Groups Weight Outside Information Less Than Individuals Do Because They Should

@article{Schultze2013GroupsWO,
  title={Groups Weight Outside Information Less Than Individuals Do Because They Should},
  author={Thomas Schultze and Andreas Mojzisch and Stefan Schulz-Hardt},
  journal={Psychological Science},
  year={2013},
  volume={24},
  pages={1371 - 1372}
}
In a recent article, Minson and Mueller (2012) compared advice taking in dyads and individuals by manipulating whether judges were individuals or dyads and whether advice was provided by individuals or dyads. They concluded that “collaborators’ reluctance to integrate external input into their decisions may substantially impair their ability to achieve their goals” (p. 223). This conclusion rested on the finding that dyads utilized advice less than did individuals working on the same task… Expand
Groups Weight Outside Information Less Than Individuals Do, Although They Shouldn’t
By suggesting that dyads should give less weight to outside advice than individuals should, Schultze, Mojzisch, and Schulz-Hardt (2013) raise important questions re garding whether and whenExpand
Why dyads heed advice less than individuals do
Following up on a recent debate, we examined advice taking in dyads compared to individuals in a set of three studies (total N = 303 dyads and 194 individuals). Our first aim was to test theExpand
Advice taking by groups: The effects of consensus seeking and member opinion differences
Individuals often underutilize the advice they receive from others, a phenomenon known as egocentric advice discounting. Recent research suggests that this tendency may be even stronger in groupsExpand
The Contingent Wisdom of Dyads: When Discussion Enhances vs. Undermines the Accuracy of Collaborative Judgments
TLDR
The research shows that discussion can be a powerful tool for error reduction, but only when appropriately structured: Decision makers should form independent judgments to consider a wide range of possible answers, and then use discussion to eliminate extreme errors. Expand
The anchoring-bias in groups
Abstract Decision-making groups decide on many numerical issues, which makes them potentially vulnerable to cognitive anchors. In the current study we investigated (1) whether the anchoring-biasExpand

References

SHOWING 1-7 OF 7 REFERENCES
Strategies for revising judgment: how (and how well) people use others' opinions.
  • Jack B. Soll, R. Larrick
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition
  • 2009
TLDR
The authors developed the probability, accuracy, redundancy (PAR) model and found that averaging was the more effective strategy across a wide range of commonly encountered environments and that despite this finding, people tend to favor the choosing strategy. Expand
Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?" psychological bulletin
Experimental comparisons of groups and individuals were analyzed on four dimensions: task, process, individual differences, and methodology. A standardized terminology based on Lorge, Fox, Davitz,Expand
The Benefit of Additional Opinions
In daily decision making, people often solicit one another's opinions in the hope of improving their own judgment. According to both theory and empirical results, integrating even a few opinions isExpand
Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences
Abstract This paper reviews the advice-giving and advice-taking literature. First, the central findings from this literature are catalogued. Topics include: advice utilization, confidence, decisionExpand
A note on aggregating opinions
Abstract This note examines the number of experts to be included in a prediction group where the criterion of predictive ability is the correlation between the uncertain event and the mean judgmentExpand
Group performance and decision making.
TLDR
Recent trends in group performance research have found that process gains as well as losses are possible, and both are frequently explained by situational and procedural contexts that differentially affect motivation and resource coordination. Expand
The cost of collaboration: Why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information
  • Psychological Science,
  • 2012