Mojzisch, Andreas

[["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","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"]]