Strategic management scholars have shown increasing interest in explaining strategic change from the perspective of cognitive bias. However, most studies focus on individual cognitive bias but pay little attention to group cognitive bias. This study introduces a typical group cognitive bias (group polarization) to explain strategic change decisions made by the board of directors. Following the theory of group polarization, we argue that, when the average prior strategic change experienced in performance decline by board directors is relatively high (or low), the focal strategic change in performance decline will become even higher (or lower). We further contend that the proportion of female directors and board versus CEO power as the contingencies can mitigate this group polarization effect. Our hypotheses were strongly supported by a longitudinal sample of Chinese publicly listed companies during 2008–2018. The study's framework and findings contribute to the contextualization of social psychology research on group polarization in the study of board's strategic decision-making.

David Gibson’s (2008) examination of research on conversational interaction highlighted methodological and theoretical gaps in current understanding – particularly around the localized construction of interaction and the reproduction of social structures. This paper extends extant formal models used by group process researchers to explain how exogenous status structures shape local interaction by incorporating insights from qualitative work examining the local production of conversational interaction. Relational events serve as a bridge between conversation analytic understandings of the deep structure of conversation and expectation states formal models of permeation. We propose a theoretical integration of the status organizing process (permeation) and local turn-taking rules (deep structure) as a more complete model of conversational behavior in task groups. We test a formalized construction of this preliminary theory by examining turn-taking using data from 55 task groups whose members vary in gender, authority, and legitimacy of that authority. This integrated model offers substantial improvements in prediction accuracy over using status information alone. We then propose ways to expand the integrated theoretical framework to advance current understandings of action and events in conversation. Finally, we offer suggestions for insights from group processes theories that could be incorporated into network models of interaction outside of this theoretical framework.

Following up on a recent debate, we examined advice taking in dyads compared to individuals in a set of three studies (total N = 303 dyads and 194 individuals). Our first aim was to test the replicability of an important previous finding, namely that dyads heed advice less than individuals because they feel more confident in the accuracy of their initial judgments. Second, we aimed to explain dyads’ behavior based on three premises: first, that dyads understand that the added value of an outside opinion diminishes when the initial pre-advice judgment is made by two judges rather than one judge (given that the dyad members’ opinions are independent of each other); second, that they fail to recognize when the assumption of independence of opinions does not hold; and third, that the resistance to advice commonly observed in individuals persists in groups but is neither aggravated nor ameliorated by the group context. The results of our studies show consistently that previous findings on advice taking in dyads are replicable. They also support our hypothesis that groups exhibit a general tendency to heed advice less than individuals, irrespective of whether the accuracy of their initial judgments warrants this behavior. Finally, based on the three assumptions mentioned above, we were able to make accurate predictions about advice taking in dyads, prompting us to postulate a general model of advice taking in groups of arbitrary size.

How do cognitive biases relevant to foreign policy decision making aggregate in groups? Many tendencies identified in the behavioral decision-making literature—such as reactive devaluation, the intentionality bias, and risk seeking in the domain of losses—have been linked to hawkishness in foreign policy choices, potentially increasing the risk of conflict, but how these “hawkish biases” operate in the small-group contexts in which foreign policy decisions are often made is unknown. We field three large-scale group experiments to test how these biases aggregate in groups. We find that groups are just as susceptible as individuals to these canonical biases, with neither hierarchical nor horizontal group decision-making structures significantly attenuating the magnitude of bias. Moreover, diverse groups perform similarly to more homogeneous ones, exhibiting similar degrees of bias and marginally increased risk of dissension. These results suggest that at least with these types of biases, the “aggregation problem” may be less problematic for psychological theories in international relations than some critics have argued. This has important implications for understanding foreign policy decision making, the role of group processes, and the behavioral revolution in international relations.

The purpose of this study was to explore the relation between openness to diversity in terms of linguist, visible, value and informational heterogeneity and group processes depicted by group trust and group conflict. We collected data using a web-based survey among 498 academics in multicultural departments. The departments were located in four different Danish universities. We found openness to value diversity and informational diversity to have a positive association with group trust and a negative association with group conflict. Openness to linguistic diversity had positive relationships with group trust. The findings of this study suggest that openness to diversity should be highly prioritized by human resource managers in demographically diverse organizations. Possible interventions include organizational culture change programs, diversity training at individual and team levels as well as rewarding group oriented behavior.

Objective: We have used multidisciplinary expert panels to assess the health benefits from two different emergency medical service programs in Norway. This gave the opportunity to study the reliability of the expert panel method.

Methods: Two panels assessed case reports for 18 children, and two other panels assessed case reports for 64 adult patients. The assessments of each case report were compared. These assessments were also compared with assessments of the same case reports, done by the same panels 1 and 9 years earlier.

Results: Two different panels agreed on the benefit/no benefit conclusion in at least 75% of the patients, both for children and adult patients (kappa 0.88–0.50). For groups of patients assessed to have some health benefit, the magnitude of the benefit estimates differed by 25% between the panels. When the same panels assessed the same patient groups twice, 1 and 9 years apart, their estimates of total benefit differed up to 30%. However, estimates for single patients, as well as estimates from single panel members, varied considerably more.

Conclusions: Use of multidisciplinary expert panels is a useful method for estimating health benefits on program level or for groups of patients. But assessments from single panelists, and for single patients may be seriously biased.

We examined differences between school classes with respect to three aspects of psychosocial adjustment at school, namely the extent that children in the class liked to play with each other, the number of teacher-reported behaviour problems, and children's feelings of well-being at school. The sample consisted of 1282 4- to 5-year-olds from 94 school classes and 51 schools, but due to nonresponse actual sample sizes were somewhat smaller for most analyses. Multilevel analyses showed that on average 87% of the variance was at the child level, 11% at the class level, and 3% at the school level. This indicated that a non-negligible amount of variance could not be accounted for by factors at the child level. Furthermore, this variance was mainly associated with differences between classes instead of differences between schools. A set of variables that pertained to sociodemographic characteristics of schools, school facilities, organisational aspects of classrooms, and the teacher did not provide an adequate explanation for the differences in adjustment levels. In contrast to these traditional variables, social network indices yielded substantial correlations, showed consistent trends across the different adjustment measures, and fulfilled the necessary requirement that to explain differences between school classes the predictor variables themselves should differ for classes within the same school. These results suggested that aspects of the interpersonal relations of children in the classroom such as proximity, integration, and the amount of contact could be determinants of differences between school classes in psychosocial adjustment.