This research explores the impact of dyadic side conversations on group norms within three- and four-person groups. The authors propose a link between dyadic communication and group norms such that the absence of dyadic communication enhances a norm of group unity, whereas its presence enhances a norm of faction-forming. In two studies, we demonstrate that the presence of dyadic communication opportunities can both help and hurt group performance and that this depends on a fit between the content of the norm and the wider social context. In negotiation tasks that benefit from group unity, the absence of dyadic communication results in a stronger focus on the group and its future as well as increased group performance. However, in problem-solving tasks that benefit from faction-forming, the mere presence of dyadic communication opportunities leads to increased openness to unique information, disagreement, and group performance.
Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
2.
Baron, D.P. (1995). Blind justice: Fairness to groups and the do-no-harm principle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 71-83.
3.
BBC. (2007). Olmert bans mobiles in meetings. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6958357.stm.
4.
Brett, J., Olekalns, M., Goates, N., Friedman, R., Anderson, C., & Lisco, C.C. (2007). Tortoise or hare? A study of the time to resolution in on-line disputes. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 85-99.
5.
Brodbeck, F.C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2002). The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: The effects of pre-discussion dissent. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 35-56.
6.
Caporeal, L., Dawes, R.M., Orbell, J.M., & van de Kragt, A. (1989). Selfishness examined: Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incentives. Behavioral and Brain Science, 12, 683-699.
7.
Dawes, R.M., McTavish, J., & Shaklee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people's behavior in a commons dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 1-11.
8.
Dawes, R.M., Van de Kragt, A.J., & Orbell, J.M. (1988). Not me or thee but we: The importance of group identity in eliciting cooperation in dilemma situations: Experimental manipulations . Acta Psychologica, 68, 83-97.
9.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Weingart, L.R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889-905.
10.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sampling and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65, 959-974.
11.
Jackson, J.W., & Smith, E.R. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework and evidence for the impact of different dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 120-135.
12.
Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.
13.
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J.H. (2000). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics and speech recognition . New York: Prentice Hall.
14.
Kerr, N.L., & Kaufman-Gilliland, C.M. (1994). Communication, commitment, and cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 513-529.
15.
Kramer, R.M., & Brewer, M.B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044-1057.
16.
Kramer, R.M., Pommerenke, P., & Newton, E. (1993). The social context of negotiation: Effects of social identity and interpersonal accountability on negotiator decision making . Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 633-654.
17.
Liang, D.W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating factor of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384-393.
18.
Mannix, E.A. (1994). Will we meet again? The effects of power, distribution norms, and the scope of future interaction in small group negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 343-368.
19.
Mannix, E.A., Tinsley, C., & Bazerman, M.H. (1995). Negotiating over time: Impediments to integrative solutions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 241-251.
20.
McLeod, P.L., Baron, R.S., Marti, M.W., & Yoon, K. (1997). The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 706-718.
21.
Nemeth, C.J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
22.
Pennebaker, J.W., Francis, M.E., & Booth, R.J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
Phillips, K.W., Mannix, E.A., Neale, M.A., & Gruenfeld, D.H. (2004). Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 497-510.
24.
Postmes, T., Haslam, S.A., & Swaab, R.I. (2005a). Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 1-42.
25.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918-930.
26.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research , 25, 689-715.
27.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Novak, R., & Lee, T. (2005b). Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 747-763.
28.
Reicher, S.D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena . In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 161-198). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
29.
Stasser, G. (1999). The uncertain role of unshared information in collective choices. In L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
Stasser, G., Stewart, D.D., & Wittenbaum, G.M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244-265.
31.
Swaab, R.I., Kern, M.A., Diermeier, D., & Medvec, V. (in press). Who says what to whom? The impact of communication settings on exclusion in multiparty negotiations. Social Cognition .
32.
Swaab, R.I., Postmes, T., Van Beest, I., & Spears, R. (2007). Shared cognition as a product of, and precursor to, shared social identity: The role of communication in negotiations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 187-199.
33.
Ury, W.L., Brett, J.M., & Goldberg, S.B. (1988). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut the costs of conflict. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
34.
Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer mediated interaction . Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
35.
Wittenbaum, G.M., & Bowman, J.M. (2004). A social validation explanation for mutual enhancement . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 169-184.
36.
Wittenbaum, G.M., Hollingshead, A.B., & Botero, I.C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71, 286-310.
37.
Wittenbaum, G.M., & Stasser, G. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What's social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
