Effect of group discussion on universalistic-particularistic orientation

Horne, William C.; Long, Gary T.

doi:10.1016/s0022-1031(72)80004-0

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research demonstrates that interactive group discussion, a common feature of the simulation utilized in this study, may facilitate polarization by increasing members' involvement with the issues at hand and their confidence that the group is making the correct decision (Bishop & Myers, 1974;Johnson & Johnson, 1997;Myers, 1975). Furthermore, previous research demonstrates that group polarization has been shown to exist with respect to ethical decision making by groups (Alker & Kogan, 1968;Horne & Long, 1972;Myers, Schreiber, & Viel, 1974). Because participants held relatively strong mean formalist and utilitarian positions at the outset of the simulation (5.61 and 6.22 on a 7-point scale for formalism and utilitarianism, respectively), polarization research would predict these scores to increase with additional group interaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Leadership and Ethics in Work Groups

Schminke

Wells

Peyrefitte

et al. 2002

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored the relationship between leadership style and individual ethics in work groups. We present a model of how active leadership affects conformity in members’ ethical decision frameworks (formalism and utilitarianism). We tested this model by examining 36 work groups over a 12-week period. Results supported the hypothesis that more active leadership would lead to greater conformity in both types of ethical frameworks. A second hypothesis, that group cohesion would mediate this relationship between leadership style and ethical conformity, was partially supported. Implications of these findings for leadership, groups, and ethics research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Leadership and Ethics in Work Groups

Schminke

Wells

Peyrefitte

et al. 2002

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Horne and Long (1972), using a similar measure of &dquo;universalism-particularism&dquo; (Parsons, 1949;Parsons and Shils, 1951;Stouffer and Toby, 1951), but studying groups of female strangers, found that group discussion resulted in &dquo;universalistic&dquo; responses.…”

Section: Effects Of Group Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Status, Deviance, Sanctions, and Group Discussion

Wahrman

1977

Small Group Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimental studies of responses to high status deviance have tended to make two assumptions which are inappropriate if we are to generalize our findings beyond the laboratory to natural groups. The first assumption is that we can understand a group's response to deviance by asking individual members who are isolated from one another for their responses. The second assumption is that there is some necessary connection between the group members' covert evaluations of the behavior and the overt sanctions imposed upon the deviant. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSESThe first, more significant, assumption is implicit in the paradigm used in virtually all of our laboratory studies of status and deviance. Subjects are first given information at

show abstract

The group polarization phenomenon.

Myers

Lamm²

1976

Psychological Bulletin

895

501

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments exploring the effects of group discussion on attitudes, jury decisions, ethical decisions, judgments, person perceptions, negotiations, and risk taking (other than the choice-dilemmas task) are generally consistent with a "group polarization" hypothesis, derived from the risky-shift literature. Recent attempts to explain the phenomenon fall mostly into one of three theoretical approaches: (a) group decision rules, especially majority rule (which is contradicted by available data), (b) interpersonal comparisons (for which there is mixed support), and (c) informational influence (for which there is strong support). A conceptual scheme is presented which integrates the latter two viewpoints and suggests how attitudes develop in a social context.

show abstract

Effect of group discussion on universalistic-particularistic orientation

Cited by 8 publications

References 18 publications

Leadership and Ethics in Work Groups

Leadership and Ethics in Work Groups

Status, Deviance, Sanctions, and Group Discussion

The group polarization phenomenon.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About