Decision-Making Groups Attenuate the Discussion Bias in Favor of Shared Information: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Groups often focus their discussions on information that all members know at the outset. To test how robust the sampling advantage for shared information is, a meta-analysis was conducted. The analysis integrated findings from 20 publications (45 independent effects), in which information sharedness was manipulated. Groups discussed more shared than unshared information overall. However, the observed sampling advantage was smaller than expected. Groups attenuated the discussion bias in particular when they had to choose among a small number of decision alternatives and when they had less than 30 minutes discussion time. Moreover, groups performing a hidden-profile task tended to display a smaller discussion bias than groups performing tasks with equally attractive alternatives.

Keywords:

• Group Discussion
• Information Sharing
• Discussion Bias
• Hidden Profile
• Meta-Analysis

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Editor Mike Allen and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on our manuscript.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Torsten Reimer

Torsten Reimer (PhD in Psychology, Free University of Berlin, Germany) is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Communication at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Andrea Reimer

Andrea Reimer (MA in Psychology, University of Potsdam, Germany) is currently pursuing her PhD

Uwe Czienskowski

Uwe Czienskowski holds academic degrees in psychology and computer science and works at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany