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
Items 101–200 of 225
Jimmy Zambrano, R., Kirschner, F., Sweller, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2023) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjep.12603 · Cited by 21
Do peers share the same criteria for assessing grant applications?
Hug, S. E., & Ochsner, M. (2021) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvab034 · Cited by 15
“make group information processing possible (Tindale and Kameda, 2000).”
Alfandari, R., & Taylor, B. J. (2021) · Trauma Violence & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380211029404 · Cited by 16
“Second, considerable emphasis is given in recent research, including in sociology, economics, communication, education, medical information, military science, and social work, to the way groups process and use information (Alfandari, 2019; Patel et al., 2002; Thompson, 2013; Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundWhat Makes Metacognition as Socially Shared in Mathematical Problem Solving?
Hurme, T.-R., Järvelä, S., Merenluoto, K., & Salonen, P. (2014) · Intelligent systems reference library · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11062-2_10 · Cited by 15
To Change or Not To Change: How Regulatory Focus Affects Change in Dyadic Decision‐Making
Spanjol, J., & Tam, L. (2010) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00575.x · Cited by 17
“Such reinforcement and magnification of individual tendencies are due to the ‘social sharedness’ effect (Tindale & Kameda, 2000), which refers to the ‘degree to which preferences and cognitions are shared among members at the outset of group interaction’ (Kameda, Tindale & Davis, 2003, p. 459).”
BackgroundA Comprehensive Approach to Group Recommendations in the Travel and Tourism Domain
Delić, A., & Neidhardt, J. (2017) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3099023.3099076 · Cited by 14
“Moreover, Tindale and Kameda in [27], stressed and illustrated the importance of “ social sharedness " (i.e., the degree to which preferences, information etc. are shared within groups) as a key element to understand group decision-making processes and outcomes.”
BackgroundSocial Capital as a Communicative Paradigm
Ginman, M. (2003) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458203009001005 · Cited by 14
van Ginkel, W. (2007) · Cited by 14
Procedural Mechanisms and Jury Behavior
Tindale, R. S., Nadler, J., Krebel, A., & Davis, J. H. (2001) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470998458.ch24 · Cited by 14
Self-citationBallotShare: An exploration of the design space for digital voting in the workplace
Vlachokyriakos, V., Dunphy, P., Taylor, N., Comber, R., & Olivier, P. L. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.024 · Cited by 14
“Sociological studies have indicated that such social stimuli can positively affect the quality of decisions made [37].”
How can we master the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic? The role of planning at social levels
Thürmer, J. L., Wieber, F., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2021) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/10463283.2020.1852699 · Cited by 14
“…disregard unshared information – even if it comes up during discussions (Gigone & Hastie, 1993, 1997; Mojzisch, Grouneva, & SchulzHardt, 2010; Mojzisch & Schulz-Hardt, 2010) and instead rely on their common knowledge (i.e., shared information; Tindale & Kameda, 2000; Tindale & Sheffey, 2002).”
BackgroundCheung, W. J., Wagner, N., Frank, J. R., Oswald, A., Melle, E. V., Skutovich, A., Dalseg, T. R., Cooke, L., & Hall, A. K. (2022) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2022.2041191 · Cited by 13
Arendt, J. F. W., Kugler, K. G., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2022) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/13684302221088506 · Cited by 14
“…the communal sharing model could be due to the fact that social norms often become more important and action guiding when people see themselves as part of a group with a shared identity (Tindale & Kameda, 2000), which is one of the main characteristics of the communal sharing model (Fiske, 1992).”
Rouwette, E. A. J. A., & Franco, L. A. (2024) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003404200 · Cited by 14
Aguirre, E., Spector, A. E., Hoe, J., Streater, A., Russell, I. T., Woods, B. T., & Orrell, M. W. (2011) · City Research Online (City University London) · Cited by 12
Group decision-making theories for child and family social work
Alfandari, R., Taylor, B. J., Enosh, G., Killick, C., McCafferty, P., Mullineux, J. C., Przeperski, J., Rölver, M., & Whittaker, A. (2022) · European Journal of Social Work · doi:10.1080/13691457.2021.2016651 · Cited by 14
“…member to be an advocate for the alternative involved unshared information; having members rank order alternatives; and breaking down decision-making into two sequential tasks, starting with information search and moving to integration and decision (Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDistributed Mental Models: Mental Models in Distributed Cognitive Systems
Banks, A. P., & Millward, L. J. (2009) · Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) · Cited by 12
Smith, C. K. (2017) · Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR) · doi:10.19030/jabr.v33i3.9940 · Cited by 11
de Vreeze, J., & Matschke, C. (2018) · Social Psychology · doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000363 · Cited by 13
“Therefore, research on group processes often focuses on how groups and their members process and use information (see Tindale & Kameda, 2000, for an overview).”
BackgroundChapter 1 When are Teams an Asset in Negotiations and when are they a Liability?
Cohen, T. R., & Thompson, L. (2011) · Research on managing groups and teams · doi:10.1108/s1534-0856(2011)0000014004 · Cited by 12
Decision Making in Groups and Organizations
Tindale, R. S., & Kluwe, K. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118468333.ch30 · Cited by 11
Self-citationDoyle, S., Chung, S., Lount, R. B., Swaab, R. I., & Rathjens, J. (2022) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2019.1381 · Cited by 10
Health Communication and Knowledge Construction
Ginman, M., Ek, S., Eriksson‐Backa, K., Mustonen, M., Torkkola, S., Tuominen, K., & Wikgren, M. C. (2003) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458203094007 · Cited by 10
The Roles of Shared Stereotypes and Shared Processing Goals on Mock Jury Decision Making
Stawiski, S. A., Dykema‐Engblade, A., & Tindale, R. S. (2012) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/01973533.2011.637467 · Cited by 10
“‘‘Social sharedness’’ refers to the degree to which cognitions, preferences, identities, and so on, are shared within groups (Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationMetacognition in group problem solving—a quest for socially shared metacognition
Hurme, T.-R. (2010) · Cited by 10
Conversational Group Recommender Systems
Nguyen, T. N. (2017) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3079628.3079704 · Cited by 10
“…have also stressed the importance of the full decision process adopted by a group in determining the quality of the output decision [10], or in [24], the authors have shown that the degree to which preferences and in-formationare shared within groups, is a key element tounderstand the group…”
BackgroundThe Consensualization of Stereotypes in Small Groups
Klein, O., Tindale, S., Bräuer, M., & Pascal, U. B. (2007) · doi:10.4324/9780203809990-21 · Cited by 10
The Collaboration Principle in Multimedia Learning
Janssen, J. J. H. M., Kirschner, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108894333.032 · Cited by 9
Kakar, A. K. (2018) · International Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1142/s1363919618500500 · Cited by 9
Mocnik, F. (2022) · Cartography and Geographic Information Science · doi:10.1080/15230406.2022.2127911 · Cited by 11
“And they align with others when forming part of a group in terms of cognition, shared norms, identities, preferences, et cetera (e.g., Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundLiking goes from the perceiver’s self-interest, but respect is socially shared
Baryła, W. (2014) · Polish Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.2478/ppb-2014-0049 · Cited by 9
“Group members may and tend to share various perceptions, beliefs, emotions and behavioral responses, especially after prolonged interaction (Tindale & Kameda, 2000), but a high degree of social sharedness is indispensable for some group phenomena to emerge at all, like norms, social identity, and…”
BackgroundOlsson, L. (2012) · Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive (Gothenburg University) · Cited by 9
A holistic framework for developing purposeful practical work
Hennah, N., Newton, S., & Seery, M. K. (2022) · Chemistry Education Research and Practice · doi:10.1039/d1rp00168j · Cited by 9
“Furthermore, according to CLT, learners in collaborative groups are considered as a single information-processing system as the processing is divided across the group (Tindale & Kameda, 2000), in what F. Kirschner et al. (2011) call “the distribution advantage”.”
The impact of intergroup idea exposure on group creative problem-solving
Kenworthy, J. B., Coursey, L. E., Dickson, J. J., Paulus, P. B., Rozich, B. C., & Marusich, L. R. (2024) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/13684302231216047 · Cited by 9
“This is in line with theorizing on the importance of “social sharedness” or shared task representations (Tindale & Kameda, 2000) in group processes and decision making.”
Effects of Split-Attention and Task Complexity on Individual and Collaborative Learning
Guzmán, J., & Jimmy Zambrano, R. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14091035 · Cited by 11
Kuroda, K., Ogura, Y., Ogawa, A., Tamei, T., Ikeda, K., & Kameda, T. (2022) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-022-04329-1 · Cited by 8
“These socially shared realities affect what people see or attend to in the focal situation, how and to whom what they ’ ve seen is communicated, and when and how people edit their own speci fi c behaviors 10 – 13 .”
Self-citationGroup Processes & Intergroup Relations 10 Years On: Development, Impact and Future Directions
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2008) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430208095397 · Cited by 8
“In Volume 3 the most cited articles were on collective effi cacy, work groups and shared representations (Hollingshead, 2000; Peterson, Mitchell, Thompson, & Burr, 2000; Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundOpposites in Reasoning Processes: Do We Use Them More Than We Think, but Less Than We Could?
Branchini, E., Capitani, E., Burro, R., Savardi, U., & Bianchi, I. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.715696 · Cited by 8
“Does this mean that more generic prompts suffice in group contexts whereas a content specific prompt is needed in individual contexts? Whether this relates to the processing dynamics which are natural in groups but are not present in the case of individual reasoners (Tindale and Kameda, 2000; Tindale et al., 2001) is…”
BackgroundChen, W., Yu, C., Wang, Y., Chen, M., Xu, Y., & Shi, Y. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757587 · Cited by 10
“Structuring content is critical for mitigating focus drift, which can degrade the quality of information sharing and increase the risk of participants relying on incomplete or inaccurate information, leading to inefficient or erroneous decisions [55, 77, 84].”
Capturing shared mental models: An approach for bona fide groups
Matteson, M. L. (2013) · Journal of Librarianship and Information Science · doi:10.1177/0961000613499362 · Cited by 7
“Most of the theoretical treatment on shared mental models suggests that they are developed through group communication and interaction (Allard-Poesi, 1998; Higgins, 1992; Kennedy and McComb, 2010; Klimoski and Mohammed, 1994; Rentsch and Hall, 1994; Tindale and Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundFrom the Savannah to the Corporate Office: The Evolution of Teams
Yong, J. C., Park, G., & Spitzmüller, M. (2020) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496420960516 · Cited by 7
“Team members can develop “sharedness” heuristics, which serve as a unifying framework to efficiently integrate distributed members’ cognitions (Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundTheoretical Models of the Cognitive, Social, and Motivational Processes in Group Idea Generation
Paulus, P. B., & Kenworthy, J. B. (2021) · Understanding complex systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77198-0_1 · Cited by 7
The diversity advantage: An explanatory framework for personality traits
Pringle, T. A., & Robinson, M. D. (2024) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1177/08902070241228327 · Cited by 9
“Kameda and Tindale (2006) speci fi cally highlight two factors — meta-knowledge (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993) and social sharedness (Tindale & Kameda, 2000) — as heuristics tackling coordination problems, which arise when group members struggle to determine roles or processes.”
Socially Situated Cognition as a Bridge
Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. (2006) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410616982-28 · Cited by 7
Jonas, K. W., & Lebherz, C. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71633-4_15 · Cited by 7
Busch, M. W., & Lorenz, M. (2010) · Gabler Verlag eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-8349-8856-0_11 · Cited by 7
All Together Now: Using Principles of Group Dynamics to Train Better Jurors
Gordon, S. (2015) · Indiana Law Review · doi:10.18060/4806.0002 · Cited by 6
Gómez, J. M., & Zambada, R. F. (2006) · REMERI - Red Mexicana de Repositorios Institucionales · Cited by 6
de Wardt, J. P., Moore, T., & McKenzie, A. (2011) · All Days · doi:10.2118/140231-ms · Cited by 5
Group decision quality, conscientiousness and competition
Hakim, L. N., Santoso, G. A., Takwin, B., Sunitiyoso, Y., & Abraham, J. (2021) · Cogent Psychology · doi:10.1080/23311908.2021.1872907 · Cited by 6
“…Kameda et al., 1997; Kroon et al., 1991; Larson et al., 1996, 1994; Mennecke & Valacich, 1998; Ohtsubo et al., 2004; Reimer et al., 2010; Rutledge & Harrell, 1994; Stasser & Titus, 1985; Stewart & Stasser, 1995; Tindale & Kameda, 2000; Whyte, 1989; Winquist & Larson, 1998; Wittenbaum et al., 1999).”
Collective Intelligence in Teams – Practical Approaches to Develop Transactive Memory
Busch, M. W., & von der Oelsnitz, D. (2010) · Advances in intelligent and soft computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14481-3_9 · Cited by 5
““[S]ocial 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” [ 37 ].”
BackgroundLe dialogisme de la rationalité dans l'ordre de l'interaction
Trognon, A., Batt, M., & Marchetti, É. (2011) · Bulletin de psychologie · doi:10.3917/bupsy.515.0439 · Cited by 5
Designing voting technology for participation
Vlachokyriakos, V. (2013) · Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research · doi:10.1145/2479724.2479768 · Cited by 5
“However, sociological studies have indicated that such social stimuli can positively affect the quality of decisions made [11].”
BackgroundDivergent and Convergent Creativity
Kenworthy, J. B., Paulus, P. B., Minai, A. A., & Doboli, S. (2021) · Understanding complex systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77198-0_4 · Cited by 5
Measuring shared knowledge with group false memory
Arima, Y., Yukihiro, R., & Hattori, Y. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-28347-4 · Cited by 5
Relationships among individual-level correlates of innovation
Yagolkovskiy, S. R. (2019) · International Journal of Innovation Science · doi:10.1108/ijis-12-2017-0133 · Cited by 5
Shared Cognitions and Shared Theories: Telling More Than We Can Know by Ourselves?
Randolph-Seng, B., de Calvo, M. P. C., Zacchilli, T. L., & Cottle, J. L. (2010) · Cited by 5
The Partners of My Partners: Shared Collaborative Experience and Team Performance in Surgical Teams
Tonellato, M., Iacopino, V., Mascia, D., & Lomi, A. (2024) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063241271197 · Cited by 4
“…performance in temporary settings by recognizing that the benefits of familiarity and social sharedness (Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams, & Neale, 1996; Tindale & Kameda, 2000) may be obtained, at least in part, through the experience that team members accumulate by being exposed to common prior…”
InfluentialShared metacognition in integrative negotiation
Choi, D. (2010) · International Journal of Conflict Management · doi:10.1108/10444061011063199 · Cited by 4
“Individual task views, can become “shared” through collaboration and discussion among group members, and the more a certain task view is shared among group members, the greater the likelihood that it will have an influence on relevant task outcomes for the group ( Tindale and Kameda, 2000”
BackgroundThe impact of group interaction on shared cognition: An analysis of small group communication
Matteson, M. L. (2010) · Advances in library administration and organization · doi:10.1108/s0732-0671(2010)0000029005 · Cited by 4
Bonner, B. L., Soderberg, A. T., & Romney, A. C. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000099 · Cited by 4
Bonetto, É., Piermattéo, A., Moliner, P., & Monaco, G. L. (2020) · Les cahiers internationaux de psychologie sociale · doi:10.3917/cips.123.0117 · Cited by 4
Predicting topic shift locations in design histories
Botta, D., & Woodbury, R. F. (2012) · Research in Engineering Design · doi:10.1007/s00163-012-0141-1 · Cited by 4
“Also, this shifts emphasis from the modes of communication among the team to the structure and availability of information and thereby reso-nates with the information-oriented perspective in small group decision-making (Tindale and Kameda 2000).”
BackgroundKameda, T., van Vugt, M., & Tindale, R. S. (2015) · Evolutionary psychology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_19 · Cited by 4
Self-citationHinsz, V. B., & Robinson, M. D. (2023) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/10464964231201102 · Cited by 3
“Along with these dimensions, it is worth highlighting social sharedness as a general theme for interacting groups (Hinsz et al., 1997; Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundWilczek‐Watson, M. (2018) · Journal of Sociolinguistics · doi:10.1111/josl.12315 · Cited by 3
Effect of Group Means on the Probability of Consensus
Arima, Y. (2012) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/01.11.17.21.pr0.110.2.607-623 · Cited by 3
How Diverse Task Experience Affects Both Group and Subsequent Individual Performance
Walker, S. D. S., & Bonner, B. L. (2021) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167221992220 · Cited by 4
“With respect to shared conceptual systems, a large body of research and theory suggest that task experience itself provides a foundation for a shared understanding of the task (Huber & Lewis, 2010; Orasanu & Salas, 1993; Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundHow Does the Internet Change Group Processes?
Schindler, J. (2022) · Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG eBooks · doi:10.5771/9783748928232-96 · Cited by 4
Bozeman, R., Mallett, R. K., Mitchell, L., & Tindale, R. S. (2023) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/14697874231163340 · Cited by 3
“Groups working on judgmental tasks typically follow a majority-wins model where the group’s response is the alternative with the greatest amount of member support (Laughlin, 2011; Tindale and Kameda, 2000).”
Self-citationKollektive Informationsverarbeitung von Medieninhalten
Schindler, J. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-42534-0 · Cited by 5
Weng, Q., Windeler, J. B., Maruping, L. M., & Venkatesh, V. (2024) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2024.104000 · Cited by 2
“Check this out! ”: Collective functions of instant messaging about media content
Schindler, J., Bartsch, A., Bürgel, C., & Rockenstein, C. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448241262808 · Cited by 3
“These social influences can be viewed as inherent elements of group processes that serve the group’s needs, for example, by maintaining the group’s identity, unity, and functionality (Hinsz et al., 1997; Hogg et al., 2004; Tindale and Kameda, 2000).”
Blanchard, M. D., Kleitman, S., & Aidman, E. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1042710 · Cited by 7
“Thus, teams have been conceptualized as information processing units (Hinsz et al., 1997; Tindale and Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundIiskala, T. (2015) · UTUPub (University of Turku) · Cited by 3
Meaning‐based leadership, empowering leadership, and team strategy implementation
van Knippenberg, D., Wu, J., van Bunderen, L., & de Haas, M. (2025) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/joop.70044 · Cited by 4
Toma, C., Vasiljevic, D., Oberlé, D., Augustinova, M., & Butera, F. (2012) · L’Année psychologique · doi:10.4074/s000350331200406x · Cited by 2
“Le partage de l’information est central à cette notion car il est vu comme l’activité cognitive prédominante dans les groupes (Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
BackgroundEstrategias, sesgos y dificultades en un proceso de coaching grupal de líderes escolares
López-Yáñez, J., & Moreno, M. S. (2022) · Aula Abierta · doi:10.17811/rifie.51.2.2022.143-150 · Cited by 2
Questions of Communicative Change and Continuity
Kraemer, B., Müller, P., Peiser, W., & Verlagsgesellschaft, N. (2022) · Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG eBooks · doi:10.5771/9783748928232 · Cited by 2
A multiteam international simulation of joint operations in crisis response
Tremblay, S., Granlund, R., Berggren, P., Jobidon, M.-E., Holmberg, M., & Turner, P. (2012) · International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management · Cited by 2
Рефлексивна психологія територіальних спільнот
Найдьонова, Л. А. (2012) · Міленіум eBooks · doi:10.59416/lsal3001 · Cited by 2
Deceptive Communication in Group Contexts
Winget, J. R., & Tindale, R. S. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_32 · Cited by 2
Self-citationSulistyawati, K. (2008) · DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) · doi:10.32657/10356/14256 · Cited by 2
A levels-based leadership simulation: insights regarding group decision optimization
Dionne, S. D., & Dionne, P. J. (2009) · Research in multi-level issues · doi:10.1108/s1475-9144(2009)0000008011 · Cited by 2
Nijstad, B. A. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-65297-8_12 · Cited by 1
BallotShare: Exploring the design space of digital voting in a workplace environment
Vlachokyriakos, Dunphy, P., Taylor, N., Comber, R., & Olivier, P. L. (2014) · School of Computing Science Technical Report Series · Cited by 1
Toma, C., Vasiljevic, D., Oberlé, D., Augustinova, M., & Butera, F. (2012) · L’Année psychologique · doi:10.3917/anpsy.124.0663 · Cited by 1
Information Flow and Influence during Collective Search, Discussion, and Choice
Abele, S., Vaughan-Parsons, S. I., & Stasser, G. L. (2008) · MADOC (University of Mannheim) · Cited by 1
Taylor, A. H., Foster‐Johnson, L., & Harriman, A. (2008) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1306788 · Cited by 1
Subgroup and Superordinate Caucusing in Intergroup NegotiationsPreprint
Swaab, R. I., Eggins, R. A., & Postmes, T. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.736227 · Cited by 1
EQUIPOS DE INNOVACIÓN COMO INSTRUMENTOS DE CAMBIO ORGANIZACIONAL
Azurmendi, A. G. (2015) · Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) · Cited by 1
The Grey Areas of Romance: A Measure of Presumptuous Romantic IntentionsPreprint
Valshtein, T. J., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/8p3sz · Cited by 1
Motivierter Informationsaustausch in Gruppen
Schauenburg, B. (2004) · doi:10.53846/goediss-513 · Cited by 1
Group Decision-MakingPreprint
Tindale, S., & Winget, J. R. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/kq2ft · Cited by 4
Aplicación de las TICs a la toma de decisiones grupales
Jiménez, I. V. (2024) · UVaDOC UVaDOC University of Valladolid Documentary Repository (University of Valladolid) · doi:10.35376/10324/71569 · Cited by 1
Santos, C. M. (2010) · Repositório do ISCTE-IUL
van der Land, S. F. (2013) · Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Smith, C. K. (2014) · DUT Open Scholar (Durban University of Technology) · doi:10.51415/10321/1012 · Cited by 1
Getting what you want from your transorganizational partners
Halinski, M. J., & Duxbury, L. E. (2015) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-09-2014-0556
“Second, in situations of discrete alternatives, the alternative that shows the response option with the most “sharedness” tends to be chosen by the group (Kameda et al., 2002; Tindale and Kameda, 2000).”
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
