Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality☆

By L. Scholten, D. van Knippenberg, B. Nijstad, Carsten K. W. De Dreu. 2007

313 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Safety Research, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7ebb23658de3d99f96a5138c75c6ba1640846d33

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Safety Research

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Thing to Do When Sharing Information: Revealing, Concealing and Lying Depend on Social Motivation, Distribution and Importance of Information (2010, methodology): “from two studies that both use the hidden profile paradigm (Scholten et al., 2007; Toma & Butera, 2009).”
Motivated Information Processing in Group Judgment and Decision Making (2008, background): “First, work on epistemic motivation in so-called hidden-profile situations showed that higher levels of epistemic motivation led to more evenhanded exchange of both shared and unshared information and to more systematic processing of this information (e.g., Galinsky & Kray, 2004; Kelly & Karau, 1999”
CEO relational leadership and strategic decision quality in top management teams: The role of team trust and learning from failure (2012, background): “The process by which team members reflect on their mission, tasks, and processes also has been referred to as reflexivity (Carter and West, 1998), and been shown to promote motivation to process information systematically through open group discussion, thereby enabling the selection of a correct dec”
The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance (2011, background): “As expected based on existing literature (e.g., Scholten et al., 2007), process accountable participants (M = 3.82; SD = 0.49) showed a greater motivation to engage in thorough and systematic information processing relative to outcome accountable participants (M = 3.54; SD = 0.66), regardless of…”
Group Creativity and Innovation: A Motivated Information Processing Perspective (2011, unknown): “when members are process accountable (Scholten et al., 2007) or”
A Review and Model of Auditor Judgments in Fraud-Related Planning Tasks (2011, background): “Epistemic motivation affects hypothesis generation and validation (Kruglanski 1990) and affects the quality of decisions made because it stimulates systematic information processing (Scholten et al. 2007).”
Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance (2011, background): “While the basis for decisions may thus be poorer as a consequence of more shallow information elaboration, this need not express itself in lowered efficiency in coming to an agreement about task-relevant issues (cf. Kooij-De Bode, van Knippenberg, & van Ginkel, 2008; Scholten et al., 2007).”