Cognitive Flexibility, Communication Strategy, and Integrative Complexity in Groups: Public versus Private Reactions to Majority and Minority Status

Archival studies of political decision-making groups show that the public statements of policy makers in the majority are higher in integrative complexity than those of minority-faction or unanimous group members. However, whether these differences reflect policy makers' private thoughts, or their public impression management strategies, cannot be inferred using only data from the public record. The experiment reported here established that in freely interacting groups composed of majorities and minorities, this pattern is obtained under private communication conditions as well as in public statements. Results suggest that cognitive flexibility in response to influence from insiders, rather than communication strategies designed to influence outsiders, underlies the differences observed.

[1]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[2]  M. Deutsch.  A Theory of Co-operation and Competition , 1949 .

[3]  S. Asch.  Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments , 1951 .

[4]  H. Guetzkow,et al.  Groups, Leadership, and Men , 1952 .

[5]  M. Deutsch,et al.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[6]  J. Easterbrook.  The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. , 1959, Psychological review.

[7]  R. Zajonc.  The process of cognitive tuning in communication. , 1960, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[8]  R. Zajonc.  SOCIAL FACILITATION. , 1965, Science.

[9]  S. Moscovici,et al.  Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. , 1969, Sociometry.

[10]  I. Steiner.  Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[11]  D. Myers,et al.  The group polarization phenomenon. , 1976 .

[12]  P. H. Lindsay.  Human Information Processing , 1977 .

[13]  S. Komorita,et al.  Negotiating From Strength and the Concept of Bargaining Strength , 1977 .

[14]  R. Geen,et al.  Drive Theory of Social Facilitation: Twelve Years of Theory and Research , 1977 .

[15]  Thomas F. Pettigrew,et al.  The Ultimate Attribution Error: Extending Allport's Cognitive Analysis of Prejudice , 1979 .

[16]  Serge Moscovici,et al.  Toward A Theory of Conversion Behavior , 1980 .

[17]  L. Wheeler,et al.  Review of personality and social psychology , 1980 .

[18]  Patrick T Callahan,et al.  Describing foreign policy behavior , 1981 .

[19]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Pre- to postelection shifts in presidential rhetoric: Impression management or cognitive adjustment. , 1981 .

[20]  B. Latané,et al.  The Social Impact of Majorities and Minorities. , 1981 .

[21]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Psychology of Group Influence , 1981 .

[22]  Carol Sherrard,et al.  The power of minorities , 1982 .

[23]  Max H. Bazerman,et al.  Heuristics in Negotiation: Limitations to Effective Dispute Resolution , 1983 .

[24]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability and complexity of thought. , 1983 .

[25]  Max H. Bazerman,et al.  Negotiating in Organizations , 1983 .

[26]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs minority influence , 1983 .

[27]  M. Brewer,et al.  Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Social Influence Model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. , 1984 .

[29]  W. Doise.  The social development of the intellect , 1984 .

[30]  J. McGrath.  Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[31]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British House of Commons. , 1984 .

[32]  M. Hewstone,et al.  Minority influence and musical preference: Innovation by conversion not coercion , 1984 .

[33]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Stability and change in the complexity of senatorial debate: Testing the cognitive versus rhetorical style hypotheses. , 1984 .

[34]  B. G. Rule,et al.  Anatomy of a persuasion schema: Targets, goals, and strategies. , 1985 .

[35]  J. Gallant,et al.  Supreme Court decision making: Cognitive style as a predictor of ideological consistency of voting. , 1985 .

[36]  S. Moscovici.  Social influence and conformity , 1985 .

[37]  Kim,et al.  Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement , 1986 .

[38]  C. Nemeth.  Differential contributions of majority and minority influence , 1986 .

[39]  John M. Levine,et al.  Majority and minority influence. , 1987 .

[40]  Diane M. Mackie,et al.  Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. , 1987 .

[41]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Minority Influence, Divergent Thinking and Detection of Correct Solutions , 1987 .

[42]  M. Hogg,et al.  Book Review: Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes , 1991 .

[43]  S. Mansur,et al.  Power and Tactics in International Negotiation: How Weak Nations Bargain with Strong Nations , 1988 .

[44]  Elizabeth A. Mannix.  Organizations as Resource Dilemmas: The Effect of Power Balance on Group Decision Making. , 1989 .

[45]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[46]  John M. Levine,et al.  Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. , 1989 .

[47]  D. Mackie,et al.  Majority and Minority Influence: A Judgmental Process Analysis , 1990 .

[48]  L. Thompson.  Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. , 1990 .

[49]  J. H. Davis,et al.  Asymmetrical Social Influence in Freely Interacting Groups: A Test of Three Models , 1990 .

[50]  M. Bazerman,et al.  Cognition and Rationality in Negotiation , 1991 .

[51]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  An Alternative Metaphor in the Study of Judgment and Choice: People as Politicians , 1991 .

[52]  P. Suedfeld,et al.  Motivation and personality: Conceptual/integrative complexity , 1992 .

[53]  M. Trost,et al.  Minority influence: Personal relevance biases cognitive processes and reverses private acceptance , 1992 .

[54]  Charles P. Smith.  Motivation and personality: Name Index , 1992 .

[55]  P. Suedfeld,et al.  Motivation and personality: The conceptual/integrative complexity scoring manual , 1992 .

[56]  J. Aronoff,et al.  Antecedents of complex social cognitions. , 1992 .

[57]  P. Tetlock.  The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward A Social Contingency Model , 1992 .

[58]  Elizabeth A. Mannix,et al.  Organizations as Resource Dilemmas: The Effects of Power Balance on Coalition Formation in Small Groups , 1993 .

[59]  Margaret A. Neale,et al.  Power imbalance and the pattern of exchange in dyadic negotiation , 1993 .

[60]  C. Dreu,et al.  Numerical support, information processing and attitude change , 1993 .

[61]  W. Wood,et al.  Minority influence: a meta-analytic review of social influence processes. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[62]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  Majority and minority influence : source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny , 1994 .

[63]  Information processing in interpersonal communication , 1994 .

[64]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. , 1995 .

[65]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  InfOrmation Processing In Social Contexts: Implications For Social Memory and Judgment , 1995 .

[66]  Stare Indecisis: The Alteration of Precedent on the Supreme Court, 1946-1992 , 1995 .

[67]  G. Moskowitz.  The mediational effects of attributions and information processing in minority social influence , 1996 .

[68]  John D. Rogers,et al.  Dissent and the search for information. , 1996 .

[69]  W. Wood,et al.  Self-definition, defensive processing, and influence: the normative impact of majority and minority groups. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[70]  Randall S. Peterson,et al.  Focus Versus Flexibility Majority and Minority Influence Can Both Improve Performance , 1996 .

[71]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and Performance , 1996 .

[72]  R. Saavedra,et al.  A naturalistic minority influence experiment: Effects on divergent thinking, conflict and originality in work‐groups , 1996 .

[73]  R. Scott Tindale,et al.  Minority and majority influence in freely interacting groups: Qualitative versus quantitative differences , 1996 .