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 201–225 of 225
Information Sharing and Cognitive Centrality
Abele, S., Stasser, G. L., & Vaughan-Parsons, S. I. (2005)
Socio-cognitive basis of positive bias in evaluating work teams performance
Rejano, E. I., & Sánchez, M. M. (2009)
Stancetaking and identification in transnational families through culinary talk and practices
Wilczek‐Watson, M. (2015) · ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.33565.46563 · Cited by 1
Communication in Workplace Teams
Russell, T., & Reimer, T. O. (2015) · The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication · doi:10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic180
Regulating Behavior off the Books: Perverse Effects of Requiring Disclosure
Cain, D. M. (2006) · Research on managing groups and teams · doi:10.1016/s1534-0856(06)08002-9
Collective memory : an investigation into its cognitive and group processes.
Aah, M. (2003) · OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique)
Does Culture Influence Decision Making in Project Teams? : A Multi Case Study in Sweden
Agborsangaya, E. O., & Omoregie, I. F. (2016) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
Unpicking the design space of e-Voting for Participation.
Vlachokyriakos, V., Dunphy, P., Taylor, N., Comber, R., & Olivier, P. L. (2013) · Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) · doi:10.25405/ncl.34202841
Gómez, J. M. (2017) · Revista Innovaciones de Negocios · doi:10.29105/rinn9.17-5
“Los modelos, implican el conocimiento que otros miembros tienen; así, los modelos compartidos afectan el desempeño del grupo de acuerdo al grado de conocimiento compartido por los miembros del grupo (Tindale & Kameda, 2000).”
InfluentialGómez, J. M., & Martínez, J. R. (2017) · Revista Innovaciones de Negocios · doi:10.29105/rinn8.15-2
Gómez, J. M., & Martínez, J. R. (2017) · Revista Innovaciones de Negocios · doi:10.29105/rinn8.15-3
Principles Based on Social and Affective Features of Multimedia Learning
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108894333.028 · Cited by 1
Learning While Deciding in GroupsPreprint
Tindale, S., & Winget, J. R. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/8ufgh
A Method for Identification and Ranking of Requirements SourcesPreprint
Klotins, E., Boeva, V., Wnuk, K., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., & Jansen, S. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4098744
“As shown by Tindale et al. [47], the degree to which ideas, preferences, knowledge, etc., are shared in the group determines the acceptance of the final decision and a ff ects the quality and accuracy of the final decision.”
BackgroundNabilah, R. H., Putri, A. N. M., Illahi, E. I., Fitri, E. L., & Yudiana, W. (2023) · Humanitas (Jurnal Psikologi) · doi:10.28932/humanitas.v7i1.5992
Extending the Follower-centered Perspective
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Giessner, S. R. (2006) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-60752-702-220251004
Schindler, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2026.1699715
Mitigating the Effects of CEO Overconfidence: A Group Information Processing Perspective
Xu, J., Lin, L., Liu, H., Hou, W., & Zhu, Q. (2026) · Corporate Governance An International Review · doi:10.1111/corg.70044 · Cited by 2
The Flexible Impact of Shared Affect on Creativity in Idea-Generation Groups
Yoon, Y., Larson, J. R., Huntsinger, J. R., & Seo, J. (2026) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/10464964261456692
Shaikh, M. K. (2025) · International Journal of Innovations in Science and Technology · doi:10.33411/ijist/1583
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