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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 80 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.