Improving group decisions by better pooling information: a comparative advantage of group decision support systems.

This study compared a group decision support system (GDSS) with face-to-face (FTF) group discussion on characteristics of information exchange and decision quality. Participants given conflicting information tended to share more of their unique data and engaged in more critical argumentation when using the GDSS than when meeting FTF. Conversely, when information was consistent among members, there were no such differences between FTF and GDSS groups. The GDSS groups significantly outperformed the FTF groups in agreeing on the superior hidden profile candidate, especially when there was a lack of prediscussion consensus. Individual-level analyses revealed that members of GDSS groups that did not have a prediscussion consensus tended to experience stronger preference shifts toward the group's consensus decision.