DOCSLIB.ORG

Beyond Group-Level Explanations for the Failure of Groups

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beyond Group-Level Explanations for the Failure of Groups G Group Processes & P Intergroup Relations I Article R Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 13(5) 653–671 © The Author(s) 2010 Beyond group-level explanations Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermission.nav for the failure of groups to solve DOI: 10.1177/1368430210369143 hidden profiles: The individual gpir.sagepub.com preference effect revisited Nadira Faulmüller,1 Rudolf Kerschreiter,2 Andreas Mojzisch,1 and Stefan Schulz-Hardt1 Abstract The individual preference effect supplements the predominant group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles. Even in the absence of dysfunctional group-level processes, group members tend to stick to their suboptimal initial decision preferences due to preference-consistent evaluation of information. However, previous experiments demonstrating this effect retained two group-level processes, namely (a) social validation of information supporting the group members’ initial preferences and (b) presentation of the additional information in a discussion format. Therefore, it was unclear whether the individual preference effect depends on the co-occurrence of these group- level processes. Here, we report two experiments demonstrating that the individual preference effect is indeed an individual-level phenomenon. Moreover, by a comparison to real interacting groups, we can show that even when all relevant information is exchanged and when no coordination losses occur, almost half of all groups would fail to solve hidden profiles due to the individual preference effect. Keywords group decision-making, hidden profiles, individual preference effect, preference-consistent evaluation of information, social validation Paper received 25 April 2009; revised version accepted 3 March 2010. Hidden profiles are group-decision tasks in which In the case of hidden profiles, shared and unshared the correct solution cannot be detected by an indi- information have different decisional implications, vidual group member prior to the group discussion, because each member possesses a subset of infor- 1 Georg-August-University Göttingen mation supporting an inferior decision alternative 2 Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (Stasser & Titus, 1985). This is due to the distribu- tion of shared and unshared information across indi- Corresponding author: Nadira Faulmüller, Georg-August-University Göttingen, viduals: shared information is available to all group Institute of Psychology, Economic and Social Psychology members prior to discussion, whereas unshared Unit, D-37073 Göttingen, Germany. information is uniquely held by one member only. [email: [email protected]] 654 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 13(5) and the alternative implied by the unshared information (Gigone & Hastie, 1993). In the case of information is the correct one. Hidden profiles a hidden profile, this negotiation focus is likely to therefore represent the prototype of situations in lead to a premature consensus on a suboptimal which groups have the potential to outperform alternative, because the hidden profile distribu- individual decision-makers. Unfortunately, groups tion of information implies suboptimal individual typically fail to solve hidden profiles. In most cases, preferences at the beginning of the discussion they choose the alternative implied by their mem- and, therefore, the correct solution has hardly any bers’ shared information (for reviews, see Brodbeck, proponents in the negotiation process. Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, & Schulz-Hardt, 2007; Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Mojzisch & Schulz-Hardt, 2006; Stasser & Birchmeier, 2003). The individual preference effect Greitemeyer and Schulz-Hardt (2003) proposed Group-level explanations for the failure an alternative explanation for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles, the individual pref- of groups to solve hidden profiles erence effect. They argued that even in the absence Two group-level processes have been proposed of any dysfunctional group-level processes, the to account for the failure of groups to solve hidden development of a suboptimal prediscussion pref- profiles: according to one explanation, groups do erence leads to biased evaluation of the informa- not discuss sufficient unshared information for tion exchanged during discussion: information the superiority of the correct solution to become supporting the group members’ prediscussion evident (Stasser, 1992). This dominance of shared preferences (preference-consistent information) is information has been attributed to the simple fact perceived to be of higher quality than informa- that shared information can be mentioned by tion contradicting those preferences (preference- each group member whereas unshared informa- inconsistent information). Because of this evaluation tion, by definition, is known by only one member bias, group members tend to stick to their initial and therefore cannot be discussed if this member suboptimal preferences even if all unshared fails to mention it (i.e., there is a probabilistic information is discussed and no premature group sampling advantage for shared information; consensus is reached. It should be noted that the Stasser, 1992). Other authors have traced the reason for this evaluation bias need not be some dominance of shared information back to the sort of defensive avoidance, that is, an intentional fact that shared, but not unshared, information distortion of information. Rather, a biased evalu- can be socially validated by other group members ation in favor of members’ prediscussion pre- during discussion (Parks & Cowlin, 1996). Social ferences could simply be a consequence of different validation refers to learning that others in the amounts of cognitive resources being alloca- group possess the same information and there- ted to preference-consistent versus preference- fore can attest to its accuracy. As proposed by inconsistent information: as outlined by Edwards Wittenbaum, Hubbell, and Zuckerman (1999), and Smith (1996), people might use the inconsis- social validation fuels a group’s tendency to repeat tency between their prior beliefs and the newly previously mentioned shared information. In learned preference-inconsistent information as a addition, there is evidence that social validation cue that either this information or their prior be- increases the perceived accuracy and relevance of lief could be false, and therefore instigate a more information which, in turn, increases the decisional detailed analysis of this piece of information. impact of information (Mojzisch, Schulz-Hardt, Conversely, the match of preference-consistent Kerschreiter, Brodbeck, & Frey, 2008). information with prior beliefs indicates that this According to the second explanation, group piece of information can be accepted without members primarily use the discussion to negotiate much further testing. As a consequence of the their preferences rather than to consider the relevant more intensive testing of preference-inconsistent Faulmüller et al. 655 information, group members are more likely of the two Greitemeyer and Schulz-Hardt (2003) to detect weaknesses in it, making preference- experiments, participants in the hidden profile con- inconsistent information appear to be of lower dition were less likely to detect the best candidate quality on average than preference-consistent than participants in the manifest profile condition. information (cf. Greitemeyer & Schulz-Hardt, However, these two conditions differed not only 2003). Empirical support for this idea can be found with regard to the participants’ initial preferences, in research on motivated reasoning (e.g., Ditto & but also with regard to which items were socially Lopez, 1992; Ditto, Scepansky, Munro, Apanovitch, validated in the discussion protocol: each time a & Lockhart, 1998) and the prior-belief effect (e.g., shared item was mentioned by a group member, Edwards & Smith, 1996). the protocol contained a passage about the other In the experiments by Greitemeyer and Schulz- members confirming that they held the same infor- Hardt (2003), participants first received incom- mation. Since most of the shared items supported plete information about a decision task which was the correct candidate in the manifest profile condi- either representative of the entire information set tion but an incorrect candidate in the hidden (manifest profile;1 Lavery, Franz, Winquist, & profile condition, preference consistency and social Larson, 1999) or was not (hidden profile). Next, validation of information were partially confounded. instead of discussing the decision case with each As research has demonstrated that social validation other, participants individually read a fictitious increases the perceived quality of information discussion protocol containing full information (Greitemeyer, Schulz-Hardt, & Frey, 2003; Mojzisch, exchange but with no group decision being reached. Grouneva, & Schulz-Hardt, in press; Mojzisch et al., They were asked to rate the importance, accuracy, 2008; Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001; Wittenbaum and valence of each piece of information and to et al., 19992), the failure of individuals to solve the reach a final individual decision. The results hidden profile could be a consequence of social vali- showed that few participants solved the hidden dation rather than a consequence of the participants’ profile. Preference-consistent information was initial preferences. In their second experiment, judged to be of higher quality than preference- Greitemeyer
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Link to Dissertation
    NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Ripening or rotting? Examining the temporal dynamics of team discussion and decision making in long-term teams. A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Field of Media, Technology, and Society By Ilya Gokhman EVANSTON, ILLINOIS September 2020 2 ABSTRACT More than a quarter century of research finds that teams often fail to make high-quality decisions. This literature is based on observing team decisions in one-off decision making episodes, when in reality, most teams work together for an extended period of time, making repeated decisions together. Do teams improve or decline on decision making effectiveness over time? To answer this question, this dissertation contributes three studies on team decision making, examining how the processes and outcomes of team decision making evolve over time. In order to study team decision making over time, one needs parallel and comparable tasks on which to observe process and performance. And so, Study 1 developed and validated five parallel hidden profile tasks that require teams to share unique information in order to identify the optimal solution from three options. Using this newly developed battery of tasks, Studies 2 and 3 used mixed-methods to understand team decision making over time in eight 4-person teams. Study 2 was quantitative, examining the discussion and decision quality of teams during multiple sequential decision making episodes. Study 3 was qualitative, exploring the conversational dynamics over time. Quantitative analysis found that teams show an initial increase and subsequent decrease in discussion and decision quality as they work together.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Mentioning Information, Shared Information Bias, Ownership Bias, Reiteration, and Confirmation Bias Lyn M
    Perceived Importance of Information: The Effects of Mentioning Information, Shared Information Bias, Ownership Bias, Reiteration, and Confirmation Bias Lyn M. van Swol To cite this version: Lyn M. van Swol. Perceived Importance of Information: The Effects of Mentioning Information, Shared Information Bias, Ownership Bias, Reiteration, and Confirmation Bias. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, SAGE Publications, 2007, 10 (2), pp.239-256. 10.1177/1368430207074730. hal-00571647 HAL Id: hal-00571647 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571647 Submitted on 1 Mar 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2007 Vol 10(2) 239–256 Perceived Importance of Information: The Effects of Mentioning Information, Shared Information Bias, Ownership Bias, Reiteration, and Confi rmation Bias Lyn M. Van Swol Northwestern University Participants were given information for and against the decriminalization of marijuana and discussed the issue in groups. Factors affecting rated importance of information after the group discussion were examined. Participants did not rate information that was mentioned during the discussion as more important than information not mentioned, and participants did not rate shared information they mentioned as more important than unshared information.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Group Status on Intragroup Behavior
    The Effects of Group Status on Intragroup Behavior: Implications for Group Process and Outcome Jin Wook Chang Organizational Behavior and Theory Tepper School of Business Carnegie Mellon University Dissertation Committee: Rosalind M. Chow (Co-Chair) Anita W. Woolley (Co-Chair) Linda Argote John M. Levine The Effects of Group Status on Intragroup Behavior: Implications for Group Process and Outcome ABSTRACT How does the status of a group influence the behavior of individuals within the group? This dissertation aims to answer this question by investigating the psychological and behavioral implications of membership in high- versus low-status groups, with a primary focus on the impact of membership in a high-status group. I propose that in high-status groups, personal interests, including material and relational, are more salient, therefore guiding member behavior within the groups. This emphasis on personal gain leads to behavior that best suits their interests regardless of the impact on group outcomes. In six studies, using both experimental and correlational methods, I test this main idea and examine boundary conditions. The first set of studies examines members’ group-oriented behavior, and finds that membership in a high-status group (a) decreases the resources allocated for the group as members attempt to ensure personal gain; (b) lowers the preference for a competent newcomer who may enhance group outcome but who may jeopardize personal gains; and (c) reduces the amount of voluntary information sharing during group negotiations, hindering group outcomes. The findings also reveal that reducing the conflict between group and personal interests via cooperative incentives encourages group- oriented behavior in high-status groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Meta-Methodology for Real-World Problem Solving
    Toward a meta-methodology for real-world problem solving by Ryan Reed Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Industrial Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering at Stellenbosch University Promoter: Prof JH van Vuuren March 2020 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Date: March 2020 Copyright © 2020 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved i Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za ii Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract There are complexities inherent to the subjective experience of life that render real-world prob- lem solving exceedingly subtle and difficult. Yet, all too often, it is not the complex nature of problems that result in their persistence, but rather the ineffective fashion in which practitioners dedicated to their resolution respond thereto. The process of real-world problem solving comprises three parts: The development of a formal formulation of a problem considered, the identification of an adequate response thereto, often by means of analytical modelling, and finally, the practical implementation of that response. In the history of real-world problem solving, the first of these phases has often been neglected and, as a result, solution methodologies dedicated to the formulation of problems, complicated by the dynamics of human nature, have failed to address several phenomena relevant to the success of problem resolution.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Effects of Group Interaction on Processes and Outcomes in Analytic Teams
    WORKING P A P E R The Group Matters A Review of the Effects of Group Interaction on Processes and Outcomes in Analytic Teams SUSAN G. STRAUS, ANDREW M. PARKER, JAMES B. BRUCE, AND JACOB W. DEMBOSKY WR-580-USG April 2009 This product is part of the RAND working paper series. RAND working papers are intended to share researchers’ latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by RAND National Security Research Division but have not been formally edited or peer reviewed. Unless otherwise indicated, working papers can be quoted and cited without permission of the author, provided the source is clearly referred to as a working paper. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. is a registered trademark. - iii – PREFACE This Working Paper explores the implications of using groups to perform intelligence analysis. This report reviews theory and research on the effects of group interaction processes on judgment and decision making in analytical teams. It describes the benefits and drawbacks of using groups for analytical work, common processes that prevent groups from reaching optimal levels of performance, and strategies to improve processes and outcomes in intelligence analysis teams. This work is based on a review of the literature in social and experimental psychology, organizational behavior, behavioral decision science, and other social science disciplines, as well as the limited amount of group research in the intelligence literature. Included in this review is a bibliography consisting of key references organized by topic, with annotations for selected articles based on relevance to group processes in intelligence analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Psychology of Groups | Noba
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Richmond University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book Jepson School of Leadership Studies chapters and other publications 2014 The syP chology of Groups Donelson R. Forsyth University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/jepson-faculty-publications Recommended Citation Forsyth, Donelson R. "The sP ychology of Groups." In Psychology, edited by R. Biswas-Diener and E. Diener. Noba Textbook Series. Champaign, IL: DEF Publishers, 2014. http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/introduction-to-psychology-the-full-noba-collection. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Psychology of Groups | Noba University of Richmond This module assumes that a thorough understanding of people requires a thorough understanding of groups. Each of us is an autonomous individual seeking our own objectives, yet we are also members of groups— groups that constrain us, guide us, and sustain us. Just as each of us influences the group and the people in the group, so, too, do groups change each one of us. Joining groups satisfies our need to belong, gain information and understanding through social comparison, define our sense of self and social identity, and achieve goals that might elude us if we worked alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Larson, Christensen, Abbott, & Franz, 1996) , , , , “ ” (Shared Information
    2016, Vol. 24, No. 1, 132–142 Advances in Psychological Science DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.00132 * (, , 100875) , , , , (), (), “ (Shared information bias)” (Stasser & Titus, 1985) , , 4 , 4 , ; ; ; B849:C91 , & Mojzisch, 2012), , (Larson, Christensen, Abbott, & Franz, , 1996) , “(Shared information , bias)” (Stasser & Titus, 1987; Schulz-Hardt & Mojzisch, 2012) , , , “” (Shared , information); , , “” (Unshared information) , , , , , (Reimer, Reimer, & , Czienskowski, 2010; Stasser & Titus, 1985) (Lam & Schaubroeck, 2011) , , , , , , (Schulz-Hardt , : 2014-11-24 * (71101012); 1 : , E-mail: [email protected] , 132 1 : 133 , , ( (Wittenbaum & Park, 2001; Deiglmayr & ABC), Spada, 2010; Lu, Yuan, & McLeod, 2012; Stasser & , Titus, 1987) () , , (1), , ( (Wittenbaum, A , ) 2000; Larson et al., 1996; Larson, Foster-Fishman, , , & Keys, 1994; Winquist & Larson, 1998); (2) (), , ( , ) (Stasser & Titus, 1985, 1987) (Larson, Christensen, Franz, & , Abbott, 1998;Larson et al., 1994, 1996); (3) , , (Larson & ; Harmon, 2007; Lightle, Kagel, & Arkes, 2009) , , , , , , , “” (Stasser , & Titus, 1985; Lu et al., 2012), A 6 , 3 ; B (Lu et al., 2012; Winquist & Larson, 1998; 3 , 6 , Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009) 3 , A 2 , 3 ; B 3 2 —— , 2 , B (Hidden profile) , , , Stasser Titus 1985 , (Stasser & Titus, 1985) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (Demonstrability), (Manifest ()() profile), , (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009),
    [Show full text]
  • Pivot Thinking
    PIVOT THINKING AND THE DIFFERENTIAL SHARING OF INFORMATION WITHIN NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TEAMS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Mark Schar August 2011 © 2011 by Mark F Schar. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/dz361xm2614 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Larry Leifer, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Pamela Hinds I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Richard Shavelson Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii ABSTRACT Functionally diverse team members bring unique sets of cognitive styles to team interaction; it is less clear how these differences affect the exchange of critical, mutually required team information.
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Information ) Energy Cons
    Before the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Re: Request for Information ) Energy Conservation Program: ) Energy Conservation Standards for ) EERE–2017–BT–STD–0003 Consumer Refrigerators, ) Refrigerator Freezers, and Freezers ) Comments of Consumer Federation of America Mark Cooper Mel Hall-Crawford Director of Research Director of Energy Programs FEBRUARY 13, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 1 A. Organizational Background of the Consumer Federation of America Relevant to the Above Captioned Proceeding B. A Pragmatic Consumer Approach to Setting Standards C. Outline 2. A LOOK AT THE REAL WORLD: THE TRACK RECORD OF APPLIANCE ENERGY 4 EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. Simple Trends B. CFA’s Econometric Analysis of Appliances C. Prices D. The Benefits of Energy Efficiency Standard: Trump’s Two Trillion Dollar Mistake E. Low Income Consumers 1. Simple Mathematics of Income and Energy Consumption 2. Vulnerability to Market Imperfections 3. Exposure to Externalities 3. COMPREHENSIVE, MARKET FAILURE EXPLANATIONS OF THE EFFICIENCY GAP 17 A. The Efficiency Gap 1. The LBL Framework 2. The Resources for the Future Framework 3. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization B. Empirical Evidence of Market Barriers and Imperfections 1. Market Imperfections 2. Positive Externalities 3. Information and Behavior 4. Market Structure and Transaction Costs 4. STANDARDS AS A RESPONSE TO MARKET FAILURE 27 A. Rigorous Cost Benefit Analysis B. Standards as a Policy Response 1. Traditional Market Failures 2. Positive Externalities 3. Endemic Information and Behavior 4. Market Structure and Transaction Costs 5. COMMAND-BUT-NOT-CONTROL STANDARDS 31 A. Key Characteristics of Well-Crafted Performance Standards 1.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT VIGNOVIC, JANE ANN. Effects Of
    ABSTRACT VIGNOVIC, JANE ANN. Effects of Cultural Cues on Perceptions Formed During Computer-Mediated Communication Abstract. (Under the direction of Frank J. Smith and Lori F. Thompson). Computer-mediated communication, such as e-mail, facilitates cross-cultural interactions by enabling convenient communication. However, the absence of contextual or situational information in e-mails may cause recipients to over rely on dispositional explanations for behavior. An experiment was conducted on 435 students examining how technical language violations (i.e., spelling and grammatical errors) and etiquette deviations from language norms (i.e., short messages lacking a conversational tone) affect a recipient’s perceptions of an e-mail sender’s conscientiousness, intelligence, agreeableness, extraversion, affective trustworthiness, and cognitive trustworthiness. This study also investigated whether the effects of technical and etiquette language violations depend on the availability of information indicating the e-mail sender is from a foreign culture. Participants’ causal uncertainty levels were examined as a potential moderator of the influence the provision of this additional contextual information had on the dependent variables. Results reveal that participants formed negative perceptions of the sender of an e-mail containing technical language violations. Specifically, perceptions of the sender’s conscientiousness and intelligence were affected by technical language violations. However, these negative perceptions were reduced when the participants had additional information indicating that the e-mail sender was from a different culture. Meanwhile, negative attributions stemming from etiquette violations were not significantly mitigated by knowledge that the e-mail sender was from a foreign culture. Causal uncertainty had no significant effects. Implications for work organizations are discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politically Correct University : Problems, Scope, and Reforms / Editors Robert Maranto, Richard E
    The Politically Correct University The Politically Correct University Problems, Scope, and Reforms Editors Robert Maranto Richard E. Redding Frederick M. Hess The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C. Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. NATIONAL RESEARCH NRI INITIATIVE This publication is a project of the National Research Initiative, a program of the American Enterprise Institute that is designed to support, publish, and disseminate research by university-based scholars and other independent researchers who are engaged in the exploration of important public policy issues. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The politically correct university : problems, scope, and reforms / editors Robert Maranto, Richard E. Redding, Frederick M. Hess. p. cm. ISBN-13: 978-0-8447-4317-2 ISBN-10: 0-8447-4317-8 1. Education, Higher—Aims and objectives—United States. 2. Education, Higher—Political aspects—United States. 3. Political correctness—United States. I. Maranto, Robert, 1958– II. Redding, Richard E. III. Hess, Frederick M. LA227.4.P66 2009 378'.01—dc22 2009025229 13 12 11 10 09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 © 2009 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Wash- ington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or repro- duced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews.
    [Show full text]
  • Unpacking the Board a Comparative and Empirical Perspective on Groups in Corporate Decision-Making
    HAMANN_FINAL.DOCX 8/30/14 4:09 PM Unpacking the Board A Comparative and Empirical Perspective on Groups in Corporate Decision-Making Hanjo Hamann† Collegial decision-making is relevant for a host of legal questions and in particular for corporate law. What do we know about its empirical effects? Less than we could. As of yet, pertinent review articles usually (1) assume rather than analyze how much the law actually mandates collegial decision- making, (2) rely mostly on “classical” studies of decision-making or those from behavioral economics, while underrating a century’s worth of previous empirical research, and (3) review the evidence anecdotally with little regard for the robustness of each study’s findings. As a consequence, scholars from corporate law and economics even today rely on theories and evidence which were disproved years ago. The present paper is a remedy. It combines a thorough comparative analysis of corporate statutes with a comprehensive research of empirical evidence, resulting in an assessment of the robust empirical effects of collegial decision-making. Finding that groups tend to deteriorate decision quality and exacerbate cognitive biases, this paper calls upon corporate law to design institutional remedies. Knowing more about these empirical effects will help scholars to identify and eliminate faulty arguments, and thereby improve governance policy and the legal discourse as a whole. † Visiting Researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn (Germany). This paper is based on the author’s German Ph.D. thesis titled “Evidenzbasierte Jurisprudenz. Methoden empirischer Forschung und ihr Erkenntniswert für das Recht am Beispiel des Gesellschaftsrechts” (Evidence Based Jurisprudence.
    [Show full text]