A social validation explanation for mutual enhancement

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00091-XGet rights and content

Abstract

Group members experience mutual enhancement when they evaluate one another’s task capabilities more positively because they are discussing shared as compared to unshared information. Two experiments investigated a social validation explanation for mutual enhancement. In Experiment 1, members of dyads read and discussed either shared or unshared information and collectively recalled this information under conditions where accuracy was important or not. Mutual enhancement occurred when need for accuracy was higher, but not when it was lower. In Experiment 2, members of dyads read validating or non-validating information from an outsider after they collectively recalled shared or unshared information. Members who discussed unshared information and received no validating communication from the outsider gave one another the lowest task capability ratings compared to members who discussed shared information and/or received validating communication from the outsider. All of these results are consistent with a social validation explanation for mutual enhancement.

Section snippets

Overview and hypotheses

The need for social validation was manipulated to determine whether mutual enhancement is attenuated when social validation needs are low. When group members have a strong need for social validation, they want to know that their own knowledge and that of others is important and accurate. Discussing shared information satisfies that validation need, whereas discussing unshared information does not. However, when group members’ need for social validation is weak, they are less concerned with the

Overview and hypotheses

Experiment 1 showed that the mutual enhancement effect was eliminated when dyads worked on a collective recall task and social validation needs were lower. Would mutual enhancement also be weakened if social validation needs were higher, but satisfied through means other than discussion? We examined this issue in Experiment 2. Dyads discussed and then recalled either shared or unshared information under higher need for accuracy conditions. After discussion, they read the (purported) written

General discussion

The mutual enhancement effect (Wittenbaum et al., 1999) was replicated in these experiments and qualified in ways consistent with a social validation explanation for the effect. In Experiment 1, dyad members who discussed shared information evaluated their own task capabilities and those of their partners as better than did dyad members who discussed unshared information. This effect only emerged, however, when there was a higher rather than lower need for accuracy. In Experiment 2, dyad

Conclusions

The experiments reported here represent several theoretical and research advances. First, they clarify the nature of and processes underlying the mutual enhancement effect in dyads (Wittenbaum et al., 1999). The results suggest that mutual enhancement reflects the need to verify the accuracy of information. As such, it occurred only when that need was higher instead of lower. Moreover, the verification need does not seem to be satisfied in an all-or-nothing fashion. Instead, group members find

References (39)

  • G Stasser et al.

    Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (1995)
  • G Stasser et al.

    Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (2000)
  • M Brauer et al.

    The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1995)
  • D Byrne

    The attraction paradigm

    (1971)
  • H.H Clark et al.

    Grounding in communication

  • M.G Cruz et al.

    The impact of group size and proportion of shared information on the exchange and integration of information in groups

    Communication Research

    (1997)
  • D Dougherty et al.

    The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in established firms

    Organization Science

    (1994)
  • L Festinger

    A theory of social comparison processes

    Human Relations

    (1954)
  • M.A Hogg

    Social identity and the sovereignty of the group: A psychology of belonging

  • M.A Hogg et al.

    A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory and social identity theory

    Social Psychology Quarterly

    (1995)
  • T Kameda et al.

    Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1997)
  • J.R Kelly et al.

    Group decision making: The effects of initial preferences and time pressure

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1999)
  • R.M Krauss et al.

    Constructing shared communicative environments

  • J.R Larson et al.

    Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision making teams

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1996)
  • J.R Larson et al.

    Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1998)
  • J.R Larson et al.

    Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1994)
  • P.R Laughlin et al.

    Social combination processes and individual learning for six-person cooperative groups on an intellective task

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1980)
  • R.L Moreland

    The formation of small groups

  • S Moscovici et al.

    Studies in social influence III: Majority versus minority influence in a group

    European Journal of Social Psychology

    (1976)
  • Cited by (0)

    Special thanks are extended to Sarah Hoag, Tara Jelnicki, Andrew Jester, Letitia Kastura, Rhett Kukulski, Julianne Poehlman, Krystal Strachan, Julia Szybowicz, and Wendy Wardynski, who assisted with data collection and to Melissa Bisson, Angela Coleman, Bryan Collins, Celeste Farr, Dan Keilen, and Chrissie Matela, who coded the group discussions. We also thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Portions of this paper were presented at the meeting of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Atlanta, GA, October 20, 2000.

    View full text