Accuracy and perceived expert status in group decisions: When minority members make majority members more accurate privately

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 423-437

  Sinaceur, Marwan ^a   Thomas Hunt, Melissa C ^b   Neale, Margaret A ^c   O'Neill, Olivia A ^d   Haag, Christophe ^e  

^a INSEAD   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^e EMLYON BUSINESS SCHOOL   (France)

Author keywords

Cognitive performance; Expert status; Group decision making; Minority influence; Motivated processing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; COGNITION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; FRANCE; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; MALE; MOROCCO; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; FRANCE; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; MALE; MOROCCO; POWER (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 77649248592     PISSN: 01461672     EISSN: 15527433     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146167209353349     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Brodbeck, F.C., Kerschreiter R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2002). The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: The effects of prediscussion dissent. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 35-56.
3. De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007). Minority dissent, attitude change, and group performance. In A. Pratkanis (Ed.), The science of social influence: Advances and future progress (pp. 247-270). New York: Psychology Press.
4. De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 22-49.
5. De Vries, N.K., De Dreu, C.K.W., Gordijn, E., & Schuurman, M. (1996). Majority and minority influence: A dual-role interpretation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 145-172). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
6. Erb, H., Bohner, G., Rank, S., & Einwiller, S. (2002). Processing minority and majority communications: The role of conflict with prior attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1172-1182.
7. French, J., & Raven, B.H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
8. Gordijn, E.H., De Vries, N.K., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2002). Minority influence on focal and related attitudes: Change in size, attributions, and information processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1315-1326.
9. Gruenfeld, D.H. (1995). Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 5-20.
10. Kenny, D.A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D.A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126-137.
11. Littlepage, G.E., Schmidt, G.W., Whisler, E.W., & Frost, A.G. (1995). An input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problem-solving groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 877-889.
12. Maass, A., & Clark, R.D., III. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450.
13. Mackie, D.M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.
14. Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2008). Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change: The source-context-elaboration model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 237-326.
15. Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P.Y. (2003). Resistance to persuasive messages as a function of majority and minority source status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 585-593.
16. Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P.Y. (2007). Systematic and heuristic processing of majority-and minority-endorsed messages: The effects of varying outcome relevance and levels of orientation on attitude and message processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 43-56.
17. Martin, R., Martin, P.Y., Smith, J.R., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Majority versus minority influence and prediction of behavioral intentions and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 763-771.
18. Moreland, R.L., & Levine, J.M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 137-192). New York: Academic Press.
19. Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209-239). New York: Academic Press.
20. Moscovici, S., & Lage, E. (1976). Studies in social influence: III. Majority versus minority influence in a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 149-174.
21. Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365-379.
22. Nemeth, C.J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
23. Nemeth, C.J., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority versus minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55.
24. Phillips, K.W. (2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 3-13.
25. Phillips, K.W., Mannix, E., Neale, M.A., & Gruenfeld, D.H. (2004). Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 497-510.
26. Polansky, N., Lippitt, R., & Redl, F. (1950). An investigation of behavioral contagion in groups. Human Relations, 3, 319-348.
27. Rodriguez, G., & Goldman, N. (2001). Improved estimation procedures for multilevel models with binary response: A case study. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 164, 339-355.
28. Scholten, L., Van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B.A., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 539-552.
29. Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F.C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1080-1093.
30. Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Lüthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 655-669.
31. Stasser, G., & Stewart, D.D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426-434.
32. Stasser, G., Stewart, D.D., & Wittenbaum, G.M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244-265.
33. Thomas-Hunt, M.C., Ogden, T.Y., & Neale, M.A. (2003). Who's really sharing? Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Science, 49, 464-477.
34. Trafimow, D., & Sniezek, J.A. (1994). Perceived expertise and its effect on confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 290-302.
35. Wittenbaum, G.M. (2000). The bias toward discussing shared information: Why are high-status group members immune? Communication Research, 27, 379-401.