Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01888013 = product of:
  0.03776026 = sum of:
    0.03776026 = product of:
      0.05664039 = sum of:
        0.024332881 = weight(_text_:c in 4184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024332881 = score(doc=4184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12769513 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037019465 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4184)
        0.03230751 = weight(_text_:l in 4184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03230751 = score(doc=4184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1471395 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037019465 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 4184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4184)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Prior research has discovered that groups tend to discuss shared information while failing to discuss unique information in decision-making processes. In our study, we conducted a lab experiment to examine the effect of prediscussion note-taking on this phenomenon. The experiment used a murder-mystery hidden profile task. In all, 192 undergraduate students were recruited and randomly assigned into 48 four-person groups with gender being the matching variable (i.e., each group consisted of four same-gender participants). During the decision-making processes, some groups were asked to take notes while reading task materials and had their notes available in the following group discussion, while the other groups were not given this opportunity. Our analysis results suggest that (a) the presence of an information piece in group members' notes positively correlates with its appearance in the subsequent discussion and note-taking positively affects the group's information repetition rate; (b) group decision quality positively correlates with the group's information sampling rate and negatively correlates with the group's information sampling/repetition bias; and (c) gender has no statistically significant moderating effect on the relationship between note-taking and information sharing. These results imply that prediscussion note-taking could facilitate information sharing but could not alleviate the biased information pooling in hidden profile tasks.

0.006461502 = product of:
  0.012923004 = sum of:
    0.012923004 = product of:
      0.03876901 = sum of:
        0.03876901 = weight(_text_:l in 1106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03876901 = score(doc=1106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1471395 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037019465 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1106)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006461502 = product of:
  0.012923004 = sum of:
    0.012923004 = product of:
      0.03876901 = sum of:
        0.03876901 = weight(_text_:l in 1254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03876901 = score(doc=1254,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1471395 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037019465 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1254, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1254)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.005384585 = product of:
  0.01076917 = sum of:
    0.01076917 = product of:
      0.03230751 = sum of:
        0.03230751 = weight(_text_:l in 1329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03230751 = score(doc=1329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1471395 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037019465 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1329)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.005384585 = product of:
  0.01076917 = sum of:
    0.01076917 = product of:
      0.03230751 = sum of:
        0.03230751 = weight(_text_:l in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03230751 = score(doc=3966,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1471395 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037019465 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)