Communication Networks

Shaw, Marvin E.

doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60050-7

Cited by 253 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Important from the perspective of FHT, a fundamental function of hierarchy is to regulate the information flow within organizations (Anderson & Brown 2010;Shaw, 1964). Ideally, information needed to make decisions moves up the hierarchy and is integrated at the top where Power, Procedural Justice, and Prosocial Behavior 7 it is used for decision making; the decision taken is then communicated downward (Scott 1998).…”

Section: Power Procedural Justice and Prosocial Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, although receiving (vs. being denied) voice in an authority's decision is a somewhat ambiguous source of information about authority's trustworthiness, it nevertheless is used as a cue signaling that the authority is not exploitative. This information is subsequently used to decide whether or not to contribute to the collective by displaying prosocial behavior.Important from the perspective of FHT, a fundamental function of hierarchy is to regulate the information flow within organizations (Anderson & Brown 2010;Shaw, 1964). Ideally, information needed to make decisions moves up the hierarchy and is integrated at the top where Power, Procedural Justice, and Prosocial Behavior 7 it is used for decision making; the decision taken is then communicated downward (Scott 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice.

Dijke¹,

Cremer²,

Langendijk³

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research shows that power can lead to prosocial behavior by facilitating the behavioral expression of dispositional prosocial motivation. However, it is not clear how power may facilitate responses to contextual factors that promote prosocial motivation. Integrating Fairness Heuristic Theory and the Situated Focus Theory of Power, we argue that in particular, organization members in lower (vs. higher) hierarchical positions who simultaneously experience a high (vs. low) sense of power respond with prosocial behavior to one important antecedent of prosocial motivation, that is, the enactment of procedural justice. The results from a multisource survey among employees and their leaders from various organizations (Study 1) and an experiment using a public goods dilemma (Study 2) support this prediction.Three subsequent experiments show that this effect is mediated by perceptions of authority trustworthiness. Taken together, this research (a) helps resolve the debate regarding whether power promotes or undermines prosocial behavior, (b) demonstrates that hierarchical position and the sense of power can have very different effects on processes that are vital to the functioning of an organization, and (c) helps solve ambiguity regarding the roles of hierarchical position and power in Fairness Heuristic Theory.Keywords: procedural justice; power; hierarchy; sense of power; prosocial behavior. Power, Procedural Justice, and Prosocial Behavior 3 Many classical philosophers and writers who still heavily influence today's thinking, like Plato, Shakespeare, Machiavelli, and Nietzsche, argued that the power that we possess influences whether we treat others in prosocial ways or not (see e.g. Ng, 1980). It is not surprising then that the relationship between power and our treatment of others has been the focus of much social scientific research (see Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015;Sturm & Antonakis, 2015;Williams, 2014, for reviews). However, this research has so far not resulted in a clear and coherent picture. For instance, consistent with the traditional proposition that "power corrupts", some studies suggest that a high power position undermines prosocial behavior (e.g., Kipnis, 1972) and yet, other studies suggest that high power may promote such behavior (e.g., Schmid Mast, Jonas, & Hall, 2009). One way by which scholars reconcile these seemingly contradictory findings is by showing that power facilitates acting upon one's goals and motivations (Guinote, 2007a;2008). Studies in this tradition show that power, rather than directly promoting or undermining prosocial behavior, serves as a catalyst by facilitating the expression of chronic, personality-based prosocial motivations in observable behavior (Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001;DeCelles, DeRue, Margolis, & Ceranic, 2012).A point that has received much less attention is that the organizational context in which individuals operate is as relevant an antecedent of prosocial behavior as is personality (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997). However, it is unclea...

show abstract

Section: Power Procedural Justice and Prosocial Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice.

Dijke¹,

Cremer²,

Langendijk³

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Trust Connectionist Model Of Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, researchers explored the role and efficiency of information routing in centralized and hierarchical networks as opposed to more decentralized networks (Jablin, 1979(Jablin, , 1987Leavitt, 1951;Mackenzie, 1976;Shaw, 1964Shaw, , 1978. It was found that as soon as tasks become more complex and multifaceted, groups tend to gravitate naturally to more decentralized networks (Brown & Miller, 2000;Shaw, 1978).…”

Section: Internal Models Of Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With respect to processes within a group, different types of social dynamics lead to a less than optimal performance. These include conformity and polarization which move a group as a whole towards more extreme opinions (Ebbesen & Bowers, 1974;Mackie & Cooper, 1984;Isenberg, 1986), groupthink that leads to unrealistic group decisions (Janis, 1972), the lack of sharing of unique information so that intellectual resources of a group are underused (Larson et al, 1996(Larson et al, , 1998Stasser, 1999;Wittenbaum & Bowman, 2003) and the suboptimal use of relevant information channels in social networks (Leavitt, 1951;Mackenzie, 1976;Shaw, 1964).These different approaches provide a new focus for the understanding of cognition that might be summarized as collective intelligence (Levy, 1997;Heylighen, 1999) or distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995), that is, the cognitive processes and structures that emerge at the social level. To understand collective information processing, we must consider the distributed organization constituted by different individuals with different forms of knowledge and experience TRUST Connectionist Model of Communication 4 and the social network that links them together and that supports their interindividual communication.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Talking nets: A multiagent connectionist approach to communication and trust between individuals.

Overwalle

Heylighen

2006

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How is information transmitted in a group? A multi-agent connectionist model is proposed that combines features of standard recurrent models to simulate the process of information uptake, integration and memorization within individual agents, with novel aspects that simulate the communication of beliefs and opinions between agents. A crucial aspect in belief updating based on information from other agents is the trust in the information provided, implemented as the consistency with the receiving agents' existing beliefs. Trust leads to a selective propagation and thus filtering out of less reliable information, and implements Grice's (1975) maxims of quality and quantity in communication. By studying these communicative aspects within the framework of standard models of information processing, the unique contribution of communicative mechanisms beyond intra-personal factors was explored in simulations of key phenomena involving persuasive communication and polarization, lexical acquisition, spreading of stereotypes and rumors, and a lack of sharing unique information in group decisions. TRUST Connectionist Model of Communication 3Cognition is not limited to the mind of an individual agent, but involves interactions with other minds. A full understanding of human thinking thus requires a deeper insight of its social origin. Sociologists and developmental psychologists have long noted that most of our knowledge of reality is the result of a social construction and communication rather than of individual observation. Economists emphasize that effective knowledge management and learning is an organizational phenomenon that determines enterprise's success or failure (Senge, 1990).Collective behaviors have a long evolutionary past, as biologists and computer scientists have built models that demonstrate how collectives of simple agents, such as ant colonies, bee hives, or flocks of birds, can process complex information more effectively than single agents facing the same tasks (Bonabeau et al., 1999).Social psychologists too have studied cognition at the group level, using laboratory experiments to document various biases and shortcomings of collective intelligence. Research has revealed that we often fall prey to biases and simplistic stereotypes about other groups, and that many of these distorted representations are emergent properties of the cognitive dynamics in single or multiple minds. Some of these biased processes are illusory correlation or the creation of an unwarranted association between a group and undesirable characteristics, accentuation of differences between groups, subtyping of deviant members (for a review see Van Rooy, Van Overwalle, Vanhoomissen, Labiouse & French, 2004) and the communication of stereotypes (e.g., Lyons & Kashima, 1993). With respect to processes within a group, different types of social dynamics lead to a less than optimal performance. These include conformity and polarization which move a group as a whole towards more extreme opinions (Ebbesen & Bowers, 1974;Mackie & ...

show abstract

Predicting collective climates: assessing the role of shared work values, needs, employee interaction and work group membership

Young¹,

Parker²

1999

J. Organiz. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryPrevious research has debated whether the collective climates, produced through cluster analysis of psychological climate perceptions, are representative of meaningful organizational collectives or simply statistical artifacts. In this study we examined the extent to which collective climates are comprised of individuals with similar interpretive schemata such as work values and need strength or consist of individuals who share work group or interaction group membership. Measures of psychological climate, work values, need strength, and employee interaction patterns were collected from the management and administrative sta of a manufacturing organization. Results supported the symbolic interactionist perspective to the formation of collective climates. We found clear evidence that collective climates are related to employee interaction groups. Employee interaction based on sensemaking and information seeking activities was most strongly related to shared climate perceptions. There was also some evidence that individuals with similar levels of need strength share collective climate membership. Implications of these results on the debate over the use of collective climates are discussed.

show abstract

Communication Networks

Cited by 253 publications

References 45 publications

Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice.

Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice.

Talking nets: A multiagent connectionist approach to communication and trust between individuals.

Predicting collective climates: assessing the role of shared work values, needs, employee interaction and work group membership

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About