Greitemeyer Tobias, Schulz-Hardt Stefan, Brodbeck Felix C, Frey Dieter
Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006 Mar;12(1):31-42. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.12.1.31.
Group discussions tend to focus on information that was previously known by all members (shared information) rather than information known by only 1 member (unshared information). If the shared information implies a suboptimal alternative, this sampling bias is associated with inaccurate group decisions. The present study examines the impact of 2 factors on information exchange and decision quality: (a) an advocacy group decision procedure versus unstructured discussion and (b) task experience. Results show that advocacy groups discussed both more shared and unshared information than free-discussion groups. Further, with increasing experience, more unshared information was mentioned in advocacy groups. In contrast, there was no such increase in unstructured discussions. Yet advocacy groups did not significantly improve their decision quality with experience.
小组讨论往往聚焦于所有成员之前都已知的信息（共享信息），而非仅为一名成员所知的信息（非共享信息）。如果共享信息暗示了一个次优选择，这种抽样偏差就会导致不准确的小组决策。本研究考察了两个因素对信息交流和决策质量的影响：（a）倡导性小组决策程序与无组织讨论，以及（b）任务经验。结果表明，倡导性小组讨论的共享信息和非共享信息都比自由讨论小组更多。此外，随着经验的增加，倡导性小组中提到的非共享信息更多。相比之下，无组织讨论中没有出现这种增加。然而，倡导性小组并没有随着经验的增加而显著提高其决策质量。
