1. Groupthink As Routine In Decision Making Groups

2. Advantage of Groups Core Assumption-Diversity Is Good  Member differences in information, knowledge and perspectives leads to better decision making.  Diversity only leads to better decision making when it leads to the elaboration of task relevant information.  The deeper and more extensive consideration of task- relevant information may lead diverse groups to outperform more homogeneous groups on tasks with clear information processing and decision-making requirements.

3. Think of a team of radiologists, anesthesiologists, surgical nurses, and doctors. High-quality performance requires that team members tell each other about the different issues involved in the specific operation (e.g., how long the operation will take, what kind of surgical instruments are needed, the depth and extent of the cancer); they need to process the information, opinions, and perspectives introduced by other team members to understand what must be done and what must be followed up.

4. Characteristics Associated With Groupthink Found In “Ordinary" Groups. Characteristics are: 1. Concurrence seeking– pressure for all to be on the same page. 2. Suppression of dissent –self-censoring or pressure from others 3. Selective group attention –attend to shared information 4. Illusion of consensus— Abilene Paradox Can occurs even when antecedents of groupthink may not be there present: 1. Member of a cohesive group 2. Charismatic Leader –The leader that takes an initial position. 3. Isolation of group from qualified outsiders. 4. Crisis Situation 5. Time Pressure

5. Need For Cognition Scale  18 is considered "low" and a score of 90 "high" There is little guidance offered the differences between a score of 40 and one of 50, for example.  It relies on self-reporting. Therefore, the NCS evaluates how an individual perceives his or her cognitive motivations.  Furthermore, an individual’s mood and affective state may influence his or her perception, which adds another variable to the survey results.  Try to norm based on class averages.

6. Individual Cognitive Style and Contribution to Poor Decision Making Need For Cognition—This describes how individuals differ in their intrinsic need for and enjoyment of cognitive activities (thinking, analyzing, ruminating). High need for cognition individuals:  Enjoy cognitive stimulation (mind games)  Preference for complex tasks  Willing to commitment effort and desire for understanding (persistence seek why)

7.  Base judgments and beliefs on hard information and rational considerations  Seek out, scrutinize, and use relevant information when making decisions and solving problems  Desire new experiences that stimulate thinking

8. Low Need For Cognition Tendency to ignore, avoid, or distort new information-more close minded More likely to rely on intuitive processes—match with experiences Use heuristics (mental short cuts) in making decisions—quality and price associated Less open to new experiences Lower innovativeness

9. Applied To Team Processes Higher need to cognition people are likely to:  Find the process of finding common ground a positive challenge—integrating divergent opinions  Willing to process large amounts of information in reaching decision.  Will enjoy the possibility to probe different alternatives and suggestions.  More actively encourage team members to share different perspectives

10. Individuals With Low Need for Cognition  See the task of reviewing and reconciling different perspectives as tedious and annoying  Get bored or frustrated with in depth discussion  More likely to be used heuristics in making judgments about issues-who favors the position and how similar they are to that individuals.  May be quicker to force a decision

11. Decision Outcomes When tasks calls for elaboration of information to increase the likelihood of a good decision teams that are higher on average on Need For Cognition will perform Better.

12.  Is need for cognition a fixed quantity that is not malleable. Individuals can not change.