1932

Abstract

This article reviews recent empirical research on collective choice and collaborative problem solving. Much of the collective choice research focuses on hidden profiles. A hidden profile exists when group members individually have information favoring suboptimal choices but the group collectively has information favoring an optimal choice. Groups are notoriously bad at discovering optimal choices when information is distributed to create a hidden profile. Reviewed work identifies informational structures, individual processing biases, and social motivations that inhibit and facilitate the discovery of hidden profiles. The review of collaborative problem-solving research is framed by Larson's concept of synergy. Synergy refers to performance gains that are attributable to collaboration. Recent research has addressed factors that result in groups performing as well as their best member (weak synergy) and better than their best member (strong synergy). Communication dynamics underlying both collective choice and collaborative problem solving are discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103211
2020-01-04
2024-06-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/71/1/annurev-psych-010418-103211.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103211&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abele S, Stasser G. 2008. Coordination success and interpersonal perceptions: matching versus mismatching. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95:3576–92
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abele S, Stasser G, Chartier C 2014. Use of social knowledge in tacit coordination: social focal points. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 123:123–33
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Amabile TM, Barsade SG, Mueller JS, Staw BM 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Adm. Sci. Q. 50:3367–403
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Amelang S, Appunn K, Egenter S, Sherman L, Wehrmann B, Wettengel J 2019. Commission watch—managing Germany's coal phase-out. Clean Energy Wire Jan. 29. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/commission-watch-managing-germanys-coal-phase-out
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson C, Kilduff GJ. 2009. Do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96:491–503
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Aramovich NP. 2014. The effect of stereotype threat on group versus individual performance. Small Group Res 45:2176–97
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Aramovich NP, Larson JR. 2013. Strategic demonstration of problem solutions by groups: the effects of member preferences, confidence, and learning goals. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 122:136–52
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Austin JR. 2003. Transactive memory in organizational groups: the effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:5866–78
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bălău N, Utz S. 2017. Information sharing as strategic behaviour: the role of information display, social motivation and time pressure. Behav. Inform. Technol. 36:6589–605
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bales RF. 1953. The equilibrium problem in small groups. Working Papers in the Theory of Action T Parsons, RF Bales, EA Shils 444–76 Glencoe, IL: Free Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bardsley N, Mehta J, Starmer C, Sugden R 2010. Explaining focal points: cognitive hierarchy theory versus team reasoning. Econ. J. 120:54340–79
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Baumann MR, Bonner BL. 2004. The effects of variability and expectations on utilization of member expertise and group performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 93:289–101
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Baumann MR, Bonner BL. 2013. Member awareness of expertise, information sharing, information weighting, and group decision making. Small Group Res 44:5532–62
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bless H, Schwarz N. 1999. Sufficient and necessary conditions in dual process models: the case of mood and information processing. Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology S Chaiken, Y Trope 423–40 New York: Guilford Press
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bonito JA. 2001. An information-processing approach to participation in small groups. Commun. Res. 28:3275–303
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bonito JA. 2004. Shared cognition and participation in small groups: similarity of member prototypes. Commun. Res. 31:704–30
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bonito JA, DeCamp MH, Coffman M, Fleming S 2006. Participation, information, and control in small groups: an actor-partner interdependence model. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 10:16–28
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bonito JA, Hollingshead AB. 1997. Participation in small groups. Commun. Yearb. 20:227–61
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bonner BL. 2000. The effects of extraversion on influence in ambiguous group tasks. Small Group Res 31:225–44
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bonner BL, Baumann MR. 2008. Informational intra-group influence: the effects of time pressure and group size. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38:146–66
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bonner BL, Baumann MR. 2012. Leveraging member expertise to improve knowledge transfer and demonstrability in groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102:2337–50
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Bonner BL, Baumann MR, Dalal R 2002. The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and group performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 88:719–36
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bonner BL, Bolinger AR. 2013. Separating the confident from the correct: leveraging member knowledge in groups to improve decision making and performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 122:2214–21
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bonner BL, Sillito SD. 2011. Leveraging member knowledge in group decision-making: expertise, extroversion, and feedback. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 15:3233–45
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bonner BL, Sillito SD, Baumann MR 2007. Collective estimation: accuracy, expertise, and extroversion as sources of intra-group influence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 103:1121–33
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Boos M, Schauenburg B, Strack M, Belz M 2013. Social validation of shared and nonvalidation of unshared information in group discussions. Small Group Res 44:3257–71
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Bramesfeld KD, Gasper K. 2008. Happily putting the pieces together: a test of two explanations for the effects of mood on group-level information processing. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47:285–309
    [Google Scholar]
  28. BMU (Bundesminist. Umw. Naturschutz nukl. Sicher.) 2019. Abschlussbericht Rep., Komm. Wachstum Strukt. Beschäft. https://www.bmu.de/download/kommission-wachstum-strukturwandel-und-beschaeftigung/
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Burtscher MJ, Meyer B. 2014. Promoting good decisions: how regulatory focus affects group information processing and decision-making. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 17:5663–81
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Carey HR, Laughlin PR. 2011. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of induced strategies. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 15:2231–42
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Chartier CR, Abele S. 2015. Tacit coordination in close dyads: the use of social focal points. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 19:1125–34
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Clement RJG, Krause S, von Engelhardt N, Faria JJ, Krause J, Kurnvers GHJM 2013. Collective cognition in humans: Groups outperform their best members in a sentence reconstruction task. PLOS ONE 8:10e77943
    [Google Scholar]
  33. De Dreu CKW, Nijstad BA, van Knippenberg D 2008. Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision-making. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 12:122–49
    [Google Scholar]
  34. De Kwaadsteniet EW, Van Dijk E 2012. A social-psychological perspective on tacit coordination: how it works, when it works (and when it does not). Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 23:187–223
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Deiglmayr A, Spada H. 2010a. Collaborative problem-solving with distributed information: the role of inferences from interdependent information. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13:3361–78
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Deiglmayr A, Spada H. 2010b. Developing adaptive collaboration support: the example of an effective training for collaborative inferences. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22:1103–13
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Deiglmayr A, Spada H. 2011. Training for fostering knowledge co-construction from collaborative inference-drawing. Learn. Instr. 21:3441–51
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Emich KJ. 2014. Who's bringing the donuts: the role of affective patterns in group decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 124:2122–32
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Faulmüller N, Kerschreiter R, Mojzisch A, Schulz-Hardt S 2010. Beyond group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles: the individual preference effect revisited. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13:5653–71
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Faulmüller N, Mojzisch A, Kerschreiter R, Schulz-Hardt S 2012. Do you want to convince me or to be understood? Preference-consistent information sharing and its motivational determinants. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38:121684–96
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Fay N, Garrod S, Carletta J 2000. Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: the influence of group size. Psychol. Sci. 11:6481–86
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Fiedler K. 2008. Language: a toolbox for sharing and influencing social reality. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3:138–47
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Finkel EJ, Campbell WK, Brunell AB, Dalton AN, Scarbeck SJ, Chartrand TL 2006. High-maintenance interaction: Inefficient social coordination impairs self-regulation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91:3456–75
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fisher CM. 2017. An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure? Two experiments on in-process interventions in decision-making groups. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 138:59–73
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Fraidin SN. 2004. When is one head better than two? Interdependent information in group decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 93:2102–13
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Grice HP. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3 Speech Acts P Cole, JL Morgan 41–58 New York: Academic Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hastie R. 1986. Experimental evidence on group accuracy. Decision Research Vol. 2 B Grofman, G Owen 129–57 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Hastie R, Kameda T. 2005. The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychol. Rev. 112:2494–508
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hastie R, Penrod S, Pennington N 1984. Inside the Jury Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Higgins ET. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 52:121280–300
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hinsz VB, Tindale RS, Vollrath DA 1997. The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychol. Bull. 121:143–64
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kameda T, Ohtsubo Y, Takezawa M 1997. Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: an illustration in a group decision-making context. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73:2296–309
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kaplan MF. 1987. The influencing process in group decision making. Group Processes C Hendrick 189–212 Newbury Park, CA: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kaplan MF, Miller CE. 1987. Group decision making and normative versus informational influence effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53:306–13
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kerr NL, Tindale RS. 2004. Group performance and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55:623–55
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kooij-de Bode HJM, van Knippenberg D, van Ginkel WP 2010. Good effects of bad feelings: negative affectivity and group decision-making. Br. J. Manag. 21:275–392
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Larson JR. 2010. In Search of Synergy in Small Group Performance New York: Psychol. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Larson JR, Christensen C. 1993. Groups as problem-solving units: toward a new meaning of social cognition. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 32:15–30
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Larson JR, Foster-Fishman PG, Franz TM 1998. Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 24:482–95
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Larson JR, Foster-Fishman PG, Keys CB 1994. Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67:3446–61
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Larson JR, Sargis EG, Bauman CW 2004. Shared knowledge and subgroup influence during decision-making discussions. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 17:4245–62
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Larson JR, Sargis EG, Elstein AS, Schwartz A 2002. Holding shared versus unshared information: its impact on perceived member influence in decision-making groups. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24:145–55
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Laughlin PR. 1999. Collective induction: twelve postulates. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 80:150–69
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Laughlin PR. 2011. Group Problem Solving Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Laughlin PR, Bonner BL, Miner AG 2002. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 88:2605–20
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Laughlin PR, Carey HR, Kerr NL 2008. Group-to-individual problem-solving transfer. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 11:3319–30
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Laughlin PR, Ellis AL. 1986. Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22:177–89
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Laughlin PR, Gonzalez CM, Sommer D 2003a. Quantity estimations by groups and individuals: effects of known domain boundaries. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 7:155–63
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Laughlin PR, Hatch EC, Silver JS, Boh L 2006. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90:4644–51
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Laughlin PR, Zander ML, Knievel EM, Tan TK 2003b. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: informative equations and effective strategies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85:4684–94
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Littlepage G, Perdue EB, Fuller DK 2012. Choice of information to discuss: effects of objective validity and social validity. Small Group Res 43:3252–74
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Lu L, Yuan YC, McLeod PL 2012. Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: a meta-analysis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 16:154–75
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Mehta J, Starmer C, Sugden R 2001. The nature of salience: an experimental investigation of pure coordination games. Am. Econ. Rev. 84:3658–73
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Mell JN, van Knippenberg D, van Ginkel WP 2014. The catalyst effect: the impact of transactive memory system structure on team performance. Acad. Manag. J. 57:41154–73
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Mesmer-Magnus JR, Dechurch LA. 2009. Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:2535–46
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Mojzisch A, Grouneva L, Schulz-Hardt S 2010. Biased evaluation of information during discussion: disentangling the effects of preference consistency, social validation, and ownership of information. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40:946–56
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Mojzisch A, Kerschreiter R, Faulmüller N, Vogelgesang F, Schulz-Hardt S 2014. The consistency principle in interpersonal communication: consequences of preference confirmation and disconfirmation in collective decision making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 106:6961–77
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Parker K. 1988. Speaking turns in small group interaction: a context-sensitive event sequence model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54:965–71
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Reimer T, Kuendig S, Hoffrage U, Park E, Hinsz V 2007. Effects of the information environment on group discussions and decisions in the hidden-profile paradigm. Commun. Monogr. 74:11–28
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Reimer T, Reimer A, Czienskowski U 2010. Decision-making groups attenuate the discussion bias in favor of shared information: a meta-analysis. Commun. Monogr. 77:1121–42
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Sargis EG, Larson JR 2002. Information centrality and member participation during group decision making. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 5:331–45
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Scholten L, van Knippenberg D, Nijstad BA, DeDreu CKW 2007. Motivated information processing and group decision-making: effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43:4539–52
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Schultze T, Mojzisch A, Schulz-Hardt S 2012. Why groups perform better than individuals at quantitative judgment tasks: group-to-individual transfer as an alternative to differential weighting. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 118:124–36
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Schulz-Hardt S, Giersiepen A, Mojzisch A 2016. Preference-consistent information repetitions during discussion: Do they affect subsequent judgments and decisions?. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 64:41–49
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Schulz-Hardt S, Mojzisch A. 2012. How to achieve synergy in group decision making: lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 23:1305–43
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Sohrab SG, Waller MJ, Kaplan S 2015. Exploring the hidden-profile paradigm. Small Group Res 46:5489–535
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Stasser G, Stewart DD, Wittenbaum GM 1995. Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: the importance of knowing who knows what. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 31:3244–65
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Stasser G, Taylor LA, Hanna C 1989. Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57:167–78
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Stasser G, Titus W. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48:61467–78
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Stasser G, Titus W. 1987. Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53:181–93
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Stasser G, Titus W. 2003. Hidden profiles: a brief history. Psychol. Inq. 14:3–4304–13
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Stasser G, Vaughan SI. 1996. Models of participation during face-to-face unstructured discussions. Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual Action by Small Groups Vol. I EH Witte, JH Davis 165–92 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Stasser G, Vaughan S, Stewart D 2000. Pooling unshared information: the benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 82:1102–16
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Steele CM, Aronson J. 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69:5797–811
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Steinel W, Utz S, Koning L 2010. The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when sharing information: Revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and importance of information. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 113:285–96
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Steiner ID. 1972. Group Processes and Productivity New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Thomas KA, DeScioli P, Haque OS, Pinker S 2014. The psychology of coordination and common knowledge. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107:4657–76
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Tindale RS, Kameda T. 2017. Group decision-making from an evolutionary/adaptationist perspective. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 20:5669–80
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Toma C, Bry C, Butera F 2013. Because I'm worth it! (More than others…). Soc. Psychol. 44:4248–55
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Toma C, Butera F. 2009. Hidden profiles and concealed information: strategic information sharing and use in group decision making. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35:6793–806
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Toma C, Butera F. 2015. Cooperation versus competition effects on information sharing and use in group decision-making. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Comp. 9:9455–67
    [Google Scholar]
  102. van Ginkel WP, van Knippenberg D 2008. Group information elaboration and group decision making: the role of shared task representations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 105:182–97
    [Google Scholar]
  103. van Ginkel WP, van Knippenberg D 2009. Knowledge about the distribution of information and group decision making: When and why does it work?. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 108:2218–29
    [Google Scholar]
  104. van Knippenberg D, Kooij-de Bode HJM, van Ginkel WP 2010. The interactive effects of mood and trait negative affect in group decision making. Organ. Sci. 21:3731–44
    [Google Scholar]
  105. van Vugt M. 2006. Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10:354–71
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Wegner DM. 1995. A computer network model of human transactive memory. Soc. Cogn. 13:3319–39
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Wittenbaum GM, Bowman JM. 2004. A social validation explanation for mutual enhancement. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:169–84
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Wittenbaum GM, Hollingshead AB, Botero IC 2004. From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Commun. Monogr. 71:3286–310
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Wittenbaum GM, Hubbell AP, Zuckerman C 1999. Mutual enhancement: toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77:967–78
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103211
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error