L3: Group Decision-Making and Brainstorming Flashcards

Question

How does shared vs unshared information influence group decision making?

Answer 1

In hidden-profile situations (making a choice out of options), groups make better decisions when they share and process unshared information rather than relying only on shared information, which often leads to suboptimal choices. But, research shows that group members tend to discuss shared information more. Decision quality improves when groups engage in deep, systematic information processing, which is influenced by epistemic motivation. Factors like time pressure reduce epistemic motivation and lead to heuristic, preference-driven decision-making, whereas criticality norms and counterfactual mindsets enhance systematic processing and lead to better decisions.

Answer 2

1. higher levels of epistemic motivation lead to more systematic and deliberate search for and processing of information 2. higher epistemic motivation leads to lower levels of group centeredness, reduce intolerance of deviance, pressure to conformity, longing for autocratic, hierarchical decision-making 3. higher epistemic motivation leads to more divergent thinking, and stimulate creative ideation 4. can be mediated by group centeredness

Answer 3

This argues that people transform an objective interdependence structure into a subjective interdependence situation which forms the basis for more action. Some may have the same mix of cooperative and competitive incentives, but some emphasize the other more.

Answer 4

Proself motivation is made up of competitive and individualistic goals, while prosocial motivation compromises cooperative and altruistic goals. These are related to differences in social value orientation, affiliation and agreeableness. People with prosocial motives have a stronger tendency to trust others, value harmony and make decisions to foster goals. But proself motivation= distrust others, value power, achievement, less disturbed by dissenting points of view

Answer 5

Group members often argue for their own position, sharing only information that supports their view. This bias is stronger in individuals with a proself motivation (self-interest) than in those with a prosocial motivation (group interest).

Answer 6

Proself-motivated individuals are more likely to misrepresent information to maximize personal gains. Prosocial motivation leads to more accurate and transparent information exchange. Deception increases when stakes are high or when individuals believe others lack information.

Answer 7

People develop psychological ownership over their ideas and resist opposing views. Proself-motivated individuals exaggerate the strengths of their preferences and downplay counterevidence. Prosocially motivated groups may be less defensive and more open to counterarguments.

Answer 8

Prosocial motivation can lead to self-censorship to maintain group harmony, reducing the sharing of dissenting information. Shared information is viewed as more valid and competent, leading to mutual enhancement (reinforcing group consensus). This can bias group decisions toward shared rather than unshared information, even when the latter is more relevant.

Answer 9

Minority dissent increases epistemic motivation by reducing confidence in initial preferences, encouraging deeper cognitive processing. Exposure to differing opinions leads to more critical thinking and the exploration of alternative ideas.

Answer 10

Proself Motivation (self-interest, competition) fosters independent thinking and a higher likelihood of taking a minority position. Prosocial Motivation (cooperation, harmony) promotes group cohesion and constructive group processes. Proself motivation benefits divergent tasks (idea generation, creativity), while prosocial motivation is advantageous for convergent tasks (decision-making, planning).

Answer 11

Moderate levels of disagreement and conflict stimulate creativity and innovation. Competition in brainstorming tasks enhances idea generation, as individuals strive to outperform each other. Upward comparisons and a desire to "win" can improve long-term creative performance in groups.

Answer 12

Individualistic groups tend to generate more original but less feasible ideas, whereas collectivist groups focus on feasibility and consensus. Divergent thinking flourishes in competitive, individualistic environments, while structured decision-making benefits from a collectivist approach.

Answer 13

While proself motivation fosters creativity, it can lead to disregarding or derogating others' ideas, which may harm group dynamics. Attention to others’ contributions enhances group creativity by allowing for idea-building and refinement. Expectations of negative evaluation can reduce creativity, especially in individuals with high social anxiety.

Answer 14

1. Prosocial/proself individuals seek, encode and retrieve cooperative info more 2. In proself groups this leads to advocacy, lying, deception and spinning of info. Proself orientation leads to independent thought, resulting in higher group creativity 3. the more members that have a proself motivation, the less likely it is that the group focusses on consensus and integration of perspectives, tolerates dissent etc 4. Groups with more prosocially motivated members are better at reaching agreements to integrate all members-> high-quality decisions

Answer 15

Prosocial group members are more likely than proself members to share information that benefits group goals and collective functioning. They tend to disseminate information accurately, avoiding personal bias, deception, or strategic withholding. These tendencies become stronger when epistemic motivation is high, as individuals process information more deliberately and systematically. High epistemic motivation reduces group-centered thinking, decreasing the preference for autocratic leadership while encouraging participative decision-making.

Answer 16

- group members ae unwilling to invest cognitive effort and motivated by personal interests - can be unmotivated, free ride or engage in social loafing, unwilling to understand others' positions, leading to stalemates and indecision

Answer 17

- motivated by selfish goals, willing to exert effort to gain a better understanding of the situation - likely to argue, engage in advocacy, lying, deception and spinning of info - group members do not shy away from taking a minority position and independent in thinking

Answer 18

- value their own and group members' outcomes - unwilling to invest effort, but willing to maintain group harmony - group centredness may emerge, with pressure on deviants - interactions are influenced by pooling of preferences than info

Answer 19

- have prosocial goals and willing to invest effort - self-censorship is reduced, preferences for accuracy and harmony drive the group to solving the problem - group members pay attention to other's ideas, build on them and reach high levels of creativity

Answer 20

With high decision urgency, it is difficult and undesirable to have a deliberate search for and processing of info. There is a trade off between effort and accuracy. Directive leadership is the optimal strategy to decision making. Prosocial motivation can help rather than hinder reaching group judgements and quality decisions. High task cohesive groups performed better in high urgency situations than low cohesive groups. Group members also tend to lower epistemic motivation with time pressure.

Answer 21

This is high when groups have hidden profile tasks, when they negotiate integrative agreements, when new ideas and problem solutions help the group move toward judgements and decisions. When indispensability is low, group members are less critical in processing info, so they rely on well-learned routines, own judgements and decisions. High levels of epistemic motivation are not needed to reach good judgements and decisions, can be detrimental even. Best combination is prosocial motives with low epistemic motivation

Answer 22

Groups with at least one highly epistemically motivated member tend to engage in deeper information processing, improving decision quality. However, in larger groups, these individuals may struggle to influence the majority, especially if they have low status. Leaders can play a crucial role in enhancing epistemic motivation by encouraging discussion Research suggests that groups often shift toward a proself orientation over time, even if they start with more prosocial members. This shift occurs because prosocial individuals tend to adopt a noncooperative stance when faced with proself counterparts, while proself individuals remain noncooperative regardless of their counterparts’ motives. Competitive information thus gains more prominence in group discussions. A consistent prosocial minority may counteract this tendency by modeling cooperative behavior, influencing others to become more prosocial over time.

Answer 23

Negative affect can motivates individuals through thorough processing of information and greater openness to new info than positive affect. They also engage in more group-level info processing in groups and reach higher quality decisions. When manipulated into a positive mood-> less likely to engage in info processing. Negative affect is linked to proself motivation and competitive behaviour.

Answer 24

Proself motivation can result in independent thinking, focus on the self but can manifest in competition and explicit dismissal of other positions. There are different causes of these motives, as culturally scripted mental sets can influence this, but usually results in more automatic and habituated behaviour. Some conditions can cause both of them like political orientation and situations like emerging threats can reduce epistemic motivation which can increase prosocial motivation to coordinate and care for each other

Answer 25

Habitual patterns of behaviour, which are functional in providing a mechanism to anticipate other members' actions. This allows for more efficiency in transforming inputs into outputs. But this is seen as mindless and important to be able to adapt.

Answer 26

Defined as reactive and nonscripted adjustments to a team's system of member roles that contribute to team effectiveness. Reactive is a change in team activity in response to something, nonscripted is that the focus is not on reactions to problems. Adjustment is activity or behaviour. It is important but teams must integrate info to make a series of decisions over a span of time

Answer 27

- role structure is positively associated with team decision-making performance after a change in task context - member cognitive ability is positively associated with role structure adaption, team decision-making performance, the relationship between cognitive ability and decision-making performance is mediated by role structure adaptation - member achievement is positively associated with role structure adaptation and team decision-making - member dependability is negatively associated with role structure adaptation and decision-making performance - member openness to experience is positively associated with role structure adaptation and decision-making performance

Answer 28

- cognitive ability which is the differences between individuals in their capacity to process info and learn - conscientiousness includes an achievement component related to feelings of competence, striving and being self-disciplined along with a dependability component related to orderliness, dutifulness and deliberation-> worse decisions with adaptation - openness to experience involves imaginativeness, curiosity, originality and broadmindedness-> self-monitoring in novel situations - member cognitive ability increases postchange team performance due to developing effective systems of activity + learning from experiences - positive relationship between member achievement and team performance with unexpected change ( due to working harder and drive) - member dependability is linked to a high need for order and careful consideration-> less likely to abandon old patterns

Answer 29

Participants worked on a team version of team interactive decision exercise, in which they have to make decisions about the state of objects. Then a critical communications link was removed in the middle of the study to examine postchange performance

Answer 30

- postchange decision-making performance - role structure adaptation - rated measure of adaptation - team cognitive ability and personality (additive form was used)

Answer 31

- significant positive correlations between role structure adaptation and postchange decision-making performance - relationship btw cognitive ability and role structure adaptation was significant - team achievement, dependability and openness was related to better decision-making - all mediations had support

Answer 32

Which is using their brain to storm a problem, which can be applied to problems with many potential solutions that are not clearly right or wrong. The principles: deferment of judgement and quantity breeds quality (criticism can kill creativity). To produce a large quantity, then brainstorming is an additive and maximizing task. Quality is defined by originality and feasability

Answer 33

Nominal groups (no interaction between group members and worked individually) were compared to normal groups. But the nominal groups outperformed the interactive groups and were found to be twice as productive

Answer 34

- motivation losses such as free riding and perceived expertness in creativity, downward matching through being as productive as the least productive group member - coordination losses through evaluation apprehension (but found to be less important) and having high interaction anxiousness which meant that interactive groups performed less well (they have more evaluation apprehension) - production blocking could play a role which is due to taking turns in speaking then members have to wait for their turn which could result in forgetting ideas

Answer 35

compared different group settings to assess the impact of production blocking on idea generation. In a normal interactive group and a standard nominal group, participants worked together without interference. In three additional conditions, individuals worked separately but used a traffic light system to control speaking turns. When the system enforced production blocking (conditions 3 and 4), groups were less productive than those without blocking (nominal groups and groups instructed to ignore the system). Overhearing others’ ideas (condition 4) did not significantly influence productivity.

Answer 36

Due to cognitive interference. The ideas cannot be immediately express after being generated which leads to the forgetting of some ideas and interferes with the ability to generate new ones

Answer 37

This is typing and seeing other's ideas on the screen to eliminate production blocking. This also stimulates ideas as in bigger groups, they were more productive than nominal groups (groups of 9 and more). Positive effects were found in smaller groups when instructed to remember those ideas

Answer 38

New ideas result from new combinations of existing knowledge as available knowledge should first be activated in memory to retrieve ideas (which should be semantically related). When shown stimulation ideas then they were more productive, shorter response latencies with similar ideas

Answer 39

- group members have the opportunity to compare performance with others so more satisfied - overestimating performance in a group session as they take credit for ideas that was suggested by others - experience more difficulties when coming up with something new alone but in groups can sit back and listen

Answer 40

Based on originality and feasibility. Creativity is related to whether ideas are novel and useful. The quality of a brainstorming session is measured by the number of good ideas.

Answer 41

This depends on the quality of ideas generated and the effectiveness of the selection process so the degree to which the best ideas are chosen. Nominal groups will have generated more good ideas but interactive groups may be better at selecting their ideas

Answer 42

Groups generated less ideas than nominal groups, they were less original but more feasible than of nominal group. The selected ideas did not have higher originality and feasibility. Better ideas were not chosen even if available

Answer 43

- originality and feasibility are negatively related, so feasibility is focussed on when choosing ideas (originality less important) - when original ideas were chosen this led to less satisfaction

Answer 44

- some argue it is non-conformity but it depends on the degree to which group members engage in independent thinking - competitive negotiation stimulated more creativity-> more willing to stand out - groups more creative after a change in membership - when individualistic values activated (how you are unique), this led to more creativity

Answer 45

Individual-level creativity was measured and on other positive behaviours that contribute positively to group functioning like providing feedback, communicating effectively and coordinating group activities. Individual level creativity was related to group level activity only when group members showed effective group behaviours

Answer 46

- to reach consensus and ensure everyone's opinion is heard-> more willing to accept a decision when they had a say - groups have more resources to draw on than individuals-> information integration function

Answer 47

Includes individual preferences, group composition, social decision schemes and group response. How group compositions relate to group decisions is based on the social decision scheme ( a decision rule). Preference is favouring one option or another while group composition is how many people in a group prefer each alternative. The number of alternatives increases with larger groups. To decide on outcomes: majority wins which is that a preference is always chosen when a majority of group members prefer it, proportionality is the probability that an alternative is chosen based on the proportion of group members and truth when such as when an alternative represents the truth when at least one member prefers it. Related to disjunctive tasks

Answer 48

Specifying what happens in each cases like majority wins, proportionality otherwise

Answer 49

- measure or manipulate group composition, observe group decisions and assess the SDS - compare individual preferences with group decisions

Answer 50

- majorities can win when wrong due to normative pressure-> public compliance - but the majority wins yields accurate decisions when group members are motivated to find the best alternative but often this does not occur or vote independently - leniency bias is that anti-conviction is more influential than pro-conviction->more juries acquit than convict

Answer 51

When group members pool their info they arrive at a better and more informed choice. Gaining all information is important as it can lead to process gains as the group would perform better than members could perform alone

Answer 52

This is when the correct solution is hidden from group members and can only be detected when group members exchange their unshared information

Answer 53

Participants either had shared info (A) or hidden profiles. In the unshared /consensus condition, the only info provided was negative (favour candidiate B) and the unshared conflict condition then 2 groups were led to like B and 2 others for C.This condition might have discussed more extensively and found that A was the correct option. The full information condition confirmed that A was the best choice. All results confirmed this, except that A was not considered for the final condition.

Answer 54

Because of chance, as the probability that a piece of info is mentioned during discussion is positively related to the number of group members that hold that info. Group discussion also show a sampling bias as they focus on what is shared than unshared. This tends to be: exaggerated in larger groups, the bias depends on information load (less likely to be revealed). Even it is mentioned it is less likely to be picked up by the group . Unshared info is repeated less often than shared info-> less weight

Answer 55

- shared information can be validated by other group members other than the one that mentioned it-> more credible - it is difficult to change an initial preference, as new info is evaluated in a biased way - common knowledge effect is the idea that shared info has a bigger impact on group choice than unshared info - advocacy bias is group members' tendency to defend initial preference during group discussion

Answer 56

Arrow 1 refers to the fact that shared information has more impact on individual preferences; arrow 2 to preference pooling (e.g., majority wins); arrow 3 to the sampling bias in favor of shared information; arrow 4 to biased evaluation; and arrow 5 to advocacy.

Answer 57

Hidden profiles were created and C was the superior candidate. Participants read info which made her less attractive. They were assigned to various conditions. The percentage of correct responses increased when one group member initially favoured the correct candidate-> due to discussing fully

Answer 58

Framing decisional task as a problem to be solved rather than a decision to be made such as when being asked to solve a murder to logical reasoning rather than judge, led to the correct identification of the suspect

Answer 59

Leaders usually take the role of information managers during group discussion. If leaders are trained to encourage group member participation during discussion then this stimulates information exchange through repeating all info.

Answer 60

If group members know at the start aoout who knows what if they have mutually recognized areas of expertise. This means that having a specific area of expertise can increase the probability for unshared info in that area, if they know which unique unshared info then more likely to become shared. If seen as an expert than seen as more credible even if others cannot validate it

Answer 61

Certain situations lead to excessive concurrence-seeking as groups aim to maintain group harmony and consensus than adequately assessing the situation. Antecedent conditions: sense of superiority (espirit de corps), structural faults (high group member homogeneity, no leader impartiality and insulation of group from outsiders) and high stress due to external and internal stressors. So high group cohesion and high levels of stress mean that consensus is valued

Answer 62

Illusion of invulnerability, belief in inherent morality of group, collective rationalizations (explains away counter-evidence), stereotyping of outsiders, self-censorship (not expressing true opinions), mind-guards who correct dissenter, pressure on deviants and the illusion that group members should all agree with the decision. No contingency plans, alternatives are not re-examined and processing is poor and selective

Answer 63

Public statements were less complex and more positive about the speaker's own group in groupthink situations than non-groupthink situations. No differences between groupthink and non-group think situations in stereotyping. Challengers: issue of O-rings was known and discussed but NASA management did not consider the evidence carefully due to issues with delays. Strong relations between structual faults and concurrence seeking, with groupthink and defective decision-making. High cohesion or stressors did not affect concurrence-seeking

Answer 64

- high group cohesion did not lead to groupthink - leader impartiality found to predict groupthink - directive leadership associated with more self-censorship, mind-guarding and dissent - combination of high cohesion, external threats an structural faults which causes groupthink - better to be seen as a heuristic model rather than a validated theory

Answer 65

Preference driven: frequent exchanges of preferences but not much discussion and elaboration of info, so groups will adopt the majority's position. Info processing is biased and directed at confirmation of initial preferences Information driven: groups take more time to arrive at a decision and the discussion is less biased. Less appropriate in high emergency situations but more accurate. More effortful and only used when motivated and uncertain about accuracy of choices but important

Answer 66

When there is preference diversity, so there is no consensus, so certainty will be lower. Info-driven strategies are used to find an alternative. Framing a decision as a problem to be solved and having mutually recognized areas of expertise-> unique unshared info

Answer 67

These are tasks in which a group could solve it if there is at least one smart member who could do it. If someone finds a solution it would be recognized as correct by others

Answer 68

requires that group members agree on a formal system to solve the problem, that enough information is present to solve it, that incorrect members recognize the correct solution when it is proposed, and that correct members are willing and able to share their answer with the others. The more demonstrable a task is, the fewer correct group members are needed to solve it as a group. Truth wins more important for highly demonstrable tasks and truth-supported when less demonstrable

Answer 69

Depending on the demonstrability of a task, which are on a continuum of judgemental to intellective tasks. Judgemental tasks are evaluative, behavioural or aesthetic judgements for which there does not exist a demonstrably correct answer-> achievement of consensus. Intellective tasks are problems or decisions for there exists a demonstrably correct answer within a verbal or mathematical conceptual system

Answer 70

(1) the group agrees on a verbal or mathematical system that can be used to solve the problem (2) there is enough information to solve the problem (3) group members who cannot solve the problem have sufficient knowledge to recognize a correct solution when it is proposed (4) the correct group member is able and willing to share the solution with the other group members in a way that they understand.

Answer 71

When the correct member needs at least one supporter. More groups are expected to get the correct solution than with truth-supported wins

Answer 72

Individuals were asked to solve this three times, then individually, and in a group and then individually. Groups outperformed the individuals, and those in a group had learned and outperformed those. For intellective problems groups use a truth wins SDS

Answer 73

With one solver most of the groups were correct for math tasks, and way less for verbal analogies-> truth supported approach

Answer 74

Producing a general rule from available evidence such as generating a hypotheses in guessing a card

Answer 75

There is a correct hypothesis, plausible hypotheses (can be correct in principle) and non-plausible hypotheses (cannot be correct based on previous trials). If groups less often propose a non-plausible hypothesis then better at recognizing and correcting errors. This is a disjunctive task as potential performance is determined by best member. Groupd performed better when allowed to play more card, and given sufficient time

Answer 76

Letters A-J represents a number from 0-9 and the correct number needs to be found for each letter. They propose mapping and receive feedback which continues untul solved. Nominal groups distinguished between the ability of members based on the average number of trails to get coding. The groups needed less trials to get the letters right than the best-> show process gains as the task is complex

Answer 77

Base rate fallacy is ignoring base rate information when making probability estimates Conjunction error is when the estimated probability of one answer is greater than another even if equally likely

Answer 78

They tested this using the cab problem and found that when using lower witness accuracy, the groups were closer to the normative solution, but at higher levels of witness accuracy then groups showed a stronger base rate fallacy than individuals-> group polarization and majority wins Groups made more conjunction errors due to exacerbation at individual levels -> error wins

Answer 79

- group size - proportion of individuals that make a certain error or bias - SDS used by the group - type of error - availability of info (sometimes info is taken into account or neglected)-> attractiveness resulted in leniency bias

Answer 80

- groups have more info than one individual - groups have shared and unshared info within them - using this group knowledge requires proper info sharing - even if no individual member knows the answer the group can find it by working together-> process gain

Answer 81

the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth.

Answer 82

- difficulty in exchanging unshared info and spend more time discussing shared info - discount unique info that is different from their own and argue against it to defend own preference (advocacy) These effects are more likely to occur when groups are large and info load is high

Answer 83

1. search 2. encode 3. store 4. retrieve shared mental models (shared understanding of tasks and collective goals) and transactive memory (know who knows what in their team) can facilitate info processing

Answer 84

Willingness to expend effort to achieve a thorough, rich and accurate understanding of the world.

Answer 85

Preference for outcome distributions between oneself and other group members. Pro-self or pro-social.

Answer 86

Individual-Level Factors: - Social Motivation (Proself vs. Prosocial): Determines whether individuals act in self-interest or prioritize group success. - Epistemic Motivation (Low–High): Affects how deeply individuals analyze information. - Bias & Depth of Information Processing: Shape the way individuals contribute to discussions. Group-Level Factors: - Information Dissemination & Integration: The process of sharing and combining knowledge. - Member Input Indispensability: The necessity of each member's contribution. - Decision Urgency: The pressure to make a decision quickly. - Quality of Group Judgment & Decision: The final outcome, influenced by information processing and integration. Groups make better decisions when members process and share information effectively. Prosocial motivation and high epistemic motivation lead to deeper processing and better outcomes. Decision urgency and undervaluing contributions can lower decision quality.

Answer 87

Social Motivation: - proself motivation leads to either individualistic (valuing independence) or competitive orientations (disregarding others ideas) Effects on Information Processing: This increases bias in information exchange, leading to advocacy, deception, and spinning. It reduces consensus-seeking and the cooperative integration of different perspectives. However, it may enhance flexibility of thought, fostering divergent thinking and creative ideas (depending on the orientation)

Answer 88

Low epistemic motivation and proself: vetoing, indecision and ignoring ideas for e.g. social loafing Low epistemic motivation and prosocial: pressure on deviants, lazy compromising for e.g. harmony High epistemic motivation and proself: arguing, counteracting, independence for e.g. advocacy, spinning High epistemic motivation and prosocial: information pooling and attention to others’ ideas for e.g. effective problem solving

Answer 89

Idea generation is separated from idea evaluation. Idea is to generate as many ideas as possible, first ones tend to be the most conventional. It is an additive and maximizing task. Group performance is the sum of individual ideas

Answer 90

- cognitive stimulation - group interaction can help one come up with new ideas

Answer 91

- motivation loss: free-riding, downward matching, not as prominent as people like to brainstorm - coordination loss: evaluation apprehension, production blocking as turn-taking can create cognitive interference, group size (as it becomes larger)

Answer 92

- Social comparison: Without a comparison point, you feel more insecure. * Overestimating performance in groups: Claiming credit for ideas that weren’t your own. * Avoiding difficulties: Easier in groups when you’re stuck to sit back and listen to others and don’t have to acknowledge that you’re stuck.

Answer 93

- Bad ideas are low on originality and feasibility - Conventional ideas are high on feasibility but low on originality - crazy ideas are very original but low on feasibility - good ideas are both feasible and original

Answer 94

- Sum the creative potential of all members → team creativity. * The prediction: Average individual creativity predicts team creativity.

Answer 95

* One or a few creative members → team creativity. * The prediction: Highest individual creativity predicts team creativity.

Answer 96

High interdependence is when members draw on and combine each other's contributions, sharing and synthesizing info is central. Low interdependence is that members do not need to rely on each other. Average individual creativity has a stronger relationship with team creativity when task interdependence is high. Highest individual creativity is stronger for team creativity when interdependence is low

Answer 97

With more longevity, team members have shared understandings and common perspectives. Both additive and disjunctive models need teams to coordinate and integrate ideas

Answer 98

- consensus building - information integration as groups have more resources and info

Answer 99

- member preferences - member info - task of group is to combine preferences and info

Answer 100

It begins with individual inclinations toward specific alternatives, which form the basis of group composition. Within the group, the number of people favoring each alternative is taken into account. The social decision scheme then acts as a rule that determines how these individual preferences are integrated into a collective choice. Then, the group response is the final decision, influenced by both the composition of preferences and the specific decision-making rule applied. Changes in environment can influence all of these factors

Answer 101

- member cognitive ability (capacity of processing info to learn/unlearn with change) - conscientiousness: achievement and dependability (negatively related) - member openness to experience (related to creativity, broad mindedness, willingness to try new things)

Answer 102

- eureka tasks is when someone finds a solution and everyone knows it is the correct one. Mean group performance is determined by having one smart member. Groups do better than individuals - collective induction tasks is inducing a general rule based on evidence, groups do better as there is more info and there are process gains

Answer 103

This is the scope of resources like expertise ad personnel but also more complexity in team communication and coordination. Larger teams are more likely to experience conflict and divide into subgroups, which makes integrating inputs difficult. Smaller teams can experience conflict and divide into subgroups which makes it easier to attend to individual inputs. Average individual creativity more predictive in smaller teams but was unsupported

Answer 104

when groups are competitive, group members are individualistic and group membership has changed. This increases divergent thinking rather than conformity to group norms, and have effective group processes like communicating and coordinating

Answer 105

Initial preference diversity can help promote the discussion of unique information above groups were members all have the same wrong preference Framing the task as a problem to be solved rather than a decision to be made – people discuss the problem more fully Having effective leaders/devil’s advocates who can stimulate the exchange and discussion of unshared information Creating expert roles (a sort of transactive memory system), where people know what type of unshared information other members should have, making them respect it more and making it easier for these members to dare to share their unique information Improving epistemic motivation?

Answer 106

Availability heuristic (Overreliance on highly salient information. Groups are less susceptible) Sunk Cost effect (Oversensitivity to previously made costs. Groups are more susceptible to this type of bias.) Conjunction fallacy/error (Estimating the likelihood of a joint event as larger than the likelihood of a single event. Findings on whether groups are more susceptible than individuals are mixed. Base rate fallacy (A tendency to ignore base-rate information when judgements. Findings on whether groups are more susceptible than individuals are mixed) Positive framing (The same information that is more positively framed [10% will dies, vs. 90% will survive] is preferred. Findings on whether groups are more susceptible than individuals are mixed.) Fundamental attribution error (under-use of situational information when making attributions. Groups are generally less susceptible) Hindsight bias (estimating the probability of an unlikely event larger after you know it has happened. Groups tend to be less susceptible.)