CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

154 SCHULZ-HARDT, MOJZISCH, AND VOGELGESANG
Schulz-Hardt et al. (2006) constructed a personnel selection case with
four decision alternatives for three-person groups, with three equally
attractive suboptimal alternatives and one superior alternative (the correct
solution). For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that, in the light
of the total information, Candidate C is the best candidate, whereas
Candidates A, B, and D are equally inferior (in the real experiment,
this distribution was rotated). However, because information was distributed
in a hidden profile manner, for each member Candidate C
was less attractive than the three other candidates on the basis of the
individual prediscussion information. In the experimental design, a
hidden profile condition without dissent (homogeneity, e.g., all group
members preferred the same suboptimal candidate prior to discussion)
was contrasted with four dissent conditions: pure minority dissent (two
members preferred the same and the third member preferred a different
suboptimal candidate prior to discussion), pure full-diversity dissent
(all three members preferred different suboptimal candidates prior to
discussion), minority dissent with proponent (two members preferred the
same suboptimal candidate and the third member preferred the correct
candidate prior to discussion), full-diversity dissent with proponent (two
members preferred different suboptimal candidates, the third member
preferred the correct candidate prior to discussion). In an additional
control condition, group members received the complete information set
prior to discussion (no hidden profile).
In the experiment, participants first had to read and evaluate their individual
information about the candidates. After they had indicated their
preference for one of the candidates, three-person groups were formed
according to the experimental conditions previously listed. The groups
then had to discuss the case and make a group decision for one of the
candidates. It should be emphasized that groups were explicitly informed
that each member had only a subset of the whole information, that these
subsets were partially different, that a best solution existed on the basis
of the full information, and that making the correct decision would be
rewarded.
In accordance with the previous literature (e.g., Kelly & Karau, 1999;
Lavery, Franz, Winquist, & Larson, 1999; Stasser & Titus, 1985), the groups
were overall not very successful in solving the hidden profile. Whereas all
groups made the correct decision if the group members had full information
prior to discussion (no hidden profile), only 35% of the groups with
a hidden profile distribution of information chose the correct candidate.
Among these, consent groups (e.g., groups with homogeneous prediscussion
preferences for a suboptimal candidate) had the lowest solution
rates, namely only 7%. As Figure 5.2 illustrates, these solution rates were
significantly higher in groups with pure minority or pure full-diversity
dissent; about 27% of these groups solved the hidden profile. In other
words, although in the latter groups all three members preferred suboptimal
candidates at the beginning, the fact that they had dissent among