journal article
LitStream Collection
Home
King, Eden B.; Hebl, Michelle R.; Beal, Daniel J.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01600.xpmid: N/A
This article reviews research examining the influence of diversity on conflict and cooperation within the context of the workplace. In particular, we describe how heterogeneity in surface characteristics, such as race and gender, as well as deeper characteristics, such as affect, experience, and knowledge, relate to key workgroup processes and outcomes. Of particular interest is the disparate strength and directionality of the effects reported in the literature. In an effort to provide clarity to the confusion, we emphasize the roles of group longevity and the type of diversity being examined. In addition, we recommend greater specificity with respect to the particular group processes and outcomes being examined.
Levin, Shana; Sinclair, Stacey; Sidanius, Jim; Van Laar, Colette
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01601.xpmid: N/A
The common in‐group identity model advocates the creation of a superordinate group identity in order to reduce conflict between members of different ethnic subgroups. This study demonstrates that a university identity can serve as an effective common in‐group identity for students from different ethnic groups. Longitudinal data were collected from an ethnically diverse sample of university students at the end of each year of college. Although ethnic identification tended to be correlated with status‐legitimizing orientations and ideologies in a way that reinforces ethnic‐status differences (i.e., these variables tended to be positively related for Whites but less so for ethnic minorities), the status‐legitimizing variables were largely unrelated to university identification during each year in college. The longitudinal data also allowed us to examine these relationships over time. The relationships between ethnic and university identification and status‐legitimizing orientations and ideologies did not change. Ethnic and university identities are discussed in terms of the common in‐group identity model.
Shelly, Robert K.; Shelly, Ann C.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01602.xpmid: N/A
We examine how the content of actors’ speech and the frequency with which they make contributions affect the emergence and legitimation of inequality in task groups. Previous research has focused on classifying acts, the smallest meaningful units of speech, such as providing opportunities to others to speak, making task relevant suggestions, and positively or negatively evaluating the contributions of others. We also employ a classification scheme based on the cognitive complexity of spoken language in the turn. This scheme is based on an interpretation of the cognitive development model posited by Piaget. In addition to the complexity of language, we analyze speech group members employ to organize to solve the task. These classifications rely on the entire content of the turn rather than the more atomistic act. Data analyzed are from 33 groups of students performing different types of tasks. We employ structural equation models to identify how acts and content are related to one another in the observed interaction patterns in groups. Applications of these insights are explored in the discussion.
Crano, William D.; Seyranian, Viviane
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01603.xpmid: N/A
The pioneering efforts of Moscovici in the late 1960s motivated social psychologists to understand how minority groups affected the majority, and conversely, how the majority affected the minority. The underlying processes of influence have been found to be quite different, and understanding their operation provides insight into the processes of social influence, persuasion, and intragroup conflict and cooperation. This review tracks some of the development of this progression and details some contributions to understanding fundamental features of the influence process that have been uncovered as a result of this work. We consider major explanatory models, with particular emphasis on Crano's (2001) context/comparison model, and its allied leniency contract, a comprehensive account of the conditions that prevail when majorities and minorities wield influence. Finally, how this work informs important processes of influence in the world outside the laboratory are discussed.
Alexander, Michele G.; Chizhik, Alexander W.; Chizhik, Estella W.; Goodman, Jeffrey A.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01604.xpmid: N/A
Status hierarchies readily form in groups and, once established, limit lower‐status group members’ opportunities for contributing to and influencing group decisions. Recent findings, however, suggest that the type of task on which a group works may allow lower‐status individuals to break through power and prestige orders in a cooperative way while conflicting with ideas of their higher‐status group members. In this article, we review a research program that investigates how task structure relates to status and influence in small groups. In one experiment, using groups of three female students as participants, we found that open‐structured tasks allow lower‐status group members to participate, receive positive evaluations, and improve their status more than closed‐structured tasks. In a second experiment, using groups of two female students and a female experimenter as participants, we found that open‐structured tasks and lower‐status confederates foster more divergent thinking and indirect influence than closed‐structured tasks and higher‐status sources. Our findings contribute to the understanding of how immediate problem‐solving environments contribute to status change and influence in small groups.
Jacobs, Elizabeth; Christensen, P. Niels; Prislin, Radmila
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01605.xpmid: N/A
Establishing fair procedures to regulate intragroup disagreements should engender cooperation while inhibiting conflict. Yet what is a “fair” procedure might vary for members of different factions. To understand perceptions of fairness in group decision making, the present research developed and utilized the Fair Group Procedures Scale (FGPS). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed a four‐factor structure along two dimensions: the means of distributing decision‐making power (proportionality to equality) and the normative value of the approach (desirable to undesirable). Data suggest that deeming a particular decision‐making procedure “fair” is predicted by one's majority/minority position within a group. Furthermore, experimental data suggest that social change (i.e., reversals of majority/minority positions) reduces the discrepancies between factions. Results support the socially constructed nature of fairness and its potential role in intragroup conflict.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01606.xpmid: N/A
Consultants and researchers have long recognized the debilitating effects that conflict between group members can have on both group and individual outcomes. Yetless attention has been paid to the important role that conflict may play in helping generate innovative solutions to ill‐structured problems. Furthermore, conflict (properly managed) is critical to the avoidance of groupthink (i.e., the tendency to sacrifice quality decision making and problem solving for the sake of consensus and conflict avoidance). What strategies can group members use to incorporate conflict, or more specifically, dissent in group problem solving? We argue that the delivery of dissenting opinions (negative evaluations) affects the extent to which dissent fosters creativity. We report the results of an experiment in which the target of negative evaluations was varied (e.g., source of an idea vs. idea itself ) and compared to a condition in which no negative evaluations were incorporated. The results show that (1) creativity is higher in the conditions involving idea‐targeted negative evaluations than source‐targeted or no negative evaluations; (2) negative evaluations from others increase in conditions in which there are source‐targeted negative evaluations and idea‐targeted negative evaluations, compared to no negative evaluations; and (3) group members report higher levels of satisfaction when working under conditions involving idea‐targeted negative evaluations, compared to source‐targeted or no negative evaluations. We discuss the implications of this research for organizational settings, with particular attention to how they might inform the design of group decision support systems.
Dovidio, John F.; Saguy, Tamar; Shnabel, Nurit
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01607.xpmid: N/A
Whereas intragroup processes and intergroup relations are often assumed to reflect discrete processes and cooperation and conflict to represent alternative outcomes, the present article focuses on intergroup dynamics within a shared group identity and challenges traditional views of cooperation and conflict primarily as the respective positive and negative outcomes of these dynamics. Drawing on the ideas, theories, and evidence presented in other articles in this volume, we (1) consider the dynamic tension between stability and change that exists within hierarchical groups; (2) discuss the different perspectives that advantaged and disadvantaged subgroups within a larger group have regarding this tension; (3) propose that cooperation and conflict should be viewed as developmental processes in the life of a group; (4) suggest that constructive resolution of conflict depends upon whether subgroups manage to satisfy the different needs of each group, and (5) conclude by discussing the personal, social, and policy implications of this perspective.
Showing 1 to 10 of 10 Articles