Cited by 1,850Social and Intergroup PsychologyTeam Dynamics and PerformanceDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion

Stasser, Garold, Titus, William·1985·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Decision-making groups can potentially benefit from pooling members' information, particularly when members individually have partial and biased information but collectively can compose an unbiased characterization of the decision alternatives. The proposed biased sampling model of group discussion, however, suggests that group members often fail to effectively pool their information because discussion tends to be dominated by (a) information that members hold in common before discussion and (b) information that supports members' existent preferences. In a political caucus simulation, group members individually read candidate descriptions that contained partial information biased against the most favorable candidate and then discussed the candidates as a group. Even though groups could have produced unbiased composites of the candidates through discussion, they decided in favor of the candidate initially preferred by a plurality rather than the most favorable candidate. Group members' pre- and postdiscussion recall of candidate attributes indicated that discussion tended to perpetuate, not to correct, members' distorted pictures of the candidates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • This bias could be due to people's preference to discuss shared information, relative to unshared information.

    “This bias could be due to people’s preference to discuss shared information, relative to unshared information (Stasser & Titus, 1985).”

    From Stories in Action. (2022) · cites this paper as Stasser & Titus, 1985

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 16 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stasser, G., & Titus, W.
Affiliations
Miami University (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1985-06
Volume
48
Issue
6
Pages
1467-1478
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2153691814
Cited by
1,850
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 98 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 91 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 110
FWCI
14.68
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 decision making, information pooling, group discussion, incomplete information, biased information, candidate evaluation

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