Schulz-Hardt, Stefan

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","653"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Group Processes & Intergroup Relations"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","671"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","13"],["dc.contributor.author","Faulmüller, Nadira"],["dc.contributor.author","Kerschreiter, Rudolf"],["dc.contributor.author","Mojzisch, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulz-Hardt, Stefan"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:54:48Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:54:48Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.description.abstract","The individual preference effect supplements the predominant group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles. Even in the absence of dysfunctional group-level processes, group members tend to stick to their suboptimal initial decision preferences due to preference-consistent evaluation of information. However, previous experiments demonstrating this effect retained two group-level processes, namely (a) social validation of information supporting the group members’ initial preferences and (b) presentation of the additional information in a discussion format. Therefore, it was unclear whether the individual preference effect depends on the co-occurrence of these group-level processes. Here, we report two experiments demonstrating that the individual preference effect is indeed an individual-level phenomenon. Moreover, by a comparison to real interacting groups, we can show that even when all relevant information is exchanged and when no coordination losses occur, almost half of all groups would fail to solve hidden profiles due to the individual preference effect."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1177/1368430210369143"],["dc.identifier.gro","3151511"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/13094"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/8315"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.notes.submitter","chake"],["dc.relation.issn","1368-4302"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Beyond group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles: The individual preference effect revisited"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","961"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Personality and Social Psychology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","977"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","106"],["dc.contributor.author","Mojzisch, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Kerschreiter, Rudolf"],["dc.contributor.author","Faulmueller, Nadira"],["dc.contributor.author","Vogelgesang, Frank"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulz-Hardt, Stefan"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:39:17Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:39:17Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","Interpersonal cognitive consistency is a driving force in group behavior. In this article, we propose a new model of interpersonal cognitive consistency in collective decision making. Building on ideas from the mutual enhancement model (Wittenbaum, Hubbell, & Zuckerman, 1999), we argue that group members evaluate one another more positively when they mention information confirming each other's preferences instead of information disconfirming these preferences. Furthermore, we argue that this effect is mediated by perceived information quality: Group members evaluate one another more positively when they mention information confirming each other's preferences because they perceive this information to be more important and accurate than information disconfirming each other's preferences. Finally, we hypothesize that group members who communicate information confirming each other's preferences receive positive feedback for doing so, which, in turn, leads group members to mention even more of this information. The results of 3 studies with pseudo and face-to-face interacting dyads provide converging support for our model."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1037/a0036338"],["dc.identifier.isi","000337897500007"],["dc.identifier.pmid","24841099"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/33247"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Amer Psychological Assoc"],["dc.relation.issn","1939-1315"],["dc.relation.issn","0022-3514"],["dc.title","The Consistency Principle in Interpersonal Communication: Consequences of Preference Confirmation and Disconfirmation in Collective Decision Making"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","459"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Academy of Management Review"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","479"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","32"],["dc.contributor.author","Brodbeck, Felix C."],["dc.contributor.author","Kerschreiter, Rudolf"],["dc.contributor.author","Mojzisch, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulz-Hardt, Stefan"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:54:49Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:54:49Z"],["dc.date.issued","2011"],["dc.description.abstract","We present a theoretical model that synthesizes and expands current explanations of the failure of decision-making groups to effectively use information that is distributed among their members. We propose that groups can outperform individual decision makers and voting schemes if certain asymmetries in information distribution are present and certain asymmetries in information processing are absent. How to achieve this we deduce from a review of the relevant literature. Finally, we discuss directions for future research and practical implications."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.5465/amr.2007.24351441"],["dc.identifier.gro","3151518"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/8323"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","public"],["dc.notes.submitter","chake"],["dc.relation.issn","0363-7425"],["dc.title","Group Decision Making Under Conditions of Distributed Knowledge: The Information Asymmetries Model"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1684"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","12"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1696"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","38"],["dc.contributor.author","Faulmüller, Nadira"],["dc.contributor.author","Mojzisch, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Kerschreiter, Rudolf"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulz-Hardt, Stefan"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:54:50Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:54:50Z"],["dc.date.issued","2012"],["dc.description.abstract","In two experiments, we provide evidence for a fundamental discussion asymmetry, namely, preference-consistent information sharing. Despite being in a dyadic situation requiring open information exchange and being given no incentive to do so, participants communicated more information that supported their individually preferred decision alternative than information that contradicted it. Preference-consistent information sharing was not caused by biased recall and occurred in written as well as in face-to-face communication. Moreover, we tested whether preference-consistent information sharing was influenced by statements by bogus discussion partners indicating that they held a congruent versus incongruent preference to the participants’ preference and that they understood versus did not understand the participants’ preference. We found that when partners stated that they understood the participants’ preference, subsequent preference-consistent information sharing was considerably reduced. This indicates that a motivation to be understood by others might be an important driving force underlying preference-consistent information sharing."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1177/0146167212458707"],["dc.identifier.gro","3151522"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/8327"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","public"],["dc.notes.submitter","chake"],["dc.relation.issn","0146-1672"],["dc.title","Do You Want to Convince Me or to Be Understood?"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1477"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Experimental Social Psychology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1490"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","44"],["dc.contributor.author","Mojzisch, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulz-Hardt, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Kerschreiter, Rudolf"],["dc.contributor.author","Brodbeck, Felix C."],["dc.contributor.author","Frey, Dieter"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:54:51Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:54:51Z"],["dc.date.issued","2008"],["dc.description.abstract","Shared information has a stronger impact on group decisions than unshared information. A prominent explanation for this phenomenon is that shared information can be socially validated during group discussion and, hence, is perceived as more accurate and relevant than unshared information. In the present study we argue that this explanation only holds for preference-inconsistent information (i.e., information contradicting the group members’ initial preferences) but not for preference-consistent information. In Experiments 1 and 2 participants studied the protocol of a fictitious group discussion. In this protocol, we manipulated which types of information were socially validated. As predicted, social validation increased the decisional impact of preference-inconsistent but not preference-consistent information. In both experiments the effect of social validation was mediated by the perceived quality of information. Experiment 3 replicated the results of the first two experiments in an interactive setting in which two confederates discussed a decision case face-to-face with one participant."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.012"],["dc.identifier.gro","3151514"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/8319"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.notes.submitter","chake"],["dc.relation.issn","0022-1031"],["dc.title","Social validation in group decision-making: Differential effects on the decisional impact of preference-consistent and preference-inconsistent information"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3-4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","International Journal of Psychology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","43"],["dc.contributor.author","Kerschreiter, Rudolf"],["dc.contributor.author","Seibold, Angelika"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweizer, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Mojzisch, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulz-Hardt, Stefan"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T11:14:34Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T11:14:34Z"],["dc.date.issued","2008"],["dc.format.extent","250"],["dc.identifier.isi","000259264302778"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/54153"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Psychology Press"],["dc.publisher.place","Hove"],["dc.relation.issn","0020-7594"],["dc.title","The communication bias toward preference-consistent information in groups: Dependent on decision preference salience and partner communication?"],["dc.type","conference_abstract"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","679"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","691"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","34"],["dc.contributor.author","Kerschreiter, Rudolf"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulz-Hardt, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Mojzisch, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Frey, Dieter"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T11:15:47Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T11:15:47Z"],["dc.date.issued","2008"],["dc.description.abstract","When searching for information, groups that are homogeneous regarding their members' prediscussion decision preferences show a strong bias for information that supports rather than conflicts with the prevailing opinion (confirmation bias). The present research examined whether homogeneous groups blindly search for information confirming their beliefs irrespective of the anticipated task or whether they are sensitive to the usefulness of new information for this forthcoming task. Results of three experiments show that task sensitivity depends on the groups' confidence in the correctness of their decision: Moderately confident groups displayed a strong confirmation bias when they anticipated having to give reasons for their decision but showed a balanced information search or even a disconfirmation bias (i.e., predominately seeking conflicting information) when they anticipated having to refute counterarguments. In contrast, highly confident groups demonstrated a strong confirmation bias independent of the anticipated task requirements."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1177/0146167207313934"],["dc.identifier.isi","000255167900008"],["dc.identifier.pmid","18310314"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/13092"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/54442"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Sage Publications Inc"],["dc.relation.issn","0146-1672"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Biased information search in homogeneous groups: Confidence as a moderator for the effect of anticipated task requirements"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1080"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Personality and Social Psychology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1093"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","91"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulz-Hardt, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Brodbeck, Felix C."],["dc.contributor.author","Mojzisch, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Kerschreiter, Rudolf"],["dc.contributor.author","Frey, Dieter"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:54:50Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:54:50Z"],["dc.date.issued","2006"],["dc.description.abstract","The effect of diversity in individual prediscussion preferences on group decision quality was examined in an experiment in which 135 three-person groups worked on a personnel selection case with 4 alternatives. The information distribution among group members constituted a hidden profile (i.e., the correct solution was not identifiable on the basis of the members' individual information and could be detected only by pooling and integrating the members' unique information). Whereas groups with homogeneous suboptimal prediscussion preferences (no dissent) hardly ever solved the hidden profile, solution rates were significantly higher in groups with prediscussion dissent, even if none of these individual prediscussion preferences were correct. If dissent came from a proponent of the correct solution, solution rates were even higher than in dissent groups without such a proponent. The magnitude of dissent (i.e., minority dissent or full diversity of individual preferences) did not affect decision quality. The beneficial effect of dissent on group decision quality was mediated primarily by greater discussion intensity and to some extent also by less discussion bias in dissent groups."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080"],["dc.identifier.gro","3151523"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/8328"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.notes.submitter","chake"],["dc.relation.issn","1939-1315"],["dc.title","Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","203"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Small Group Research"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","223"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","39"],["dc.contributor.author","Mojzisch, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulz-Hardt, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Kerschreiter, Rudolf"],["dc.contributor.author","Frey, Dieter"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:54:48Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:54:48Z"],["dc.date.issued","2008"],["dc.description.abstract","There is conclusive evidence that information search processes are typically biased in favor of the information seeker's own opinion (confirmation bias). Less is known about how knowledge about others' opinions affects this confirmatory information search. In the present study, the authors manipulated feedback about others' opinions and anticipation of group interaction. As predicted, the effect of knowledge about others' opinions on confirmatory information search depended on whether participants anticipated interacting with these others. Specifically, minority members anticipating a group discussion exhibited a particularly strong confirmation bias, whereas minority members who did not anticipate a discussion predominantly sought information opposing their opinion. For participants not anticipating group interaction, confidence about the correctness of one's decision mediated the impact of knowledge about others' opinions on confirmatory information search. Results are discussed with regard to the debiasing effect of preference heterogeneity on confirmatory information search in groups."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1177/1046496408315983"],["dc.identifier.gro","3151512"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/13017"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/8316"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","public"],["dc.notes.submitter","chake"],["dc.relation.issn","1046-4964"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Combined Effects of Knowledge About Others' Opinions and Anticipation of Group Discussion on Confirmatory Information Search"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]