Productive conflict in group decision making: genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking☆

摘要: Abstract Decision-making groups in organizations are often expected to function as a “think tank” and perform “reality testing” detect the best alternative. A biased search for information supporting group's favored alternative impairs ability fulfill these requirements. In two-factorial experiment with 201 employees managers from various economic public organizations, genuine contrived dissent were investigated counterstrategies seeking. Genuine was manipulated by forming three-person whose members either all same individually (homogeneous groups) or consisted of minority majority faction regard their (heterogeneous groups). Contrived varied use nonuse “devil's advocacy” technique. The results demonstrate that heterogeneity more effective preventing confirmatory information-seeking bias than devil's advocacy was. Confidence identified an important mediator. Implications design interventions aimed at facilitating reality testing group decision making discussed.