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)
- et al.
Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(1995) - 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) - et al.
The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1995) The attraction paradigm
(1971)- et al.
Grounding in communication
- et al.
The impact of group size and proportion of shared information on the exchange and integration of information in groups
Communication Research
(1997) - et al.
The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in established firms
Organization Science
(1994) A theory of social comparison processes
Human Relations
(1954)Social identity and the sovereignty of the group: A psychology of belonging
- et al.
A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory and social identity theory
Social Psychology Quarterly
(1995)
Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Group decision making: The effects of initial preferences and time pressure
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Constructing shared communicative environments
Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision making teams
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Social combination processes and individual learning for six-person cooperative groups on an intellective task
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
The formation of small groups
Studies in social influence III: Majority versus minority influence in a group
European Journal of Social Psychology
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.