From dissidents to collaborators: the resurgence and demise of the Russian critical intelligentsia since 1985

This paper investigates the multifaceted universe of Russian intelligentsia and addresses the following, troubling, questions: What caused pro-democratic political dissent to weaken among the intelligentsia in the aftermath of perestrojka? Why has the young generation of Russian public intellectuals undergone a radical metamorphosis of their value system and plunged into political passivity and conformism? Freedom has historically been a prima facie value for the Russian liberal intelligentsia. By the mid-1990s, however, much of the intelligentsia came to be associated not with advocacy of individual liberty and human rights but with the failure of liberal democracy in Russia. This paper focuses on how the generation of the 1960s liberal intelligentsia, or shestidesjatniki, who played an active role during perestrojka, gave way to a generation of the “sons,” who, characterized as Western-style intellectuals, became spin doctors and political technologists, replacing the original ideals and high moral stance of their predecessors with nihilistic nonchalance. It is argued that the demise of dissent in post-Soviet Russia derives from the younger generation of intellectuals’ view of the attainment of political power by the generation of shestidesjatniki during perestrojka and the first El’tsin term as the latter’s moral fall and abandonment of the intelligentsia’s traditional role as an outside critic of the state.     

The impact of individualist and collectivist group norms on evaluations of dissenting group members

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the impact of individualist and collectivist norms on evaluations of dissenting group members. In the first experiment (N = 113), group norms prescribing individualism or collectivism were manipulated and participants were asked to evaluate a group member who expressed an attitude dissenting from or concordant with the group. In line with predictions, group members with concordant attitudes were evaluated more positively than group members with dissenting attitudes when norms prescribed collectivism. However, for high identifiers, we found an attenuation of the preference for concordant over dissenting attitudes when norms prescribed individualism. These findings were replicated in a second experiment (N = 87), where dissent was operationalized in a way that did not reveal the content of the attitude. The discussion focused on the importance of individualist norms for broadening latitudes of acceptable group member behavior.     

When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members

Diversity researchers have distinguished between surface-level (e.g., social categories) and deep-level (e.g., attitudes, opinions, information, and values) diversity, but have not fully explored the complexities of their simultaneous existence in groups. We examined how the relationship between surface-level and deep-level diversity impacts the emotional and behavioral reactions of dissenting group members and the effectiveness of decision-making groups. We conducted two studies focusing on dissenting social majority members (individuals who hold dissenting deep-level task perspectives yet belong to the surface-level majority) in three-person groups. The results show that surface-level diverse groups (with two similar and one dissimilar individuals) were perceived as more positive and accepting, fostered more persistent and confident voicing of dissenting perspectives, and displayed greater task engagement than surface-level homogeneous groups (containing all similar individuals). Surface-level diversity (both task-relevant and irrelevant) may be beneficial for groups even when the group member who is different on the surface does not have a different deep-level task perspective to share. We discuss implications for understanding how surface-level diversity affects organizational work groups.     

Productive conflict in group decision making: genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking

Decision-making groups in organizations are often expected to function as a “think tank” and to perform “reality testing” to detect the best alternative. A biased search for information supporting the group's favored alternative impairs a group's ability to fulfill these requirements. In a two-factorial experiment with 201 employees and managers from various economic and public organizations, genuine and contrived dissent were investigated as counterstrategies to biased information seeking. Genuine dissent was manipulated by forming three-person groups whose members either all favored the same alternative individually (homogeneous groups) or consisted of a minority and a majority faction with regard to their favored alternative (heterogeneous groups). Contrived dissent was varied by the use or nonuse of the “devil's advocacy” technique. The results demonstrate that heterogeneity was more effective in preventing a confirmatory information-seeking bias than devil's advocacy was. Confidence was identified as an important mediator. Implications for the design of interventions aimed at facilitating reality testing in group decision making are discussed.     

Compassionate goals predict greater and clearer dissent expression to ingroups through collectively oriented motives in Japan and the U.S

Although compassionate goals often result in harmonious relationships, people with higher compassionate goals expressed dissent toward their ingroup, both directly (Study 1) and indirectly, through higher collectively oriented motives (Studies 2–4). They expressed dissent in clearer and less harmful ways, and were more likely to take ownership of their opinions (Studies 2–4). In contrast, the goals to project a desirable self-image showed mixed associations with the degree and methods of dissent expression. Similar results emerged in two contrasting socio-cultural contexts, namely Japan (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and the U.S. (Studies 3 and 4). Unlike interdependent cultural orientation, which involves the avoidance of confrontation, compassionate goals may promote dissent expression to ingroup members by highlighting the benefit of dissent for the group.