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… 

Tables from this paper

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 when

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 the

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 groups

The Contingent Wisdom of Dyads: When Discussion Enhances vs. Undermines the Accuracy of Collaborative Judgments

We evaluate the effect of discussion on the accuracy of collaborative judgments. In contrast to prior research, we show that discussion can either aid or impede accuracy relative to the averaging of

References

SHOWING 1-7 OF 7 REFERENCES

Strategies for revising judgment: how (and how well) people use others' opinions.

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.

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,

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 is

A note on aggregating opinions

Group performance and decision making.

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.

The cost of collaboration: Why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information

  • Psychological Science,
  • 2012