Indirect influence and divergent thinking as a function of member status and task structure in small groups

Abstract

A laboratory experiment examined the effect of confederate status and task structure on group members' use of the confederate's problem solving strategies (private/indirect influence) and divergent thinking. Twenty-eight three-member, all-female groups, with an experimental confederate acting as one of the group members, solved an open-structured or closed-structured logic problem. The confederate, randomly assigned to be higher-, lower-, or of undesignated-status, presented a scripted but unique solution to the group while solving the task. Lower-status confederates and openstructured tasks, relative to higher-status confederates and closed-structured tasks, had more private, indirect influence on group members and caused more divergent thinking. We discuss the implications of these findings for group dynamics and social influence literatures. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The study of social influence in groups has a long and rich history (Cartwright & Zander, 1968;Deutsch & Gerard, 1955;Lewin, 1948;Moscovici & Nemeth, 1974;Raven & French, 1958). Of particular interest have been the means by which leaders, experts, and other relatively high-status group members influence the perceptions, opinions, and decisions within groups. As a top-down process, the pattern of influence is clear: Powerful and prestigious group members tend to have strong, direct, and immediate effects on other members of the group, often inducing high levels of compliance (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955;Raven, 1965).Although much is known about social influence from powerful group members, comparatively less is understood about their lower-status counterparts and the means through which they might influence their fellow group members (cf. Moscovici, Mucchi-Faina, & Maass, 1994). In any given social situation, there are bound to be status differentials among the various actors (Berger, Ridgeway, Fisek, & Norman, 1998;Ridgeway, 1984;Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Consider a corporate office, regional hospital, or a high school classroom. In each of these settings, there are higher-status people (e.g., CEOs, doctors, teachers) who manage the situation and lower-status people (e.g., executive assistants, patients, students) who actively participate in, but typically do not command authority over, the organizational setting. In such settings, must influence flow only from the top-down, or are there times when the suggestions by lower-status individuals European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1184-1199 (2010 might hold sway? In this study, we investigate two factors, member status and task structure, that suggest circumstances under which influence may proceed from the bottom up. STATUS AND INFLUENCEAlmost by definition, the social position of a relatively high-status group member affords influence over others (Raven & French, 1958) and, in turn, elicits a high degree of normative influence within groups (Kaplan & Martin, 1999). The assumed credibility and competence of those who occupy relatively high-status position...

Membership role and subjective group dynamics: Impact on evaluative intragroup differentiation and commitment to prescriptive norms

“…Moscovici, , 1985. When ingroup normative members are marginal in the group, it seems plausible that deviant ingroup full members acquire the ability to elicit divergent thinking whereby group members consider alternative arguments that validate the deviant position (Martin & Hewstone, 2008;Nemeth, 1986; see also Goodman, Alexander, Chizhik, Chizhik, & Eidelman, 2010). As a result, if a deviant member occupies a high-status role in the group others become more tolerant of the person (Abrams et al, 2008) and more accepting of his or her position (see Levine & Moreland, 1985;Levine et al, 2005).…”

Lower‐Status Participation and Influence:Task Structure Matters

“…Based upon these findings, we propose that the specific framing of a group problem can establish a participatory environment where lower‐status group members are taken seriously. Specifically, research from our lab (Chizhik, Alexander, Chizhik, & Goodman, 2003; Goodman, Alexander, Chizhik, Chizhik, & Eidelman, 2009) suggests that altering the way in which a task or problem is framed and constrained shows promise as a simple, one‐shot intervention capable of producing a more democratic group environment in which lower‐status individuals have chances for meaningfully participating and overcoming their lower‐status position.…”

“…Using procedures similar to our previous research (Goodman et al, 2009), we asked groups comprised of two female participants and one female confederate to work on an open‐ or closed‐structured logic problem (i.e., seafood restaurant menu task) after assigning group members higher or lower status such that the confederate's status was opposite that of the two participants’ (in an additional condition, status was not manipulated). Again, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they and their groupmates possessed various ability characteristics (e.g., explaining things to others, keen observation, and being exact).…”

“…Likewise, open‐structured tasks increase a lower‐status, and to a lesser extent a higher status, minority's private, indirect influence, and increase liking and desire for future interactions. Rather than having their contributions ignored, credited to a higher‐status member (Erber & Fiske, 1984), or met with hostile expressions (e.g., Butler & Geis, 1990), the contributions of our lower‐status participants were positively evaluated (Chizhik et al, 2003), and resulted in tangible influence on a separate task (Goodman et al, 2009). Having minority voices accepted in a harmonious way may provide a way for higher‐ and lower‐status factions of groups to have their need for power and acceptance met (see Dovidio et al, this volume).…”

The roles of affect and appraisal on creativity in college students

“…The structure of task, or how the embedded problem of a task is presented (Goodman, Alexander, Chizhik, Chizhik, & Eidelman, 2010), also plays a significant role on performance. Nouri, Erez, Rockstuhl, and Ang (as cited in Erez & Nouri, 2010) found that, compared to a well-defined and strong structure (i.e., with detailed instructions) task, an ill-defined and weak structure task is positively associated with originality of ideas.…”