Effects of Shared Information Bias: II

Researchers have identified a cognitive bias known as shared information bias, which is the tendency of groups to discuss topics and share information that most members already know. [Forsyth 2010] Groups seem to prefer such discussions to discussions of topics that only a few members know. The consequences of this behavior include poor decision quality.

But just exactly how does shared information bias compromise decision quality? And what other consequences might there be? In Part I of this exploration, I sketched how this bias can lead to a false sense of security, increased likelihood of groupthink, biased assessments of the relative importance of ideas, and increased persistence of wrong beliefs. Here are five more ways shared information bias can harm group processes.

Increased difficulty in adopting valid ideas

Shared information acquires credibility correlated with the frequency of its open mentions, independent of its validity. True or correct information that remains privately held has less opportunity to acquire credibility. When it finally comes into the open, if it ever does, its relative credibility can be significantly less than that of the information that has previously been disclosed. In this way, truth and fact can lose out to fiction and rumor.

Establishment of alliances of the confused

In groups that repeat the pattern of shared information bias, the comfort of the pattern can strengthen relationships between members of the group who are caught in the consequences of the bias. Repeatedly unchallenged in their beliefs and preconceptions, and confirmed every time they hear another group member offer information they themselves already know, participants in these strengthened relationships can re-enforce the pattern. When this happens the group can encounter difficulty dealing with members who raise issues or offer perspectives not shared by most of the group's members.

Shunning and expulsion of critical thinkers

Critical thinking is the application of evidence and reason to reach an objective judgment. Data on the incidence of critical thinkers isn't generally available, but my own impression, based on my experience, is that critical thinking is less widely practiced in the workplace than one might have hoped. In groups intent on reaching conclusions to their deliberations, shared information bias might lead them to believe that a valid conclusion is nearer than it actually is. In such situations, critical thinkers are likely to raise issues and pose questions that could make evident the true status of the group's deliberations. Because repeatedly "disrupting" deliberations in this way can cause discomfort to those seeking closure, critical thinkers risk shunning and expulsion. The irony is that groups that expel critical thinkers could be expelling the very people they most need.

If the critical Shared information acquires credibility
correlated with the frequency
of its open mentions,
independent of its validitythinker who is shunned in this way is also a member of a disfavored demographic group, while the other group members are members of favored demographic groups — or worse, while those other group members are all members of the same favored demographic group — the harm to group cohesion can become complicated and severe.

Elevation of uncritical thinkers

Just as critical thinkers risk expulsion, group members can enjoy elevated status if they offer contributions that make other group members feel more comfortable, and which seem to support the group as it reaches for closure. Although critical thinkers can certainly choose to offer such contributions, most such contributions probably result from thinking uncritically.

One word of warning: a devious person, capable of critical thinking, and intent on sabotaging the group's deliberations, can exploit shared information bias either to cause the group to come to closure prematurely, or to elevate his or her own standing within the group by confirming its members' preconceptions.

Mistakenly favorable self-assessments

Group members who make contributions consisting of information in the possession of most other group members tend to experience validation by their colleagues. And when group members hear their colleagues make contributions that are consistent with their own beliefs and preconceptions, they also tend to feel validated. If they later make private, internal, self-assessments, those assessments will likely be more favorable than is objectively justified, because the self-assessor's beliefs and preconceptions haven't actually withstood serious challenge.

Group members repeatedly exposed to shared information bias thus tend to feel that they and their fellow members are more creative and insightful than they actually are. This mistaken assessment can make the group vulnerable when it confronts situations that are inconsistent with its beliefs and preconceptions. Overconfidence and unfamiliarity with reality can combine to lead the group to choose unsuitable leaders, or to rely upon the judgment of those of its members who don't actually merit such reliance.

Shared information bias does indeed lead to poor decisions. It does so by not only limiting what the group considers when it makes decisions, but also by distorting the group's thinking, by creating intra-group alliances based on shared confusion, and by affecting the group's choices of leaders. You can watch this happening in groups you belong to. If you see it happening, and if you're willing to risk being shunned, raise the issue and refer people to these two articles.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Cognitive Biases at Work:

The Planning Fallacy and Self-Interest

A well-known cognitive bias, the planning fallacy, accounts for many unrealistic estimates of project cost and schedule. Overruns are common. But another cognitive bias, and organizational politics, combine with the planning fallacy to make a bad situation even worse.

Neglect of Probability

Neglect of Probability is a cognitive bias that leads to poor decisions. The risk of poor decisions is elevated when we must select an option from a set in which some have outstandingly preferable possible outcomes with low probabilities of occurring.

Be Choosier About Job Offers: I

A serious error some job seekers make is accepting an offer that isn't actually a good fit. We make this mistake for a variety of reasons, including hating the job-search process, desperation, and wishful thinking. How can we avoid the error?

Mental Accounting and Technical Debt

In many organizations, technical debt has resisted efforts to control it. We've made important technical advances, but full control might require applying some results of the behavioral economics community, including a concept they call mental accounting.

Managing Dunning-Kruger Risk

A cognitive bias called the Dunning-Kruger Effect can create risk for organizational missions that require expertise beyond the range of knowledge and experience of decision-makers. They might misjudge the organization's capacity to execute the mission successfully. They might even be unaware of the risk of so misjudging.

See also Cognitive Biases at Work and Cognitive Biases at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info