The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment.
Abstract
The hypothesis that the influence of an item of information on a group judgment is directly related to the number of group members who hold that information before group discussion was tested. Three-member groups read short descriptions of students and were asked to make individual and then group consensus judgments about those students' grades in the course. Information held by all members before group discussion had more influence on the group judgments than information held by only 1 member. However, no erect of information distribution was found when controlling for member judgments, suggesting that the impact of the information, and hence the erects of distribution across members, was mediated by its impact on individual-member prediscussion judgments
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Information elaboration effectiveness may be hampered, for instance, when teams do not possess a shared mental model of the task (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994), are not sufficiently motivated to think thoroughly about the task (De Dreu et al., 2008), or focus more on shared rather than unique information (Gigone & Hastie, 1993;Stasser & Titus, 2003).”
From Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams. (2020) · cites this paper as Gigone & Hastie, 1993
Citations
Cites
A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0046408 · Cited by 4,819
Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments
Brunswik, E. (1956) · doi:10.1525/9780520350519 · Cited by 2,974
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467 · Cited by 1,850
Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(71)90033-x · Cited by 1,819
The group polarization phenomenon.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602 · Cited by 1,102
Group versus individual performance: Are N?+?1 heads better than one?
Hill, G. W. (1982) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.91.3.517 · Cited by 918
Causes and effects of causal attribution.
Hastie, R. (1984) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.46.1.44 · Cited by 708
Self-citationDiscovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment.
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.63.3.426 · Cited by 617
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.53.1.81 · Cited by 599
Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups.
Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.1.67 · Cited by 541
Cited by
The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43 · Cited by 1,428
What Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x · Cited by 1,276
Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013773 · Cited by 1,273
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001 · Cited by 1,011
Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.86 · Cited by 852
Metadata
- Authors
- Gigone, D., & Hastie, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1993-11
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 959-974
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W1994090818
- Cited by
- 545
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 53
- FWCI
- 11.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- group judgment, information sharing, group discussion, consensus judgment, information distribution, individual judgment, grade prediction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.959
- The paper
- Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.959
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
