• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/40

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

40 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Uniqueness

How well are people pooling and utilising their distinct knowledge sets for a specific task

Openness

Any sharing of knowledge, whether it's common or distinct related to achieving goals, improving group cohesion etc

Intellective tasks

Have an objectively correct answer

Judgemental tasks

Require group consensus to achieve a correct answer

Hidden profile tasks

The optimal choice differs from each member's initial preference




it requires info sharing

Nonhidden Profile tasks

at least some individual can detect the correct answer based upon own info and preferences

The 4 types of task

1. Intellective hidden profile


2. Judgemental hidden profile


3. Intellective Nonhidden profile


4. Judgemental Nonhidden profile

Result 1: Info Sharing and Team performance

Info sharing positively predicts team performance




So sharing more info is always better

Result 2: Uniqueness or Openness as a Better Predictor?

Uniqueness is the better predictor




Because it's more related to the task at hand

Result 3: Subjective, objective or decision effectiveness measures of performance?

Subjective measures are the strongest predictors




Why? Because they are high in contamination (hold most irrelevant info) and low in deficiency (captures full spectrum of team performance)

Result 4: What type of task is info sharing best for?

Intellective hidden-profile tasks: where there is a right answer (i.e. it's not about group preferences), but no one actually knows what it is

Result 5: Impact of discussion structure on uniqueness

High discussion structure is best




with free-form discussion the impacts of uniqueness and openness on performance are roughly equal

Result 6: impact of task demonstrability on info sharing

If you can demonstrate that an outcome will be optimal (higher task demonstrability) then there will be more info sharing

Result 7: impact of cooperative groups

Cooperative groups are more cohesive so share more info

Result 8: Impact of group homogeneity

homogenous groups share more information

Result 9: The impact of informational independence on info sharing

The greater the number of initially correct group members, the more info sharing there is




an argument for having lots of experts in groups!

Groups share the most info when they don't need to: why?

they share more info when:


All members already know info (high informational independence)


Members are all capable of making correct decisions independently


groups are homogenous

What types of groups SHOULD we have in the knowledge economy?

We are all engaged in highly complex tasks


So we need:


specialised experts with unique info and perspectives who have dissimilar backgrounds (heterogeneity)

Epistemic motivation

The willingness to expend effort to achieve a thorough, rich & Accurate understanding of the world

Social Motivation

These are individual preferences for outcome distributions between yourself and group members




they influence how ideas are generated and how problems are solved

Depth of information processing

determined by your epistemic motivation

Positive influences on epistemic motivation

1. Need for cognition


2. openness to experience


3. accountability to process


4. Preference diversity of your group


5. the presence of strong minorities


6. Transformational leadership

Negative influences of epistemic motivation

1. Need for cognitive closure


2. time pressure


3. power preponderance


4. environmental noise


5. external threat


6. autocratic leadership

Mixed-Motive Interdependence

Team members are driven by a mix of shared and personal goals

Interdependence theory

Given a situation containing a mix of selfish and cooperative incentives we subjectively interpret the situation through the lens of our innate social preferences

Direction of information search

Influenced by social motivations

advocacy

You do this if you have pro-self preferences




You argue for your position like a lawyer



lying and deception

You do this if you are pro-self




You misrepresent your preferences and priorities to suit your own personal goals

consequences of being pro-self

1. Advocacy


2. Lying and deception


3. Spinning preference-consistent information



Spinning Preference-Consistent Info

People instantly develop ownership of their own ideas




Because they have invested time in them and also don't want to appear inconsistent

consequences of being pro-social

1. Self-censorship and mutual enhancement


2. Bias toward shared information

Self-censorship and mutual enhancement

associated with pro-social preferences


you value group harmony so you fail to share unique info if it disagrees with group preferences


so may be particularly relevant for judgemental tasks

Bias towards shared information

Pro-social people like to acknowledge competence




and people who talk about shared info are generally seen as more knowledgeable and competent

consequences of LOW EPISTEMIC, PRO-SELF groups

Freeriding: due to inaction and a tendency to withold effort


stalemates and indecision: due to inflexible opinions and a refusal to understand opinions of others

Consequences of HIGH EPISTEMIC, PRO-SELF groups

Forceful arguing of own points of view (they've spent a lot of time developing them)




Use strategies such as lying, advocacy, spinning of preferences




good for creative solutions: independent in thought and willing to be part of minority

Consequences of LOW EPISTEMIC, PRO-SOCIAL groups

groupthink




lazy compromises

Consequences of HIGH EPISTEMIC, PRO-SOCIAL groups

Willing to sacrifice group harmony for better decisions




info-driven interactions




enhance creativity by respecting others' ideas

MODERATOR: time pressure

epistemic motivation bad with decision urgency

MODERATOR: group member input indispensibility

with dispensible members we don't need as much info sharing and processing

MIP-G Model

individual level: social motivations and epistemic motivations influence ...




group level: ...Info dissemination & integration




Outcome: quality of group judgement and decisions




moderators: member input indispensibility and decision urgency