Download files
Abstract
One explanation for the increased use of interactive groups in organisations is that benefits are obtained from pooling individuals’ differing knowledge and abilities. However, prior experimental research has established that groups often do not discuss and use information effectively, exhibiting a bias toward information that is commonly known by all group members, rather than information that is unique to individual group members (common information bias). This dissertation investigated whether the provision of quantitative information resulted in improved group performance in two respects. First, it investigated whether quantitative information was discussed and used more than qualitative information. Second, it examined whether the quantification of information reduced the common information bias. This is important because a basic purpose of managerial accounting is to provide information that improves employees’ abilities to make optimal decisions.
This dissertation utilised an experimental task known as a “hidden profile” to achieve the research objectives. In a hidden profile experiment, each group member receives some information that is common to everyone in the group, and some information that is unique to them. The group must discuss and use members’ unique information in order to uncover the optimal task solution. This dissertation examined the effect of information availability (common or unique) and information type (quantitative or qualitative) on information discussion and use. There were two stages to the experiment. First, individual group members had to make a capital investment decision, and write down their reasons for that decision. Second, groups had to discuss the information, come to a group decision, and write down their reasons for that decision.
The results confirmed a common information bias at the group decision level, with groups significantly favouring common information over unique information, for all measures of discussion and information use. In contrast, while a preference for quantitative information was found at the individual decision level, at a group decision level there were no significant differences in the discussion or use of quantitative and qualitative information, with only one exception: significantly more statements were made about quantitative information.