When Private Beliefs Shape Collective

Reality: The Effects of Beliefs About

Coworkers on Group Discussion and
Performance
Peter H. Kim
Department of Management and Organization, 307F Bridge Hall, Marshall School of Business,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-1421
kimpeter@usc.edu

T he study presented in this paper examines how beliefs about coworkers affect group
discussion and performance. Two beliefs are considered: (1) Perceptions of coworker
task competence, and (2) achievement motivation. This study investigates whether these
perceptions can actually hinder group discussion and performance, and considers the con-
texts in which these detrimental effects are more or less likely to arise. Results indicate that
although perceptions of higher achievement motivation in coworkers lowered performance
when task information was partially shared, they raised performance when task informa-
tion was fully shared. A content analysis of group discussions reveals that the discussion
behaviors examined by this study, rather than the more frequently examined bias toward
discussing common information, mediated these results.
(Group; Information Sharing; Perception; Competence; Motivation)

Introduction performance, might occur. To address this question,

As organizations more heavily rely on groups to make
decisions, researchers have placed increasing attention
on the ways in which groups manage information.
Organizations rely on groups because they can access
a larger amount and greater diversity of information
than individuals. A group’s potential to draw on this
information does not automatically imply, however,
that it will be accessed or effectively incorporated into
the group decision (Wittenbaum et al. 1996). Research
suggests that members often fail to exchange their
uniquely held information and that this problem can
even worsen over time (Kim 1997). The study pre-
sented in this paper seeks to extend our understand-
ing of these issues by exploring the reasons why such
deterioration in information sharing, and ultimately
this study (1) investigates how beliefs about cowork-
ers may affect the group information-sharing process,
(2) considers whether their implications for perfor-
mance may depend on the information-sharing con-
text in which these beliefs arise, and (3) explores the
mechanisms underlying these relationships through a
content analysis of group discussions.
Changes Over Time
A group’s ability to manage information has been
shown to undergo profound changes over time. The
literature on transactive memory, for example, has
shown that experience can enable groups to encode
and retrieve information in a manner that allows each
member to focus on a specific aspect of the task and

0025-1909/03/4906/0801$05.00 Management Science © 2003 INFORMS

1526-5501 electronic ISSN Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003, pp. 801–815
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
on how his or her role relates to those of others in
their group (Wegner 1987, Liang et al. 1995, Moreland
1999). This research contends that, as a result of
this change, groups are able to reduce their informa-
tion loads and ultimately improve their performance.
Similarly, research on shared mental models indicates
that, over time, groups can develop collective under-
standings or shared mental models of their situation
and that these organized bodies of knowledge can
facilitate communication, improve coordination, and
improve group performance (e.g., Orasanu and Salas
1993).
Recent evidence suggests, however, that a group’s
ability to manage knowledge does not always
improve over time. This evidence is provided by a
small number of studies that have investigated the
implications of experience for group discussion and
performance. Although the exchange of information
among members can be essential for performance,
groups often focus on information they share in com-
mon rather than the potentially valuable information
any individual member may hold (e.g., Stasser and
Stewart 1992, Winquist and Larson 1998). While one
might expect that this discussion bias would diminish
over time, initial findings suggest that it may some-
times worsen as groups gain experience with the task
and/or team (Kim 1997, Wittenbaum 1998, see also
Gruenfeld et al. 1996 for results that depend on the
distribution of information).
Kim (1997), for example, found that groups in
which members had previously worked together on
a similar task displayed a larger discussion bias and
achieved lower task performance than groups with
no prior experience with coworkers or the task and
groups whose prior experience was limited to either
coworkers or the task. One explanation for this effect
is the “curse of knowledge,” which refers to peo-
ple’s tendency to overestimate the ability of others
to accurately solve a problem (e.g., Camerer et al.
1989, Fussell and Krauss 1992, Nickerson et al. 1987).
Kim (1997) suggested that members of experienced
groups may have exhibited a larger discussion bias
and achieved lower performance because their greater
familiarity with both the task and team may have
made them more susceptible to the “curse of knowl-
edge,” which would lead them to believe that their
802
partners were already aware of their privately held
information and, thus, lead them to exert less effort
to communicate it than members of inexperienced
groups.
A more thorough explanation for Kim’s (1997) find-
ings, however, is that experience may shape a range
of beliefs about coworkers (e.g., due to increased
familiarity with the task and/or team, members’
schemas about how relationships and/or capabilities
should develop over time, and so on) and that each of
these beliefs can affect the sharing of information in
groups. This notion is based on research in which per-
ceptions of high-coworker competence and motiva-
tion were found to lower member efforts and collec-
tive performance (Williams and Karau 1991) as well
as on the potential implications of such perceptions
for group coordination and discussion (Wittenbaum
et al. 1998, 1999). In this study, I consider these two
perceptions and their likely effects on the discus-
sion bias (including the mentioning, repetition, and
proportion of critical versus noncritical information),
teamwork (including performance monitoring, feed-
back, closed-loop communications, and backing-up
behaviors), and task performance.
Task Competence
Although many kinds of ability can be identified, this
study focuses on a type of ability that would be most
relevant for the work group conditions under investi-
gation (i.e., task competence). Competence is defined
as the degree to which one possesses the technical
and interpersonal skills required for one’s job (e.g.,
Butler 1991). Thus, we might expect that perceptions
of competence in coworkers should affect members’
beliefs that their partners will be able to successfully
complete the task.
Perceptions of coworker competence may affect
group information sharing and performance in two
ways. First, perceptions of coworker competence may
affect member orientations toward their task. Whereas
perceptions of high-coworker competence should fos-
ter the belief that one’s own contributions are less
necessary and entice members to exert less effort on
their task (i.e., engage in social loafing), perceptions of
low-coworker competence should compel members to
increase their efforts to compensate for the inadequate
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
contributions of their partners (i.e., engage in social
compensation) (Williams and Karau 1991). Second,
perceptions of coworker competence may affect group
member orientations toward their team. Members
may feel a greater need to obtain positive evaluations
from their coworkers when the perceived competence
of their coworkers is high versus low, and research
suggests that the desire for such enhancement may
increase their focus on commonly held information
(Wittenbaum et al. 1999).
These differences should, furthermore, have impor-
tant implications for group discussion and per-
formance. When information is partially shared,
members’ reduced efforts and increased need for
positive evaluations, due to perceptions of high-
coworker competence, should impair the information-
sharing process by increasing the discussion bias,
reducing teamwork, and lowering task performance.
When information is fully shared, however, percep-
tions of coworker competence may still affect mem-
bers’ efforts and need for positive evaluations, but
this should be less likely to influence information
sharing in a manner that would increase the discus-
sion bias, reduce teamwork, or lower performance,
because group members already possess full access to
this information. Thus, we might expect that whereas
perceptions of high-coworker competence should fos-
ter a larger discussion bias, less teamwork, and
lower task performance relative to perceptions of low-
coworker competence when task information is par-
tially shared, these effects should be less likely when
task information is fully shared.
Hypothesis 1a. Perceptions of high-coworker compe-
tence will foster a larger discussion bias than percep-
tions of low-coworker competence when task information is
partially shared.
Hypothesis 1b. Perceptions of high-coworker compe-
tence will foster less teamwork than perceptions of low-
coworker competence when task information is partially
shared.
Hypothesis 1c. Perceptions of high-coworker compe-
tence will foster lower task performance than percep-
tions of low-coworker competence when task information is
partially shared.
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
Achievement Motivation
As with competence, motivation can be exhibited
in many ways. This study focuses, however, on the
type of motivation that would be most relevant
for the work group conditions under investigation
(i.e., achievement motivation). Motivation is, there-
fore, defined as the degree to which one seeks to pur-
sue high standards of achievement rather than being
influenced by factors that might hinder achievement.
Williams and Karau (1991) examined the effects of
perceived coworker motivation on the incidence of
social loafing versus social compensation in groups
by considering a context in which participants inde-
pendently worked to contribute to the collective goal.
The implications of this perception might differ, how-
ever, in contexts where group members must inter-
act with one another to develop a collective solution
(i.e., when achievement depends on the performance
of the entire group). In such cases, the perception
of high motivation in coworkers suggests that these
coworkers will not only increase their own efforts
but also demand increased efforts from others. Per-
ceptions of high-coworker motivation should, there-
fore, foster the belief that coworkers will monitor
their efforts, deter attempts to social loaf, and expect
them to make substantive contributions. Thus, group
members should exert greater efforts to develop well-
reasoned opinions when perceptions of coworker
motivation are high rather than low.
The implications of this perception for information
sharing and performance may further depend, how-
ever, on the distribution of task information, because
this distribution may affect member assessments of
whether subsequent group discussions would help
them reach their goal. When information is fully
shared, group members are not only able to develop
fully informed prediscussion opinions but are also
able to more easily evaluate each of their partners’ jus-
tifications for these opinions. These conditions should
encourage members who perceive high motivation in
their coworkers to engage in a productive form of
task conflict (Jehn 1995), which would help groups
thoroughly consider and use critical task informa-
tion. Perceptions of high-coworker motivation should,
therefore, promote a smaller discussion bias, greater
teamwork, and higher performance than perceptions
803
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
of low-coworker motivation when task information is
fully shared.
When information is only partially shared, how-
ever, members are not only unable to develop fully
informed prediscussion opinions (given that none of
them would possess all the necessary facts), but will
also find it much more difficult to evaluate their part-
ners’ justifications for these opinions. Such conditions
should lead members who perceive high motivation
in their coworkers to believe that attempts to resolve
such differences would foster a fruitless debate over
whose facts are more correct, given that they were
each highly motivated to succeed, yet could not even
agree on the basic facts of the case. This belief should,
in turn, lead members to lower their assessments
of the potential value of group discussion and, con-
sequently, engage in social loafing (e.g., by simply
adopting a majority rule voting scheme). Thus, per-
ceptions of high-coworker motivation should foster a
larger discussion bias, less teamwork, and lower task
performance than perceptions of low-coworker moti-
vation when task information is partially shared. We
might, therefore, predict the following interactions.
Hypothesis 2a. Perceptions of high-coworker motiva-
tion will foster a larger discussion bias than perceptions of
low-coworker motivation when task information is partially
shared, but perceptions of high-coworker motivation will
foster a smaller discussion bias than perceptions of low-
coworker motivation when task information is fully shared.
Hypothesis 2b. Perceptions of high-coworker motiva-
tion will foster less teamwork than perceptions of low-
coworker motivation when task information is partially
shared, but perceptions of high-coworker motivation will
foster greater teamwork than perceptions of low-coworker
motivation when task information is fully shared.
Hypothesis 2c. Perceptions of high-coworker motiva-
tion will foster lower task performance than perceptions of
low-coworker motivation when task information is partially
shared, but perceptions of high-coworker motivation will
foster greater task performance than perceptions of low-
coworker motivation when task information is fully shared.
Finally, given that (1) perceived coworker com-
petence and motivation are expected to influence
the discussion bias and teamwork and (2) both
804
the discussion bias and teamwork are expected to
influence task performance, we might expect that
(3) the predicted effects of perceived coworker com-
petence and motivation on task performance would
operate through their influence on the discussion bias
and teamwork. In other words, the discussion bias
and teamwork are each predicted to mediate the
effects of perceived coworker competence and moti-
vation on task performance.
Hypothesis 3. The discussion bias will mediate the
effects of perceived coworker competence and perceived
coworker motivation on task performance.
Hypothesis 4. The amount of teamwork will mediate
the effects of perceived coworker competence and perceived
coworker motivation on task performance.
Overview
In summary, this study examines two percep-
tions that may help explain why experience may
adversely influence group information sharing and
performance. Moreover, it explores the contexts in
which these detrimental effects are more or less
likely to arise. Whereas perceptions of high-coworker
task competence and achievement motivation should
increase the discussion bias, reduce teamwork, and
lower performance when information is partially
shared, these effects should not occur and even
reverse (for perceived achievement motivation) when
information is fully shared. The study also inves-
tigates the mechanisms underlying these relation-
ships by assessing several teamwork dimensions (i.e.,
performance monitoring, feedback, closed-loop com-
munications, and backing-up behaviors) through a
content analysis of group discussions. These objec-
tives are pursued through the laboratory experiment
described below.
Method
This study employed a 2(high vs. low competence) ×
2(high vs. low motivation) × 2(full vs. partial informa-
tion) between-subjects design. Three-person groups
were used as the unit of analysis.
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
Participants
The study involved 276 undergraduates from a large
public university, randomly assigned to 92 groups.
They took part in the exercise for course credit and
the chance to win cash prizes of $90, $60, and $30 that
were awarded through a lottery to three of the best
performing groups.
Procedure
Participants were informed that the purpose of the
study was to investigate the effects of group com-
position on task performance and that, for this rea-
son, some participants would be assigned to groups
with members who were similar, while other partic-
ipants would be assigned to groups with members
who were dissimilar. Participants completed an initial
task, comprised of true or false and multiple-choice
questions that ostensibly assessed them on their com-
petence and motivation. Before receiving feedback,
participants were randomly assigned to three-person
groups and given materials for a murder mystery,
which they were asked to read and review as individ-
uals. During this time, they were asked to complete
a prediscussion questionnaire, which asked partici-
pants to select the suspect they believed to be the
culprit and write a brief rationale for their decision.
After returning their packets and questionnaires, par-
ticipants were informed that both of their cowork-
ers were found to possess high/low competence and
high/low motivation based on their performance on
the initial task (i.e., participants received the same
feedback about each of their partners, but were not
given feedback about themselves). Participants were
then given 20 minutes to solve the murder mystery
as a group.
Decision Task
Participants read a series of interviews from a homi-
cide investigation. These interviews were provided
in a booklet that included supporting materials such
as a list of characters, a map, a handwritten note,
and a newspaper article (Stasser and Stewart 1992).
The interviews contained 24 clues that were either
incriminating or exonerating for each of three sus-
pects (Suspect 1, Suspect 2, and Suspect 3). Specifi-
cally, each suspect was incriminated by 6 clues, but
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
there were also 3 clues that exonerated Suspect 2
and 3 clues that exonerated Suspect 3. Therefore, the
set of 24 clues was designed so that Suspects 2 and 3
could be ruled out. Furthermore, all the clues consid-
ered together supported the conclusion that Suspect 1
had both motive and opportunity to commit the crime
(i.e., was the correct choice).
Experimental Manipulations
Information Distribution. Each participant’s pac-
ket of information contained several pages of evi-
dence. Some of this evidence was critical to solving
the task, and some of it was not critical. Nine critical
clues were necessary to determine that Suspect 1 was
guilty. Three of those clues incriminated Suspect 1,
and the other 6 exonerated Suspects 2 and 3.
In the full information condition, each of the three
group members was given a complete set of infor-
mation, including all 9 incriminating and exonerat-
ing clues (i.e., every member received each of the
24 total clues). However, in the partial information
condition, the 9 critical clues were distributed among
group members so each member received all 15 non-
critical clues but only one-third of the critical evidence
(i.e., each member received 21 of the 24 total clues).1
One group member received 3 exonerating clues for
Suspect 2; a second received 3 exonerating clues for
Suspect 3; and the third received 3 incriminating clues
for Suspect 1. In this manner, the critical clues pos-
sessed by each member were completely nonredun-
dant, but all of them were available for use by the
group. Group members were not informed about the
distribution of information.
Perceived Task Competence. The level of per-
ceived task competence was manipulated by pro-
viding false feedback to participants regarding their
partners’ performance on the deductive reasoning
component of the initial task, which they were told
could predict their ability to successfully solve the
homicide investigation. Perceptions of high (low)
1
Although study participants received different numbers of clues in
these two information distribution conditions, these specific main
effects would not account for the predictions and results that are
of primary interest in this study.
805
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
competence were fostered by informing participants
that they had been assigned to a group with members
who each performed well (poorly) on the deductive
reasoning component of the initial task. Participants
were never informed of their own competence. More-
over, the purported purpose of the experiment (i.e., to
study the effects of group composition), and explicit
instructions not to discuss this feedback, reduced the
likelihood that they would acquire this information
from their partners.2
Perceived Achievement Motivation. The level of
perceived motivation was manipulated by providing
false feedback to participants regarding their part-
ners’ results on the personality profile component
of the initial task. Perceptions of high (low) motiva-
tion were fostered by informing participants that they
had been assigned to a group with members who
were each highly motivated toward achievement and,
thus, likely to support and defend answers that they
believed to be correct (easily influenced by factors
other than achievement and, thus, likely to avoid dis-
putes and support popular opinions). As with compe-
tence, participants were never informed of their own
motivation. Moreover, the purported purpose of the
experiment (i.e., to study the effects of group compo-
sition), and instructions not to discuss this feedback,
reduced the likelihood that they would acquire this
information from their partners.
Manipulation Checks
A pilot study was conducted with 36 additional
undergraduate participants to determine whether the
manipulations of coworker competence and motiva-
tion would affect participants’ perceptions of their
partners’ competence and motivation, as well as their
own competence and motivation, before the group
discussion. Separate measures of perceived coworker
competence, perceived coworker motivation, percep-
tions of own competence, and perceptions of own
motivation were obtained with 7-point scales, where
1 = very low and 7 = very high. Results revealed that
the high-competence manipulation fostered higher
2
None of the groups were found to violate instructions to refrain
from discussing their feedback.
806
perceptions of coworker competence
M = 581 sd =
027 than the low-competence manipulation
M =
306 sd = 028 (F
1 34 = 5077 p < 00005, and
that the high-motivation manipulation fostered higher
perceptions of coworker motivation
M = 581
sd = 023 than the low-motivation manipulation

M = 272 sd = 023
F
1 34 = 9121 p < 00005.
The competence manipulation did not affect percep-
tions of coworker motivation
F
1 34 = 113 ns,
nor did the motivation manipulation affect percep-
tions of coworker competence
F
1 34 = 024 ns.
Finally, neither the competence nor the motivation
manipulations were found to affect participants’ per-
ceptions of their own competence or motivation

F s < 06. Thus, each of the study manipulations was
found to operate as intended.
Dependent Measures
Task Performance. The group decision concerning
the culprit was obtained by asking groups to deter-
mine which suspect was most likely to have com-
mitted the crime. Decisions that named the correct
suspect as most likely received a score of 1, and deci-
sions that named an incorrect suspect as most likely
received a score of 0.
Content Analysis. Group discussions were tape-
recorded and transcribed for the content analysis.
The content analysis coded for the discussion bias
in two ways. This approach is consistent with prior
discussion bias studies, which not only assess the
mentioning and repetition of critical and noncritical
information (e.g., Larson et al. 1996, Stasser et al.
1995) but also consider the possibility that the focus
of discussion on critical rather than noncritical infor-
mation may be more important for group perfor-
mance than the sheer number of times these clues
are mentioned or repeated (e.g., Stasser and Stewart
1992). These measures should provide complemen-
tary lenses into the discussion bias by revealing the
extent to which this information-sharing problem
arises because groups fail to notice information (i.e.,
the mentioning of clues), do not sufficiently evalu-
ate information (i.e., the repetition of clues), or do
not place sufficient emphasis on the right kind of
information (i.e., the discussion focus).
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
The mentioning of critical information counted the
number of critical clues that were stated at least once.
For example, if a group stated 3 different critical clues
during its discussion, “X,” “Y,” and “Z,” the group is
considered to have mentioned 3 critical clues, regard-
less of how often each of these 3 critical clues was
stated. The repetition of critical information counted
the number of times critical clues were stated after
they were first mentioned, and then divided these
totals by the number of critical clues that were men-
tioned at least once. This measure yielded a per-
mentioned-item repetition rate for critical information
(see Winquist and Larson 1998). In the above example,
if the group stated clue “X” one time after it was first
mentioned, clue “Y” two times after it was first men-
tioned, and clue “Z” three times after it was first men-
tioned, the per-mentioned-item repetition rate for crit-
ical information would be two (i.e.,
1 + 2 + 3/3 = 2).
Analogous procedures were used to calculate the men-
tioning and repetition of noncritical clues.
The content analysis assessed the discussion focus
by examining the degree to which groups discussed
critical versus noncritical information. Thus, two vari-
ables were coded: (1) The total number of times group
members stated critical clues (i.e., by counting each
time any critical clue was mentioned or repeated), and
(2) the total number of times group members stated
noncritical clues (i.e., by counting each time any non-
critical clue was mentioned or repeated). The discus-
sion focus was obtained by dividing the total number
of times group members stated critical information
by the total number of times they stated noncritical
information.
Finally, the content analysis coded 9 additional
discussion behaviors. These behaviors were found,
through a perusal of transcripts, not only to cap-
ture the essence of these group discussions but also
to illustrate the teamwork dimensions identified by
Morgan et al. (1986)—performance monitoring, feed-
back, closed-loop communications, and backing-up
behaviors. These behaviors included the frequency
with which group members contributed an opinion,
asked for an opinion, contributed a justification, asked
for a justification, confirmed a partner’s statement,
dissented with a partner’s statement, asked a fact-
based question, stated that they had no opinion, and
contributed a task-relevant phrase.
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
Members exhibited performance monitoring by
asking for an opinion (e.g., “Who do you think commit-
ted the crime?”) or asking for a justification (“Why do
you think it was Billy Prentice?”). Members provided
feedback by dissenting with a partner’s statement (e.g.,
“I don’t think he did it.”) or confirming a partner’s
statement (e.g., “That’s right.”). Members displayed
closed-loop communications by confirming a partner’s
statement (see previous example) or asking a fact-
based question (e.g., “Eddie had a hearing aid?”). Mem-
bers exhibited backing-up behaviors by contributing
an opinion (e.g., “I thought it was Mickey Malone.”) or
contributing a justification (e.g., “Mickey did it because
Mr. Guion was going to ruin his business.”). Members
also indicated the need for backing-up behaviors by
stating that they had no opinion (e.g., “I don’t know.”).
Finally, each of these behaviors was aggregated to
determine the frequency with which members con-
tributed a task-relevant phrase, which provided a gen-
eral indication of the time and effort groups devoted
to their task.
Two independent raters were trained to perform
these content analyses. The raters were given cod-
ing sheets that identified all the discussion bias and
discussion behavior variables and were instructed to
record, for each line of the transcripts, every occa-
sion in which any of these variables were found. The
desired measures were then obtained through fre-
quency counts. Some utterances qualified as both a
discussion bias and discussion behavior variable and
were coded for both. The utterance, “Eddie had a
hearing aid?,” for example, represents the mention-
ing of critical information as well as the asking of a
fact-based question and was, thus, counted for each
category. These kinds of dual-coded utterances helped
foster significant correlations between the discussion
bias and discussion behavior measures. Despite these
correlations, the measures still differed in the roles
they played in this study (see Results).
The raters were blind to the hypotheses and treat-
ment conditions. Nevertheless, the content analy-
ses from the two independent raters demonstrated
high interrater reliability, as indicated by a ran-
dom sample of 26 transcripts (noncritical informa-
tion (Kappa = 094), critical information (Kappa =
085), asked for opinion (Kappa = 091), asked for
807
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality

justification (Kappa = 089), dissented with partner
comment (Kappa = 087), confirmed partner statement
(Kappa = 086), asked fact-based question (Kappa =
090), contributed opinion (Kappa = 086), contributed
justification (Kappa = 085), and stated they had no
opinion (Kappa = 074)). A third, blind rater resolved
any differences between these two sets of ratings.
Results
All 276 subjects (92 groups) completed the study.
However, audiotapes for three groups could not be
transcribed or coded due to the poor quality of the
recordings. As a result, 89 groups were left for anal-
ysis. Analyses were first conducted to examine the
independent effects of the study variables. Tests of
mediated relationships among these variables were
then explored through a series of hierarchical regres-
sions (Baron and Kenny 1986, James and Brett 1984).
A summary of means, standard deviations, and corre-
lations is presented in Table 1. Means, standard devi-
ations, and sample sizes per condition for the study
variables are presented in Table 2.
Effects on the Discussion Bias
Hypotheses 1a and 2a predicted that whereas percep-
tions of high-coworker competence and motivation
would foster a larger discussion bias relative to
perceptions of low-coworker competence and motiva-
tion, respectively, when task information is partially
shared, these effects should not arise and even reverse
(for perceived motivation) when information is fully
shared. These predictions were tested by examining
the mentioning and repetition of critical and noncrit-
ical information and the proportion of critical versus
noncritical information discussed.
A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
conducted to determine whether the experimental
manipulations affected the mentioning and repetition
of critical and noncritical information and the pro-
portion of critical versus noncritical information dis-
cussed. The distribution of information was found
to exert an overall effect on these discussion bias
measures (F
5 77 = 490 p < 0001. Follow-up anal-
yses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed that groups
with full information mentioned more critical infor-
mation (M = 222 sd = 020) than groups with par-
tial information (M = 161 sd = 020) ((F
1 88 =
481 p < 005); (Effect Size
ES = 305). No other main
effects or higher order interactions were found ((F s <
322 ns
ES < 048)). These results do not support
predictions that perceived coworker competence or
motivation would affect the discussion bias.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Standard Task Critical Noncritical Critical Noncritical Critical/

Means deviations performance mentioned mentioned repeated repeated noncritical clues

1. Task performance 0
38 0
49

2. Critical clues mentioned 1
92 1
30 0
36∗∗∗∗∗
3. Noncritical clues mentioned 5
67 2
00 0
37∗∗∗∗∗ 0
63∗∗∗∗∗∗
4. Critical clues repeated 1
00 1
28 0
14 0
29∗∗ 0
45∗∗∗∗∗∗
5. Noncritical clues repeated 1
12 0
93 0
33∗∗∗ 0
53∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
59∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
28∗∗
6. Critical/noncritical clues 0
36 0
40 0
09 0
35∗∗∗∗ −0
10 0
37∗∗∗∗∗ −0
16
7. Discussion behaviors 0
61a∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
79a∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
86a∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
68a∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
91a∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
21a
Task-relevant phrase 60
49 36
61 0
48∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
67∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
74∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
37∗∗∗∗∗ 0
77∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
00
Contribute opinion 14
37 8
57 0
45∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
49∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
54∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
15 0
67∗∗∗∗∗∗ −0
06
Ask for opinion 3
82 2
70 0
19 0
29∗∗ 0
19 0
05 0
29∗∗ −0
04
Contribute justification 9
67 6
48 0
43∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
49∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
57∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
27∗ 0
59∗∗∗∗∗∗ −0
00
Ask for justification 2
03 2
19 0
05 0
32∗∗∗ 0
59∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
53∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
47∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
00
Confirm 5
70 5
30 0
43∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
51∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
51∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
13 0
36∗∗∗∗∗ 0
06
Dissent 2
60 3
51 0
33∗∗∗ 0
41∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
38∗∗∗∗∗ 0
09 0
57∗∗∗∗∗∗ −0
04
Fact-based question 4
04 4
49 0
41∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
64∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
59∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
31∗∗∗∗∗ 0
59∗∗∗∗∗∗ 0
09
No opinion 0
80 1
25 −0
19 0
08 0
19 0
25∗ −0
06 0
03
a
Canonical correlation.
∗
p < 0
05. ∗∗ p < 0
01. ∗∗∗ p < 0
005. ∗∗∗∗ p < 0
001. ∗∗∗∗∗ p < 0
0005. ∗∗∗∗∗∗ p < 0
0001.

808 Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003

 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviation, and Number of Observations by Condition

Partial information Full information

High motivation Low motivation High motivation Low motivation

High comp. Low comp. High comp. Low comp. High comp. Low comp. High comp. Low comp.
Variable N = 12 N = 11 N = 10 N = 11 N = 11 N = 12 N = 12 N = 10

Task performance 0
17 0
18 0
54 0
45 0
67 0
42 0
42 0
18
0
14 0
14 0
14 0
14 0
14 0
14 0
14 0
14
Critical clues mentioned 1
67 1
64 1
60 1
54 2
18 2
25 2
17 2
30
1
50 1
03 1
35 1
44 1
08 1
36 1
34 1
34
Noncritical clues mentioned 6
25 5
73 6
10 6
00 5
27 5
50 5
58 4
90
1
91 2
10 1
79 1
84 2
00 2
11 1
88 2
64
Critical clues repeated 1
39 1
48 0
45 1
14 0
82 0
67 1
06 0
92
1
66 2
17 0
55 1
34 1
16 0
83 1
07 0
52
Noncritical clues repeated 1
25 1
06 0
80 1
28 0
94 1
13 1
41 1
01
1
02 0
65 0
81 0
96 0
81 1
10 1
03 1
06
Critical/noncritical 0
29 0
37 0
27 0
24 0
37 0
34 0
28 0
77
0
22 0
32 0
28 0
23 0
19 0
30 0
16 0
94
Task-relevant phrase 61
17 49
36 64
40 74
09 57
27 61
83 66
92 47
30
38
31 34
59 40
92 56
01 35
23 27
90 31
29 25
29
Contribute opinion 13
92 9
91 17
30 18
36 13
09 14
08 17
42 10
60
6
34 5
79 12
68 13
28 6
99 5
68 8
04 4
32
Ask for opinion 3
92 3
09 3
50 2
82 5
54 4
33 4
42 2
70
3
00 1
81 2
64 2
09 4
91 1
92 1
62 1
70
Contribute justification 8
58 6
91 10
50 13
54 10
54 10
92 9
00 7
30
6
50 4
46 9
52 7
05 8
73 3
96 5
44 3
37
Ask for justification 2
92 3
45 1
50 2
54 1
18 1
08 1
83 1
70
2
11 3
44 1
08 2
84 1
78 1
44 1
75 1
34
Confirm 6
00 3
82 9
30 8
82 4
45 5
25 4
92 3
20
4
45 3
22 7
06 9
35 2
94 4
41 3
68 1
32
Dissent 1
50 0
91 5
00 3
00 1
91 2
17 4
08 2
40
1
57 1
14 5
18 3
22 3
78 3
10 4
87 2
37
Fact-based question 4
42 3
00 3
40 4
82 4
45 4
83 4
83 2
20
6
14 4
52 2
32 6
23 3
01 5
51 4
26 1
48
No opinion 0
58 1
27 0
40 0
36 0
36 1
42 1
42 0
40
1
16 2
05 0
52 0
50 0
67 1
16 1
78 0
52

Effects on Discussion Behaviors
Hypotheses 1b and 2b predicted that whereas per-
ceptions of high-coworker competence and motiva-
tion would foster less teamwork (assessed by the
discussion behaviors) relative to perceptions of low-
coworker competence and motivation, respectively,
when task information is partially shared, these
effects would not arise and even reverse (for per-
ceived motivation) when task information is fully
shared. The following analyses tested these pre-
dictions as well as the relationship between the
discussion behaviors and the discussion bias.
A MANOVA was conducted to examine the overall
effects of the experimental manipulations on the
9 discussion behaviors. Both perceived motivation
(F
9 73 = 285 p < 001) and the distribution of infor-
mation (F
9 73 = 332 p < 0005) were found to
affect these discussion behaviors. These main effects

Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003 809

 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
were qualified, however, by an interaction between
perceived motivation and the distribution of informa-
tion
F
9 73 = 297 p < 0005.
ANOVAs were then conducted to isolate the
specific variables driving these multivariate effects.
Groups with high-perceived motivation were found
to make fewer dissenting comments
M = 162 sd =
050 than groups with low-perceived motivation


M = 362 sd = 052
F
1 88 = 758 p < 001
ES =
392. Groups with partial information were also
found to ask for justifications and confirm partner
statements more frequently

M = 260 sd = 032 and

M = 698 sd = 077, respectively) than groups with
full information

M = 145 sd = 032
F
1 88 =
658 p < 005
ES = 359 and
M = 446 sd = 076

F
1 88 = 544 p < 005
ES = 332, respectively).
Moreover, the interaction between perceived motiva-
tion and the distribution of information was found
to affect three discussion behaviors: the frequency
with which group members contributed justifications


F
1 88 = 631 p < 005
ES = 361, asked for jus-
tifications

F
1 88 = 399 p < 005
ES = 202, and
confirmed partner comments

F
1 88 = 520 p <
005
ES = 229. Groups with high-perceived moti-
vation were found to contribute justifications less
frequently
M = 775 sd = 134, ask for justifica-
tions more frequently
M = 318 sd = 044, and
confirm partner statements less frequently
M =
491 sd = 106 than groups with low-perceived
motivation when information was partially shared


M = 1202 sd = 140
M = 202 sd = 046
M =
906 sd = 111, respectively), but groups with high-
perceived motivation were found to contribute justi-
fications more frequently
M = 1073 sd = 134, ask
for justifications less frequently
M = 113 sd = 044,
and confirm partner statements more frequently
M =
485 sd = 106 than groups with low-perceived moti-
vation when information was fully shared

M =
815 sd = 137
M = 177 sd = 045
M = 406 sd =
109, respectively).
Canonical correlations were also conducted to
examine the relationship between the discussion bias
and the 9 discussion behaviors. As might be expected,
given that some utterances were coded as both discus-
sion bias and discussion behavior variables, the men-
tioning of critical
F
9 79 = 1485 p < 00001 and
810
noncritical information
F
9 79 = 2408 p < 00001
and the repetition of critical
F
9 79 = 776 p <
00001 and noncritical information
F
9 79 =
4367 p < 00001 were all significantly related to
these discussion behaviors. Univariate correlations
between the discussion bias measures and each of
the discussion behaviors were then examined to iso-
late the particular variables driving these multivari-
ate effects (see Table 1). These univariate correlations
revealed that the mentioning and repetition of critical
and noncritical information were each positively cor-
related with the majority of the discussion behaviors,
indicating that the level of teamwork was positively
associated with the degree to which both critical and
noncritical task-relevant information was discussed.
These results support predictions that perceptions
of coworker motivation affect teamwork (assessed by
the discussion behaviors) and that these relationships
depend on the distribution of task information (i.e.,
Hypothesis 2B was supported). Follow-up univari-
ate analyses, furthermore, suggest that the frequency
with which group members contributed justifica-
tions, asked for justifications, and confirmed partner
comments were driving this multivariate interaction
effect.
Effects on Performance
Hypotheses 1c and 2c predicted that whereas per-
ceptions of high-coworker competence and motiva-
tion would foster lower task performance relative to
perceptions of low-coworker competence and moti-
vation, respectively, when information is partially
shared, these effects should not arise and even reverse
(for perceived motivation) when information is fully
shared. The following analyses tested these predic-
tions as well as the effects of the discussion bias and
discussion behaviors on performance.
An ANOVA was conducted to assess whether
the manipulations affected task performance. The
results revealed a two-way interaction between per-
ceived motivation and the distribution of infor-
mation. Groups with high-perceived motivation
achieved lower task performance
M = 017 sd =
010 than groups with low-perceived motivation

M = 050 sd = 010 when task information was
partially shared, but groups with high-perceived
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
motivation achieved higher task performance
M =
054 sd = 010 than groups with low-perceived moti-
vation
M = 030 sd = 010 when task information
was fully shared

F
1 91 = 824 p < 001
ES =
285. These results support predictions that percep-
tions of coworker motivation affect performance and
that these relationships depend on the distribution
of information (i.e., Hypothesis 2C was supported).
Whereas perceptions of high-coworker motivation
lowered performance when information was par-
tially shared, this relationship was reversed when
information was fully shared.
Mediated Regression Results
Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted that the effects of
perceived coworker competence and motivation on
task performance would be mediated by the dis-
cussion bias (Hypothesis 3) and teamwork (assessed
by the discussion behaviors) (Hypothesis 4). Results
from the prior analyses indicate that the experimen-
tal manipulations affected both the discussion bias
and the discussion behaviors. However, only the dis-
cussion behaviors were significantly related to both
the perceived motivation X information distribution
interaction
F
9 73 = 297 p < 0005 and task per-
formance
F
9 79 = 507 p < 00001 (see Table 1).
These behaviors, therefore, represent the only factor
that might plausibly mediate the reported relationship
between coworker perceptions and performance. This
possibility was tested through a series of hierarchical
regressions (Baron and Kenny 1986, James and Brett
1984).
Tests of mediation require that four conditions be
met (James and Brett 1984). To demonstrate the medi-
ating effect of variable Y in the relation X → Z:
(1) X must be significantly related to Y , (2) X and Y
must be significantly related to Z, (3) the variance in Z
predicted by X must be nonsignificant after mediator
Y is controlled (the satisfaction of all but this condi-
tion indicates partial mediation), and (4) Y should be
significantly related to Z after X is controlled. Each of
these conditions was examined to determine whether
the discussion behaviors
Y  mediated the relation-
ship between the perceived motivation X information
distribution interaction
X and task performance
Z.
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
A multivariate regression was conducted to deter-
mine whether the perceived motivation X infor-
mation distribution interaction affected the group
discussion variables. This analysis revealed a sig-
nificant relationship between the perceived motiva-
tion X information distribution interaction and the
discussion variables, in general
F
9 76 = 304 p <
0005, and the frequency with which groups con-
tributed justifications
t
1 88 = 252 p < 005, asked
for justifications
t
1 88 = −203 p < 005, and con-
firmed partner statements
t
1 88 = 230 p < 005,
in particular. Thus, Condition 1 was satisfied for the
discussion behaviors as a whole and, specifically, for
the frequency with which groups contributed justifi-
cations, asked for justifications, and confirmed part-
ner statements (i.e., the independent variable affected
the potential mediators).
Multiple regressions were conducted to examine
the effects of the perceived motivation X information
distribution interaction and group discussion behav-
iors, respectively, on task performance. These analyses
revealed a significant relationship between the per-
ceived motivation X information distribution interac-
tion and task performance
t
1 91 = 291 p < 0005.
These analyses also revealed significant relationships
between the group discussion behaviors as a whole
and task performance
F
9 88 = 507 p < 00001, as
well as between the frequency with which groups
contributed justifications
t
1 88 = 450 p < 00001
and confirmed partner statements
t
1 88 = 440 p <
00005, respectively, and task performance. Thus,
Condition 2 was satisfied for the perceived motiva-
tion X information distribution interaction, the group
discussion behaviors as a whole and, specifically, for
the frequency with which groups contributed justi-
fications and confirmed partner statements (i.e., the
independent variable and potential mediators affected
the dependent variable).
A two-step procedure was performed to determine
whether the variance in task performance predicted
by the perceived motivation X information distribu-
tion interaction was nonsignificant after controlling
for the group discussion behaviors. Task performance
was, first, regressed on the group discussion behav-
iors. The residuals from this first step were then
811
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
regressed on the interaction between perceived moti-
vation and the distribution of information (i.e., after
the effects of the group discussion behaviors were
controlled). This procedure revealed a nonsignificant
relationship between the perceived motivation X
information distribution interaction and performance

t
1 88 = 147 ns. Analogous procedures were
also conducted on the specific group discussion
behaviors. These procedures revealed nonsignificant
relationships between the perceived motivation X
information distribution interaction and task perfor-
mance when controlling for the frequency with which
groups contributed justifications
t
1 88 = 191 ns
and confirmed partner statements
t
1 88 = 197 ns.
Thus, Condition 3 was satisfied for the group discus-
sion behaviors as a whole and, specifically, for the fre-
quency with which groups contributed justifications
and confirmed partner statements (i.e., the indepen-
dent variable did not affect the dependent variable
after controlling for the potential mediators).
Finally, a procedure similar to that performed in
Condition 3 was used to determine if the group dis-
cussion behaviors were still significantly related to
task performance after the effects of the perceived
motivation X information distribution interaction was
controlled. Task performance was first regressed on
the perceived motivation X information distribution
interaction. The residuals from this analysis were
then regressed on the group discussion variables
(i.e., after controlling for the perceived motivation
X information distribution interaction). This proce-
dure revealed that the group discussion behaviors,
in general
F
9 88 = 409 p < 00005, and the fre-
quency with which groups contributed justifications

t
1 88 = 397 p < 00005 and confirmed partner
statements
t
1 88 = 434 p < 00001, in particular,
still affected task performance. Thus, Condition 4
was satisfied for the group discussion behaviors as a
whole and, specifically, for the frequency with which
groups contributed justifications and confirmed part-
ner statements (i.e., the potential mediators affected
the dependent variable even after controlling for the
independent variable).
The satisfaction of all four conditions at both the
multivariate and univariate levels supports the notion
that the discussion behaviors, in general, and the
812
frequency with which groups contributed justifica-
tions and confirmed partner statements, in partic-
ular, completely mediated the relationship between
the perceived motivation X information distribution
interaction and task performance (i.e., Hypothesis 4
was supported). These results, therefore, provide a
clear explanation for the performance differences
observed in this study. The evidence indicates that the
discussion behaviors assessed in this study can play
a critical role in the information-sharing process by
mediating the effects of coworker perceptions on per-
formance. The results also help substantiate, to some
degree, the univariate analyses conducted in the pre-
ceding section. Whereas the effect of the perceived
motivation X information distribution interaction on
any of the 9 discussion behaviors may have occurred
by chance, the finding that the frequency with which
groups contributed justifications and confirmed part-
ner statements also met the three other conditions
required for mediation is less likely. More substantive
verification of the role(s) played by these discussion
behaviors, however, will require further investigation.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate how
beliefs about coworkers may affect group informa-
tion sharing and performance. In addition, it sought
to identify contexts in which these adverse effects are
more or less likely to arise. Finally, this study inves-
tigated the underlying mechanisms for these find-
ings through an exploratory content analysis of group
discussions.
The evidence from this study suggests that beliefs
about coworkers can exert important effects on group
discussion and performance. The finding that percep-
tions of higher coworker motivation lowered perfor-
mance when task information was partially shared is
consistent with Kim’s (1997) observation that mem-
bers’ beliefs about their coworkers can sometimes hin-
der group interactions and outcomes. This study also
extends this insight, however, by suggesting that we
broaden our inquiry beyond mechanisms such as the
“curse of knowledge” to more fully understand these
effects. It may be useful, therefore, to consider how a
range of coworker perceptions may influence group
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
discussion and performance and consider both their
additive and interactive effects.
The influence of different coworker perceptions
may also help explain an apparent discrepancy
between studies that have examined the effects
of experience on group information sharing and
performance. Whereas Kim (1997) found that ini-
tial experience with both the task and team could
impair group information sharing and performance,
Gruenfeld et al. (1996) found that group member
familiarity with their partners could either improve
or worsen these outcomes depending on the dis-
tribution of task information. Familiars were more
likely than strangers to effectively exchange informa-
tion and identify the correct solution when informa-
tion was partially shared, but strangers outperformed
familiars on these measures when information was
fully shared. This study offers a potential explanation
for these findings by suggesting that Kim (1997) and
Gruenfeld et al.’s (1996) operationalizations of expe-
rience may have fostered different kinds of coworker
perceptions. Whereas the initial levels of task and
team experience examined by Kim (1997) may
have heightened member expectations regarding their
likely performance on the subsequent task (i.e., per-
ceive high-coworker competence), the type of famil-
iarity examined by Gruenfeld et al. (1996) (i.e., friends
versus strangers) may have created the belief that
coworkers would value group cohesion over perfor-
mance (i.e., perceive low-coworker motivation). The
operation of these different perceptions would not
only explain the patterns of results observed by those
studies, but is also consistent with the interpretations
they offered to explain these effects.3
It is important to note, however, that although per-
ceived coworker motivation affected performance in
this study, they did not do so through changes in
the discussion bias. These results, therefore, support
Gigone and Hastie’s (1993, 1997) suggestion that the
discussion bias may provide an insufficient account
of the information-sharing processes that affect group
decisions. Of course, these results do not necessarily
3
A potential reason why perceived coworker competence was not
found to affect information sharing and performance in this study
is considered in the last section—Limitations and Future Directions.
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
imply that we ignore this measure. The fact that the
frequency with which group members mentioned crit-
ical information was found to affect task performance,
for example, does provide some indirect justification
for investigating this discussion measure. However,
the fact that the discussion bias failed to mediate the
effects of coworker perceptions on task performance
suggests that we should broaden our inquiry to exam-
ine how a variety of additional factors may affect
performance in this context.
These considerations suggest that it may be use-
ful to investigate how various discussion behaviors
may provide additional avenues for assessing infor-
mation sharing in groups. The content analysis per-
formed by this study provides an example of such
an effort. The exploratory nature of this analysis per-
mits only qualified conclusions. However, its dis-
covery that the discussion behaviors in general, and
two behaviors in particular (i.e., the frequency with
which group members contributed justifications and
confirmed partner statements), completely mediated
the relationship between the perceived motivation X
information distribution interaction and performance
offers a provocative set of findings. These behaviors
may have enhanced teamwork and, thus, fostered
interactions that allowed group members to work
more effectively. This interpretation is not only con-
sistent with the notion that coworker perceptions can
influence social loafing versus social compensation
in groups (Williams and Karau 1991), but also sup-
ports the notion that the extent to which members
repeat and validate each other’s ideas can affect the
nature of group decisions (Brauer et al. 1995). These
possibilities will, of course, require verification. How-
ever, this approach to examining group processes may
prove beneficial by allowing us to move beyond sim-
ple measures of the extent to which information is
shared to provide insight into the manner in which it
is used.
Taken together, the results of this study highlight
the importance of considering more thoroughly the
social-psychological processes operating in groups
and the reasons why they arise. This importance is
heightened by the fact that research on the group
information-sharing process has primarily focused
on the structural factors that operate to determine
813
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
the nature of group decisions (group size, informa-
tion load, and so on). Although these factors play
an important role in determining the interactions of
groups, the neglect of social-psychological processes
may impede our attempts to understand their behav-
ior and performance. Indeed, it is only by considering
such processes that we could predict and explain the
patterns of data observed in this study. This evidence
emphasizes the fundamental role played by social-
psychological processes in groups and the need to
examine their effects more thoroughly through further
study.
Limitations and Future Directions
The need for additional research is also underscored
by the limitations faced in this study. One concern
arises from the large number of analyses conducted
in this study. Although the analyses attempted to
explore the data and provide a more comprehensive
picture of what occurred in these groups, they also
increase likelihood of Type 1 error. Thus, readers may
choose to rely on a more stringent (0.01) significance
level and/or focus on the multivariate findings when
interpreting the results. Such steps would not alter the
main conclusions.
A second issue raised by this study is the need to
examine the effects of other beliefs about coworkers
on group discussion and performance. Given that this
study has examined only two perceptions, expanding
this inquiry would provide a more detailed account
of these social effects. Moreover, although this study
gave each group member the same perceptions of
their coworkers, group members often differ on these
and other perceptions. Thus, it would be valuable to
investigate the effects of differences in these and other
perceptions in such groups.
Third, it would be worthwhile to investigate
whether the effects of these manipulations would
have differed if they were introduced at different
points in time. The perceptions under investigation
were introduced only after participants had read the
task materials and, thus, could only exert their influ-
ence during group discussion. Evidence suggests,
however, that beliefs members have about cowork-
ers before reading their task materials can affect their
processing of information before discussion as they
814
attempt to meet the perceived demands of their col-
lective task (Wittenbaum et al. 1996). Thus, it is possi-
ble that effects would have been found for perceived
competence if they were introduced at this earlier
point in time.
Fourth, although this study focused on the condi-
tions in which group members were not told how
their partners perceived them, there are many occa-
sions in which such perceptions become known. This
raises a natural question about how members might
react to their partners’ perceptions of them, given that
they may sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.
Is it a good idea, for example, to provide such feed-
back to one’s partners, and does this depend on the
kind of feedback we provide? The possibility that
such feedback might affect members’ subsequent ori-
entations, behaviors, and performance highlights the
potential value of research that explores these issues
for improving group performance (see Kim et al.
2003 for a study that examines this question in a
negotiation context).
Finally, it would be useful to directly examine the
kinds of perceptions that arise from different kinds
of experiences, and the ways in which these percep-
tions might affect group behavior and performance
on more traditional work group tasks. This investi-
gation would offer insight into the dynamic changes
that might occur in these perceptions and the impli-
cations of such changes for group behavior and per-
formance. Moreover, although the murder mystery
task used in this study has offered many researchers
the opportunity to study a wide variety of organi-
zationally relevant questions, external validity would
be improved by examining the implications of these
kinds of coworker perceptions in tasks that orga-
nizational members are more likely to face. These
avenues for future research suggest that we expand
our inquiry to consider the myriad ways in which
social processes can shape group interactions, and to
do so in a variety of work group contexts. This study
represents only the beginning of this endeavor, and it
is clear that more work must be done in this arena.
It is through such efforts, however, that we can begin
to develop a more comprehensive understanding of
knowledge management in groups.
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
 KIM
When Private Beliefs Shape Collective Reality
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Thomas Cummings, Daniel Gigone, Terri L.
Griffith, Deborah H. Gruenfeld, Dawn Iacobucci, Claus Langfred,
Margaret A. Neale, Garold Stasser, Melissa Thomas-Hunt, Leigh
L. Thompson, and Brian Uzzi for their assistance. This research
was supported by grants from the State Farm Foundation and
Northwestern University’s Dispute Resolution Research Center.
References
Baron, R. M., D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strate-
gic, and statistical considerations. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 51(6)
1173–1182.
Brauer, M., M. D. Gliner, C. M. Judd. 1995. The effects of repeated
expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions.
J. Personality Soc. Psych. 68(6) 1014–1029.
Butler, J. K. 1991. Toward understanding and measuring condi-
tions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory.
J. Management 17 643–663.
Camerer, C. F., G. Loewenstein, M. Weber. 1989. The curse of knowl-
edge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. J. Political
Econom. 97 1232–1254.
Fussell, S. R., R. M. Krauss. 1992. Coordination of knowledge in
communication: Effects of speaker’s assumptions about what
others know. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 62(3) 378–391.
Gigone, D., R. Hastie. 1993. The common knowledge effect: Infor-
mation sharing and group judgment. J. Personality Soc. Psych.
65(5) 959–974.
, . 1997. The impact of information on small group choice.
J. Personality Soc. Psych. 72(1) 132–140.
Gruenfeld, D. H., E. Mannix, K. Williams, M. A. Neale. 1996. Group
composition and decision making: How member familiarity
and information distribution affect process and performance.
Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes 67(1) 1–15.
James, L. R., J. M. Brett. 1984. Mediators, moderators, and tests for
mediation. J. Appl. Psych. 69(2) 307–321.
Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits
and detriments of intragroup conflict. Admin. Sci. Quart. 40(2)
256–282.
Kim, P. H. 1997. When what you know can hurt you: A study
of experiential effects on group discussion and performance.
Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes 69(2) 165–177.
, K. A. Diekmann, A. Tenbrunsel. 2003. Flattery may get you
somewhere: The strategic implications of providing positive
vs. negative feedback about ability vs. ethicality in negotiation.
Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes 90(2) 225–243.
Larson, J. R., Jr, C. Christensen, A. S. Abbott, T. M. Franz.
1996. Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in
Accepted by Linda Argote, former department editor; received March 1, 2001. This paper was with the author 8 months for 3 revisions.
Management Science/Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003
medical decision-making teams. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 71(2)
315–330.
Liang, D. W., R. Moreland, L. Argote. 1995. Group versus indi-
vidual training and group performance: The mediating role of
transactive memory. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 21(4) 384–393.
. 1999. Transactive memory: Learning who know what in work
groups and organizations. L. Thompson, J. Levine, D. Messick,
eds. Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowl-
edge. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 3–31.
Morgan, B. B., Jr, A. S. Glickman, E. A. Woodward, A. Blaiwes,
E. Salas. 1986. Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy envi-
ronment. NTSC report number 86-014, Naval Training System
Center, Orlando, FL.
Nickerson, R. S., A. Baddeley, B. Freeman. 1987. Are people’s esti-
mates of what other people know influenced by what they
themselves know? Acta Psych. 64 245–259.
Orasanu, J., E. Salas. 1993. Team decision making in complex
environments. G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, C. E.
Zsambok, eds. Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods.
Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 327–345.
Stasser, G., D. D. Stewart. 1992. Discovery of hidden profiles by
decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a
judgment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 63(3) 426–434.
, , G. M. Wittenbaum. 1995. Expert roles and information
exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who
knows what. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 31 244–265.
Wegner, D. M. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis
of the group mind. B. Mullen, G. R. Goethals, eds. Theories of
Group Behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York, 185–205.
Williams, K. D., S. J. Karau. 1991. Social loafing and social compen-
sation: The effects of expectations of coworker performance.
J. Personality Soc. Psych. 61(4) 570–581.
Winquist, J. R., J. R. Larson, Jr. 1998. Information pooling: When it
impacts group decision making. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 74(2)
371–377.
Wittenbaum, G. M. 1998. Information sampling in decision-making
groups: The impact of members’ task-relevant status. Small
Group Res. 29(1) 57–84.
, A. P. Hubbell, C. Zuckerman. 1999. Mutual enhancement:
Toward an understanding of the collective preference for
shared information. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 77(5) 967–978.
, G. Stasser, C. J. Merry. 1996. Tacit coordination in anticipation
of small group task completion. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 32(2)
129–152.
, S. I. Vaughan, G. Stasser. 1998. Coordination in task-
performing groups. R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J.
Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King,
J. Myers, eds. Theory and Research on Small Groups. Plenum
Press, New York, 177–204.
815