The Rise and Fall of Power and Prestige Orders: Influence of Task Structure

Chizhik, Alexander W.; Alexander, Michele G.; Chizhik, Estella Williams; Goodman, Jeffrey A.

doi:10.2307/1519828

Cited by 32 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To the extent that lower-status individuals can interact in situations where parameters are loosely defined or correct solutions are not initially clear, their meaningful contribution to group outcomes should increase. Considered in tandem with previous research showing that perceptions of lower-status individuals are more likely to improve in open-structured environments (Chizhik et al, 2003), the present findings shed light on a potential strategy to increase lower-status individuals' acceptance into group settings. Furthermore, to the extent that lower-status members have opportunities to express their views, and have those views heard, the potential for poor decisions through process loss (e.g., Stasser & Titus, 1985;Steiner, 1972), groupthink (Janis, 1972) or group polarization (Dion, Baron, & Miller, 1970) may be less likely in open-structured collaborative settings where higher-status members appear to wield less influence and power.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…For example, task contributions that may signal membership in specific social groups or categories give rise to different influence processes than do contributions that are irrelevant to group membership (Peréz and Mugny, 1996). Our own research indicates that open-and closed-structured tasks establish problem solving environments that allow for differential participation on the part of members who are of lower-and higher-status (Chizhik, Alexander, Chizhik, & Goodman, 2003); open-structured tasks allow lower-status group members to participate, receive positive evaluations, and improve their status relative to closed-structured tasks (Chizhik et al, 2003).Open-structured tasks appear to produce benefits for lower-status group members by fostering an environment in which a wider variety of task-relevant skills (Berger et al, 1998;Voss & Post, 1988) are recognized as valuable. Thus, we expect open-structured tasks to foster more divergent, creative thinking than closed-structured tasks as a result of the processes required for their successful completion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Drawing on Nemeth's research indicating that minority sources lead to creative, divergent thought (Nemeth, 1986;Nemeth & Kwan, 1987), we expected to find that lower-status confederates would cause more divergent thinking in the group than higher-status confederates. We also expected more indirect influence to occur in open-structured, compared to closed-structured tasks, because our previous research suggests that open-structured tasks foster an environment where more opportunities exist for lower-status group members to participate fully (Chizhik et al, 2003). Given that open-structured tasks encourage broad and varied thought (Voss & Post, 1988), we anticipated that open-structured tasks would foster more divergent thinking than closed-structured tasks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Goodman

Alexander

Chizhik

et al. 2010

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Goodman

Alexander

Chizhik

et al. 2010

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Status hierarchies emerge reliably in groups and are based on consensual beliefs about each member's ability to help the group reach its goals (e.g., Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972;Blau, 1964;Chizhik et al, 2003). This functionalist approach to status theory argues that the purpose of hierarchies is to develop an orderly division of influence among group members in order to facilitate effective group functioning (Berger et al, 1980;Ridgeway & Berger, 1986).…”

Section: The Function and Benefits Of Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The attainment of greater status is possible because hierarchies are not fixed but, rather, change over time (e.g., Chizhik, Alexander, Chizhik, & Goodman, 2003;Shelly & Troyer, 2001;Tajfel, 1978). Individuals gain status when their perceived value as a group member increases in the eyes of others (e.g., Berger & Conner, 1974;Berger et al, 1977).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%