José's+Summaries

**Shared Cognitions and Shared Theories:** **Telling More Than We Can Know by Ourselves?**
Brandon Randolph-Seng, Mario P. Casa de Calvo, Tammy Lowery Zacchilli and Jacquline L. Cottle

The article intends to establish es a difference between “shared cognition” and “shared theories”. Shared cognition consists on the deliberate sharing of beliefs, thoughts and ideas in a group context. Shared theories are social cognitions shared by group members that influence their decisions, even though they’re not communicated. According to studies, shared cognition is based upon the concepts of “shared” and “unshared” information. Research es indicate s that the shared cognition process is more effective when group members share information which is not known to the entire group. This can be achieved through group training and participation in and positive feelings of the group discussion. Research es also suggested that, in group decisions with no obvious solution (that is an...), the shared cognition process will guide a majority perspective, which usually prevails.

Further more, shared cognitions can actually be superior to individual ones, through the process of correcting individual cognition errors and biases. The group context, however, does not always leads to the best solutions in decision making processes. Sometimes, false norms appear to be group representations but, in fact, they aren’t. Thus, this erroneous group representation may influence <range type="comment" id="755539">the individual cognition about other’s decisions. In other words, the individual thinks that the majority has a position that in fact it does not<range type="comment" id="835079">; the individual then proceeds to rely on this position and it interferes <range type="comment" id="725134">on his decision making. This is evidenced by situations in which a minority actually influences a majority in the decision making process. The social identity theory backs this up. The s ocial identity theory refers to the process by which a social category (nationality, political/religious affiliation, etc) provides a self-definition that is a main component of the individual’s self-concept. In terms of minority perspective influence on the majority perspective, social identity research has found that minority-perspective individuals are persuasive to the extent that they are perceived to share a social identity with the majority. Shared cognitions also have implications for work groups.<range type="comment" id="971274"> Individuals working toward the same goal likely share common ideas about how that goal should be reached. The article reaches four central conclusions on the subject of shared cognition: First<range type="comment" id="545279">, shared information in groups may reflect shared cognition, but the specific or actual amount of individual-level <range type="comment" id="488126">cognition that takes place in a shared cognition context is unclear. Second, the perceived demonstrability of the decision is largely based on the group representation of the <range type="comment" id="538005">choice. Third, errors produced from shared cognition appear to be exaggerated when group members are unaware of the influence such cognitions have on the process <range type="comment" id="877575">on the group decision. Fourth, shared cognition processes found in groups may be similar to those processes occurring in larger cultural groups. These points are unified by the underlying concept of shared social theory,<range type="comment" id="373930"> which the article uses to complement the idea of shared cognition. Shared social theories are conceptualized in the text as shared assumptions and beliefs that influence the decisions/behaviors of group members (shared beliefs, values, norms, identities, or assumptions). Research es regarding this subject suggest s that people generally do not have access to the reasons behind their feelings, attitudes, and judgments , and thus generate reasons that are consistent with cultural and personal theories that are accessible with in their memory.

Great start, Jose! The article was very complicated and you seem to have understood it well. Your writing is also generally free of grammar mistakes. However, I agree with Valentina that this is too long for a summary. A summary is supposed to briefly describe the main ideas - I think you have gone into a little bit too much depth here when describing them. Reread your summary and look at where you have used details and see what you can remove. Do you have a second summary? -Kimi

<span style="display: block; font-size: 12pt; height: 1px; left: -40px; line-height: 115%; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">The article intends to establish a difference between “shared cognition” and “shared theories”. Shared cognition consists on the deliberate sharing of beliefs, thoughts and ideas in a group context. Shared theories are social cognitions shared by group members that influence their decisions even though they’re not communicated. <span style="display: block; font-size: 12pt; height: 1px; left: -40px; line-height: 115%; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">According to studies, shared cognition is based upon the concepts of “shared” and “unshared” information. Researches indicate that the shared cognition process is more effective when group members share information which is not known to the entire group. This can be achieved through group training, and participation in and positive feelings of the group discussion. <span style="display: block; font-size: 12pt; height: 1px; left: -40px; line-height: 115%; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">Researches also suggest that in group decisions where there are no obvious solutions (an “objectively accurate solution” or a “demonstrability correct solution”) the shared cognition process will guide a majority perspective which usually prevails. Further, shared cognitions can actually be superior to individual cognitions through the process of correcting individual cognition errors and biases. <span style="display: block; font-size: 12pt; height: 1px; left: -40px; line-height: 115%; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">The group context, however, not always leads to the best solutions in decision making processes. Sometimes, false norms appear to be group representations, but in fact they aren’t. Thus, this erroneous group representation may influence the individual cognition about other’s decisions. In other words, the individual thinks that the majority has a position that in fact it does not; the individual then proceeds to rely on this position and it interferes on his decision making. This is evidenced by situations in which a minority actually influences a majority in the decision making process. <span style="display: block; font-size: 12pt; height: 1px; left: -40px; line-height: 115%; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">The social identity theory backs this up. Social identity theory refers to the process by which a social category (nationality, political/religious affiliation, etc) provides a self-definition that is a main component of the individual’s self-concept. In terms of minority perspective influence on the majority, social identity research has found that minority-perspective individuals are persuasive to the extent that they are perceived to share a social identity with the majority. <span style="display: block; font-size: 12pt; height: 1px; left: -40px; line-height: 115%; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">Shared cognitions also have implications for work groups. Individuals working toward the same goal likely share common ideas about how that goal should be reached. <span style="display: block; font-size: 12pt; height: 1px; left: -40px; line-height: 115%; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">The article reaches four central conclusions on the subject of shared cognition: First, shared information in groups may reflect shared cognition, but the specific or actual amount of individual-level cognition that takes place in a shared cognition context is unclear. Second, the perceived demonstrability of the decision is largely based on the group representation of the choice. Third, errors produced from shared cognition appear to be exaggerated when group members are unaware of the influence such cognitions have on the process on the group decision. Fourth, shared cognition processes found in groups may be similar to those processes occurring in larger cultural groups. <span style="display: block; font-size: 12pt; height: 1px; left: -40px; line-height: 115%; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">These points are unified by the underlying concept of shared social theory, which the article uses to complement the idea of shared cognition. Shared social theories are conceptualized in the text as shared assumptions and beliefs that influence the decisions/behaviors of group members (shared beliefs, values, norms, identities, or assumptions). <span style="display: block; font-size: 12pt; height: 1px; left: -40px; line-height: 115%; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">Researches regarding this subject suggest that people generally do not have access to the reasons behind their feelings, attitudes, and judgments and thus generate reasons that are consistent with cultural and personal theories that are accessible in memory.