when private beliefs shape collective reality

8/7/2019 When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/when-private-beliefs-shape-collective-reality 1/15

When Private Beliefs Shape CollectiveReality: The Effects of Beliefs About

Coworkers on Group Discussion andPerformance

Peter H. KimDepartment of Management and Organization, 307F Bridge Hall, Marshall School of Business,

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-1421

[email protected]

The study presented in this paper examines how beliefs about coworkers affect groupdiscussion and performance. Two beliefs are considered: (1) Perceptions of coworker

task competence, and (2) achievement motivation. This study investigates whether these

perceptions can actually hinder group discussion and performance, and considers the con-

texts in which these detrimental effects are more or less likely to arise. Results indicate that

although perceptions of higher achievement motivation in coworkers lowered performance

when task information was partially shared, they raised performance when task informa-

tion was fully shared. A content analysis of group discussions reveals that the discussion

behaviors examined by this study, rather than the more frequently examined bias toward

discussing common information, mediated these results.

(Group; Information Sharing; Perception; Competence; Motivation )

IntroductionAs organizations more heavily rely on groups to make

decisions, researchers have placed increasing attention

on the ways in which groups manage information.

Organizations rely on groups because they can access

a larger amount and greater diversity of information

than individuals. A group’s potential to draw on this

information does not automatically imply, however,

that it will be accessed or effectively incorporated into

the group decision (Wittenbaum et al. 1996). Research

suggests that members often fail to exchange their

uniquely held information and that this problem can

even worsen over time (Kim 1997). The study pre-

sented in this paper seeks to extend our understand-

ing of these issues by exploring the reasons why such

deterioration in information sharing, and ultimately

performance, might occur. To address this question,

this study (1) investigates how beliefs about cowork-

ers may affect the group information-sharing process,

(2) considers whether their implications for perfor-

mance may depend on the information-sharing con-

text in which these beliefs arise, and (3) explores the

mechanisms underlying these relationships through a

content analysis of group discussions.

Changes Over Time

A group’s ability to manage information has been

shown to undergo profound changes over time. The

literature on transactive memory, for example, has

shown that experience can enable groups to encode

and retrieve information in a manner that allows each

member to focus on a specific aspect of the task and

0025-1909/03/4906/0801$05.001526-5501 electronic ISSN

Management Science © 2003 INFORMS

Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003, pp. 801–815



KIM

When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality

on how his or her role relates to those of others in

their group (Wegner 1987, Liang et al. 1995, Moreland

1999). This research contends that, as a result of

this change, groups are able to reduce their informa-tion loads and ultimately improve their performance.

Similarly, research on shared mental models indicates

that, over time, groups can develop collective under-

standings or shared mental models of their situation

and that these organized bodies of knowledge can

facilitate communication, improve coordination, and

improve group performance (e.g., Orasanu and Salas

1993).

Recent evidence suggests, however, that a group’s

ability to manage knowledge does not always

improve over time. This evidence is provided by a

small number of studies that have investigated theimplications of experience for group discussion and

performance. Although the exchange of information

among members can be essential for performance,

groups often focus on information they share in com-

mon rather than the potentially valuable information

any individual member may hold (e.g., Stasser and

Stewart 1992, Winquist and Larson 1998). While one

might expect that this discussion bias would diminish

over time, initial findings suggest that it may some-

times worsen as groups gain experience with the task

and/or team (Kim 1997, Wittenbaum 1998, see also

Gruenfeld et al. 1996 for results that depend on the

distribution of information).

Kim (1997), for example, found that groups in

which members had previously worked together on

a similar task displayed a larger discussion bias and

achieved lower task performance than groups with

no prior experience with coworkers or the task and

groups whose prior experience was limited to either

coworkers or the task. One explanation for this effect

is the “curse of knowledge,” which refers to peo-

ple’s tendency to overestimate the ability of others

to accurately solve a problem (e.g., Camerer et al.1989, Fussell and Krauss 1992, Nickerson et al. 1987).

Kim (1997) suggested that members of experienced

groups may have exhibited a larger discussion bias

and achieved lower performance because their greater

familiarity with both the task and team may have

made them more susceptible to the “curse of knowl-

edge,” which would lead them to believe that their

partners were already aware of their privately held

information and, thus, lead them to exert less effort

to communicate it than members of inexperienced

groups.A more thorough explanation for Kim’s (1997) find-

ings, however, is that experience may shape a range

of beliefs about coworkers (e.g., due to increased

familiarity with the task and/or team, members’

schemas about how relationships and/or capabilities

should develop over time, and so on) and that each of

these beliefs can affect the sharing of information in

groups. This notion is based on research in which per-

ceptions of high-coworker competence and motiva-

tion were found to lower member efforts and collec-

tive performance (Williams and Karau 1991) as well

as on the potential implications of such perceptionsfor group coordination and discussion (Wittenbaum

et al. 1998, 1999). In this study, I consider these two

perceptions and their likely effects on the discus-

sion bias (including the mentioning, repetition, and

proportion of critical versus noncritical information),

teamwork (including performance monitoring, feed-

back, closed-loop communications, and backing-up

behaviors), and task performance.

Task Competence

Although many kinds of ability can be identified, this

study focuses on a type of ability that would be most

relevant for the work group conditions under investi-

gation (i.e., task competence). Competence is defined

as the degree to which one possesses the technical

and interpersonal skills required for one’s job (e.g.,

Butler 1991). Thus, we might expect that perceptions

of competence in coworkers should affect members’

beliefs that their partners will be able to successfully

complete the task.

Perceptions of coworker competence may affect

group information sharing and performance in two

ways. First, perceptions of coworker competence mayaffect member orientations toward their task. Whereas

perceptions of high-coworker competence should fos-

ter the belief that one’s own contributions are less

necessary and entice members to exert less effort on

their task (i.e., engage in social loafing), perceptions of

low-coworker competence should compel members to

increase their efforts to compensate for the inadequate

802 Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003



KIM


contributions of their partners (i.e., engage in social

compensation) (Williams and Karau 1991). Second,

perceptions of coworker competence may affect group

member orientations toward their team. Membersmay feel a greater need to obtain positive evaluations

from their coworkers when the perceived competence

of their coworkers is high versus low, and research

suggests that the desire for such enhancement may

increase their focus on commonly held information

(Wittenbaum et al. 1999).

These differences should, furthermore, have impor-

tant implications for group discussion and per-

formance. When information is partially shared,

members’ reduced efforts and increased need for

positive evaluations, due to perceptions of high-

coworker competence, should impair the information-

sharing process by increasing the discussion bias,

reducing teamwork, and lowering task performance.

When information is fully shared, however, percep-

tions of coworker competence may still affect mem-

bers’ efforts and need for positive evaluations, but

this should be less likely to influence information

sharing in a manner that would increase the discus-

sion bias, reduce teamwork, or lower performance,

because group members already possess full access to

this information. Thus, we might expect that whereas

perceptions of high-coworker competence should fos-ter a larger discussion bias, less teamwork, and

lower task performance relative to perceptions of low-

coworker competence when task information is par-

tially shared, these effects should be less likely when

task information is fully shared.

Hypothesis 1a. Perceptions of high-coworker compe-

tence will foster a larger discussion bias than percep-

tions of low-coworker competence when task information is

partially shared.

Hypothesis 1b. Perceptions of high-coworker compe-

tence will foster less teamwork than perceptions of low-coworker competence when task information is partially

shared.

Hypothesis 1c. Perceptions of high-coworker compe-

tence will foster lower task performance than percep-

tions of low-coworker competence when task information is

partially shared.

Achievement Motivation

As with competence, motivation can be exhibited

in many ways. This study focuses, however, on the

type of motivation that would be most relevantfor the work group conditions under investigation

(i.e., achievement motivation). Motivation is, there-

fore, defined as the degree to which one seeks to pur-

sue high standards of achievement rather than being

influenced by factors that might hinder achievement.

Williams and Karau (1991) examined the effects of

perceived coworker motivation on the incidence of

social loafing versus social compensation in groups

by considering a context in which participants inde-

pendently worked to contribute to the collective goal.

The implications of this perception might differ, how-

ever, in contexts where group members must inter-act with one another to develop a collective solution

(i.e., when achievement depends on the performance

of the entire group). In such cases, the perception

of high motivation in coworkers suggests that these

coworkers will not only increase their own efforts

but also demand increased efforts from others. Per-

ceptions of high-coworker motivation should, there-

fore, foster the belief that coworkers will monitor

their efforts, deter attempts to social loaf, and expect

them to make substantive contributions. Thus, group

members should exert greater efforts to develop well-

reasoned opinions when perceptions of coworker

motivation are high rather than low.

The implications of this perception for information

sharing and performance may further depend, how-

ever, on the distribution of task information, because

this distribution may affect member assessments of

whether subsequent group discussions would help

them reach their goal. When information is fully

shared, group members are not only able to develop

fully informed prediscussion opinions but are also

able to more easily evaluate each of their partners’ jus-

tifications for these opinions. These conditions shouldencourage members who perceive high motivation in

their coworkers to engage in a productive form of

task conflict (Jehn 1995), which would help groups

thoroughly consider and use critical task informa-

tion. Perceptions of high-coworker motivation should,

therefore, promote a smaller discussion bias, greater

teamwork, and higher performance than perceptions

Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003 803



KIM


of low-coworker motivation when task information is

fully shared.

When information is only partially shared, how-

ever, members are not only unable to develop fullyinformed prediscussion opinions (given that none of

them would possess all the necessary facts), but will

also find it much more difficult to evaluate their part-

ners’ justifications for these opinions. Such conditions

should lead members who perceive high motivation

in their coworkers to believe that attempts to resolve

such differences would foster a fruitless debate over

whose facts are more correct, given that they were

each highly motivated to succeed, yet could not even

agree on the basic facts of the case. This belief should,

in turn, lead members to lower their assessments

of the potential value of group discussion and, con-sequently, engage in social loafing (e.g., by simply

adopting a majority rule voting scheme). Thus, per-

ceptions of high-coworker motivation should foster a

larger discussion bias, less teamwork, and lower task

performance than perceptions of low-coworker moti-

vation when task information is partially shared. We

might, therefore, predict the following interactions.

Hypothesis 2a. Perceptions of high-coworker motiva-

tion will foster a larger discussion bias than perceptions of

low-coworker motivation when task information is partially

shared, but perceptions of high-coworker motivation willfoster a smaller discussion bias than perceptions of low-

coworker motivation when task information is fully shared.

Hypothesis 2b. Perceptions of high-coworker motiva-

tion will foster less teamwork than perceptions of low-

coworker motivation when task information is partially

shared, but perceptions of high-coworker motivation will

foster greater teamwork than perceptions of low-coworker

motivation when task information is fully shared.

Hypothesis 2c. Perceptions of high-coworker motiva-

tion will foster lower task performance than perceptions of

low-coworker motivation when task information is partiallyshared, but perceptions of high-coworker motivation will

foster greater task performance than perceptions of low-

coworker motivation when task information is fully shared.

Finally, given that (1) perceived coworker com-

petence and motivation are expected to influence

the discussion bias and teamwork and (2) both

the discussion bias and teamwork are expected to

influence task performance, we might expect that

(3) the predicted effects of perceived coworker com-

petence and motivation on task performance wouldoperate through their influence on the discussion bias

and teamwork. In other words, the discussion bias

and teamwork are each predicted to mediate the

effects of perceived coworker competence and moti-

vation on task performance.

Hypothesis 3. The discussion bias will mediate the

effects of perceived coworker competence and perceived

coworker motivation on task performance.

Hypothesis 4. The amount of teamwork will mediate

the effects of perceived coworker competence and perceivedcoworker motivation on task performance.

Overview

In summary, this study examines two percep-

tions that may help explain why experience may

adversely influence group information sharing and

performance. Moreover, it explores the contexts in

which these detrimental effects are more or less

likely to arise. Whereas perceptions of high-coworker

task competence and achievement motivation should

increase the discussion bias, reduce teamwork, andlower performance when information is partially

shared, these effects should not occur and even

reverse (for perceived achievement motivation) when

information is fully shared. The study also inves-

tigates the mechanisms underlying these relation-

ships by assessing several teamwork dimensions (i.e.,

performance monitoring, feedback, closed-loop com-

munications, and backing-up behaviors) through a

content analysis of group discussions. These objec-

tives are pursued through the laboratory experiment

described below.

MethodThis study employed a 2(high vs. low competence)×

2(high vs. low motivation)×2(full vs. partial informa-

tion) between-subjects design. Three-person groups

were used as the unit of analysis.




KIM


Participants

The study involved 276 undergraduates from a large

public university, randomly assigned to 92 groups.

They took part in the exercise for course credit andthe chance to win cash prizes of $90, $60, and $30 that

were awarded through a lottery to three of the best

performing groups.

Procedure

Participants were informed that the purpose of the

study was to investigate the effects of group com-

position on task performance and that, for this rea-

son, some participants would be assigned to groups

with members who were similar, while other partic-

ipants would be assigned to groups with members

who were dissimilar. Participants completed an initialtask, comprised of true or false and multiple-choice

questions that ostensibly assessed them on their com-

petence and motivation. Before receiving feedback,

participants were randomly assigned to three-person

groups and given materials for a murder mystery,

which they were asked to read and review as individ-

uals. During this time, they were asked to complete

a prediscussion questionnaire, which asked partici-

pants to select the suspect they believed to be the

culprit and write a brief rationale for their decision.

After returning their packets and questionnaires, par-

ticipants were informed that both of their cowork-

ers were found to possess high/low competence and

high/low motivation based on their performance on

the initial task (i.e., participants received the same

feedback about each of their partners, but were not

given feedback about themselves). Participants were

then given 20 minutes to solve the murder mystery

as a group.

Decision Task

Participants read a series of interviews from a homi-

cide investigation. These interviews were providedin a booklet that included supporting materials such

as a list of characters, a map, a handwritten note,

and a newspaper article (Stasser and Stewart 1992).

The interviews contained 24 clues that were either

incriminating or exonerating for each of three sus-

pects (Suspect 1, Suspect 2, and Suspect 3). Specifi-

cally, each suspect was incriminated by 6 clues, but

there were also 3 clues that exonerated Suspect 2

and 3 clues that exonerated Suspect 3. Therefore, the

set of 24 clues was designed so that Suspects 2 and 3

could be ruled out. Furthermore, all the clues consid-ered together supported the conclusion that Suspect 1

had both motive and opportunity to commit the crime

(i.e., was the correct choice).

Experimental Manipulations

Information Distribution. Each participant’s pac-

ket of information contained several pages of evi-

dence. Some of this evidence was critical to solving

the task, and some of it was not critical. Nine critical

clues were necessary to determine that Suspect 1 was

guilty. Three of those clues incriminated Suspect 1,and the other 6 exonerated Suspects 2 and 3.

In the full information condition, each of the three

group members was given a complete set of infor-

mation, including all 9 incriminating and exonerat-

ing clues (i.e., every member received each of the

24 total clues). However, in the partial information

condition, the 9 critical clues were distributed among

group members so each member received all 15 non-

critical clues but only one-third of the critical evidence

(i.e., each member received 21 of the 24 total clues).1

One group member received 3 exonerating clues for

Suspect 2; a second received 3 exonerating clues forSuspect 3; and the third received 3 incriminating clues

for Suspect 1. In this manner, the critical clues pos-

sessed by each member were completely nonredun-

dant, but all of them were available for use by the

group. Group members were not informed about the

distribution of information.

Perceived Task Competence. The level of per-

ceived task competence was manipulated by pro-

viding false feedback to participants regarding their

partners’ performance on the deductive reasoning

component of the initial task, which they were toldcould predict their ability to successfully solve the

homicide investigation. Perceptions of high (low)

1 Although study participants received different numbers of clues in

these two information distribution conditions, these specific main

effects would not account for the predictions and results that are

of primary interest in this study.




KIM


competence were fostered by informing participants

that they had been assigned to a group with members

who each performed well (poorly) on the deductive

reasoning component of the initial task. Participantswere never informed of their own competence. More-

over, the purported purpose of the experiment (i.e., to

study the effects of group composition), and explicit

instructions not to discuss this feedback, reduced the

likelihood that they would acquire this information

from their partners.2

Perceived Achievement Motivation. The level of

perceived motivation was manipulated by providing

false feedback to participants regarding their part-

ners’ results on the personality profile component

of the initial task. Perceptions of high (low) motiva-tion were fostered by informing participants that they

had been assigned to a group with members who

were each highly motivated toward achievement and,

thus, likely to support and defend answers that they

believed to be correct (easily influenced by factors

other than achievement and, thus, likely to avoid dis-

putes and support popular opinions). As with compe-

tence, participants were never informed of their own

motivation. Moreover, the purported purpose of the

experiment (i.e., to study the effects of group compo-

sition), and instructions not to discuss this feedback,

reduced the likelihood that they would acquire thisinformation from their partners.

Manipulation Checks

A pilot study was conducted with 36 additional

undergraduate participants to determine whether the

manipulations of coworker competence and motiva-

tion would affect participants’ perceptions of their

partners’ competence and motivation, as well as their

own competence and motivation, before the group

discussion. Separate measures of perceived coworker

competence, perceived coworker motivation, percep-

tions of own competence, and perceptions of own

motivation were obtained with 7-point scales, where

1= very low and 7 = very high. Results revealed that

the high-competence manipulation fostered higher

2 None of the groups were found to violate instructions to refrain

from discussing their feedback.

perceptions of coworker competence M = 581 sd =

027 than the low-competence manipulation M =

306 sd = 028 (F 1 34 = 5077 p < 00005, and

that the high-motivation manipulation fostered higherperceptions of coworker motivation M = 581

sd = 023 than the low-motivation manipulation

M = 272 sd = 023 F 1 34 = 9121 p < 00005.

The competence manipulation did not affect percep-

tions of coworker motivation F 1 34 = 113ns,

nor did the motivation manipulation affect percep-

tions of coworker competence F 1 34 = 024ns.

Finally, neither the competence nor the motivation

manipulations were found to affect participants’ per-

ceptions of their own competence or motivation

F s < 06. Thus, each of the study manipulations was

found to operate as intended.

Dependent Measures

Task Performance. The group decision concerning

the culprit was obtained by asking groups to deter-

mine which suspect was most likely to have com-

mitted the crime. Decisions that named the correct

suspect as most likely received a score of 1, and deci-

sions that named an incorrect suspect as most likely

received a score of 0.

Content Analysis. Group discussions were tape-

recorded and transcribed for the content analysis.

The content analysis coded for the discussion bias

in two ways. This approach is consistent with prior

discussion bias studies, which not only assess the

mentioning and repetition of critical and noncritical

information (e.g., Larson et al. 1996, Stasser et al.

1995) but also consider the possibility that the focus

of discussion on critical rather than noncritical infor-

mation may be more important for group perfor-

mance than the sheer number of times these clues

are mentioned or repeated (e.g., Stasser and Stewart

1992). These measures should provide complemen-tary lenses into the discussion bias by revealing the

extent to which this information-sharing problem

arises because groups fail to notice information (i.e.,

the mentioning of clues), do not sufficiently evalu-

ate information (i.e., the repetition of clues), or do

not place sufficient emphasis on the right kind of

information (i.e., the discussion focus).




KIM


The mentioning of critical information counted thenumber of critical clues that were stated at least once.

For example, if a group stated 3 different critical clues

during its discussion, “X,” “Y,” and “Z,” the group isconsidered to have mentioned 3 critical clues, regard-less of how often each of these 3 critical clues wasstated. The repetition of critical information counted

the number of times critical clues were stated afterthey were first mentioned, and then divided thesetotals by the number of critical clues that were men-

tioned at least once. This measure yielded a per-mentioned-item repetition rate for critical information

(see Winquist and Larson 1998). In the above example,if the group stated clue “X” one time after it was firstmentioned, clue “Y” two times after it was first men-

tioned, and clue “Z” three times after it was first men-tioned, the per-mentioned-item repetition rate for crit-ical information would be two (i.e., 1+2+3/3= 2).

Analogous procedures were used to calculate the men-tioning and repetition of noncritical clues.

The content analysis assessed the discussion focus

by examining the degree to which groups discussedcritical versus noncritical information. Thus, two vari-

ables were coded: (1) The total number of times groupmembers stated critical clues (i.e., by counting eachtime any critical clue was mentioned or repeated), and

(2) the total number of times group members stated

noncritical clues (i.e., by counting each time any non-critical clue was mentioned or repeated). The discus-

sion focus was obtained by dividing the total numberof times group members stated critical informationby the total number of times they stated noncritical

information.Finally, the content analysis coded 9 additional

discussion behaviors. These behaviors were found,through a perusal of transcripts, not only to cap-ture the essence of these group discussions but also

to illustrate the teamwork dimensions identified byMorgan et al. (1986)—performance monitoring, feed-

back, closed-loop communications, and backing-upbehaviors. These behaviors included the frequencywith which group members contributed an opinion,asked for an opinion, contributed a justification, asked

for a justification, confirmed a partner’s statement,dissented with a partner’s statement, asked a fact-

based question, stated that they had no opinion, andcontributed a task-relevant phrase.

Members exhibited performance monitoring by

asking for an opinion (e.g., “Who do you think commit-

ted the crime?”) or asking for a justification (“Why do

you think it was Billy Prentice?”). Members providedfeedback by dissenting with a partner’s statement (e.g.,

“I don’t think he did it.”) or confirming a partner’s

statement (e.g., “That’s right.”). Members displayed

closed-loop communications by confirming a partner’s

statement (see previous example) or asking a fact-

based question (e.g., “Eddie had a hearing aid?”). Mem-

bers exhibited backing-up behaviors by contributing

an opinion (e.g., “I thought it was Mickey Malone.”) or

contributing a justification (e.g., “Mickey did it because

Mr. Guion was going to ruin his business.”). Members

also indicated the need for backing-up behaviors by

stating that they had no opinion (e.g., “I don’t know.”).Finally, each of these behaviors was aggregated to

determine the frequency with which members con-

tributed a task-relevant phrase, which provided a gen-

eral indication of the time and effort groups devoted

to their task.

Two independent raters were trained to perform

these content analyses. The raters were given cod-

ing sheets that identified all the discussion bias and

discussion behavior variables and were instructed to

record, for each line of the transcripts, every occa-

sion in which any of these variables were found. The

desired measures were then obtained through fre-

quency counts. Some utterances qualified as both a

discussion bias and discussion behavior variable and

were coded for both. The utterance, “Eddie had a

hearing aid?,” for example, represents the mention-

ing of critical information as well as the asking of a

fact-based question and was, thus, counted for each

category. These kinds of dual-coded utterances helped

foster significant correlations between the discussion

bias and discussion behavior measures. Despite these

correlations, the measures still differed in the roles

they played in this study (see Results).The raters were blind to the hypotheses and treat-

ment conditions. Nevertheless, the content analy-

ses from the two independent raters demonstrated

high interrater reliability, as indicated by a ran-

dom sample of 26 transcripts (noncritical informa-

tion (Kappa = 094), critical information (Kappa =

085), asked for opinion (Kappa = 091), asked for




KIM


justification (Kappa = 089), dissented with partner

comment (Kappa= 087), confirmed partner statement

(Kappa = 086), asked fact-based question (Kappa =

090), contributed opinion (Kappa= 086), contributedjustification (Kappa = 085), and stated they had no

opinion (Kappa= 074)). A third, blind rater resolved

any differences between these two sets of ratings.

ResultsAll 276 subjects (92 groups) completed the study.

However, audiotapes for three groups could not be

transcribed or coded due to the poor quality of the

recordings. As a result, 89 groups were left for anal-

ysis. Analyses were first conducted to examine the

independent effects of the study variables. Tests of

mediated relationships among these variables werethen explored through a series of hierarchical regres-

sions (Baron and Kenny 1986, James and Brett 1984).

A summary of means, standard deviations, and corre-

lations is presented in Table 1. Means, standard devi-

ations, and sample sizes per condition for the study

variables are presented in Table 2.

Effects on the Discussion Bias

Hypotheses 1a and 2a predicted that whereas percep-

tions of high-coworker competence and motivation

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Standard Task Critical Noncritical Critical Noncritical Critical/

Means deviations performance mentioned mentioned repeated repeated noncritical clues

1. Task performance 038 049

2. Critical clues mentioned 192 130 036∗∗∗∗∗

3. Noncritical clues mentioned 567 200 037∗∗∗∗∗ 063∗∗∗∗∗∗

4. Critical clues repeated 100 128 014 029∗∗ 045∗∗∗∗∗∗

5. Noncritical clues repeated 112 093 033∗∗∗ 053∗∗∗∗∗∗ 059∗∗∗∗∗∗ 028∗∗

6. Critical/noncritical clues 036 040 009 035∗∗∗∗ −010 037∗∗∗∗∗ −016

7. Discussion behaviors 061a ∗∗∗∗∗∗ 079a ∗∗∗∗∗∗ 086a ∗∗∗∗∗∗ 068a ∗∗∗∗∗∗ 091a ∗∗∗∗∗∗ 021a

Task-relevant phrase 6049 3661 048∗∗∗∗∗∗ 067∗∗∗∗∗∗ 074∗∗∗∗∗∗ 037∗∗∗∗∗ 077∗∗∗∗∗∗ 000

Contribute opinion 1437 857 045∗∗∗∗∗∗ 049∗∗∗∗∗∗ 054∗∗∗∗∗∗ 015 067∗∗∗∗∗∗ −006

Ask for opinion 382 270 019 029∗∗ 019 005 029∗∗ −004

Contribute justification 967 648 043∗∗∗∗∗∗ 049∗∗∗∗∗∗ 057∗∗∗∗∗∗ 027∗ 059∗∗∗∗∗∗ −000

Ask for justification 203 219 005 032∗∗∗ 059∗∗∗∗∗∗ 053∗∗∗∗∗∗ 047∗∗∗∗∗∗ 000

Confirm 570 530 043∗∗∗∗∗∗ 051∗∗∗∗∗∗ 051∗∗∗∗∗∗ 013 036∗∗∗∗∗ 006

Dissent 260 351 033∗∗∗ 041∗∗∗∗∗∗ 038∗∗∗∗∗ 009 057∗∗∗∗∗∗ −004

Fact-based quest ion 404 449 041∗∗∗∗∗∗ 064∗∗∗∗∗∗ 059∗∗∗∗∗∗ 031∗∗∗∗∗ 059∗∗∗∗∗∗ 009

No opinion 080 125 −019 008 019 025∗ −006 003

aCanonical correlation.∗p < 005. ∗∗p < 001. ∗∗∗p < 0005. ∗∗∗∗p < 0001. ∗∗∗∗∗p < 00005. ∗∗∗∗∗∗p < 00001.

would foster a larger discussion bias relative to

perceptions of low-coworker competence and motiva-

tion, respectively, when task information is partially

shared, these effects should not arise and even reverse(for perceived motivation) when information is fully

shared. These predictions were tested by examining

the mentioning and repetition of critical and noncrit-

ical information and the proportion of critical versus

noncritical information discussed.

A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was

conducted to determine whether the experimental

manipulations affected the mentioning and repetition

of critical and noncritical information and the pro-

portion of critical versus noncritical information dis-

cussed. The distribution of information was found

to exert an overall effect on these discussion biasmeasures (F 5 77= 490 p < 0001. Follow-up anal-

yses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed that groups

with full information mentioned more critical infor-

mation (M = 222 sd = 020) than groups with par-

tial information (M = 161 sd = 020) ((F 1 88 =

481 p < 005); (Effect Size ES= 305). No other main

effects or higher order interactions were found ((F s <

322 ns ES < 048)). These results do not support

predictions that perceived coworker competence ormotivation would affect the discussion bias.




KIM


Table 2 Means, Standard Deviation, and Number of Observations by Condition

Partial information Full information

High motivation Low motivation High motivation Low motivationHigh comp. Low comp. High comp. Low comp. High comp. Low comp. High comp. Low comp.

Variable N = 12 N = 11 N = 10 N = 11 N = 11 N = 12 N = 12 N = 10

Task performance 017 018 054 045 067 042 042 018

014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014

Critical clues mentioned 167 164 160 154 218 225 217 230

150 103 135 144 108 136 134 134

Noncritical clues mentioned 625 573 610 600 527 550 558 490

191 210 179 184 200 211 188 264

Critical clues repeated 139 148 045 114 082 067 106 092

166 217 055 134 116 083 107 052

Noncritical clues repeated 125 106 080 128 094 113 141 101

102 065 081 096 081 110 103 106Critical/noncritical 029 037 027 024 037 034 028 077

022 032 028 023 019 030 016 094

Task-relevant phrase 6117 4936 6440 7409 5727 6183 6692 4730

3831 3459 4092 5601 3523 2790 3129 2529

Contribute opinion 1392 991 1730 1836 1309 1408 1742 1060

634 579 1268 1328 699 568 804 432

Ask for opinion 392 309 350 282 554 433 442 270

300 181 264 209 491 192 162 170

Contribute justification 858 691 1050 1354 1054 1092 900 730

650 446 952 705 873 396 544 337

Ask for justification 292 345 150 254 118 108 183 170

211 344 108 284 178 144 175 134

Confirm 600 382 930 882 445 525 492 320

445 322 706 935 294 441 368 132

Dissent 150 091 500 300 191 217 408 240

157 114 518 322 378 310 487 237

Fact-based question 442 300 340 482 445 483 483 220

614 452 232 623 301 551 426 148

No opinion 058 127 040 036 036 142 142 040

116 205 052 050 067 116 178 052

Effects on Discussion Behaviors

Hypotheses 1b and 2b predicted that whereas per-

ceptions of high-coworker competence and motiva-tion would foster less teamwork (assessed by the

discussion behaviors) relative to perceptions of low-

coworker competence and motivation, respectively,

when task information is partially shared, these

effects would not arise and even reverse (for per-

ceived motivation) when task information is fully

shared. The following analyses tested these pre-

dictions as well as the relationship between the

discussion behaviors and the discussion bias.A MANOVA was conducted to examine the overall

effects of the experimental manipulations on the

9 discussion behaviors. Both perceived motivation

(F 9 73= 285 p < 001) and the distribution of infor-

mation (F 9 73 = 332 p < 0005) were found to

affect these discussion behaviors. These main effects




KIM


were qualified, however, by an interaction between

perceived motivation and the distribution of informa-

tion F 9 73= 297 p < 0005.

ANOVAs were then conducted to isolate thespecific variables driving these multivariate effects.

Groups with high-perceived motivation were found

to make fewer dissenting comments M = 162 sd =

050 than groups with low-perceived motivation

M = 362 sd = 052 F 1 88= 758 p < 001ES =

392. Groups with partial information were also

found to ask for justifications and confirm partner

statements more frequently M = 260 sd = 032 and

M = 698 sd = 077, respectively) than groups with

full information M = 145 sd = 032 F 1 88 =

658 p < 005ES = 359 and M = 446 sd = 076

F 1 88 = 544 p < 005ES = 332, respectively).Moreover, the interaction between perceived motiva-

tion and the distribution of information was found

to affect three discussion behaviors: the frequency

with which group members contributed justifications

F1 88= 631 p < 005ES = 361, asked for jus-

tifications F1 88= 399 p < 005ES = 202, and

confirmed partner comments F1 88 = 520 p <

005ES = 229. Groups with high-perceived moti-

vation were found to contribute justifications less

frequently M = 775 sd = 134, ask for justifica-

tions more frequently M = 318 sd = 044, and

confirm partner statements less frequently M =

491 sd = 106 than groups with low-perceived

motivation when information was partially shared

M = 1202 sd = 140M = 202 sd = 046M =

906 sd = 111, respectively), but groups with high-

perceived motivation were found to contribute justi-

fications more frequently M = 1073 sd = 134, ask

for justifications less frequently M = 113 sd = 044,

and confirm partner statements more frequently M =

485 sd = 106 than groups with low-perceived moti-

vation when information was fully shared M =

815 sd=

137M =

177 sd=

045M =

406 sd=

109, respectively).

Canonical correlations were also conducted to

examine the relationship between the discussion bias

and the 9 discussion behaviors. As might be expected,

given that some utterances were coded as both discus-

sion bias and discussion behavior variables, the men-

tioning of critical F 9 79 = 1485 p < 00001 and

noncritical information F 9 79 = 2408 p < 00001

and the repetition of critical F 9 79 = 776 p <

00001 and noncritical information F 9 79 =

4367 p < 00001 were all significantly related tothese discussion behaviors. Univariate correlations

between the discussion bias measures and each of

the discussion behaviors were then examined to iso-

late the particular variables driving these multivari-

ate effects (see Table 1). These univariate correlations

revealed that the mentioning and repetition of critical

and noncritical information were each positively cor-

related with the majority of the discussion behaviors,

indicating that the level of teamwork was positively

associated with the degree to which both critical and

noncritical task-relevant information was discussed.

These results support predictions that perceptionsof coworker motivation affect teamwork (assessed by

the discussion behaviors) and that these relationships

depend on the distribution of task information (i.e.,

Hypothesis 2B was supported). Follow-up univari-

ate analyses, furthermore, suggest that the frequency

with which group members contributed justifica-

tions, asked for justifications, and confirmed partner

comments were driving this multivariate interaction

effect.

Effects on Performance

Hypotheses 1c and 2c predicted that whereas per-

ceptions of high-coworker competence and motiva-

tion would foster lower task performance relative to

perceptions of low-coworker competence and moti-

vation, respectively, when information is partially

shared, these effects should not arise and even reverse

(for perceived motivation) when information is fully

shared. The following analyses tested these predic-

tions as well as the effects of the discussion bias and

discussion behaviors on performance.

An ANOVA was conducted to assess whether

the manipulations affected task performance. Theresults revealed a two-way interaction between per-

ceived motivation and the distribution of infor-

mation. Groups with high-perceived motivation

achieved lower task performance M = 017 sd =

010 than groups with low-perceived motivation

M = 050 sd = 010 when task information was

partially shared, but groups with high-perceived




KIM


motivation achieved higher task performance M =

054 sd = 010 than groups with low-perceived moti-

vation M = 030 sd = 010 when task information

was fully shared F1 91 = 824 p < 001ES =285. These results support predictions that percep-

tions of coworker motivation affect performance and

that these relationships depend on the distribution

of information (i.e., Hypothesis 2C was supported).

Whereas perceptions of high-coworker motivation

lowered performance when information was par-

tially shared, this relationship was reversed when

information was fully shared.

Mediated Regression Results

Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted that the effects ofperceived coworker competence and motivation on

task performance would be mediated by the dis-

cussion bias (Hypothesis 3) and teamwork (assessed

by the discussion behaviors) (Hypothesis 4). Results

from the prior analyses indicate that the experimen-

tal manipulations affected both the discussion bias

and the discussion behaviors. However, only the dis-

cussion behaviors were significantly related to both

the perceived motivation X information distribution

interaction F 9 73 = 297 p < 0005 and task per-

formance F 9 79 = 507 p < 00001 (see Table 1).

These behaviors, therefore, represent the only factorthat might plausibly mediate the reported relationship

between coworker perceptions and performance. This

possibility was tested through a series of hierarchical

regressions (Baron and Kenny 1986, James and Brett

1984).

Tests of mediation require that four conditions be

met (James and Brett 1984). To demonstrate the medi-

ating effect of variable Y in the relation X → Z:

(1) X must be significantly related to Y , (2) X and Y

must be significantly related to Z, (3) the variance in Z

predicted by X must be nonsignificant after mediator

Y is controlled (the satisfaction of all but this condi-

tion indicates partial mediation), and (4) Y should be

significantly related to Z after X is controlled. Each of

these conditions was examined to determine whether

the discussion behaviors Y mediated the relation-

ship between the perceived motivation X information

distribution interaction X and task performance Z.

A multivariate regression was conducted to deter-

mine whether the perceived motivation X infor-

mation distribution interaction affected the group

discussion variables. This analysis revealed a sig-nificant relationship between the perceived motiva-

tion X information distribution interaction and the

discussion variables, in general F 9 76 = 304 p <

0005, and the frequency with which groups con-

tributed justifications t1 88= 252 p < 005, asked

for justifications t1 88= −203 p < 005, and con-

firmed partner statements t1 88 = 230 p < 005,

in particular. Thus, Condition 1 was satisfied for the

discussion behaviors as a whole and, specifically, for

the frequency with which groups contributed justifi-

cations, asked for justifications, and confirmed part-

ner statements (i.e., the independent variable affected

the potential mediators).

Multiple regressions were conducted to examine

the effects of the perceived motivation X information

distribution interaction and group discussion behav-

iors, respectively, on task performance. These analyses

revealed a significant relationship between the per-

ceived motivation X information distribution interac-

tion and task performance t1 91= 291 p < 0005.

These analyses also revealed significant relationships

between the group discussion behaviors as a whole

and task performance F 9 88= 507 p < 00001, aswell as between the frequency with which groups

contributed justifications t1 88 = 450 p < 00001

and confirmed partner statements t1 88= 440 p <

00005, respectively, and task performance. Thus,

Condition 2 was satisfied for the perceived motiva-

tion X information distribution interaction, the group

discussion behaviors as a whole and, specifically, for

the frequency with which groups contributed justi-

fications and confirmed partner statements (i.e., the

independent variable and potential mediators affected

the dependent variable).

A two-step procedure was performed to determine

whether the variance in task performance predicted

by the perceived motivation X information distribu-

tion interaction was nonsignificant after controlling

for the group discussion behaviors. Task performance

was, first, regressed on the group discussion behav-

iors. The residuals from this first step were then




KIM


regressed on the interaction between perceived moti-

vation and the distribution of information (i.e., after

the effects of the group discussion behaviors were

controlled). This procedure revealed a nonsignificantrelationship between the perceived motivation X

information distribution interaction and performance

t1 88 = 147ns. Analogous procedures were

also conducted on the specific group discussion

behaviors. These procedures revealed nonsignificant

relationships between the perceived motivation X

information distribution interaction and task perfor-

mance when controlling for the frequency with which

groups contributed justifications t1 88= 191ns

andconfirmedpartnerstatements t1 88= 197ns.

Thus, Condition 3 was satisfied for the group discus-

sion behaviors as a whole and, specifically, for the fre-quency with which groups contributed justifications

and confirmed partner statements (i.e., the indepen-

dent variable did not affect the dependent variable

after controlling for the potential mediators).

Finally, a procedure similar to that performed in

Condition 3 was used to determine if the group dis-

cussion behaviors were still significantly related to

task performance after the effects of the perceived

motivation X information distribution interaction was

controlled. Task performance was first regressed on

the perceived motivation X information distribution

interaction. The residuals from this analysis were

then regressed on the group discussion variables

(i.e., after controlling for the perceived motivation

X information distribution interaction). This proce-

dure revealed that the group discussion behaviors,

in general F 9 88 = 409 p < 00005, and the fre-

quency with which groups contributed justifications

t1 88 = 397 p < 00005 and confirmed partner

statements t1 88 = 434 p < 00001, in particular,

still affected task performance. Thus, Condition 4

was satisfied for the group discussion behaviors as a

whole and, specifically, for the frequency with whichgroups contributed justifications and confirmed part-

ner statements (i.e., the potential mediators affected

the dependent variable even after controlling for the

independent variable).

The satisfaction of all four conditions at both the

multivariate and univariate levels supports the notion

that the discussion behaviors, in general, and the

frequency with which groups contributed justifica-

tions and confirmed partner statements, in partic-

ular, completely mediated the relationship between

the perceived motivation X information distributioninteraction and task performance (i.e., Hypothesis 4

was supported). These results, therefore, provide a

clear explanation for the performance differences

observed in this study. The evidence indicates that the

discussion behaviors assessed in this study can play

a critical role in the information-sharing process by

mediating the effects of coworker perceptions on per-

formance. The results also help substantiate, to some

degree, the univariate analyses conducted in the pre-

ceding section. Whereas the effect of the perceived

motivation X information distribution interaction on

any of the 9 discussion behaviors may have occurredby chance, the finding that the frequency with which

groups contributed justifications and confirmed part-

ner statements also met the three other conditions

required for mediation is less likely. More substantive

verification of the role(s) played by these discussion

behaviors, however, will require further investigation.

DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to investigate how

beliefs about coworkers may affect group informa-

tion sharing and performance. In addition, it sought

to identify contexts in which these adverse effects are

more or less likely to arise. Finally, this study inves-

tigated the underlying mechanisms for these find-

ings through an exploratory content analysis of group

discussions.

The evidence from this study suggests that beliefs

about coworkers can exert important effects on group

discussion and performance. The finding that percep-

tions of higher coworker motivation lowered perfor-

mance when task information was partially shared is

consistent with Kim’s (1997) observation that mem-bers’ beliefs about their coworkers can sometimes hin-

der group interactions and outcomes. This study also

extends this insight, however, by suggesting that we

broaden our inquiry beyond mechanisms such as the

“curse of knowledge” to more fully understand these

effects. It may be useful, therefore, to consider how a

range of coworker perceptions may influence group




KIM


AcknowledgmentsThe author thanks Thomas Cummings, Daniel Gigone, Terri L.

Griffith, Deborah H. Gruenfeld, Dawn Iacobucci, Claus Langfred,

Margaret A. Neale, Garold Stasser, Melissa Thomas-Hunt, LeighL. Thompson, and Brian Uzzi for their assistance. This research

was supported by grants from the State Farm Foundation and

Northwestern University’s Dispute Resolution Research Center.

ReferencesBaron, R. M., D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable

distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strate-

gic, and statistical considerations. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 51(6)

1173–1182.

Brauer, M., M. D. Gliner, C. M. Judd. 1995. The effects of repeated

expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions.

J. Personality Soc. Psych. 68(6) 1014–1029.

Butler, J. K. 1991. Toward understanding and measuring condi-tions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory.

J. Management 17 643–663.

Camerer, C. F., G. Loewenstein, M. Weber. 1989. The curse of knowl-

edge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. J. Political

Econom. 97 1232–1254.

Fussell, S. R., R. M. Krauss. 1992. Coordination of knowledge in

communication: Effects of speaker’s assumptions about what

others know. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 62(3) 378–391.

Gigone, D., R. Hastie. 1993. The common knowledge effect: Infor-

mation sharing and group judgment. J. Personality Soc. Psych.

65(5) 959–974.

, . 1997. The impact of information on small group choice.

J. Personality Soc. Psych. 72(1) 132–140.

Gruenfeld, D. H., E. Mannix, K. Williams, M. A. Neale. 1996. Group

composition and decision making: How member familiarity

and information distribution affect process and performance.

Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes 67(1) 1–15.

James, L. R., J. M. Brett. 1984. Mediators, moderators, and tests for

mediation. J. Appl. Psych. 69(2) 307–321.

Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits

and detriments of intragroup conflict. Admin. Sci. Quart. 40(2)

256–282.

Kim, P. H. 1997. When what you know can hurt you: A study

of experiential effects on group discussion and performance.


, K. A. Diekmann, A. Tenbrunsel. 2003. Flattery may get you

somewhere: The strategic implications of providing positive

vs. negative feedback about ability vs. ethicality in negotiation.


Larson, J. R., Jr, C. Christensen, A. S. Abbott, T. M. Franz.

1996. Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in

medical decision-making teams. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 71(2)

315–330.

Liang, D. W., R. Moreland, L. Argote. 1995. Group versus indi-

vidual training and group performance: The mediating role oftransactive memory. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 21(4) 384–393.

. 1999. Transactive memory: Learning who know what in work

groups and organizations. L. Thompson, J. Levine, D. Messick,

eds. Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowl-

edge. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 3–31.

Morgan, B. B., Jr, A. S. Glickman, E. A. Woodward, A. Blaiwes,

E. Salas. 1986. Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy envi-

ronment. NTSC report number 86-014, Naval Training System

Center, Orlando, FL.

Nickerson, R. S., A. Baddeley, B. Freeman. 1987. Are people’s esti-

mates of what other people know influenced by what they

themselves know? Acta Psych. 64 245–259.

Orasanu, J., E. Salas. 1993. Team decision making in complex

environments. G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, C. E.Zsambok, eds. Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods.

Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 327–345.

Stasser, G., D. D. Stewart. 1992. Discovery of hidden profiles by

decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a

judgment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 63(3) 426–434.

, , G. M. Wittenbaum. 1995. Expert roles and information

exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who

knows what. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 31 244–265.

Wegner, D. M. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis

of the group mind. B. Mullen, G. R. Goethals, eds. Theories of

Group Behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York, 185–205.

Williams, K. D., S. J. Karau. 1991. Social loafing and social compen-

sation: The effects of expectations of coworker performance.

J. Personality Soc. Psych. 61(4) 570–581.Winquist, J. R., J. R. Larson, Jr. 1998. Information pooling: When it

impacts group decision making. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 74(2)

371–377.

Wittenbaum, G. M. 1998. Information sampling in decision-making

groups: The impact of members’ task-relevant status. Small

Group Res. 29(1) 57–84.

, A. P. Hubbell, C. Zuckerman. 1999. Mutual enhancement:

Toward an understanding of the collective preference for

shared information. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 77(5) 967–978.

, G. Stasser, C. J. Merry. 1996. Tacit coordination in anticipation

of small group task completion. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 32(2)

129–152.

, S. I. Vaughan, G. Stasser. 1998. Coordination in task-

performing groups. R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J.

Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King,

J. Myers, eds. Theory and Research on Small Groups. Plenum

Press, New York, 177–204.

Accepted by Linda Argote, former department editor; received March 1, 2001. This paper was with the author 8 months for 3 revisions.


when private beliefs shape collective reality

Documents