{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020257826887661142, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0009208103130755065, 'mean_word_length': 5.709876543209877, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Bias Toward Discussing Shared Information

Decision-making groups tend to bias discussion toward (shared) information that all members know at the expense of discussing (unshared) information that a single member knows. The present study sought to understand processes associated with high-status members' (i.e., those with prior task experience) attenuation of this discussion bias. Participants read applications for an assistant professor position and, in 4-person groups, chose between two candidates. Members who had prior experience working on the personnel selection task were less likely to mention shared information than members without prior task experience. The tendency for experienced members to mention shared and unshared information equally seems due not to their having acquired real task competence but rather to perceptions of task competence from themselves and others. Results from impression ratings and recognition task performance are consistent with this conclusion. Implications for understanding the collective information sharing process are considered.