The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
“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
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241 · cited 1×
“Underlying psychological mechanismsÐ theories and explanations of escalation of commitment: Staw (1976) concluded that the mechanism underlying escalation in individuals is a cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957) or self-justi ® cation (Aronson 1972).”
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
(2022) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(22)x0002-6 · Cited by 22,559
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Morvan, C., & O’Connor, A. (2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912282432 · Cited by 18,284
Reason, J. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139062367 · Cited by 5,108
Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment
(1978) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(78)90042-3 · Cited by 3,956
Review of personality and social psychology
Wheeler, L. S., & Shaver, P. R. (1980) · UMI Books on Demand · Cited by 3,593
Groups: Interaction and Performance.
Polley, R. B., & McGrath, J. E. (1984) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393041 · Cited by 3,268
The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-x · Cited by 3,139
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- BURNSTEIN, E., 1982. "Persuasion as argument processing". In: Brandstatter, H., Davis, J. H., and Stocher-Kreichgauer, G., eds. Contemporary Problems in Group Decision Making. New York: Academic Press; 1982. pp. 103–124.
- 10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.949 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.281 · DOI
- FISKE, S. T., and TAYLOR, S. E., 1991. Social Cognition . New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991.
- HOGARTH, R. M., 1987. Judgement and Choice . New York: Wiley; 1987.
- 10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.890 · DOI
- JONES, E. E., and NISBETT, R. E., 1971. The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behaviour. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press; 1971.
- KAPLAN, M. F., 1987. "The influence process in group decision making". In: Hendrick, C., ed. Group Processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1987. pp. 189–212.
- SHEA, G. P., and GUZZO, R. A., 1987. Group effectiveness: what really matters?, Sloan Management Review 3 (1987), pp. 25–31.
- STEINER, I. D., 1982. "Heuristic models of groupthink". In: Brandstatter, H., Davis, J. H., and Stocker-Kreichgauer, G., eds. Group Decision Making. New York: Academic Press; 1982. pp. 503–524.
- SUNDSTROM, E., 1986. Work Places. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
- 10.2307/258190 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.42.5.839 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Krueger, J. I., & Funder, D. C. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000081 · Cited by 374
Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.017 · Cited by 303
Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials
Grant, A., Altman, D. G., Babiker, A. G., Campbell, M., Clemens, F., Darbyshire, J. H., Elbourne, D. R., McLeer, S., Parmar, M., Pocock, S., et al. (2005) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta9070 · Cited by 273
Distributed coordination space: Toward a theory of distributed team process and performance
Fiore, S. M., Eduardo Salas, A., Cuevas, H. M., & Bowers, C. A. (2003) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922021000049971 · Cited by 196
Impact of a comprehensive patient safety strategy on obstetric adverse events
Pettker, C. M., Thung, S. F., Norwitz, E. R., Buhimschi, C. S., Raab, C. A., Copel, J. A., Kuczynski, E., Lockwood, C. J., & Funai, E. F. (2009) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.01.022 · Cited by 163
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, P. E., & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Venue
- Ergonomics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-08
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1129-1152
- ISSN
- 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5847
- 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
- green
- research.vu.nl
- 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
