The relational versus collective “We” and intergroup allocation: The role of nested group categorization

Intergroup research has focused primarily, if not solely, on how an intergroup comparative context primes social categorization. The current research examines how individual differences, in terms of distinct forms of social self (the relational versus collective self), differentially drive social categorization and zero-sum resource allocation across groups nested within a superordinate group. Results show that the relational self exhibited more ingroup-biased allocations than the collective self; superordinate categorization mediated this relationship. Moreover, the relational self showed more ingroup-biased allocations under the condition of intergroup competition than cooperation; whereas the collective self showed equally unbiased allocations under the conditions of intergroup competition and cooperation. Our research suggests that competition worsens nested group relations for the relational self, but not for the collective self.     

The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: a close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes

This article explores the linkages between strategies for managing different types of conflict and group performance and satisfaction. Results from a qualitative study of 57 autonomous teams suggest that groups that improve or maintain top performance over time share 3 conflict resolution tendencies: (a) focusing on the content of interpersonal interactions rather than delivery style, (b) explicitly discussing reasons behind any decisions reached in accepting and distributing work assignments, and (c) assigning work to members who have the relevant task expertise rather than assigning by other common means such as volunteering, default, or convenience. The authors' results also suggest that teams that are successful over time are likely to be both proactive in anticipating the need for conflict resolution and pluralistic in developing conflict resolution strategies that apply to all group members.     

The importance of who you meet: Effects of self- versus other-concerns among negotiators in the United States, the People’s Republic of China, and Japan

This study examines intracultural negotiation within three different cultures—the United States (US), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and Japan. Within these cultures, we focus on the interactive effects of the self-concerns (operationalized as aspiration level) and other-concerns (operationalized as egoistic vs. prosocial motives) of negotiators in a dyadic setting (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). After allowing negotiators to set their own aspiration levels, we predicted that the positive effect on final individual profit of having a higher aspiration than one’s opponent would be stronger among negotiators with an egoistic social motive orientation. We also hypothesized that egoistic negotiators with higher aspiration levels than their opponents would achieve greater profit in the PRC and Japan, relative to their counterparts in the US. We argue that this effect is due to “who you meet” as a negotiation opponent—there is a higher probability of encountering an egoistic negotiation opponent in the US, but a higher probability of encountering a prosocial negotiation opponent in the PRC and Japan. Our results supported these hypotheses. Implications for the literatures on negotiation and cross-cultural research are discussed.     

Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties

The impact of congruence between social and knowledge ties on performance in diverse groups was examined. Congruence occurs when group members who are socially tied share the same information and a stranger has any unique information. Incongruence occurs when group members who are socially tied possess different information, and one of them shares information with a stranger. In Experiment 1, three-person groups with congruent social and knowledge ties utilized information more effectively, reported more effective group processes, and outperformed groups with incongruent ties. Experiment 2, which involved four-person groups, examined the role of congruence in groups with either a single minority information holder or two equal-sized subgroups. Congruent groups again outperformed incongruent groups, but this was only true when groups had a minority information holder. There was no difference in the performance of congruent and incongruent groups that had equal-sized subgroups. The implications of these findings for analyses of group composition and decision-making are discussed.     

Negotiating over Time: Impediments to Integrative Solutions

Most negotiation relationships consist of interactions that occur across time. This paper explores the influence of two variables on the outcomes of such negotiations: the mobility of negotiators and the frame of the short-term sacrifice required to reach long-term gain. Specifically, we focus on the integrativeness of agreements both within a static negotiating period as well as across several negotiations. Subjects participated in an experiment that consisted of 10 similar negotiations across time, with two issues being addressed in each negotiation. The experiment was created to allow for the possibility of a moderately advantageous integrative agreement within each static negotiation, as well as a superior integrative agreement across negotiations. A higher level of negotiator mobility was predicted to decrease the integrativeness of outcomes across negotiations. This prediction was supported. The frame of the sacrifice required of subjects was predicted to affect integrativeness both within as well as across negotiations, such that subjects would be less likely to sacrifice on an issue, or issues, if it meant accepting a perceived loss rather than a reduced gain. This prediction was not supported. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for managerial negotiation and decision making.     

The weight of obesity in evaluating others: a mere proximity effect

Previous research demonstrates that we tend to derogate individuals who are perceived to be in a social relationship with stigmatized persons. Two experiments examined whether this phenomenon also occurs for individuals seen in the presence of an obese person and whether a social relationship is necessary for stigmatization to spread. The results from both experiments revealed that a male job applicant was rated more negatively when seen with an overweight compared to a normal weight female and that just being in the mere proximity of an overweight woman was enough to trigger stigmatization toward the male applicant. Experiment 2 examined possible moderating effects of the proximity finding. Applicants seated next to heavy (vs. average weight) individuals were denigrated consistently regardless of the perceived depth of the relationship, the participant's anti-fat attitudes or gender, and whether or not positive information was presented concerning the woman. The profound nature of the obesity stigma and implications for impression formation processes are discussed.