This study examined the hypothesis that differences in the cultural norms of Anglo-Americans and three other ethnic groups-Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans-will result in different behaviors on a group task. Student subjects were assigned to ethnically diverse or all-Anglo groups. Individual and group responses were measured using a Prisoner's Dilemma task in which participants could choose to compete or cooperate with another party. We hypothesized that groups composed of people from collectivist cultural traditions would display more cooperative hehavior than groups composed of people from individualistic cultural traditions. Results confirmed this hypothesis. Implications for future research and for organizations seeking to manage diversity are discussed.

There is a growing belief among managers that ethnic diversity, when well managed, can provide organizations with certain competitive advantages. But the belief in this value-inl diversity hypothesis rests largely on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. Results are reported ofa controlled experimental study that compares the performance on a brainstorm ing task between groups composed of all Anglo-Americans with groups composed ofAnglo-, Asian, African, and Hispanic Americans. The particular brainstorming task used-The Tourist Problem-was chosenfor its relevancefordiversity along the dimension of ethnicity. The ideas produced by the ethnically diverse groups were judged to be of higher quality-more effective andfeasible-than the ideas produced by the homogeneous groups. Members of homogeneous groups reported marginally more attraction to their groups than did members of diverse oroups. Directions for future research with respect to the degree of diversity, the nature of the task, and group process are discussed.

This meta-analysis summarized findings from 65 studies using the hidden profile paradigm (101 independent effects, 3,189 groups). Results showed (a) groups mentioned two standard deviations more pieces of common information than unique information; (b) hidden profile groups were eight times less likely to find the solution than were groups having full information; (c) two measures of information pooling, including the percentage of unique information mentioned out of total available information (the information coverage measure) and the percentage of unique information out of total discussion (the discussion focus measure), were positively related to decision quality, but the effect of information coverage was stronger than that of discussion focus; and communication medium did not affect (d) unique information pooling or (e) group decision quality. Group size, total information load, the proportion of unique information, task demonstrability, and hidden profile strength were found to moderate these effects. Results are discussed in terms of how they offer conceptual advancement for future hidden profile research.

Results of an experiment comparing face-to-face groups with anonymous and identified computer-supported groups challenged theoretical arguments (V. S. Rao & S. L. Jarvenpaa, 1991) that computer-based group decision support systems (GDSS) can increase group decision quality by facilitating expression of minority opinions. In groups working on a hidden-profile investment decision task, minority opinion holders expressed their arguments most frequently under anonymous GDSS communication, but the influence of the minority arguments on private opinions and on group decisions was highest under face-to-face communication. These results suggest that the conditions that facilitate the expression of minority arguments may also diminish the influence of those arguments. The implications of these findings for a normative view of social influence, for social presence theory, and for the effects of GDSS on participation rates in group discussion are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory identifies five moral axes that can influence human motivation to take action on vital problems like climate change. The theory focuses on five moral foundations, including compassion, fairness, purity, authority, and ingroup loyalty; these have been found to differ between liberals and conservatives as well as Democrats and Republicans. Here we show, based on the Cornell National Social Survey (USA), that valuations of compassion and fairness were strong, positive predictors of willingness to act on climate change, whereas purity had a non-significant tendency in the positive direction (p = 0.07). Ingroup loyalty and authority were not supported as important predictor variables using model selection (). Compassion and fairness were more highly valued by liberals, whereas purity, authority, and in-group loyalty were more highly valued by conservatives. As in previous studies, participants who were younger, more liberal, and reported greater belief in climate change, also showed increased willingness to act on climate change. Our research supports the potential importance of moral foundations as drivers of intentions with respect to climate change action, and suggests that compassion, fairness, and to a lesser extent, purity, are potential moral pathways for personal action on climate change in the USA.