Motivated information processing and group decision-making De Dreu et al 2007

<bibtex>@article{scholten2007motivated,

 title=Template:Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality,
 author={Scholten, L. and van Knippenberg, D. and Nijstad, B.A. and De Dreu, C.K.W.},
 journal={Journal of experimental social psychology(Print)},
 volume={43},
 number={4},
 pages={539--552},
 year={2007},
 publisher={Elsevier}

} </bibtex>

Huge review of groups as motivated information processors. Gives sense of what science is like in the study of groups of people. Some clever bits and some that make me nervous.

Particularly: They present a model to explain group decision making data. Any good model is going to make simplifying assumptions. As long as those assumptions are make explicit, that is OK, you just say something like "the data are well approximated by a model that leaves XXX out". However, in this review they defended their model's assumption that "social motivation and epistemic motivation are conceptualized as distinct and orthogonal factors" by asserting: "Thus, it is conceptually difficult to maintain that some levels of epistemic motivation necessarily covary with a particular social motive (citation)". Though the big words seem to soften it, this is both an unjustified claim and one that is stronger than necessary. You can't say there are no black swans, and you don't need to to do good science.

Group Composition effects

Group members may differ in the level of epistemic motivation they bring to the table.  Group members differ, a priori, in their openness to experience (Colquitt-Hollenbeck, Ilgen, LePine, & Sheppard, 2002), the uncertainty orientation (hodson & Sorrentino, 1997)m thheir need for cognitive closure (Kruglandski et al., 1993), or their need for cognition (Shestowsky, Wegener, & Fabrigar, 1998). In addition, group members may experience different time pressures (Baer & Oldham, 2006), differ in the extent to which they are held accountable for the decision making process (Tetlock 2000), or differenttially percieve the task to be important and interesting.

==look into metrics for pro-self vs pro-social (or proself and prosocial)