This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by SAVADORI, L. Articles by SNIEZEK, J. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Information Sampling and Confidence Within Groups and Judge Advisor Systems

LYN M. VAN SWOL

JANET A. SNIEZEK

This study compared how the judge advisor system (JAS) and unstructured groups discuss common and unique information. Three differences between the two were measured for their effect on communication of information. These were responsibility for decision, consensus seeking, and equity of participation. Participants were given information about two drugs and had to decide which of the two to market. Half met in unstructured 3-person groups and made the decision as a group. The rest met in JASs whereby the judge discussed the information with each advisor separately and then made the decision individually. Advisors mentioned but did not repeat a higher proportion of unique information than group members. Judges felt more responsible for, reported putting more effort toward, and had higher confidence in the decision than did group members. There was more inequity of participation and consensus seeking in JASs compared to groups. Differences are discussed in light of results found on information exchange.

Communication Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 737-771 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/009365001028006002


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. M. Van Swol The Effects of Confidence and Advisor Motives on Advice Utilization Communication Research, December 1, 2009; 36(6): 857 - 873. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. D. Henningsen and M. L. M. Henningsen Do Groups Know What They Don't Know? Dealing With Missing Information in Decision-Making Groups Communication Research, October 1, 2007; 34(5): 507 - 525. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. R. Larson Jr and V. M. Harmon Recalling Shared vs. Unshared Information Mentioned During Group Discussion: Toward Understanding Differential Repetition Rates Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2007; 10(3): 311 - 322. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. M. Van Swol and C. L. Ludutsky Tell Me Something I Don't Know: Decision Makers' Preference for Advisors With Unshared Information Communication Research, June 1, 2007; 34(3): 297 - 312. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. M. Van Swol Perceived Importance of Information: The Effects of Mentioning Information, Shared Information Bias, Ownership Bias, Reiteration, and Confirmation Bias Group Processes Intergroup Relations, April 1, 2007; 10(2): 239 - 256. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. D. Henningsen and M. L. M. Henningsen Examining Social Influence in Information-Sharing Contexts Small Group Research, August 1, 2003; 34(4): 391 - 412. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. M. Van Swol, L. Savadori, and J. A. Sniezek Factors that May Affect the Difficulty of Uncovering Hidden Profiles Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2003; 6(3): 285 - 304. [Abstract] [PDF]