Year-end Sale % OFF 
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 dis confirmation 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.
Highlights
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
When searching for information, homogeneous groups show a strong bias for information that supports, rather than conflicts with, the prevailing opinion in the group (Schulz-Hardt et al, 2000; Schulz-Hardt et al, 2002)
The present research was designed to explore whether homogeneous groups blindly seek confirmation of their beliefs irrespective of the anticipated forthcoming task or whether they are sensitive to the usefulness of the information for the groups’ forthcoming task
Summary
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). Numerous studies within the framework of cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) have shown that people prefer supporting (consonant) compared to conflicting (dissonant) information if they have decided voluntarily and with a certain degree of commitment on a particular alternative (e.g., Fischer, Jonas, Frey, & Schulz-Hardt, 2005; Jonas, Graupmann, & Frey, 2006; Jonas, Schulz-Hardt, & Frey, 2005) This preference for supporting information is often referred to as confirmation bias.. Janis (1982) and Nemeth and Rogers (1996), for example, emphasize that in groups, biased information seeking may result in potential warning signals’ being overlooked and erroneous decisions with severe negative consequences being unwittingly made This would not pose a significant threat to group decision quality if decision-making groups outside the laboratory consisted primarily of members with heterogeneous decision preferences. We look at the information search after decisions in homogeneous groups and examine whether, and to what extent, different anticipated task requirements affect the groups’ preferences for supporting and conflicting information
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
