The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
‘Social Sharedness’ as a Unifying Theme for Information Processing in Groups
Abstract
Although much of the research on small groups in social psychology has emphasized cognitive, information-processing tasks (decision-making and problem solving), only recently have groups been conceptualized as information-processing systems. Partially due to this new conceptualization, group research is on the rise, yet much of this research is discipline specific. Few attempts have been made to integrate this research to provide common themes or frameworks across disciplinary boundaries. We propose that one potential unifying theme underlying much of the recent research on groups is ‘social sharedness’: the degree to which cognitions, preferences, identities, etc. are shared and are being shared within groups. Through a targeted review of the literature, we attempt to demonstrate that social sharedness is central to understanding group decision-making, provides a tie between past and current group research, and can serve a unifying function for future endeavors.
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
“Collaborative learners can be considered as a single information processing system (Hinsz et al. 1997;Tindale and Kameda 2000;Ickes and Gonzalez 1994), consisting of multiple, limited working memories which can create a larger, more effective, collective working space.”
From An Evolutionary Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks (2012) · cites this paper as Tindale and Kameda 2000
Citations
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2000) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199269464.003.0005 · Cited by 12,701
The Social psychology of intergroup relations
Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,577
Social Choice and Individual Values
Schnepp, G. J., & Arrow, K. (1951) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2549613 · Cited by 10,000
Social psychology of intergroup relations
Tajfel, H. (1982) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 · Cited by 7,949
Mead, G. H., & Morris, C. W. (1967) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226516608.001.0001 · Cited by 4,921
Perspectives on socially shared cognition.
Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (1991) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/10096-000 · Cited by 3,468
The Theory of Committees and Elections.
Alan, S., & Black, D. (1959) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2550498 · Cited by 2,829
Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind
Wegner, D. M. (1987) · Theories of Group Behavior · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_9 · Cited by 2,700
Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination
Tajfel, H. (1970) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1170-96 · Cited by 2,577
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Brauner, E., Nags Head Conference on Groups, Networks, and Organizations
- Davis, J. H., 1996, Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups, 35
- Gigone, D., 1996, Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups, 221
- Hinsz, V. B., Society of Experimental Social Psychologists Pre-Conference on Small Groups
- Hogg, M. A., 1996, Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations, 227
- Janis, I., 1982, Groupthink
- Latané, B., 1996, Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups, 193
- Laughlin, P. R., 1980, Progress in social psychology, 127
- Moreland, R. L., 1998, Social psychological applications to social issues: Applications of theory and research on groups, 37
- Sawyer, J. E., Society of Judgment and Decision Making Annual Meeting
- Sheffey, S., Midwestern Psychological Association Annual Convention
- Smith, C. M., Amsterdam Conference on Minority Influence
- Thompson, L., 96th Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association
- Tindale, R. S., 1993, Individual and group decision making: Current issues, 109
- Tindale, R. S., 1998, Social psychological applications to social issues: Applications of theory and research on groups, 1
- Tindale, R. S., Society for Judgment and Decision Making Meetings
- Tindale, R. S., Society for Judgment and Decision Making Meetings
- Tindale, R. S., Nags Head Conference on Groups, Networks, and Organizations
- Tindale, R. S., Annual Meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making
- Tindale, R. S., 1996, Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups, 81
- Turner, J. C., 1985, Advances in group processes: Theory and research, 518
- Wood, W., Amsterdam Conference on Minority Influence
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Group Performance and Decision Making
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009 · Cited by 1,332
“As argued by Kameda et al. (2002; see also Tindale & Kameda 2000), like majority models, they show the influence of “social sharedness” at the preference level.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationShared Reality: Experiencing Commonality with others' Inner States about the World
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Levine, J. M. (2009) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01161.x · Cited by 725
The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest
Cain, D. M., Loewenstein, G. F., & Moore, D. A. (2005) · The Journal of Legal Studies · doi:10.1086/426699 · Cited by 620
Motivated Information Processing in Group Judgment and Decision Making
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868307304092 · Cited by 754
“…of the influential view of groups as information processors (Hinsz et al., 1997; Levine & Moreland, 1998; McGrath, 1997; Nijstad & Paulus, 2003; Tindale & Kameda, 2000; D. van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007) and argue that this view can be extended by inclusion of motivational influences on…”
BackgroundSocially Situated Cognition: Cognition in its Social Context
Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. (2004) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(04)36002-8 · Cited by 531
“…to be social, distributed, and shared (Caporael, 1997; Levine, Resnick, & Higgins, 1993; Resnick, Levine, & Teasley, 1991; Schwartz, 1996) and what group cognition may entail (Kerr et al., 2000; Ruscher & Duval, 1998; Tindale & Kameda, 2000; see for a general review: Thompson & Fine, 1999).”
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2 · Cited by 502
“This architecture consists of an effectively unlimited long-term memory intended to govern activity in the same way as a genome governs biological activity.”
BackgroundLaughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644 · Cited by 390
“Tindale and Kameda (2000) and Kameda, Tindale, and Davis (2003) generalized the first of these conditions in their concept of social sharedness, the degree to which preferences and cognitions are shared among group members at the outset of group interaction.”
BackgroundKnowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & İMAMOĞLU, S. Z. (2005) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.01.001 · Cited by 397
“Accordingly, the goal of our study was to investigate the factors effecting TMS and the consequences of it in an NPD project team context.”
BackgroundWho's Really Sharing? Effects of Social and Expert Status on Knowledge Exchange Within Groups
Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Ogden, T. Y., & Neale, M. A. (2003) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.464.14425 · Cited by 365
Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task
Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2002) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00500-0 · Cited by 355
Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Process
(2002) · Blackwell Publishing Ltd eBooks · doi:10.1111/b.9781405106535.2002.x · Cited by 296
“…& Hastie, 1993, 1996), and this body of literature helped to crystallize the idea of groups as information-processing systems (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997; Larson & Christensen, 1993) with “social sharedness” as an underlying theme (Kameda, Tindale, & Davis, in press; Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundOld wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity
Choi, H., & Thompson, L. (2005) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.06.003 · Cited by 293
Group information elaboration and group decision making: The role of shared task representations
van Ginkel, W. P., & van Knippenberg, D. (2007) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.08.005 · Cited by 283
Team Reflexivity as an Antidote to Team Information-Processing Failures
Schippers, M. C., Edmondson, A. C., & West, M. A. (2014) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496414553473 · Cited by 258
“Five procedural mechanisms have been shown to attenuate the common knowledge effect (Scott & Kameda, 2000): (1) giving the group more time to discuss (as opposed to time pressure), (2) allowing the group to have access to informational records during discussion, (3) instructing group members not to…”
BackgroundMethodKirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1730 · Cited by 219
“…held by each group member is consciously and actively shared (i.e., retrieving and explicating information), discussed (i.e., encoding and elaborating information) and remembered (i.e., personalizing and storing information) (Hinsz et al., 1997; Tindale & Kameda, 2000; Tindale & Sheffy, 2002).”
BackgroundThe role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726708096639 · Cited by 215
Rego, A., Owens, B. P., Leal, S. C. H., Melo, A. I., Cunha, M. P. E., Gonçalves, L. C., & Ribeiro, P. C. E. (2017) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.02.002 · Cited by 200
“…such as ongoing interactions and coordinative dynamics, behavior modeling (Bandura, 1997), social and emotional contagion (Barsade, 2002; Dawkins et al., 2015), social sharedness (Tindale & Kameda, 2000), and mental model convergence (Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Sales, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000).”
BackgroundJanssen, J. J. H. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2020) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09729-5 · Cited by 218
“CCLT considers groups of collaborative learners as information processing systems (cf. De Dreu et al. 2008; Tindale and Kameda 2000).”
BackgroundJanssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F. (2010) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9131-x · Cited by 180
“information) of valuable task-relevant information and knowledge held by each group member (Hinsz et al. 1997; Tindale and Kameda 2000; Tindale and Sheffey 2002).”
BackgroundShalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2008) · Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal · doi:10.1002/sej.40 · Cited by 164
Wölfer, R., Faber, N. S., & Hewstone, M. (2015) · Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice · doi:10.1037/gdn0000021 · Cited by 164
“…systems that derive decisions based on the extent to which their members share cognitions or preferences (Mojzisch, Kerschreiter, Faulmüller, Vogelgesang, & Schulz-Hardt, 2014; Tindale & Kameda, 2000) implies that graph-level parameters in information networks serve as useful measures.”
BackgroundDifferential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes
Kirschner, F., PAAS, F. G. W. C., Kirschner, P. A., & Janssen, J. J. H. M. (2011) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.001 · Cited by 175
“…by each group member can be consciously and actively shared (i.e., retrieving and explicating information), discussed (i.e., encoding and elaborating information), and remembered (i.e., personalising and storing information) (Hinsz et al., 1997; Tindale & Kameda, 2000; Tindale & Sheffey, 2002).”
BackgroundThe Catalyst Effect: The Impact of Transactive Memory System Structure on Team Performance
Mell, J. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2013) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0589 · Cited by 163
Clark, A. E., & Kashima, Y. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1028 · Cited by 150
Swaab, R. I., Schaerer, M., Anicich, E. M., Ronay, R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797614537280 · Cited by 152
Information aggregation and collective intelligence beyond the wisdom of crowds
Kameda, T., Toyokawa, W., & Tindale, R. S. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00054-y · Cited by 151
Self-citationHauer, K. E., ten Cate, O., Boscardin, C., Iobst, W. F., Holmboe, E. S., Chesluk, B. J., Baron, R. B., & O’Sullivan, P. (2016) · Journal of Graduate Medical Education · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-15-00144.1 · Cited by 136
“Group processes can be structured to invite diverse opinions and comments from all members.(5,41)”
BackgroundInfluentialShared Information, Cognitive Load, and Group Memory
Tindale, R. S., & Sheffey, S. (2002) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430202005001535 · Cited by 127
“Shared Information,”
BackgroundSelf-citationShared Cognition as a Product of, and Precursor to, Shared Identity in Negotiations
Swaab, R. I., Postmes, T., van Beest, I., & Spears, R. (2007) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167206294788 · Cited by 135
Swaab, R. I., Postmes, T., Neijens, P. C., Kiers, M. H., & Dumay, A. C. M. (2002) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045708 · Cited by 113
“Based on the theoretical analysis above, a main objective of negotiation support could be to foster a common understanding among negotiators about the nature of problem, and possible solutions [31, 43, 45].”
BackgroundReimer, T. O., Park, E. S., & Hinsz, V. B. (2006) · International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1612197x.2006.9671804 · Cited by 110
“…is a critical feature of information processing in groups that can strongly affect the outcome and performance of groups (Hinsz et al , 1997; Tindale & Kameda, 2000; Tindale, Meisenhelder, Dykema-Engblade, & Hogg, 2001) Research on teams finds that effective performance in dynamic…”
BackgroundInterindividual-intergroup discontinuity reduction through the anticipation of future interaction.
Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Gaertner, L., Wildschut, T., Kozar, R., Pinter, B., Finkel, E. J., Brazil, D. M., Cecil, C. L., & Montoya, M. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.95 · Cited by 100
“Tindale, Smith, Thomas, Filkins, and Sheffey (1996) had previously described such effects by referring to the impact of "shared representations." More recently, Tindale and Kameda (2000) introduced the term social sharedness to include not just shared "cognitions and cognitive processes" but also "attitudes, motives,…”
Laughlin, P. R., Zander, M. L., Knievel, E. M., & Tan, T. K. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.684 · Cited by 95
Kameda, T., Tindale, R. S., & Davis, J. H. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609978.016 · Cited by 92
Self-citationInterfaces of social psychology with situated and embodied cognition
Semin, G. R., & Smith, E. R. (2002) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/s1389-0417(02)00049-9 · Cited by 88
“…this theme under a number of related terms including shared reality (Hardin & Higgins, 1996), socially shared cognition (Resnick et al., 1991; Levine et al., 1993), and group cognition (Tindale & Kameda, 2000; Kerr et al., 2000; Gigone & Hastie, 1997; see review by Thompson & Fine, 1999).”
Shared Cognition in Small Groups
Tindale, R. S., Meisenhelder, H. M., Dykema‐Engblade, A., & Hogg, M. A. (2001) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470998458.ch1 · Cited by 87
Self-citationMulti-step ranking of alternatives in a multi-criteria and multi-expert decision making environment
Tsiporkova, E., & Boeva, V. (2005) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2005.11.010 · Cited by 85
“It was argued that much of the literature can be understood in relation to sharedness at both preference and cognitive level [18,33,35].”
BackgroundAn observational user study for group recommender systems in the tourism domain
Delić, A., Neidhardt, J., Nguyen, T. N., & Ricci⋆, F. (2018) · Information Technology & Tourism · doi:10.1007/s40558-018-0106-y · Cited by 83
“In Tindale and Kameda (2000) the importance of the discussion process, especially with respect to the information that is shared among group members is emphasized.”
BackgroundThe Interactive Effects of Mood and Trait Negative Affect in Group Decision Making
van Knippenberg, D., Bode, H. J. M. K., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0461 · Cited by 81
“…shows that the influence of cognition gains strength through social sharedness, i.e., the more there is similarity of cognition within the group (Tindale and Kameda 2000), and that this influence is even stronger when group members are aware of this similarity (van Ginkel and van Knippenberg…”
The Dynamics of Personal and Social Identity Formation
Postmes, T., Baray, G., Haslam, S. A., Morton, T. A., & Swaab, R. I. (2006) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446211946.n12 · Cited by 83
Information behaviour meets social capital: a conceptual model
Widén‐Wulff, G., Ek, S., Ginman, M., Perttilä, R., Södergård, P., & Tötterman, A. (2008) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551507084679 · Cited by 78
“A number of studies have shown that knowledge richness and good access to the collective knowledge base are decisive for a member’s position in the group [31, 41].”
BackgroundEffects of group experience and information distribution on collaborative learning
Jimmy Zambrano, R., Kirschner, F., Sweller, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2019) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-019-09495-0 · Cited by 87
Self‐managed learning groups in higher education: Students' perceptions of process and outcomes
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. L. (2005) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1348/000709905x25355 · Cited by 75
Information Sampling and Confidence Within Groups and Judge Advisor Systems
Savadori, L., Swol, L. M. V., & Sniezek, J. A. (2001) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365001028006002 · Cited by 72
The Collaboration Principle in Multimedia Learning
Jonassen, D. H., Lee, C. B., Yang, C.-C., & Laffey, J. M. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816819.017 · Cited by 72
Hurme, T.-R., Merenluoto, K., & Järvelä, S. (2009) · Educational Research and Evaluation · doi:10.1080/13803610903444659 · Cited by 66
“…interactions are assumed to be the sharing of ideas and procedures about how to handle a problem and the discussions about which alternative to follow if the current problem-solving approach fails to produce a workable solution (Iiskala, Vauras, & Lehtinen, 2004; Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundWerlinger, R., Hawkey, K., Botta, D., & Beznosov, K. (2009) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.03.002 · Cited by 64
“In the same vein of “social sharedness” (Tindale and Kameda 2000), shared representations (i.”
BackgroundThe Language of Coalition Formation in Online Multiparty Negotiations
Huffaker, D. A., Swaab, R. I., & Diermeier, D. A. (2010) · Journal of Language and Social Psychology · doi:10.1177/0261927x10387102 · Cited by 64
van der Land, S. F., Schouten, A. P., van den Hooff, B., & Feldberg, F. (2011) · Journal of Virtual Worlds Research · doi:10.4101/jvwr.v4i3.6126 · Cited by 62
New Product Team Decision Making: Regulatory Focus Effects on Number, Type, and Timing Decisions*
Spanjol, J., Tam, L., Qualls, W. J., & Bohlmann, J. D. (2011) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00833.x · Cited by 61
Team Cognition: Process and Performance at the Inter- and Intra-Individual Level
Eduardo Salas, A., & Fiore, S. M. (2002) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120204600338 · Cited by 55
“Although the issues surrounding the application of cognition to teams are far fiom resolved, this movement has made substantial strides in generating testable hypotheses that articulate causal factors (cf. Hinsz et al., 1997; Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundBluemink, J., Hämäläinen, R., Manninen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2009) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820802602444 · Cited by 54
“The high amount of IOs and Rs could also indicate significant reciprocity, which is also a central feature in collaboration and in reaching a shared understanding (Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundTurning the Sword: How NPD Teams Cope with Front‐End Tensions
Andriopoulos, C., Gotsi, M., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. (2017) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12423 · Cited by 56
“individual motivational tendencies (Tindale and Kameda, 2000).”
Why team cognition? An overview.
Eduardo Salas, A., & Fiore, S. M. (2004) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/10690-001 · Cited by 53
Fiore, S. M., & Eduardo Salas, A. (2006) · International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1612197x.2006.9671803 · Cited by 51
“…& Vollrath, 1997; Larson & Christensen, 1993; Prietula, Carley, & Gasser, 1998; Stahl, 2006; Salas & Fiore, 2004; Thompson, Levine, & Messick, 1999; Tindale & Kameda, 2000) As our understanding of the team cognition construct matures we can now pursue the development of theoretically driven and…”
BackgroundChahine, S., Cristancho, S., Padgett, J. J., & Lingard, L. A. (2017) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.1007/s40037-017-0357-x · Cited by 51
“One of the earliest and most prominent approaches within the schema orientation is social decision scheme theory, which is essentially a rule or procedure (complete with a formula) that determines how groups combine their own preferences to achieve a collective group choice [24, 29, 30].”
Schouten, A. P., van den Hooff, B., & Feldberg, F. (2013) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650213509667 · Cited by 50
“Group members are likely to process any information about the task at hand from a common viewpoint, which facilitates task performance, especially in decision-making and negotiation tasks (Swaab et al., 2002; Thompson & Fine, 1999; Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundBramesfeld, K. D., & Gasper, K. (2007) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712607x218295 · Cited by 50
Dari, T., Chan, C. D., & Re, J. D. (2021) · The Journal for Specialists in Group Work · doi:10.1080/01933922.2020.1856255 · Cited by 46
Krings, F., Bangerter, A., Gomez, V., & Grob, A. (2008) · Journal of Adult Development · doi:10.1007/s10804-008-9039-6 · Cited by 44
“The term social sharedness was originally introduced by Tindale and Kameda (2000) to capture the degree to which motives, preferences, and cognitions are shared within a group.”
BackgroundCulture and gender in entrepreneurial teams: the effect on team processes and outcomes
Santos, S. C., & Neumeyer, X. (2021) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-020-00432-x · Cited by 50
The Social Identity Perspective on Small Groups
Abrams, D., Hogg, M. A., Hinkle, S., & Otten, S. (2005) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483328935.n4 · Cited by 42
Swol, L. M. V. (2007) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430207074730 · Cited by 43
“Statistically, information is more likely to be mentioned when it is shared because more group members can mention it (Stasser & Titus, 1985; Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundThürmer, J. L., Wieber, F., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2020) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-08-2020-1088 · Cited by 48
Procedural and Agenda Effects on Political Decisions by Small Groups
Kameda, T., Hulbert, L. G., & Tindale, R. S. (2002) · Social psychological applications to social issues · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0569-3_11 · Cited by 37
“Particularly when no "demonstrably correct" decision alternative exists (Laughlin & Ellis, 1986), the degree of consensus, or "social sharedness" (Kameda et at., in press; Tindale & Kameda, 2000 ) defines the correctness of the decision and leads to group adoption.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationDecisions from experience: How groups and individuals adapt to change
Lejarraga, T., Lejarraga, J., & González, C. (2014) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0445-7 · Cited by 36
“To address this issue, we examined two well-studied routine strategies: majority and unanimity (e.g., Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
MethodObserving Group Decision Making Processes
Delić, A., Neidhardt, J., Nguyen, T. N., Ricci⋆, F., Rook, L., Werthner, H., & Zanker, M. (2016) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/2959100.2959168 · Cited by 35
“In [15], the authors have emphasized and demonstrated that “social sharedness”, the degree”
BackgroundLevels-based leadership and hierarchical group decision optimization: A simulation
Dionne, S. D., & Dionne, P. J. (2008) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.004 · Cited by 36
Team Reflexivity and Innovation
Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118909997.ch20 · Cited by 34
Dijk, D. V., Kark, R., Matta, F. K., & Johnson, R. E. (2020) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-020-09692-6 · Cited by 46
Value first, cost later: Total value contribution as a new approach to sourcing decisions
Gray, J., Helper, S. R., & Osborn, B. (2020) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1002/joom.1113 · Cited by 37
Kirschner, F., PAAS, F. G. W. C., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.012 · Cited by 34
“When collaborating learners are seen as information processing systems (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997; Kirschner et al., 2009b; Tindale & Kameda, 2000), it can be argued that the processing of information necessary for carrying out a learning task can be distributed across multiple collaborating…”
BackgroundViolence in Ideological and Non‐Ideological Groups: A Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Data1
Mumford, M. D., Bedell‐Avers, K. E., Hunter, S. T., Espejo, J., Eubanks, D. L., & Connelly, M. S. (2008) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00358.x · Cited by 33
The Collaboration Principle in Multimedia Learning
Kirschner, P. A., Kirschner, F., & Janssen, J. J. H. M. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139547369.027 · Cited by 33
Rania, N., Coppola, I., & Pinna, L. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.786754 · Cited by 29
“For example, teamwork in school requires many of the same skills as teamwork in the work environment, such as effective communication, brainstorming, collaboration, trust building, and conflict resolution (Tindale and Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundThe fundamental needs underlying social representations
Bonetto, É., & Monaco, G. L. (2018) · New Ideas in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2018.06.003 · Cited by 33
Rego, A., Cunha, M. P. E., & Giustiniano, L. (2021) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-021-04792-6 · Cited by 38
Teams as technology: strengths, weaknesses, and trade-offs in cognitive task performance
Hinsz, V. B. (2015) · Team Performance Management · doi:10.1108/tpm-02-2015-0006 · Cited by 26
Falsification cueing in collective reasoning: example of the Wason selection task
Augustinova, M. (2008) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.532 · Cited by 26
“The framework of social sharedness, which is a key concept for understanding group information processing (Tindale & Kameda, 2000; Tindale et al. 2001, see also Hinsz et al., 1997), suggests that effects of both the shared task representation and cue mentioning are contingent on the level of…”
BackgroundInfluentialDiversity Cognition and Climates
van Knippenberg, D., Homan, A. C., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199736355.013.0013 · Cited by 25
Deiglmayr, A., & Spada, H. (2010) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430209342259 · Cited by 25
“…information, i.e., knowledge that is known to all members from the start, and neglect unshared information, i.e., knowledge that is known only to individual group members (for reviews, see Mojzisch & SchulzHardt, 2006; Stasser & Birchmeier, 2003; Tindale & Kameda, 2000; Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, &”
BackgroundThe effects of ethical climate on group and individual level deception in negotiation
Stawiski, S. A., Tindale, R. S., & Dykema‐Engblade, A. (2009) · International Journal of Conflict Management · doi:10.1108/10444060910974894 · Cited by 27
Self-citationChapter 15 Research on Implicit Motives Across Cultures
Hofer, J. (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195335156.003.0015 · Cited by 24
Reychav, I., & Wu, D. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.007 · Cited by 24
“From their perspective, groups of collaborating learners are considered to be information-processing systems (Hinsz, Tindale,& Vollrath, 1997; Ickes & Gonzalez, 1994; Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundGood and bad group performance: Same process—different outcomes
Tindale, R. S., Smith, C. M., Dykema‐Engblade, A., & Kluwe, K. (2012) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430212454928 · Cited by 23
“…al, 2007; De Dreu, Nijstad, & von Kippenberg, 2008) our general argument is that most groups probably do not display either particularly good or poor process, but rather typically function under fairly basic social processes, one of which we refer to as social sharedness (Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundSelf-citationREAL DECISIONS IN VIRTUAL WORLDS: TEAM COLLABORATION AND DECISION MAKING IN 3D VIRTUAL WORLDS
Schouten, A. P., van den Hooff, B., & Feldberg, F. (2010) · VU Research Portal · Cited by 22
Singh, C. A., & Muis, K. R. (2024) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2023.2294881 · Cited by 39
“Tindale and Kameda (2000) proposed that groups collaborating on a task can be considered an information processing system that entails multiple working memories that create a collective working space.”
Can Contraries Prompt Intuition in Insight Problem Solving?
Branchini, E., Bianchi, I., Burro, R., Capitani, E., & Savardi, U. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01962 · Cited by 19
“Attention has been devoted to how groups process information and a key factor seems to be the high degree of social sharedness of information at group level (e.g., Larson and Christensen, 1993; Wittenbaum and Stasser, 1996; Tindale and Kameda, 2000; Tindale et al., 2001; Galinsky and Kray, 2004).”
BackgroundHeart to Heart: A Relation-Alignment Approach to Emotion’s Social Effects
Parkinson, B. (2021) · Emotion Review · doi:10.1177/1754073921990733 · Cited by 21
Swol, L. M. V., & Seinfeld, E. (2006) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00008.x · Cited by 18
The effects of modulating contrast in verbal irony as a cue for giftedness
Bianchi, I., Canestrari, C., Roncoroni, A. M., Burro, R., Branchini, E., & Savardi, U. (2017) · Humor - International Journal of Humor Research · doi:10.1515/humor-2017-0028 · Cited by 18
“…at group level which enables group members to engage in inductive or deductive reasoning using information that individuals working alone tend to ignore (e.g. Larson and Christensen 1993; 396 Ivana Bianchi et al. Wittenbaum and Stasser 1996; Tindale and Kameda 2000; Tindale et al. 2001).”
BackgroundKee, K., Nies, H. L. G. R., van Wieringen, M., & Beersma, B. (2023) · International Journal of Integrated Care · doi:10.5334/ijic.7446 · Cited by 19
Information flow and influence in collective choice
Stasser, G. L., Abele, S., & Parsons, S. V. (2012) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430212453631 · Cited by 17
Polman, E., Pollmann, M. M. H., & Poehlman, T. A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079039 · Cited by 17
“In this paper, we are proposing a type of ‘‘social sharedness’’ hypothesis [22], but it is a type of sharedness that has yet to be examined.”
MethodGroup decision-making from an evolutionary/adaptationist perspective
Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2017) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430217708863 · Cited by 18
““Social sharedness” (Kameda, Tindale, & Davis, 2003; Tindale & Kameda, 2000) describes the general tendency that group behavior is often overly influenced by things the group members share.”
BackgroundSelf-citationBonner, B. L., Shannahan, D. B., Bain, K., Coll, K. A., & Meikle, N. L. (2021) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.1481 · Cited by 16
Pavićević, S., Haleblian, J. M., & Keil, T. J. (2023) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2022.1643 · Cited by 16
Visualizing the Invisible Nanoscale
Ruivenkamp, M., & Rip, A. (2010) · Science & Technology Studies · doi:10.23987/sts.55255 · Cited by 17
Research Methods for Group Recommender System
Delić, A., Neidhardt, J., Nguyen, T. N., & Ricci⋆, F. (2016) · Open Research (University of Surrey) · Cited by 16
Schippers, M. C., & Rus, D. C. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.519295 · Cited by 17
“…information and that this is all the more important for teams whose members are interdependent and need to make decisions based on unique information distributed within the team (cf. Scott and Kameda, 2000; van Ginkel et al., 2009; van Ginkel and van Knippenberg, 2012; Schippers et al., 2014).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T.
- Affiliations
- Loyola University Chicago (US)
- Hokkaido University (JP)
- Venue
- Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-04
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-140
- ISSN
- 1368-4302 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7188
- OpenAlex
- W1967353079
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 96
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 23.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Keywords
- small groups, group decision making, group problem solving, shared cognition, shared preferences, group identity
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
