Similarity as a source of differentiation: the role of group identification

The present research examines the relation between perceived intergroup distinctiveness and positive intergroup differentiation. It was hypothesised that the distinctiveness–differentiation relation is a function of group identification. In two studies group distinctiveness was varied and level of identification was either measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Study 2). Results support the prediction that low group distinctiveness leads to more positive differentiation for high identifiers, although we found less support for the prediction that increased group distinctiveness leads to enhanced positive differentiation for low identifiers. The difference in emphasis between social identity theory and self‐categorisation theory concerning the distinctiveness–differentiation relation is discussed and the importance of group identification as a critical factor of this relationship is stressed. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Behavioural style and group cohesiveness as sources of minority influence

Behavioural style and group cohesiveness were tested as sources of minority influence under conditions in which rejection of the minority from the group was possible and under conditions in which it was not. Female subjects (N = 120) were led to believe that they were interacting as a group and that they held a majority position on a relevant issue. The influence agent, ostensibly one of the group members, advocated a minority position throughout their interaction. Three variables were manipulated: group cohesiveness (high or low), behavioural style of the deviate (high or low consistency) and opportunity for rejection of the deviate from the group (possible or not possible). It was predicted that the deviate would be more influential under high cohesive than under low cohesive conditions and that she would be most influential when she was highly consistent and there was no opportunity to reject her. Although both hypotheses were confirmed, unexpected minority influence effects were also found.     

Individuality and group formation: the role of independence and differentiation

This research examined the interplay of group formation and individualization processes with a particular emphasis on minority and majority groups. First, a 2-component theory of individuality that distinguishes between individuality as independence and as differentiation from other people was presented, tested, and cross-validated in 2 questionnaire studies. Next, a pilot experiment provided first support for the working assumption that the salience of the differentiation or independence components of individuality differentially affect minority and majority group formation. Finally, the main experiment demonstrated that these individuality effects on minority and majority group formation are due largely to a differential orientation toward either intergroup or intragroup comparisons. This experiment also uncovered a unique effect of relative in-group size, but this effect was limited to similarity-based group formation.     

Polarization and moderation of person perception judgements as a function of group interaction style

Studied the effects of group discussion on the extremity of person perception judgements with a view towards (a) evaluating the role of alternative ‘modes of interaction’ in selectively inducing polarization or moderation of judgements, and (b) further extending the generality of the group polarization phenomenon. Two traditional theories of group shift (leadership theory, value theory) were also evaluated. Both the video-taped stimuli and the subject, object and situation-relevant measuring instrument were specially developed in a pilot study (N = 90) in order to approximate real-life conditions. The person stimuli were rated by subjects (N = 72) in a traditional repeated measures design, with a control group for familiarization effects. Free exchange of opinions in group discussion was either encouraged or discouraged. A significant polarization effect with marked postdiscussion recidivism was found when spontaneous interaction was encouraged, while group consensus judgements were more moderate in the more formalized group interaction condition. Neither of the traditional theories examined were supported by the data. The results are discussed in term of their potential relevance to real-life groups specializing in person perception judgements (juries, interviewing panels), and the connection between the mode of interaction formulation and other recent theories of the group shift are examined, with some suggestions for the further elaboration of the present model.     

Social interaction,observation, and stereotypes as determinants of differentiation in peer ratings

The goal of this investigation was to discover the relationships among peer rating items under three rating information conditions. One hundred British managers made peer ratings based on social interaction, observation, and sterotype information. These data were factor analyzed (using both simultaneous and independent factor solutions) to assess differentiation in each condition. By several criteria, ratings based on interaction were different from ratings based on observation or ratings based on stereotypes. A second set of data was submitted to an independent factor analysis to validate the reported findings. The results of initial and validation data are similar, though not, of course, identical. Implications for future research and behavior-based ratings are discussed.     

Race vs belief as determinants of attraction,in a group interaction context

Three experiments which tested the’ effects of race vs belief similarity as determinants of prejudiced responding in a live interaction situation,are reported. Two black and two white confederates engaged a white S in a discussion of an issue (ROTC in Experiments I and II and abortion in III). One white and one black confederate agreed with the S’s position and the other pair disagreed. Ss then rated all four confederates on a variety of scales. Results showed strong belief effects in all three experiments but very few race effects. A few measures showed a “renegade effect” against dissimilar white confederates. It was concluded that simply increasing the power and realism of the experimental situation does not in any important way increase the number of racially prejudiced responses. Some conditions which may elicit strong and consistent race prejudice effects are discussed.     

The path to glory is paved with hierarchy: when hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness

Two experiments examined the psychological and biological antecedents of hierarchical differentiation and the resulting consequences for productivity and conflict within small groups. In Experiment 1, which used a priming manipulation, hierarchically differentiated groups (i.e., groups comprising 1 high-power-primed, 1 low-power-primed, and 1 baseline individual) performed better on a procedurally interdependent task than did groups comprising exclusively either all high-power-primed or all low-power-primed individuals. There were no effects of hierarchical differentiation on performance on a procedurally independent task. Experiment 2 used a biological marker of dominance motivation (prenatal testosterone exposure as measured by a digit-length ratio) to manipulate hierarchical differentiation. The pattern of results from Experiment 1 was replicated; mixed-testosterone groups achieved greater productivity than did groups comprising all high-testosterone or all low-testosterone individuals. Furthermore, intragroup conflict mediated the productivity decrements for the high-testosterone but not the low-testosterone groups. This research suggests possible directions for future research and the need to further delineate the conditions and types of hierarchy under which hierarchical differentiation enhances rather than undermines group effectiveness.     

Group size,controllability of group membership,and comparative dimension as determinants of intergroup discrimination

We expected that, when group members cannot control their group membership, majority members show ingroup favouritism on task-relevant dimension, whereas minority members were expected to show ingroup favouritism on task-irrelevant dimension (hypothesis I) In addition, it was expected that intergroup comparisons will change when group membership changes from uncontrollable to controllable. Based on Social Identity Theory, two alternative hypotheses were explored: Compared with uncontrollable settings, ingroup bias will decrease (2a) or increase (2b) in controllable settings. Ninety-two subjects were divided into four groups (minority versus majority, controllable versus uncontrollable group membership), allegedly on the basis of their essay writing style. The results supported the first hypothesis. Hypothesis 2a received support among the majority members and hypothesis 2b among the minority members. The findings are discussed in terms of Social Identity Theory and the effect the perceived control of group membership and the dimension may have on intergroup comparisons.     

Leadership and regressive group processes: A pilot study

Various perspectives on leadership within the psychoanalytic, organizational and socio‐biological literature are reviewed, with particular attention to research studies in these areas. Hypotheses are offered about what makes an effective leader: her ability to structure tasks well in order to avoid destructive regressions, to make constructive use of the omnipresent regressive energies in group life, and to redirect regressions when they occur. Systematic qualitative observations of three videotaped sessions each from N = 18 medical staff work groups at an urban medical center are discussed, as is the utility of a scale, the Leadership and Group Regressions Scale (LGRS), that attempts to operationalize the hypotheses. Analyzing the tapes qualitatively, it was noteworthy that at times (in N = 6 groups), the nominal leader of the group did not prove to be the actual, working leader. Quantitatively, a significant correlation was seen between leaders’ LGRS scores and the group’s satisfactory completion of their quantitative goals (p = 0.007) and ability to sustain the goals (p = 0.04), when the score of the person who met criteria for group leadership was used.