Cargando…
In no uncertain terms: Group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty
Group decision making under uncertainty often requires groups to balance exploration of their environment with exploitation of the seemingly best option. In order to succeed at this collective induction, groups need to merge the knowledge of all group members and combine goal-oriented and social mot...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9905233/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36760456 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1038262 |
_version_ | 1784883786774740992 |
---|---|
author | Ritter, Marie Pritz, Johannes Morscheck, Lara Baumann, Emma Boos, Margarete |
author_facet | Ritter, Marie Pritz, Johannes Morscheck, Lara Baumann, Emma Boos, Margarete |
author_sort | Ritter, Marie |
collection | PubMed |
description | Group decision making under uncertainty often requires groups to balance exploration of their environment with exploitation of the seemingly best option. In order to succeed at this collective induction, groups need to merge the knowledge of all group members and combine goal-oriented and social motivations (i.e., group cohesion). This paper presents three studies that investigate whether more cohesive groups perform worse at collective induction tasks as they spend less time exploring possible options. Study 1 simulates group decision making with the ε-greedy algorithm in order to identify suitable manipulations of group cohesion and investigate how differing exploration lengths can affect outcomes of group decisions. Study 2 (N = 108, 18 groups á 6 participants) used an experimental manipulation of group cohesion in a simple card choice task to investigate how group cohesion might affect group decision making when only limited social information is available. Study 3 (N = 96, 16 groups á 6 participants) experimentally manipulated group cohesion and used the HoneyComb paradigm, a movement-based group experiment platform, to investigate which group processes would emerge during decision making and how these processes would affect the relationships between group cohesion, exploration length, and group decision making. Study 1 found that multiplicative cohesion rewards have detrimental effects on group decision making, while additive group rewards could ameliorate negative effects of the cohesion reward, especially when reported separately from task rewards. Additionally, exploration length was found to profoundly affect decision quality. Studies 2 and 3 showed that groups could identify the best reward option successfully, regardless of group cohesion manipulation. This effect is interpreted as a ceiling effect as the decision task was likely too easy to solve. Study 3 identified that spatial group cohesion on the playing field correlated with self-reported entitativity and leader-/followership emerged spontaneously in most groups and correlated with self-reported perceptions of leader-/followership in the game. We discuss advantages of simulation studies, possible adaptations to the ε-greedy algorithm, and methodological aspects of measuring behavioral group cohesion and leadership to inform empirical studies investigating group decision making under uncertainty. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9905233 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99052332023-02-08 In no uncertain terms: Group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty Ritter, Marie Pritz, Johannes Morscheck, Lara Baumann, Emma Boos, Margarete Front Psychol Psychology Group decision making under uncertainty often requires groups to balance exploration of their environment with exploitation of the seemingly best option. In order to succeed at this collective induction, groups need to merge the knowledge of all group members and combine goal-oriented and social motivations (i.e., group cohesion). This paper presents three studies that investigate whether more cohesive groups perform worse at collective induction tasks as they spend less time exploring possible options. Study 1 simulates group decision making with the ε-greedy algorithm in order to identify suitable manipulations of group cohesion and investigate how differing exploration lengths can affect outcomes of group decisions. Study 2 (N = 108, 18 groups á 6 participants) used an experimental manipulation of group cohesion in a simple card choice task to investigate how group cohesion might affect group decision making when only limited social information is available. Study 3 (N = 96, 16 groups á 6 participants) experimentally manipulated group cohesion and used the HoneyComb paradigm, a movement-based group experiment platform, to investigate which group processes would emerge during decision making and how these processes would affect the relationships between group cohesion, exploration length, and group decision making. Study 1 found that multiplicative cohesion rewards have detrimental effects on group decision making, while additive group rewards could ameliorate negative effects of the cohesion reward, especially when reported separately from task rewards. Additionally, exploration length was found to profoundly affect decision quality. Studies 2 and 3 showed that groups could identify the best reward option successfully, regardless of group cohesion manipulation. This effect is interpreted as a ceiling effect as the decision task was likely too easy to solve. Study 3 identified that spatial group cohesion on the playing field correlated with self-reported entitativity and leader-/followership emerged spontaneously in most groups and correlated with self-reported perceptions of leader-/followership in the game. We discuss advantages of simulation studies, possible adaptations to the ε-greedy algorithm, and methodological aspects of measuring behavioral group cohesion and leadership to inform empirical studies investigating group decision making under uncertainty. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9905233/ /pubmed/36760456 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1038262 Text en Copyright © 2023 Ritter, Pritz, Morscheck, Baumann and Boos. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Ritter, Marie Pritz, Johannes Morscheck, Lara Baumann, Emma Boos, Margarete In no uncertain terms: Group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty |
title | In no uncertain terms: Group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty |
title_full | In no uncertain terms: Group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty |
title_fullStr | In no uncertain terms: Group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty |
title_full_unstemmed | In no uncertain terms: Group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty |
title_short | In no uncertain terms: Group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty |
title_sort | in no uncertain terms: group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9905233/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36760456 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1038262 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rittermarie innouncertaintermsgroupcohesiondidnotaffectexplorationandgroupdecisionmakingunderlowuncertainty AT pritzjohannes innouncertaintermsgroupcohesiondidnotaffectexplorationandgroupdecisionmakingunderlowuncertainty AT morschecklara innouncertaintermsgroupcohesiondidnotaffectexplorationandgroupdecisionmakingunderlowuncertainty AT baumannemma innouncertaintermsgroupcohesiondidnotaffectexplorationandgroupdecisionmakingunderlowuncertainty AT boosmargarete innouncertaintermsgroupcohesiondidnotaffectexplorationandgroupdecisionmakingunderlowuncertainty |