Critical Evaluation of Stasser (1992) Study
In the study by Stasser (1992), the research method is presented logically, with clear articulation of both dependent and independent variables. The groups used in the study are also explained, with small groups having four participants and comparison groups having eight participants. The data analysis procedures are detailed, and the findings are presented in tables and percentages. However, the study lacks graphical representations, which could enhance the presentation of the information.
One notable limitation of the study is the small sample size, even though statistical analysis was employed. A larger sample size with more comprehensive comparisons could improve the generalizability of the findings. Despite this, the study's primary strength lies in its alignment with more recent studies, which support the findings. For example, Hansmann, Crott, and Scholz (2007) found that group dynamics significantly influence group decisions due to information sharing among members. Similarly, Kerr and Murthy (2009) established that group problem-solving allows team members to pool information effectively, especially when the necessary information is available.
However, groups tend to struggle with uncovering hidden profiles, as they often discuss already known information rather than focusing on undisclosed data. This phenomenon is supported by Lam and Schaubroeck (2000), who noted that discussions are biased towards agreement and shared information. Additionally, face-to-face discussions were found to be less effective in discovering hidden profiles compared to using group decision support systems, as noted by Stasser (1992).
Randall and Resick (2011) also used a simulation approach to explore decision-making and communication, albeit based on different models. Their findings indicated that developing effective information-sharing and decision-making teams is challenging. These findings align with Moye and Langfred (2005), who observed that information sharing could lead to conflicts affecting performance. Nonetheless, group decision-making remains advantageous compared to individual decision-making because groups can collate and combine information from each member to make effective decisions.
The hidden profile concept has been explored in both Stasser (1992) and Fraidin (2004). Both studies found that applying the hidden profile concept facilitates information sharing that supports a single decision alternative, compared to scenarios where group members have different information. Furthermore, the prediscussion preference of group members often does not favor the superior option presented to them, but groups can pool unshared information to make decisions (Mitchell, Parker & Giles, 2012). Face-to-face discussions, however, can hinder effective pooling of unshared information, leading to poor decision-making. Ellwart, Happ, Gurtner, and Rack (2015) supported Stasser's (1992) findings, noting that information overload can impede effective information sharing due to differing opinions.
In conclusion, Stasser's (1992) study highlights that varying group sizes and information loads can lead to failures in decision-making. When groups have unshared information, they are more likely to share it by pooling it together. The study is well-structured, and the findings are logically presented.
References
- Dose, J. L. (2003). Information exchange in personnel selection decisions. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(2), 237-252.
- Ellwart, T., Happ, C., Gurtner, A., & Rack, O. (2015). Managing information overload in virtual teams: Effects of a structured online team adaptation on cognition and performance, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 812-826.
- Fraidin, S. N. (2004). When is one head better than two? Interdependent information in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 102–113.
- Hansmann, R., Crott, H. W., & Scholz, R. W. (2007). Momentum effects in discussions on intellective tasks: Comparing informed and non-informed groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66 (1), 17–31.
- Kerr, D. S., & Murthy, U. S. (2009). The effectiveness of synchronous computer-mediated communication for solving hidden-profile problems: Further empirical evidence. Information & Management, 46, 83–89.
- Lam, S. S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). Improving group decisions by better pooling information: A comparative advantage of group decision support systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 565-573.
- Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535-546.
- Mitchell, R., Parker, V., & Giles, M. (2012). Open-mindedness in diverse team performance: investigating a three-way interaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(17), 3652–3672.
- Moye, N. A., & Langfred, C. W. (2005). Information sharing and group conflict: going beyond decision making to understand the effects of information sharing on group performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(4), 381-510.
- Randall, K. R., & Resick, C. J. (2011). Building Team Adaptive Capacity: The Roles of Sensegiving and Team Composition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 525–540.
- Stasser, G. (1992). Information salience and the discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: A 'thought experiment.' Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(1), 156-181.
