Little is known about how groups use their most precious commodity: information held by group members. In particular, until the recent work of Stasser and his colleagues, almost nothing was known about how groups differentially use commonly held information and information that is known only by one member. Stasser's probabilistic information sampling model explains differential treatment of uniquely and commonly held information by explaining that more group members have access to commonly held than uniquely held information, so the commonly held information is more likely to be mentioned in discussion (Stasser & Titus, 1985, 1987). This model has been primarily supported for first mentions of information at the group level (Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna, 1989). In the study reported here predictions from a suggested model were tested on second and further mentions of information to determine if anything other than probability contributes to withholding of unique information by group members. It was expected that group member concerns about utility of information (including task relevance and validity) and social norms regarding sharing unique information might contribute separately and in combination to the withholding of unique information after it was discovered unique (via the first mention). Manipulations of confirmation of information utility and social norming were expected to increase repeat mentions of uniquely held information relative to commonly held information. University students read information about study abroad programs and decided as a group whether to recommend such a program for their university. Conversations of two- and three-person groups were audio-tape recorded and analyzed at both the group and individual level for mentions of commonly and uniquely held information. Perceptions of information usefulness, recognition of item uniqueness, and perceptions of group process were gathered after the group discussion. As expected, the manipulations did not affect first mentions. For second and further mentions social norming and utility confirmation singly and in combination tended to lower the advantage of commonly held information, although not always significantly. Suggestions for further research are made and recommendations for applications for decision making groups are based upon the demonstrated positive effectiveness of the utility confirmation manipulation.

The issue of the incremental contribution of the interview in selection has received scant attention in the literature. The present study was conducted to investigate two questions; The extent to which ratings made on the basis of the interview and on paper-credentials tap similar constructs, and the extent to which the interview provides any incremental contribution over paper credentials to the prediction of a selection decision. 506 applicants to an undergraduate program at a small, private, southwestern university were independently evaluated on the basis of an interview, and paper credentials. Ratings were made of applicant motivation and oral communication in both conditions. Information on applicant SAT scores, class rank, sex, race, attractiveness, and essay were also obtained from the application folder. Interview ratings were found to tap different constructs from the evaluation of paper credentials, and to provide different and non-redundant information. However, although the interview did provide some incremental contribution in predicting the first-phase selection decision, it provided no incremental variance in predicting the final decision by the admissions committee to accept, wait-list, or reject applicants. Implications of the present findings, as well as, future research directions are discussed.

This dissertation reports the results of two experiments that examined potential explanations for the underestimation of project completion time. Experiment 1 examined whether estimators pay attention to important task characteristics when they estimate project completion time. Surprisingly, the majority of the sample ignored the intercommunication among group members required by the task when they estimated project completion time. No expert-novice differences were found. These results show a serious deficiency in subjects' awareness of the effect of this task characteristic on project completion time. Experiment 2 examined whether people underestimate project completion time because they misaggregate probabilistic time estimates for project components. Indeed, this experiment found that people use heuristics to combine probability distributions for serial and parallel tasks. These heuristics cause people to underestimate project completion time. However, the magnitude of these errors was small, compared to that of Experiment 1. These results suggest that although the misaggregation of time estimates may contribute to the underestimation of project completion time, it is probably not a primary cause of this bias. In conclusion, the primary explanation for the underestimation of project completion time appears to be that estimators of project completion time ignore important task characteristics that affect project completion time. To our knowledge, these studies are the first experimental examinations of cognitive biases in the estimation of project completion time. Conclusions that can be drawn from these studies provide interesting hypotheses for future research.

Recent research suggests that displays of discrimination have changed from expressions that were once very overt in nature to expressions that are more subtle and involve interpersonal behaviors (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, Dovidio, 2002). Unlike formal discrimination, there is little to no legislation that protects stigmatized individuals from interpersonal discrimination; hence, research on strategies for remediating interpersonal discrimination is becoming increasingly important. The current research examines three strategies (compensation, acknowledgment, and individuating information) that attempt to reduce the interpersonal discrimination that gay men and lesbians receive in a job applicant setting. Results show that employing a remediation strategy involving compensation or acknowledgment reduces the interpersonal discrimination that stigmatized individuals receive when applying for jobs.

Previous research on mediation has not examined the influence that disputant affect state may have on perceptions of mediators and proposals for resolving the conflict. This influence may be particularly important in situations where a mediator has similar interests, or is aligned, with one particular disputing party. The present study attempted to examine how affect states influence the evaluations of mediators with unfavorable and favorable alignment. Hypotheses were that, compared to neutrals, negative and positive affect states would lead to increased reliance on heuristics such as mediator alignment for determining perceptions of the mediation situation. One hundred twenty-one participants wrote essays designed to induce angry, neutral, or happy affect states, and then participated in a mediation task. Results indicated no support for the hypotheses. The lack of results may be attributed to insensitivity of the affect and alignment manipulations. Implications for future research are discussed.

This study examined the relationship between characteristics of adaptive testing and test takers' subsequent reactions to the test. Participants took a computer adaptive test in which two features, the difficulty of the initial item and the difficulty of subsequent items, were manipulated. These two features of adaptive testing determined the number of items answered correctly by examinees and their subsequent reactions to the test. The data show that the relationship between test characteristics and reactions was fully mediated by perceived performance on the test. In addition, the impact of feedback on reactions to adaptive testing was also evaluated. In general, feedback that was consistent with perceptions of performance had a positive impact on reactions to the test. Implications for adaptive test design concerning maximizing test takers' reactions are discussed.

This research proposes a revised conceptualization of the construct of diversity in groups to include both the traditional, objective diversity as well as perceptual, subjective diversity. Theoretical rationale for the differentiation is discussed and a framework is proposed in which objective and subjective diversity both have independent effects on group processes and outcomes. Hypotheses were tested through the use of a laboratory experiment in which 46 groups of 3--4 persons each performed organizational simulation tasks. Results include a series of hierarchical regression analyses that provide initial support for the differentiation between objective and subjective diversity. Issues of aggregation, level of analysis, and methodology are discussed. Additionally, the implications of the differentiation of objective and subjective diversity are highlighted.

Telephone conversations between software technical support advisors and their clients were recorded and analyzed. The roles the advisors took in the conversations influenced how much control each conversant had and the kind of contributions they made. When the advisors took the role of solving a problem, they had more control and asked more questions than in other roles. The conversations where the advisors acted as problem solvers were analyzed qualitatively in light of the problem-solving theories such as information processing theory, Gestalt theory, and schema/frame theory. Most technical support problem solving was explainable using Gestalt and frame theory, but some behavior was displayed that was not predicted by these theories. A model describing the prototypical technical support problem-solving case is presented, along with descriptive findings about flexible behavior in non-prototypical cases.

The current study focuses on understanding how individuals perceive bias. Using fictitious candidates for a job in differently discriminating companies, this study investigated three sets of factors hypothesized to contribute to the perception of bias; characteristics of the target job candidate, characteristic of the context, and characteristics (attitudes) of the participant. Participants were individuals approached in a Houston airport waiting lounge who returned the survey via a postage paid envelope (n = 108) or Rice University undergraduates (n = 49) participating in exchange for course credit. Investigation of the target characteristics showed that the target's deservedness (the extent to which the target's qualifications matched the target's selection outcome) greatly determined perceptions of bias. Race of the target was found to be more complexly related to perception of bias than originally hypothesized. The notion of target deservedness was also used to investigate the context and participant factors as contributions to bias. The theory of shifting standards was used to predict that context (past company discrimination in the current study) would influence bias in a counter-intuitive direction such that bias would not be perceived where it was expected. Perceptions of bias supported the hypothesis for deserved targets, but the results were counter to the hypothesis for undeserved targets (with the exception of selected white candidates). Participant attitudes were investigated as a third factor. Participant attitudes were not found to be predictive of bias perceptions. Alternative analyses suggest that participant attitudes may be useful for explaining bias perception when outcomes are undeserved.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the extent to which men and women in a group internalize group feedback, and what mechanisms might underlie this internalization. Task/gender congruence, perceived contribution, and collectivism were all proposed contributors to gender differences in feedback internalization, and the consequent relationship between self- and collective-efficacy beliefs. Participants completed a brainstorming class and were given false group feedback. Results indicated that there were gender differences in response to the task-oriented condition. Also, perceived contribution moderated the relationship between feedback and self-efficacy, and between self-efficacy and collective-efficacy.