Cited by 319Team Dynamics and PerformanceSocial and Intergroup PsychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups.

Larson, James R., Foster-Fishman, Pennie G., Keys, Christopher B.·1994·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

The effects of task importance and group decision training on the discussion behavior of decision-making groups were investigated. Three-person groups decided which of 3 hypothetical faculty candidates would be the best person to teach an introductory psychology course. Prior to discussion, some of the information about each candidate was given to all group members (shared information), whereas the remainder was randomly divided among them (unshared information). In general, groups discussed much more of their shared information than their unshared information. Increasing the importance of the task slowed the rate at which information was brought forth during discussion

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.446

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • The pre-deliberation and pre-discussion distribution of decision-relevant information has a strong influence on the content of intragroup and group attitudes, and significantly affects individual as well as collective reasoning.

    “Again, the pre-deliberation and pre-discussion distribution of decision-relevant information has a strong influence on the content of intragroup and group attitudes, and this significantly affects individual as well as collective reasoning.”
  • There is a strong tendency, especially in smaller face-to-face discussion groups, to focus on already shared or commonly known and available information, while not taking into account unshared, though maybe highly relevant, information.

    “There is a strong tendency, especially in smaller face-to-face discussion groups, to focus on already shared or commonly known and available information, while not taking into account unshared, though maybe highly relevant, information.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larson, J. R., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1994-09
Volume
67
Issue
3
Pages
446-461
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2024798540
Cited by
319
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
group decision making, shared information, task significance, information sharing

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