Holding information shared across a group reads as expertise and confers influence

Evidence

In both cases they found evidence to support the notion that cognitively central group members (members who share more information with other members) are more influential. Even when the most central member held the minority opinion, more often than not, groups would go with the alternative preferred by that member. When the most central member was in the majority, the majority won virtually all the time. Kameda et al. argued that sharing more information with other group members conveys the perception of expertise to the other members. — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide, 940

Categorization

• XREF: Bridges to the chapter’s envy/scapegoat logic: perceived expertise, not mere numbers, is what moves a group — the same cue that later makes a competent minority threatening. — connects to: Groups systematically discuss shared knowledge while undervaluing their most distinctive information; Shared information dominates group discussions, amplifying consensus stereotypes — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2368; Groups systematically undervalue distinctive information that only one member holds — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1981 (+1 more)
• SEED: Angle: ‘The competence penalty’ — why the most informed person in a room is both the most listened-to and the most resented.

Broader Connections

• Groups systematically discuss shared knowledge while undervaluing their most distinctive information #complicates (0.90)
• Groups systematically undervalue distinctive information that only one member holds #complicates (0.90) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1981
• Shared information dominates group discussions, amplifying consensus stereotypes #complicates (0.85) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2368