Working Paper
Minson, J. A., Chen, F. S. (2012). Eating with the enemy: Receptiveness to opposing views and attitude strength. Wharton, University of Pennsylvania. Working Paper. eating_with_the_enemy_-_final.pdf
Minson, J. A., Mueller, J. S., & Larrick RP (2013). The fragile wisdom of dyads: discussion both undermines and enhances accuracy on collaborative judgment tasks. Management Science, invited revision. Working Paper. contingent_woc_-_ssrn.pdf
Minson, J. A., Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer ME (2012). There is such a thing as a stupid question: Question disclosure in strategic communications. In preparation for Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Working Paper. jaminson.pdf
Minson J.S., Mueller J. A. (2012). The Cost of Collaboration : Why Joint Decision Making Exacerbates Rejection of Outside Information. Psychological Science. 2012;3 :219-224.Abstract

Prior investigators have asserted that certain group characteristics cause group members to disregard outside information and that this behavior leads to diminished performance. We demonstrate that the very process of making a judgment collaboratively rather than individually also contributes to such myopic underweighting of external viewpoints. Dyad members exposed to numerical judgments made by peers gave significantly less weight to those judgments than did individuals working alone. This difference in willingness to use peer input was mediated by the greater confidence that the dyad members reported in the accuracy of their own estimates. Furthermore, dyads were no better at judging the relative accuracy of their own estimates and the advisor’s estimates than individuals were. Our analyses demonstrate that, relative to individuals, dyads suffered an accuracy cost. Specifically, if dyad members had given as much weight to peer input as individuals working alone did, then their revised estimates would have been significantly more accurate.