Effects of communication support technology on the distribution of unshared information and the discovery of hidden profiles in group decision-making

Decision making groups can gain from pooling members' information, particularly when they individually have partial information about the decision alternatives. This gain is especially critical when the partial information group members have is biased or the group collective information supports one alternative, but its superiority is obscured to the group members because some supporting information is unshared (i.e., a hidden profile exists). In such situations, group discussion has the potential to act as a corrective mechanism. Through a thorough discussion of the individuals' partial, and probably biased, information, a group can compose a comprehensive and unbiased characterization of the decision alternatives.;Even though the potential benefits of group decision making are indisputable, group discussions often fall short of their potential. Research on small group decision making contends that shared information has a sampling advantage over unshared information in group discussions. Yet, the group decision support system (GDSS) literature seems to imply that the use of GDSS attenuates such advantage.;A laboratory experiment was conducted to assess the effect of GDSS use on the exchange of unshared information, the discovery of hidden profiles, and the post-discussion distribution of information. A completely randomized one way design with two treatments--face-to-face vs. GDSS--was utilized, and the procedure used by Stasser and Titus (1985) to create a hidden profile was replicated.;Conflicting effects on the information mentioned during discussion, and on the assimilation and acceptance of this information due to the communication medium used were depicted. The research findings support the assertion that GDSS use fosters the mentioning of information (increases the propensity for information recall), but hinders the assimilation and acceptance of information. In fact, GDSS group members not only were able to recall after the discussion less new information, but more often forgot recalling information that was previously recalled by them before discussion than face-to-face group members. As a consequence, face-to-face group members by assimilating more information compensate for the better unshared information recall of GDSS groups. As a result, GDSS groups did not display more choice shifts nor higher likelihood of discovery of the hidden profile than face-to-face groups.