Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 2, No. 4, 347-364 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430299024003

Effects of Differential Status of Group Members on Process and Outcome of Deliberation

Martin F. Kaplan

Northern Illinois University, mkaplan{at}niu.edu

Ana M. Martin

Universidad de La Laguna

Decision making groups, including European juries, often contain factions differing in status. Mock juries composed of trained and layperson status factions decided guilt and punishment for realistic cases of university code violations. Cases presented predominantly intellective or judgmental issues, and juries had to justify verdicts according to facts alone, or facts and values. Compared to laypersons, trained factions influenced group decisions more, but only in judgmental cases, or when having to include values in justification. They more actively discussed the judgmental cases, and engaged more than laypersons in normative influence. Trained jurors appear to wield social/normative power, impacting judgmental issues more. Consistent with their minority status, laypersons engage in more informational than normative influence. The fact that laypersons are as active in discussing intellective cases as are trained members, and are equally informational in their style of influence, enhances their impact when deciding issues that revolve around gathering facts to reach a correct decision.

Key Words: factions • groups • influence • processes • status

References

  • Back, K. W., & Davis, K. E. (1965). Some personal and situational factors relevant to the consistency and prediction of conforming behavior. Sociometry, 28, 227-240.[CrossRef]
  • Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5-19.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Berger, J., Webster, M., Jr., Ridgeway, C. L., & Rosenholtz, S. J. (1986). Status cues, expectations, and behaviors. In E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 3, pp. 1-22). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Brandstatter, H., Bleckwenn, M., & Kette, G. (1984). Decision-making of industrial tribunals as described by professional and lay judges. International Review of Applied Psychology, 33, 137-159.
  • Cajal-Blanco, B. (1994). El cambio de verdicto en el jurado: Influencia de variables psicosociales. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidad AutÛnoma de Barcelona.
  • Casper, J., & Zeisel, H. (1972). Lay judges in the German criminal courts. Journal of Legal Studies, 1, 135-191.
  • Chaiken, S., Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (1996). Principles of persuasion. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 702-742). New York: Guilford.
  • Cohen, E. G. (1982). Expectation states and interracial interaction in school settings. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 209-235.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-639.
  • De Vries, N. K., De Dreu, C. K W., Gordijn, E., & Schuurman, M. (1996). Majority and minority influence: A dual role interpretation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 145-172). Chichester: Wiley.
  • Diamond, S. (1988). When laypersons set the sentences in civil courts. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, Chicago.
  • Eagly, A. H. (1987) Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
  • Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1977).Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 323-345.[CrossRef]
  • Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Insko, C. A., Smith, R. H., Alicke, M. D., Wade, J., & Taylor, S. (1985). Conformity and group size: The concern with being right and the concern with being liked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 41-50.[Abstract]
  • Kaplan, M. F. (1989). Task, situational, and personal determinants of influence processes in group decision making. In E. J. Lawler & B. Markovsky (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 6, pp. 87-105). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Kaplan, M. F., & Martin, A. M. (in press). The influence of expert vs. non-expert members of juries: The Spanish jury as an illustration. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Handbook of global legal policy. New York: Marcel Dekker.
  • Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative vs. informational influence: Effects of type of issue and decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306-313.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Kaplan, M. F., Schaefer, E. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. (1994). Member preferences for discussion content in anticipated group decisions: Effects of type of issue and group interactive goal. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 489-508.[CrossRef]
  • Kelly, J. R., Jackson, J. W., & Hutson-Comeaux, S. L. (1997). The effects of time pressure and task differences on influence modes and accuracy in problem-solving groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 10-22.
  • Kirchler, E., & Davis, J. H. (1986). The influence of member status differences and task type on group consensus and member position change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 83-91.[CrossRef]
  • Latane, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of minorities and majorities. Psychological Review, 88, 438-453.[CrossRef]
  • Laughlin, P., & Ellis, A. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177-189.[CrossRef]
  • Maass, A., & Clark, R. D., III. (1983). Internalization vs. compliance: Differential processes underlying minority influence and conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 197-215.
  • Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.[CrossRef]
  • Molm, A. D., & Hedley, M. (1991). Gender, power, and social exchange. In C. L. Ridgeway & D. Diekema (Eds.), Gender, interaction, and inequality (pp. 157-180). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 347-426). New York: Random House.
  • Munday, R. (1993).Jury trial, continental style. Legal Studies, 13, 205-224.
  • Nemeth, C. J. (1985). Procesos de grupo y de jurado: Estados Unidos y Francia. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Psicología social (Vol. 2, pp. 279-305). Barcelona: Paidos. (Original work published in 1984)
  • Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Nemeth, C., & Wachtler, J. (1974). Creating the perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence. Sociometry, 37, 529-540.[CrossRef]
  • Palmer, A. (1988). El jurado y la psicología social. Barcelona: PPU.
  • Perez, J. A., Papastamou, S., & Mugny, G. (1995). 'Zeitgeist' and minority influence - where is the casualty: A comment on Clark (1990). European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 703-710.[CrossRef]
  • Ridgeway, C. L., Berger, J., & Smith, L. (1985). Nonverbal cues and status: An expectation states approach. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 955-978.[CrossRef]
  • Ridgeway, C. L., Diekema, D., & Johnson, C. (1995). Legitimacy, compliance, and gender in peer groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 298-311.[CrossRef]
  • Rugs, D., & Kaplan, M. F. (1993). Effectiveness of informational and normative influences in group decision making depends on group interactive goal. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 147-158.
  • Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 1-24.
  • Sampson, E. E. (1969). Studies in status congruence. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 225-270). New York: Academic Press.
  • Se'ver, A. (1989). Simultaneous effects of status and task cues. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 327-335.[CrossRef]
  • Skvoretz, J. (1988). Models of participation in status-differentiated groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 43-57.
  • Strodtbeck, F., James, R., & Hawkins, C. (1957). Sociological status injury deliberation. American Sociological Review, 22, 713-719.[CrossRef]
  • Wilke, H. (1996). Status congruence in small groups. In E. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 67-91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouelette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323-345.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?