CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 193Team Dynamics and PerformanceSocial and Intergroup PsychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms

Open access
Jones, Paul E., Roelofsma, Peter H. M. P.·2000·Ergonomics
DOI 10.1080/00140130050084914
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper provides a critical review of social contextual and group biases that are relevant to team decision-making in command and control situations. Motivated by the insufficient level of attention this area has received, the purpose of the paper is to provide an insight into the potential that these types of biases have to affect the decision-making of such teams. The biases considered are: false consensus, groupthink, group polarization and group escalation of commitment. For each bias the following four questions are addressed. What is the descriptive nature of the bias? What factors induce the bias? What psychological mechanisms underlie the bias? What is the relevance of the bias to command and control teams? The analysis suggests that these biases have a strong potential to affect team decisions. Consistent with the nature of team decision-making in command and control situations, all of the biases considered tend to be associated with those decisions that are important or novel and are promoted by time pressure and high levels of uncertainty. A concept unifying these biases is that of the shared mental model, but whereas false consensus emanates from social projection tendencies, the rest emanate from social influence factors. The authors also discuss the 'tricky' distinction between teams and groups and propose a revised definition for command and control team. Finally, the authors emphasize the need for future empirical research in this area to pay additional attention to the social side of cognition and the potential that social biases have to affect team decision-making.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00140130050084914

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Jones & Roelofsma described the environment of health care as one that is characterized by dynamically changing task conditions, time pressure, and stress compounded by high stakes.

    “Jones & Roelofsma described the environment of health care as one that is “characterized by dynamically changing task conditions, time pressure, and stress compounded by high stakes.””

    From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Jones & Roelofsma, 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

9 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jones, P. E., & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
ORCID
Roelofsma, Peter H. M. P.
Venue
Ergonomics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2000-08
Volume
43
Issue
8
Pages
1129-1152
ISSN
  • 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5847
DOI
10.1080/00140130050084914
OpenAlex
W2026199144
Cited by
193
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
team decision-making, false consensus effect, groupthink, group polarization, escalation of commitment, shared mental models, social influence, social projection, time pressure, uncertainty, social cognition
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Organizational, Group Processes, Humans, Institutional Management Teams, Models, Psychological, Social Behavior, Task Performance and Analysis

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