ArticlePDF Available


The impact of diversity on group functioning is multifaceted. Exploring the impact of having a newcomer join a group, the authors conducted a 2 (social similarity of newcomer to oldtimers; in-group or out-group) x 3 (opinion agreement: newcomer has no opinion ally, one opinion ally, or two opinion allies) interacting group experiment with four-person groups. Groups with out-group newcomers (i.e., diverse groups) reported less confidence in their performance and perceived their interactions as less effective, yet they performed better than groups with in-group newcomers (i.e., homogeneous groups). Moreover, performance gains were not due to newcomers bringing new ideas to the group discussion. Instead, the results demonstrate that the mere presence of socially distinct newcomers and the social concerns their presence stimulates among oldtimers motivates behavior that can convert affective pains into cognitive gains.
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 1
KEYWORDS: Newcomers, Social Categorization, Opinion Diversity
The pain is worth the gain:
The advantages and liabilities of agreeing with socially distinct newcomers
Katie Liljenquist
Kellogg Graduate School of Management
Northwestern University
Katherine W. Phillips
Kellogg Graduate School of Management
Northwestern University
Margaret A. Neale
Graduate School of Business
Stanford University
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 2
The impact of newcomer’s social similarity and opinion agreement with oldtimers is
examined. Much of the research about newcomers has ignored the role of social similarity,
generally conflating newcomer status with out-group status. The current investigation addresses
this confound by manipulating the social similarity of the newcomer to oldtimers, as well as the
level of opinion agreement among the two. We find that there is a divergence between how
socially validated oldtimers feel and their performance. In groups with in-group newcomers
those that ally with the newcomer feel socially validated, yet perform worse than those who do
not ally with the newcomer, whereas allies of out-group newcomers feel less socially validated,
but actually perform quite well. We argue that allying with an out-group newcomer can
represent a threat to one’s social relationships with fellow in-group members (Phillips, 2003),
which leads to an increased task focus that results in superior performance for oldtimers in the
group. Implications for understanding the impact of newcomers on groups will be discussed.
Key words: newcomers, social similarity, opinion ally
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 3
The pain is worth the gain:
The advantages and liabilities of agreeing with socially distinct newcomers
Across many species of pack animals, biologists have observed a fierce intolerance
towards newcomers. Packs of gray wolves, for example, are known to chase and attack any
foreign wolf that intrudes upon their territory, sending a clear message that the newcomer is not
welcome. Although organizational newcomers aren’t likely to receive such hostile welcomes,
they, too, often face difficulty integrating themselves into a functioning group. At other times,
however, groups are eager to harness the new ideas and skills that newcomers offer. In both
cases, reactions to newcomers often depend on the ways in which they differ from existing group
members (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). For example, “oldtimers” may categorize newcomers
based on whether they agree or disagree with their opinions (see Prislin & Christensen, 2002, for
a discussion of newcomers as a function of their impact on the majority-minority coalitions of a
group). Reactions to these potential opinion alliances can further vary according to whether
oldtimers view the newcomer as socially similar or distinct from themselves.
Unfortunately, much of the research about the impact of newcomers has ignored the role
of social similarity, generally conflating newcomer status with out-group status. This confound
leads to the question of whether oldtimers’ reactions to newcomers are due to their newcomer
status or to the fact that they belong to a social out-group. Ziller (1965) has documented that
newcomers often induce a task orientation among the groups they join, but it is unclear whether
this is merely because they are newcomers or because they are perceived as a social out-group.
The current investigation addresses this confound by manipulating the social similarity of the
newcomer. Furthermore, we look at the impact of opinion agreement among newcomers and
oldtimers. Because newcomers may differentially influence subjective (e.g., social validation
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 4
and social identification) and objective (e.g., performance) outcomes, both criteria are examined
as we consider the influence of newcomers on group interactions.
We expect allies of in-group newcomers to feel validated by opinion agreement with a
socially similar other and become further entrenched in their views. Consequently, they will
regard their experiences in the group positively and place more esteem on their personal
contributions. However, in this state of contentment and confidence, we believe allies of in-
group newcomers will be less motivated to reconcile the disparity of opinions between
themselves and other group members, ultimately resulting in sub-par performance.
In contrast, allies of out-group newcomers may feel uncomfortable with a link that ties
them to an out-group member and differentiates them from their fellow in-group members.
Although social risks may be attached to allying with socially distinct newcomers, the ensuing
discomfort may have positive implications. More specifically, we predict that allies of socially
distinct newcomers will be motivated to retain their social bond with other in-group members.
They could ostensibly approach this in one of two ways—they could sever their alliance with the
newcomer by reneging their prior opinion. This may be difficult to do after publicly stating their
opinion. More likely, they would reconcile the opinion difference between themselves and their
in-group colleagues by trying to uncover the reasons for the disparity in their opinions.
Motivated to act, this drive towards reconciliation will transition the individual’s previous social
focus to one that is more task-oriented, yielding superior levels of performance. In sum, we
anticipate an overall divergence between social validation and performance; allies of in-group
newcomers are expected to feel the best, yet perform the worst, whereas allies of out-group
newcomers will feel the worst, but actually perform the best.
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 5
The study involved 242 active members of sororities and fraternities at Northwestern
University. The current study utilized a 2 (social similarity; in-group vs. out-group) X 3 (opinion
agreement; newcomer has no opinion ally, 1 opinion ally, or 2 opinion allies) between-subjects
design (see Figure 1). Only members of two sororities or two fraternities participated at any
given time, yielding groups that were always of the same gender. Participants’ distinct social
identities were made salient by large banners with their sorority/fraternity names posted on
opposite walls of the laboratory and by requiring participants to sit on the side of the room
corresponding to their sorority/fraternity. To further reinforce their unique identities,
participants also wore nametags with their sorority/fraternity name written on them.
Upon entering the lab, participants were presented with the Murder Mystery task (Stasser
& Stewart, 1992) in which they were given twenty minutes to examine evidence and make an
individual decision regarding the most likely suspect. Participants were asked to abstain from
any discussion before meeting with their groups. After making their individual decision, the
experimenter assigned the participants to three-person groups of a shared social identity and told
them they would have twenty minutes to come to a group decision regarding the most likely
suspect; after five minutes, a fourth person, the newcomer, joined the discussion. Social
similarity (in-group vs. out-group) was manipulated according to whether the newcomer joining
the group was from the same or different sorority/fraternity as the other three group members.
Opinion agreement was operationalized as whether newcomers joined groups in which they had
zero, one, or two opinion allies concerning who they chose as the most likely suspect.
Once the group reached a decision, each of the group members individually completed a
post-discussion questionnaire, assessing their opinions of other group members, perceptions
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 6
about the group discussion process, levels of social identification with their sorority/fraternity,
and their final belief regarding who really committed the murder.
Of 242 participants, 50 viable 4-person groups were composed that adhered to the
experimental conditions. Drawn from the relevant conditions of the 2 X 3 design, we examined
the 150 “oldtimers” that were either allies or non-allies of the newcomer based on whether they
agreed in their pre-discussion choice of the murder suspect. This distinction (ally vs. non-ally),
as well as the social similarity of the newcomer (in-group vs. out-group), comprised the two
between-subjects factors in our analyses below.
Four measures of social validation capturing both perceptions of interpersonal validation
and opinion validation (i.e., perceived acceptance, personality conflict, how interested the group
was in what they had to say, and the importance of their contributions to the group discussion),
were collapsed into a combined variable representing the individual’s perception of social
validation (SV) by peers in the group (α=.71). Four social identification measures were also
combined to create a new variable representing the individual’s overall degree of social
identification with their fraternity or sorority (α=.89), (see Table 1 for cell means).
To compare the subjective and objective outcomes of the group discussion process, we
transformed the combined measure of social validation and final decision accuracy to z scores.
The z scores were submitted to a 2 (opinion: ally vs. non-ally of the newcomer ) X 2 (social
identity of newcomer: in-group vs. out-group) X 2 (social validation vs. performance) mixed
model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with repeated measures on the third factor.
Prediscussion decision accuracy was used as a covariate in the analysis and was a significant
predictor (F(1,143) = 18.38, p .0001) of the repeated measures. A significant social similarity
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 7
by repeated measures interaction, F(1,145) = 5.67, p .02, was qualified by a significant three-
way interaction, F(1,143) = 6.72, p .01.
Separate two-way interactions between social similarity and opinion agreement were
conducted on performance and social validation. For performance there was only a significant
main effect for social similarity F(1,143) = 4.95, p .05, such that significantly more oldtimers
in the out-group-newcomer condition were correct (69.01%) than oldtimers in the in-group-
newcomer condition (55.84%). For SV, there was a significant main effect of social similarity,
such that oldtimers in the in-group-newcomer condition (M = 6.03, SD = .73) felt more socially
validated than oldtimers in the out-group-newcomer condition (M = 5.84, SD = .91), F(1,145) =
4.28, p <.05. In addition, there was a marginally significant interaction effect, F(1,145) = 3.63,
p < .06. To explicate the meaning of this interaction, we conducted focused, planned contrasts
(see Table 1 for mean values). Looking within the in-group-newcomer condition, there was no
difference in SV for allies versus non-allies (t < 1); however, allies were less accurate in their
final decision than non-allies, t(75) = 1.89, p .03 (one-tailed, controlling for individual
prediscussion accuracy). In the out-group-newcomer condition, the contrast revealed that allies
of the newcomer experienced less SV than non-allies, t(70) = 2.06, p .02 (one-tailed,
controlling for individual prediscussion accuracy), yet there was no difference between them in
terms of final decision accuracy (t < 1). Oldtimers’ feelings of social identification with their
sorority/fraternity mirrored the trends of SV. Within the in-group-newcomer condition, there
was no difference between allies and non-allies (t < 1), whereas allies of an out-group newcomer
identified with their sorority/fraternity significantly less than the non-allies, t(70) = 2.75, p
.005 (one-tailed).
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 8
The previous analyses reveal the provocative paradox that while allies and non-allies of
in-group newcomers enjoy greater social validation, they are least likely to solve the murder
mystery. In contrast, allies of out-group newcomers feel least validated, but are more likely to
arrive at the correct answer. What can account for the concomitant drop in SV and social
identification, yet simultaneously explain the superior performance of allies of out-group
newcomers? We believe that allying with an out-group newcomer can represent a threat to one’s
social relationships with fellow in-group members (Phillips, 2003). This threat was manifested
by these allies’ insecurity regarding the value of their opinions and the stability of their
interpersonal relationships. Seeking to protect those valued relationships, allies are thus
motivated to reconcile the opinion difference that exists between themselves and the other in-
group members, facilitating a more concerted task focus. Although agreeing with an out-group
newcomer may be socially painful, the task-focus induced by the alliance ultimately yields
greater accuracy, not just for the ally but for all group members. In essence, non-allies reap the
benefits of the ally’s social discomfort, thus accounting for the finding that non-allies experience
greater levels of social validation and identification than the ally, yet still solve the task with the
same level of accuracy.
In contrast, allies of an in-group newcomer appreciate the validation of their socially
similar ally. They become further entrenched in their views and overconfident of their opinions.
In fact, the data reveal that within the in-group-newcomer condition, allies believed that they
contributed significantly more than the non-allies. Perhaps this self-importance reinforced their
commitment to potentially flawed opinions, explaining why allies’ decisions were significantly
less accurate than non-allies’ opinions. Social identification did not suffer for allies in this
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 9
circumstance because their disparate opinions were aligned with a member of their social in-
group. Lacking the social threat of allying with an out-group member, they were less motivated
to reconcile the clash of opinions between themselves and other group members, resulting in
sub-par performance.
Taken together, our findings suggest that the pasture is greenest for non-allies of out-
group newcomers. Within their groups, these individuals are insulated from the social threats of
allying with a socially distinct newcomer, but can depend on the troubled ally to act as
taskmaster and lead their group to victory. For all others, however, there appears to be a trade-
off between the social comfort afforded by allying with an in-group member and the liability that
such security poses in terms of performance. Consequently, while allies of out-group
newcomers may experience distress, when it comes to mastering the task, the pain is worth the
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 10
Phillips, K.W. (2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority
influence: The importance of congruence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 3-13.
Prislin, R., & Christensen, N.C. (2002). Group conversion versus group expansion as
modes of change in majority and minority positions: All losses hurt but only some gains gratify.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1095-1102.
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making
groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57: 67-78.
Williams, K.Y., & O’Reilly, C.A. 1998. Forty years of diversity research: A review. In B. Staw &
L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 20: 77-140. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ziller, R.C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups. Psychological Bulletin,
64, 164-182.
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 11
Figure 1
Experimental design of original 2X3 study: Social identity X Number of opinion allies
and loyalty (L)
Newcomer’s # of Opinion Allies
0 allies 1 ally 2 allies
Social Identity of Newcomer
I1I1I1 I2
I1I1I2 I2
I1I2I2 I2
I1I1I1 O2
I1I1I2 O2
I1I2I2 O2
229 Opinion Allies of Newcomers 12
Table 1
Performance, Social Validation and Social Identification by Opinion Agreement and Social
Note: Performance is presented in terms of the percentage of oldtimers that chose the correct
suspect. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
In-group Newcomer Out-group Newcomer
Opinion Agreement Ally Non-ally Ally Non-ally
Performance 50.0% 58.8% 73.9% 66.7%
Social Validation 6.13 (0.71) 5.98 (0.75) 5.56 (1.16) 5.98 (0.73)
Social Identification 6.11 (1.05) 6.34 (0.80) 5.57 (1.41) 6.30 (0.84)
... Diversity could affect innovation beyond bringing in new perspectives, however, through challenging the 'of-course' assumptions held within organisations (Solheim, 2017). In line with this, Phillips et al. (2009) argue that heterogeneous teams performed better than homogenous teams, despite the former reporting feeling less confident. From this, we understand that the road to the finish line might have been curvier and full of more perceived setbacks for the heterogeneous team, whilst in the homogenous team, 'the ride' was a more comfortable, straightforward one. ...
... But it makes us work harder and ask tougher questions.' In more heterogeneous teams, people are challenged in different ways, they must take a stand and put forward arguments for one's meanings and values, and they were able to convert 'effective pains into cognitive gains' (Phillips et al., 2009). We can see two main perspectives arising within human resources management studies, 4 namely the 'similarity attraction paradigm' and the 'cognitive resource diversity theory' (Horwitz, 2005). ...
... Diversity works because it makes us question the consensus and how we do things (Clearfield & Tilcsik, 2018). The insecurity employees feel when working in diverse groups could be what makes the project better (Phillips et al., 2009). Disagreeing or having to take a stand could lead to more well-thought-through decisions (Loyd et al., 2013). ...
"It is hardly possible to overrate the value (...) of placing human beings in contact with persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they are familiar (...) Such communication has always been, and is particularly in the present age, one of the primary sources of progress (Mill, 1848). The quotation by Mill is easily applicable in contemporary society (1), as one of the pivotal strategic challenges in modern work-life is changing the demographics of the workforce (Abramovic & Traavik, 2017). Augmented diversity is a reality across organisations, industries and countries (Mor Barak, 2005); employees in today’s workplaces are more likely than before to engage with people with different backgrounds (Guillaume et al., 2014). This increased diversity stems from increased and more complex migratory patterns (Özden et al., 2011), ageing populations, anti-discrimination measures, more women entering the workforce, educational and skill upgrading of the workforce (Parrotta et al., 2014) and augmented job-hopping (Czaja, 2020). Together, these factors (and more) lead to increased diversity in the contemporary workforce in terms of work-life experiences, gender, educational background and skill mix, birthplace diversity and age, to mention a few. Concomitantly, a vast amount of research has pointed to the benefits of a diverse workforce (eg Cox, 1994; Richard, 2000; Solheim and Fitjar, 2018) and has been highlighted by practitioners (eg Hunt et al., 2015). The commonly painted picture herein is that a diverse workforce boosts creativity and innovation. Past research discusses, on the one hand, diversity bringing new perspectives and ideas (Ottaviano & Peri, 2006), and on the other hand, reducing trust and increasing conflict among actors (Basset-Jones, 2005). Thus, there are mixed and often contradictory results in the context of culturally diverse teams (Stahl et al., 2010). Diversity has, therefore, often been depicted as a ‘double-edged sword' (Miliken & Martins, 1996), or a 'mixed blessing' (Williams & O`Reilly, 1998).
... As a number of experiments have shown, normative and referent informational conformity are relevant to the question of how demographic diversity might impact group performance (Gaither et al. 2018;Levine et al. 2014;Phillips 2017;Phillips, Liljenquist, and Neale 2009). These experiments are designed to break the link between demographic and cognitive diversity, usually by testing group performance on contrived tasks (e.g., solving a murder mystery or trading real estate in a ctional market) wherein relevant information can be supplied exclusively by the experimenters and for which individual ability can be tested and statistically controlled for. ...
... Individuals in homogeneous groups may be reluctant to voice dissenting opinions, perhaps as result of a normative expectation that people similar to themselves ought to agree with one another. Demographic diversity can reduce this conformity pressure, allowing groups to successfully elicit dissenting views that are valuable to the task (Phillips, Liljenquist, and Neale 2009;Phillips and Loyd 2006). ...
... In the second example we consider (Phillips, Liljenquist, and Neale 2009), experimental subjects were presented with the task of nding the culprit in a murder mystery. Membership in a sorority or fraternity was used as a marker for social identity. ...
Previous simulation models have found positive effects of cognitive diversity on group performance, but have not explored effects of diversity in demographics (e.g., gender, ethnicity). In this paper, we present an agent-based model that captures two empirically supported hypotheses about how demographic diversity can improve group performance. The results of our simulations suggest that, even when social identities are not associated with distinctive task-related cognitive resources, demographic diversity can, in certain circumstances, benefit collective performance by counteracting two types of conformity that can arise in homogeneous groups: those relating to group-based trust and those connected to normative expectations towards in-groups.
... Gender discrimination is unethical and wasteful, as it results in inefficient use of human capital by precluding society from fully benefiting from the most qualified physician leaders. This holds especially true given data demonstrating the benefits of diverse teams (4,5) and associations between improved patient care outcomes and female physician gender (6,7). ...
Full-text available
Purpose Gender inequity in medicine harms society and often originates in the context of broader societal discrimination. This study explores the experiences of senior women in the Radiation Oncology specialty in Japan and the United States, with an emphasis on understanding how broader gender inequity affects the career trajectory. Radiation Oncology is an ideal setting to investigate cross-cultural physician gender equity issues, given that few women enter the field despite it having fewer of the barriers (e.g. frequent emergencies, evening/weekend hours, long procedures) that are commonly cited by women as deterrents in specialty selection. Method Between 2012-2016 the authors interviewed 14 senior women in Radiation Oncology (department chairs or full professors), 6 from Japan and 8 from the United States. Multiple analysts derived themes to explore the impact of societal gender inequity on female radiation oncologists’ careers. Results Five themes were identified: 1) childhood gender constructs affect career aspirations, 2) persistent sexism and gender-based workplace challenges affect women's careers, 3) gender inequity in the home impacts women's careers, 4) non-gender related factors intersect to affect women's career satisfaction, and 5) attaining gender equity appears to be even more challenging in Japan than in the USA. Conclusions Female radiation oncologists in two of the most technologically advanced countries report that gender discrimination across the lifespan substantially affects career success. Because gender inequality reflects societal injustice and negatively impacts scientific progress and patient outcomes, future research should focus on global approaches to address professional and domestic gender constructs that impede women's career progress.
... One of the most significant benefits of greater DEI in a research team is in the encouragement of innovation, and improved efficacy in problem solving. There is strong evidence that teams with greater DEI are more accurate in their decision making, focusing more on facts (Phillips et al., 2009), reduced groupthink and enhanced decision making (Gaither et al., 2018). Additionally, increased cultural diversity is a boon to innovativeness (Nathan and Lee, 2013). ...
This article addresses the growing movement towards greater diversity, equity and inclusivity (DEI) within the research community. We present the case for increasing DEI among research teams and participants, discussing the benefits of this, as well as some of the current hindrances to achieving better DEI, particularly implicit biases. Lastly, we present some interventions that can be implemented within four key aspects of the research process: research methods, the research team, funding access and scientific dissemination. It is contingent on all players to engage in efforts to improve DEI in research settings, as they each are a critical step to improving the scientific method, rigor and accuracy of research outcomes.
Organizations have begun to embrace remote and hybrid work arrangements while simultaneously prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in a post-COVID-19 work era, bringing forth new challenges in socializing organizational newcomers. In this chapter, a DE&I perspective is applied to further understanding of the unique challenges organizations and leaders face in socializing remote workers, encouraging organizations to proactively foster newcomer development of essential cognitive, regulative, and normative knowledge; self-efficacy; and a sense of social inclusion. Evidence-based recommendations are provided to provide a path forward for organizations to socialize organizational newcomers in the new age of remote work in a way that upholds DE&I goals and values.
Full-text available
Vidste du, at diversitet er et af de bedste redskaber til ledelsesudvikling? Det kan nemlig blokere bias, så ledere og deres organisationer træffer bedre beslutninger. Biasbevidst ledelse – Sæt diversitet i spil og træf bedre beslutninger giver indsigt i, hvordan ledere minimerer ubevidste bias ved at invitere forskellighed ind i organisationer og lade den udfolde sig både menneskeligt og teknologisk. Gennem fokus på inklusion undgås klassiske faldgruber i beslutningsmønstre, og der skabes gode rammer for nytænkning. Den biasbevidste leder ved, at det ikke nytter at terpe bias for at undgå dem. Det er lederens mindset, der skal trænes, så der kan opøves en adfærd, som gør diversitet til den virksomme ingrediens. Bogen præsenterer et program til mental lederfitness og foreslår konkrete redskaber inden for områder som digital ledelse, adfærdsledelse og inkluderende ledelse. Desuden inddrages nye perspektiver på magt i relationer, som har afgørende indflydelse på mulighederne for at blokere bias. Skrevet direkte til ledere er Biasbevidst ledelse relevant for alle personer med ledelsesansvar i private og offentlige organisationer. Den kan desuden med fordel læses af førledere, HR-personer, undervisere, studerende og konsulenter.
Full-text available
Can diversity make for better science? Although diversity has ethical and political value, arguments for its epistemic value require a bridge between normative and mechanistic considerations, demonstrating why and how diversity benefits collective intelligence. However, a major hurdle is that the benefits themselves are rather mixed: Quantitative evidence from psychology and behavioral sciences sometimes shows a positive epistemic effect of diversity, but often shows a null effect, or even a negative effect. Here we argue that to make progress with these why and how questions, we need first to rethink when one ought to expect a benefit of cognitive diversity. In doing so, we highlight that the benefits of cognitive diversity are not equally distributed about collective intelligence tasks and are best seen for complex, multistage, creative problem solving, during problem posing and hypothesis generation. Throughout, we additionally outline a series of mechanisms relating diversity and problem complexity, and show how this perspective can inform metascience questions.
Full-text available
The authors elaborate the complications and the opportunities inherent in the statistical analysis of small-group data. They begin by discussing nonindependence of group members’ scores and then consider standard methods for the analysis of small-group data and determine that these methods do not take into account this nonindependence. A new method is proposed that uses multilevel modeling and allows for negative nonindependence and mutual influence. Finally, the complications of interactions, different group sizes, and differential effects are considered. The authors strongly urge that the analysis model of data from small-group studies should mirror the psychological processes that generate those data.
Full-text available
A multilevel model is presented to describe how socialization processes within work teams are affected by team demographics, for it is during socialization that team norms are established and behavior becomes routinized. Several proposition are offered concerning the relationships between (a) individual, interpersonal and team attributes, (b) interpersonal communications and relationships, and (c) subsequent outcomes such as performance, power and influence dynamics, development, and membership stability.
This study examined reactions to minority and majority positions that were either stable or reversed through group conversion that transformed opponents (supporters) of the minority (majority) into supporters (opponents) or through group expansion that brought new supporters (opponents) for the minority (majority) into the group. Minorities who became majorities through group expansion, compared with those who changed through group conversion, perceived their supporters and the overall group as significantly more similar to the self, and had significantly higher expectations for future positive interactions within the group. Perception of similarity with the supporters mediated the effect of the experimental conditions on perception of the overall group-self similarity. Implications of changes through conversion and expansion for the functioning of social groups are discussed.
Three experiments explored the role of negotiator focus in disconnecting negotiated outcomes and evaluations. Negotiators who focused on their target prices, the ideal outcome they could obtain, achieved objectively superior outcomes compared with negotiators who focused on their lower bound (e.g., reservation price). Those negotiators who focused on their targets, however, were less satisfied with their objectively superior outcomes. In the final experiment, when negotiators were reminded of their lower bound after the negotiation, the satisfaction of those negotiators who had focused on their target prices was increased, with outcomes and evaluations becoming connected rather than disconnected. The possible negative effects of setting high goals and the temporal dimensions of the disconnection and reconnection between outcomes and evaluations are discussed.
A model of individual socialization into organizations is presented and tested. The model (a) identifies three distinct stages of socialization, (b) specifies the activities engaged in by an individual at each stage, and (c) specifies the personal and organizational contingencies that control an individual's movement through the stages. Interview and questionnaire data collected from 118 hospital employees - nurses, nurse's aides, radiology technologists, tradesmen, and accounting clerks - were used to develop, refine, and test the model. The model basically was supported by the data. Four variables are identified as possible outcomes of the socialization process: general satisfaction, mutual influence, internal work motivation, and job involvement. Two of these variables - general satisfaction and mutual influence - are empirically linked with important aspects of the socialization process, and are shown to increase steadily as individuals progress through socialization. The differences between the socialization experiences of professional, paraprofessional, and nonprofessional workers are identified and explained, and implications for the conduct of socialization programs are drawn.
Twice monthly for one year the author attended the “friendly” poker games of a group which had played twice monthly for more than ten years. Players' role expectations are discussed, as are formal and informal group-maintaining norm systems, criteria for selecting and socializing a “new man,” and the process of leaving the group. Personal interactions before, during, and after the poker game are sketched, emphasizing the social-psychological benefits. The “friendly game” is seen to present each player with an “ephemeral role” which affords satisfactions limited or impossible in the social world “outside.”