (DV=CB) Equation 2 (ME) Equation 3 (DV=CB) BWaldBtB IV : COOP, COMP 1.2316.01*-0.575-1.251.0883.46 MO: DISSENT.4640.85-0.808-1.760.1090.03 IV X MO 2.0053.98*-3.017-3.29***1.1030.89 ME: INFO VALUE -0.5299.73** ME X MO -0.3911.32 Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt (2005)
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.
Possible contributions to ADSR 1)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.
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.
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.
Decision making in groups: strategic behaviour, biased processing and interpersonal emotions Claudia Toma Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale, Grenoble Louvain, May the 10th, 2007
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)
χ² (1, N=28) = 12.85, p <.001 Results on outcome: decision quality (H3a)
Mistrust and jealousy t(26)= 4.48 p <.001 t(26)= 1.70 p =.10