Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Small Group Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Propp, K. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Information Utilization in Small Group Decision Making

A Study of the Evaluative Interaction Model

Kathleen M. Propp

Northern Illinois University

The purpose of this study was to determine the factors, both communicative and noncommunicative, that lead to the utilization of information in a decision-making group. The study posited that the evaluative interaction model could explain a group 's acceptance or rejection of information. Three primary variables incorporated in the model were the focus of this study: (a) prediscussion preference structure, (b) information redundancy, and (c) valence of information items. The results of statistical analyses supported hypothesized relationships between the variables and infonmation acceptance. First, groups with conflicting prediscussion preference structures accepted significantly more information than consensus groups. Second, higher levels of redundancy increased the likelihood of information acceptance. Third, the best predictor by far was an item of information 's valence, accounting for almost 40% of the variance in acceptance. Finally, the full evaluative interaction model was able to accountfor almost 50% of the variance in information acceptance.

Small Group Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, 424-453 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/1046496497283006
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
C. Schively
A Quantitative Analysis of Consensus Building in Local Environmental Review
Journal of Planning Education and Research, September 1, 2007; 27(1): 82 - 98.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
L. M. Van Swol
Perceived Importance of Information: The Effects of Mentioning Information, Shared Information Bias, Ownership Bias, Reiteration, and Confirmation Bias
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, April 1, 2007; 10(2): 239 - 256.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of the Academy of Marketing ScienceHome page
D. R. Deeter-Schmelz and R. P. Ramsey
An Investigation of Team Information Processing in Service Teams: Exploring the Link between Teams and Customers
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, October 1, 2003; 31(4): 409 - 424.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
D. D. Henningsen and M. L. M. Henningsen
Examining Social Influence in Information-Sharing Contexts
Small Group Research, August 1, 2003; 34(4): 391 - 412.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
L. SAVADORI, L. M. VAN SWOL, and J. A. SNIEZEK
Information Sampling and Confidence Within Groups and Judge Advisor Systems
Communication Research, December 1, 2001; 28(6): 737 - 771.
[Abstract] [PDF]