Group decision quality, conscientiousness and competition

References

• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowman, J. M. (2002). Effects of time pressure and informational access on hidden profile solution in decision-making groups [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Michigan State University, USA. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102548607
   Google Scholar
• Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2007). Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodbeck, F. C., Kugler, K. G., Fischer, J. A., Heinze, J., & Fischer, D. (2021). Group-level integrative complexity: Enhancing differentiation and integration in group decision-making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(1), 125-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219892698
   Google Scholar
• Bujang, M. A., Sa’at, N., Tg Abu Bakar Sidik, T. M. I., & Chien Joo, L. (2018). Sample size guidelines for logistic regression from observational studies with large population: Emphasis on the accuracy between statistics and parameters based on real life clinical data. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(4), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2018.25.4.12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton-Chellew, M. N., & West, S. A. (2012). Pseudocompetition among groups increases human cooperation in a public-goods game. Animal Behaviour, 84(4), 947–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.07.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callaway, M. R., Marriott, R. G., & Esser, J. K. (1985). Effects of dominance on group decision making: Toward a stress-reduction explanation of groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4), 949–952. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.949
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of tshe NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(9), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costigan, R. D., & Donahue, L. (2009). Developing the great eight competencies with leaderless group discussion. Journal of Management Education, 33(5), 596–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562908318328
   Google Scholar
• Cruz, M. G., Boster, F. J., & Rodríguez, J. I. (1997). The impact of group size and proportion of shared information on the exchange and integration of information in groups. Communication Research, 24(3), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024003004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, J. H., Hulbert, L., Au, W. T., Chen, X. P., & Zarnoth, P. (1997). Effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judgments of quantity: The example of damage awards and mock civil juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dayeh, V., & Morrison, B. W. (2020). The effect of perceived competence and competitive environment on team decision-making in the hidden-profile paradigm. Group Decision and Negotiation, 29(6), 1181–1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09701-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(1), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307304092
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wilde, T. R. W. (2017). Struggling to decide: Competition in group decision making [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. University of Amsterdam. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/19087023/Chapter_5.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., Betley, G., Kahle, J., Abrams, L., & Porac, J. (1981). When trying to win: Competition and intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(1), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728171012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch & P. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution, theory and practice (pp. 21–40). Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMenichi, B. C., & Tricomi, E. (2015). The power of competition: Effects of social motivation on attention, sustained physical effort, and learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01282
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Group processes and intergroup relations (Vol. 9, pp. 91–112). Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, J., & Thompson, W. F. (2011). The effects of competition on improvisers’ motivation, stress, and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.571185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• English, A., Griffith, R. L., & Steelman, L. A. (2004). Team performance: The effect of team conscientiousness and task type. Small Group Research, 35(6), 643–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404266320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester, W. R., & Tashchian, A. (2011). Factors that influence students to participate in team decision making. American Journal of Business Education, 4(11), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v4i11.6491
   Google Scholar
• Frey, R., Hertwig, R., & Herzog, S. M. (2014). Surrogate decision making: Do we have to trade off accuracy and procedural satisfaction? Medical Decision Making, 34(2), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X12471729
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furnham, A., & Yazdanpanahi, T. (1995). Personality differences and group versus individual brainstorming. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(1), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00009-U
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallwey, W. T. (2001). The inner game of work: Focus, learning, pleasure, and mobility in the workplace. Random Houce, Inc. http://www.amazon.com/The-Inner-Game-Work-Workplace/dp/0375758178
   Google Scholar
• Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 959–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). The impact of information on small group choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstede Insights. (n.d.). What about Indonesia? Hofstede Insights, Helsinki, Finland. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country/indonesia/
   Google Scholar
• Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Gaertner, L., Wildschut, T., Kozar, R., Pinter, B., Finkel, E. J., Brazil, D. M., Cecil, C. L., & Montoya, M. R. (2001). Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity reduction through the anticipation of future interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.1.95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 296–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, J. R., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Group decision making: The effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(11), 1342–1354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299259002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroon, M. B. R., Hart, P., & Van Kreveld, D. (1991). Managing group decision making processes: Individual versus collective accountability and groupthink. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(2), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022695
   Google Scholar
• Kurtzberg, T. R. (1998). Creative thinking, cognitive aptitude, and integrative joint gain: A study of negotiator creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1104_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson, J. R., Christensen, C., Abbott, A. S., & Franz, T. M. (1996). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson, J. R., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 446–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Pine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 563–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00214.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, G. Y., Cheng, T. C. E., & Teng, C. I. (2018). Not all are the same: Facets of conscientiousness, competitive virtual team functions, and continuance intention. PACIS 2018 Proceedings, Japan, 17. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/17
   Google Scholar
• Löfstrand, P., & Zakrisson, I. (2014). Competitive versus non-competitive goals in group decision-making. Small Group Research, 45(4), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414532954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311417243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mennecke, B. E., & Valacich, J. S. (1998). Information is what you make of it: The influence of group history and computer support on information sharing, decision quality, and member perceptions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(2), 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1998.11518213
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Bonaccio, S. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousness-performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1077–1102. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway, & H. A. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes(Vol. 9, pp. 237–280). AI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012). Motivated information processing in organizational teams: Progress, puzzles, and prospects. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohtsubo, Y., Miller, C. E., Hayashi, N., & Masuchi, A. (2004). Effects of group decision rules on decisions involving continuous alternatives: The unanimity rule and extreme decisions in mock civil juries. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(3), 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poteet, D., & Weinberg, R. (1980). Competition trait anxiety, state anxiety, and performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50(2), 651–654. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1980.50.2.651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranganathan, P., Aggarwal, R., & Pramesh, C. S. (2015). Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Odds versus risk. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 6(4), 222–224. https://doi.org/10.4103/%2F2229-3485.167092
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reimer, T., Reimer, A., & Hinsz, V. B. (2010). Naïve groups can solve the hidden-profile Problem. Human Communication Research, 36(3), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01383.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, I., Gibbons, P., Baron, H., MacIver, R., & Nyfield, G. (1999). Understanding Management performance. British Journal of Management, 10(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00107
   Google Scholar
• Rosi, A., Vecchi, T., & Cavallini, E. (2019). Metacognitive-strategy training promotes decision-making ability in older adults. Open Psychology, 1(1), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1515/psych-2018-0014
   Google Scholar
• Rutledge, R. W., & Harrell, A. M. (1994). The impact of responsibility and framing of budgetary information on group-shifts. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 6, 92–109.
   Google Scholar
• Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos, R., Marreiros, G., Ramos, C., Neves, J., & Bulas-Cruz, J. (2011). Personality, emotion, and mood in agent-based group decision making. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 26(6), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2011.92
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spears, R. A. (2005). McGraw-Hill’s dictionary of American idioms and phrasal verbs. McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.67
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making. biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1467–1478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, D. D., & Stasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 619–628. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.69.4.619
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (2006). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 703–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00696.x
   Google Scholar
• Thatcher, A., & De La Cour, A. (2003). Small group decision-making in face-to-face and computer-mediated environments: The role of personality. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929031000117071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2000). ‘Social sharedness’ as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430200003002002
   Google Scholar
• Toma, C., & Butera, F. (2015). Cooperation versus competition effects on information sharing and use in group decision-making. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(9), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toma, C., Gilles, I., & Butera, F. (2013). Strategic use of preference confirmation in group decision making: The role of competition and dissent. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02037.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaught, G. M., & Newman, S. E. (1966). The effects of anxiety on motor-steadiness in competitive and noncompetitive conditions. Psychonomic Science, 6(12), 519–520. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328121
   Google Scholar
• Wang, F., Wang, X., Wang, F., Gao, L., Rao, H., & Pan, Y. (2019). Agreeableness modulates group member risky decision-making behavior and brain activity. NeuroImage, 202, 116100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waung, M., & Brice, T. S. (1998). The effects of conscientiousness and opportunity to caucus on group performance. Small Group Research, 29(5), 624–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496498295005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whyte, G. (1989). Groupthink reconsidered. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winquist, J. R., & Larson, J. R. (1998). Information pooling: When it impacts group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenbaum, G. M. (1998). Information sampling in decision-making groups. Small Group Research, 29(1), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496498291003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenbaum, G. M., & Bowman, J. M. (2004). A social validation explanation for mutual enhancement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00091-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71(3), 286–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000299894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P., & Zuckerman, C. (1999). Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 967–978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, G. R., Joglekar, M. R., Song, H. F., Newsome, W. T., & Wang, X. J. (2019). Task representations in neural networks trained to perform many cognitive tasks. Nature Neuroscience, 22(2), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0310-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3681.269
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, M., Jia, H., Zheng, M., & Liu, T. (2021). Group decision-making behavior in social dilemmas: Inter-brain synchrony and the predictive role of personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y. (2018, March 11). Identifying dominators and followers in group decision making based on the personality traits. In A. Said & T. Komatsu (Eds.), Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI 2018 Workshops. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2068/humanize3.pdf
   Google Scholar