COMMUNICATING, NEGOTIATING, AND STEREOTYPING: THE …1183806/... · 2018. 2. 20. · SMALL GROUP...

Thesis for Doctoral degree in Psychology, Östersund 2018

COMMUNICATING, NEGOTIATING, AND STEREOTYPING:

THE ROLES OF CONTEXT, SITUATION AND GENDER IN SMALL GROUP DECISION-MAKING

Pär Löfstrand

Main supervisor: Ingrid Zakrisson

Co-supervisors: Patrick Millet, Richard Ahlström

Department of Psychology Mid Sweden University, SE-831 25 Östersund, Sweden

ISSN 1652-‐‑893X

Mid Sweden University Doctoral Thesis 277 ISBN 978-‐‑91-‐‑88527-‐‑43-‐‑1

Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av Mittuniversitetet i Östersund framläggs till offentlig granskning för avläggande av Filosofie Doktorsexamen fredagen den 6:e april, 2018, klockan 10.15, i sal F234, Mittuniversitetet Östersund. Seminariet kommer att hållas på svenska

COMMUNICATING, NEGOTIATING AND STEREOTYPING: THE ROLES OF CONTEXT, SITUATION AND GENDER IN

SMALL GROUP DECISION-MAKING

Pär Löfstrand

© Pär Löfstrand, 2018 Printed by Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall ISSN: 1652-‐‑893X ISBN: 978-‐‑91-‐‑88527-‐‑43-‐‑1 Department of Psychology Mid Sweden University, SE-‐‑831 25 Östersund, Sweden Phone: +46 (0)10-‐‑142 80 00 Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden, Doctoral Thesis 277

To Daniel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... viii

SVENSK SAMMANFATTNING ......................................................................... x

LIST OF PAPERS .................................................................................................. xii

1. PREFACE ........................................................................................................... 1

2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2

2.1 Brief historical background to experimental social psychology ............................ 5

2.2 Group decision-making (GDM) ............................................................................. 6

2.2.1 Groups in real life versus ad-hoc groups? ................................................. 8

2.2.2 What makes a group decision-making process effective, successful and democratic? ......................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Stereotypes, attitudes and prejudice ..................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Stereotyping .............................................................................................. 11

2.3.2 The stereotype dimensions warmth and competence ................................ 12

2.4 Communication and stereotyping ........................................................................ 14

2.4.1 Social constructionism and small group communication ......................... 14

2.4.2 Analysis methods for small group communication ................................... 15

2.5 The complexity of gender and gender stereotypes .............................................. 16

3. AIM ................................................................................................................... 19

4. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 20

4.1 Mixed-method approach ...................................................................................... 21

4.2 Group size of decision-making groups ................................................................ 22

4.3 Ad-hoc or real groups? ........................................................................................ 23

4.4 The experiments ................................................................................................... 23

4.4.1 The Relay Team ........................................................................................ 24

4.4.2 The Consultant .......................................................................................... 25

4.5 Quantitative data .................................................................................................. 26

4.6 Qualitative data analysis .................................................................................. 27

vi

4.6.1 Interaction process analysis (IPA) ........................................................... 27

4.6.2 Conversational argument coding scheme (CACS) ................................... 28

4.6.3 Stereotype content analysis ....................................................................... 28

4.6.4 Conversational pattern analysis ............................................................... 29

5. EMPIRICAL PAPERS ................................................................................... 29

5.1 Paper I .................................................................................................................. 29

5.1.1 Background and aim ................................................................................. 29

5.1.2 Methodology ............................................................................................. 30

5.1.3 Results ....................................................................................................... 30

5.1.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 31

5.2 Paper II ................................................................................................................. 31 5.2.1 Background and aim ................................................................................. 31

5.2.2 Method ...................................................................................................... 32

5.2.3 Results ....................................................................................................... 33

5.2.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 33

5.3 Paper III ............................................................................................................... 34

5.3.1 Background and aim ................................................................................. 34

5.3.2 Method ...................................................................................................... 34

5.3.3 Results ....................................................................................................... 35

5.3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 35

5.4 Paper IV ............................................................................................................... 36 5.4.1 Background and aim ................................................................................. 36

5.4.2 Method ...................................................................................................... 36

5.4.3 Results ....................................................................................................... 37

5.5.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 37

6. GENERAL DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 38

6.1 Stereotyping and context ..................................................................................... 38

6.2 The role of experiences ........................................................................................ 41

6.3 Methodological considerations ............................................................................ 42

6.4 Practical implications ........................................................................................... 43

6.5 Future research ..................................................................................................... 45

6.6 The Bottom Line .................................................................................................. 46

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................... 47

8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 49

9. APPENDIX: EMPIRICAL PAPERS I-‐‑IV ................................................... 65

viii

COMMUNICATING, NEGOTIATING AND STEREOTYPING: THE ROLES OF CONTEXT, SITUATION AND GENDER IN SMALL GROUP DECISION-MAKING

Pär Löfstrand Department of Psychology, Mid Sweden University, SE-‐‑831 25 Östersund, Sweden

ISSN 1652-‐‑893X Mid Sweden University Doctoral Thesis 277;

ISBN 978-‐‑91-‐‑88527-‐‑43-‐‑1

ABSTRACT Making decisions together in groups takes an important role in society.

Everywhere and in many different contexts people meet to make more or less formal decisions. As stereotypes constitute simplified group based perceptions of other people, decision-‐‑making groups risk making biased judgments and commit discriminating decisions. Stereotyping often follow the two universal dimensions competence and warmth (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008). How people´s judgments are affected by stereotypes has mainly been studied on individual level and less is known about how stereotypes and prejudice is communicated and negotiated in group decision-‐‑making situations. One approach to study this is to investigate how different contexts may lead to different communication patterns, different experiences, and different decisions. In this thesis context was varied in two different ways in two experiments. In the first experiment the goal set for the decision-‐‑making was varied. A competitive goal was contrasted to a cooperative goal in a group decision task using a sports scenario where the participants had to select members to a relay team. In the second experiment different information was used as a context variable. This was done by varying the information of gender and parenthood status of the applicants in a fictive recruitment scenario. In addition, in both experiments the gender composition in the groups was varied, forming yet another variable that might play a role for how the decision-‐‑making was carried out. These three factors were assumed to influence the form of the communication, the content of the communication in terms of stereotyping, and how the decision-‐‑making process was experienced. A mixed-‐‑method approach was chosen where quantitative and qualitative data were used in conjunction with each other, which was assumed to give a richer picture of the results.

In paper I the form of the communication, as analyzed with interaction process analysis (IPA), did not differ much between the two goals. On the other hand, the content showed more systematic patterns. A competitive goal seemed to lead to both inclusion and exclusion with use of both positive and negative stereotypes. A cooperative goal seemed to lead to inclusion mechanisms and only use of positive stereotypes. In paper II where the aim was to investigate what was experienced as constituting a successful decision-‐‑making process it was found that equality of influence was of importance. Furthermore, qualitative analyses of the conversation patterns, by use of the conversational argument coding scheme (CACS), seemed to validate this. The successful groups had a more complex communication pattern than the less successful groups. In paper III, where the information for the decision task was varied in terms of gender and parenthood status of the applicants, it was found that parenthood information triggered a lot of discussion. The participants did not differentiate between mothers and fathers, but they applied attributes of competence and warmth differently to the targets. Furthermore, gender and gender composition seemed to matter as male and female groups applied the attributes differently. Paper IV used data from both experiments in order to investigate how the context variables and gender composition influenced how the decision situation was experienced. The results indicate that the context variables and gender composition interacted with own gender. Men seemed more content in male groups with male targets and a male parent condition while women seemed more content in mixed groups and a female parent condition.

Context seems to play an important role, as it provides the participants in the group discussions with different information, leading to different patterns of stereotyping in the discussions. Also how the decision was experienced seems to be related to the context. Furthermore, group composition seems to function in this way too. The results are discussed in relation to practical implications and suggestions for future research.

Keywords: Competition, Cooperation, Gender, Group Decision-‐‑Making, Stereotype Content Model

x

KOMMUNICERA, FÖRHANDLA OCH ANVÄNDA STEREOTYPER: VILKEN ROLL SPELAR KONTEXT, SITUATION OCH GENUS I SMÅ GRUPPERS BESLUTSFATTANDE

Pär Löfstrand Department of Psychology,

Mid Sweden University, SE-‐‑831 25 Östersund, Sweden ISSN 1652-‐‑893X Mid Sweden University Doctoral Thesis 277;

ISBN 978-‐‑91-‐‑88527-‐‑43-‐‑1

SVENSK SAMMANFATTNING Att fatta beslut tillsammans spelar en viktig roll i samhället. I alla möjliga

sammanhang träffas människor för att ta mer eller mindre formella beslut. Beslutsfattande grupper riskerar att fatta felaktiga och diskriminerande beslut om beslutsfattarna påverkas av psykologiska mekanismer som stereotyper, d.v.s. förenklad information baserad på upplevelser av andra människor och till vilken grupp de associeras till. Hur människors bedömningar påverkas av stereotyper har tidigare framförallt studerats ur ett individuellt perspektiv men vi vet mindre om hur stereotyper och de universella stereotypdimensionerna kompetens och värme (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008) samt fördomar kommuniceras och förhandlas när beslut fattas i grupp. Ett sätt att studera detta är genom att undersöka hur olika kontext kan leda till olika kommunikationsmönster, olika erfarenheter, och olika beslut. I denna avhandling varieras kontexten på två olika sätt i två experiment. I det första experimentet där deltagarna hade till uppgift att sätta samman ett stafettlag varierades målinriktningen. Ett tävlingsinriktat mål jämförs med ett mål inriktat mot gemenskap. I det andra experimentet användes olika information som kontextvariabel. Detta gjordes genom att information om genus och föräldraskap för en fiktiv aspirant till ett jobb som konsult i en fiktiv anställningssituation varierades. Därtill studerades i båda experimenten vilka effekter gruppers könssammansättning och deltagarnas genus kan spela i en beslutsprocess. Dessa faktorer förväntades påverka hur beslutsfattande grupperna resonerade, innehållet i kommunikation påverkades i termer av stereotyper och hur beslutsfattande-‐‑processen upplevdes. För att ge en bredare bild användes både kvalitativ och kvantitativ data som kopplades samman med gruppernas givna målsättning.

I artikel I analyserades formen av kommunikation genom en interaktions-‐‑processanalys (IPA), här skilde det inte mycket mellan de två olika målsättningarna. Däremot visade en innehållsanalys ett mer systematiskt mönster.

Grupper med tävlingsinriktade mål använde sig av både inkludering och exkludering genom användande av såväl positiva som negativa stereotyper. Grupper med en gemenskapsinriktad målsättning använde inkluderande målsättningar och enbart positiva stereotyper. I artikel II där målet var att undersöka vad som skapar en framgångsrik beslutsprocess visade det sig att upplevelsen av en jämlik beslutsprocess spelar stor roll. En kvalitativ analys av konversationsargumenten (CACS) stärkte denna slutsats.

I artikel III, där informationen av genus och föräldraskap för de fiktiva aspiranterna varierades, visade det sig att föräldraskap gav upphov till omfattande diskussion. Deltagarna gjorde ingen större skillnad mellan mammor och pappor, men de använde sig av attribut relaterade till stereotypdimensionerna värme och kompetens olika beroende på om de talade om mammor eller pappor. I artikel IV användes data från båda experimenten för att undersöka hur kontextvariablerna och könssammansättning av grupperna påverkade hur beslutssituationen upplevdes. Resultaten visar att kontextvariablerna och könssammansättning samspelar med deltagarens eget genus. Män upplevde sig mer nöjda när de arbetade tillsammans med andra män som hade en manlig target person och en fiktiv manlig förälder att ta ställning till. Kvinnor kände sig mer nöjda i grupper bestående av både kvinnor och män som diskuterade om en kvinnlig förälder.

Kontext spelade en stor roll eftersom variationen av information ledde till olika mönster av hur stereotyper användes i diskussionerna. Vidare, köns-‐‑sammansättningen av grupperna fungerade på ett liknande sätt. Resultaten diskuteras i relation till hur detta kan påverka beslutsfattandesituationer. Slutligen gavs förslag till framtida forskning inom området.

xii

LIST OF PAPERS This thesis is mainly based on the following four papers, herein referred to by their Roman numerals:

Paper I Löfstrand, P., & Zakrisson, I. (2014). Competitive versus non-‐‑ competitive goals in group decision-‐‑making. Small Group Research, 45 (4), 451-‐‑464.

Paper II Löfstrand, P., (2015). Conversational arguments in small group decision-‐‑making: reasoning activity and perceived influence over the decision are keys for success. In R. Thornberg & T. Jungert (Eds.), Independent in the heard: Inclusion and exclusion as social processes: Proceedings from the 9th GRASP conference, Linköping University (pp.64-‐‑81). (Research report in electronics) (Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings).

Paper III Löfstrand, P., & Zakrisson, I. (2017). “What about the child issue?” Group negotiations of gender and parenthood contracts in recruitment situations, Society, Health & Vulnerability, 8 (1), 19-‐‑30.

Paper IV Zakrisson, I., & Löfstrand, P. (2018). The multidimensionality of gender – implications for group-‐‑based decision making. Manuscript submitted

1

1. PREFACE ”With the possible exception of childbearing, no aspect of social life is more strongly associated with gender than power.” (Pratto & Walker, p.242, 2004) ”People who work together will win, whether it be against complex football defenses, or the problems of modern society.” (Vince Lombardi, football coach, Benson, p.217, 2008)

It is a privilege to be part of a free research community and to have the opportunity to communicate research results as well as to defend them. The right to express our research and take part in the political debate might be taken for granted. However, many researchers today live and work in societies where free research and freedom of speech are a distant vision. For us to have the opportunity to write and do research on what we think is necessary, without control from authorities, is important if we are to continue our research applied to human interaction and communication to shed light on different democratic dilemmas. My thesis is connected to the basics of social psychology; how human interaction affects our views of each other, and how, in a broader sense, it might also affect society.

During the years I have worked on this thesis I have often thought about the philosophical dilemma, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” This is something I am reminded of daily; both by myself but also by people I meet. I often hear questions like: ”Why are you in so active in a sports club?” “Why do you spend so much time getting involved in social issues?”, and so on.

Certainly, when I started writing, I was already to some extent involved in non-‐‑profit work in different associations. I was a football coach for one of my children’s team and I was also a nominee for a laidback position in the local elections. However, during the time I have been working with this thesis, my non-‐‑profit commitments has expanded a lot. One led to another and today I am chairman of one of the regional football clubs, while also being engaged in the municipal council as a deputy chairman of the Municipality Educational Board. I also have various missions at the national political level. So let us go back and try to answer the initial question, ”which came first, the egg or the chicken?” As a graduate student in psychology, with, as teenagers would say, ‘a morbid’ interest in the nuances of communication, I am thinking, “it requires a deeper understanding outside the laboratory to get a better grip of my research questions”. My ambitions are inspired by Kurt Lewin, willing to face theoretical issues to get the necessary in-‐‑depth

2

knowledge of practical implications of group decision-‐‑making and its implicit and explicit outcomes. For my case, I am not sure whether the scientific interest has increased my civic interest or if it is the other way around. This curiosity and wish for a deeper understanding has of course influenced me in my activities in society.

2. INTRODUCTION

When people interact with each other, e.g. in decision-‐‑making situations, they sometimes discuss and evaluate individuals who are not present in the room. This is done in more or less formal situations. Informally when friends discuss absent friends, and formally, for example, in team selections or recruitment situations where decision-‐‑makers evaluate and make decisions about candidates. In every situation when people speak of persons not present they use a number of attributes applied to describe the absentees and to justify opinions of how they can be expected to act. Those attributes are related to the stereotype dimensions warmth and competence (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick & Xu, 2002). The two dimensions together form “the stereotype content model” (Fiske, et al., 2002). Stereotypes are something that helps people use simplified categorizations or a collection of characteristics to understand other people (Allport, 1954). Stereotypes are beliefs and they serve the purpose of identifying and discriminating people from other groups based on attributes such as age, gender, occupation, race, etc. (Haslam, Turner, Oakes, Reynolds, & Doosje, 2002; Tajfel, 1981). In other words, stereotypes help a person understand how another person might act or behave without making a totally new evaluation each time he/she meets a new person. Stereotypes are biased against another person according to which group he/she belongs to (Fiske, et al., 2002). Furthermore, stereotypes assist people in defending or rationalizing their feelings and behaviors (Jost & Major, 2001). They are easy to adapt but harder to avoid and are at high risk to be used in situations when people feel threatened or experience anxiety and stress (Macrae, Hewstone & Griffiths, 1993). Groups with people that are associated farthermost away from power in society are rated the lowest on the two stereotype dimensions. Elderly and disabled people are positioned high in warmth but low on the competence dimension. People with a business career or people in a power position are often positioned high in competence but low in warmth. Groups that are positioned the highest on both dimensions belong to the dominant norm group in society, the in-‐‑groups, or “us” (Fiske, Cuddy & Glick, 2007). Previous research has also revealed that the stereotype dimensions are stable across cultures (Fiske et al, 2007). However, different groups are positioned differently in different cultures (Fiske et al, 2002). Another view is that how people view other people is a constantly ongoing process. Attitudes and opinions change

3

all the time, even within the same individual and in the same conversation (Potter, 1988). How people view the world around them and how they view other people are factors built in since early childhood (Gergen, 2015) through the interaction with parents, neighbors, friends and teachers and later in life through politicians, managers and colleagues (Summers, 2017). People are not aware of their attribution processes, as these are quick and occur automatically (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; Bodenhausen & Macrae, 1998; McNeill & Burton, 2002).

One of the first things people notice when they meet a new person is which gender the person is associated with (Fiske, Haslam & Fiske, 1991). This starts in early age (Lindsey, 2012) and children are framed by gender from early childhood (Ridgeway, 2011). This means that gender is one of the most general stereotypes permeating people’s perceptions. Depending on how gender relevant information is framed in a situation it leads to biased judgments of women and men (Fiske, et al., 2002; Okimoto & Heilman, 2012).

Not only are men and women judged differently, it is also possible that there are differences between men and women in how they perceive and judge other people. For example, men have been found to have higher levels of social dominant attitudes and prejudice than women (Pratto, Sidanius & Levin, 2006). But it is also possible that what is seen as differences at individual level is indeed a result of what is expected due to norms in society and perhaps that men and women positioned in the same gendered situation act in the same way. It has been found that men and women in situations with an asymmetric distribution of men have similar social attitudes (Zakrisson, 2008). In addition, previous research has revealed differences in performance and interaction dependent on gender composition in decision-‐‑making (Apesteguia, Azmat, & Iriberri, 2012; Fenwick & Neal, 2001; Hannagan & Larimer, 2010; Van Vugt, De Cremer, & Janssen, 2007; Raghubir & Valenzuela, 2010).

Sometimes humans are described as “social animals” (Aronson, 1984), meaning that people are more or less born into groups that they live in and work in (Gavac, Murrar & Brauer, 2017). Working together with other people and making joint decisions in groups is also something that starts in early childhood. This continues through the educational system and later through work life, where group work and joint decision-‐‑making takes an important part. Social psychological research on groups and decision-‐‑making has a long record and research has been conducted both in laboratory settings, with temporal, ad-‐‑hoc groups (Ahn, Ostrom, Schmidt & Walker, 2003) and in the field on real decision-‐‑making groups (Barr & Gold, 2014). In the laboratory it is common with experimental designs that focus on different parts of the decision-‐‑making process, e.g. free riding effects (Kameda, Tsukasaki, Hastie, & Berg, 2011), majority and minority influence (Sinaceur,

4

Thomas-‐‑Hunt, Neale, O'ʹNeill, & Haag, 2010), or framing effects (Leong, McKenzie, Sher & Müller-‐‑Trede, 2017).

Research conducted in the field sometimes focuses on processes within the group (Wheelan, 2009) or on factors such as group climate (Schultz, Sjøvold & Andre, 2017) or with an ambition to achieve a change (Lewin, 1947). Lewin’s research has been important in the work with group dynamics and even if not often cited it is still in use (Hermann, 2015). When you are studying group interaction in experimental situations it is hard not to think of what it is that makes decision-‐‑making processes more or less successful. The results of a “good group process” can be measured in terms of achievement. How much did the group achieve (van Woerkom & Sanders, 2010) or how efficient were they (Lira, Ripoll, Peiró, Zornoza, 2008), or if different groups might outperform others (Hong & Page, 2004). Another approach to study group processes is to study democratic factors in the decision-‐‑making process, such as majority vs. minority influence and how much influence each participant has over different parts of the session (Meyers, Brashers & Hanner, 2000; Nemeth & Goncalo, 2005).

This short introduction leads us to the core of this thesis. How do people in groups negotiate and how are stereotypes constructed in different contexts? Do women and men communicate and negotiate stereotypes differently? Are decision-‐‑making groups affected by the gender of the object? Does gender composition affect communication and communication patterns? Moreover, there is a need for studies on communication in experimental settings to control how stereotyping mechanisms take shape in different situations. Experimental designs have an advantage over field studies as they offer a better opportunity to control threats to the internal validity (Moyer & Gross, 2011). Finally, all this reasoning leads to the question whether communication and communication patterns might explain what it is that makes a group decision-‐‑making process more successful.

In decision-‐‑making research, relatively little empirical attention has been given to manipulation of the goal-‐‑settings of the decision-‐‑making task and most often the goal is expressed in extrinsic, achievement terms. As such, the task is set to appeal to achievement motivation, which would lead to less responsiveness to other people’s views. What if the goal was expressed in intrinsic terms, as for example; what is good for the group”? Would that lead the group members to more responsiveness towards each other? All group decision-‐‑making situations are framed by different aspects, such as different outcomes and contingencies associated with a particular choice (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). One way to study framing effects is to give groups different information, which can be done in an experimental setting (e.g. Levin, Johnson & Davis, 1987).

5

The following sections in the thesis aim to give a theoretical background to the main areas and research questions that the thesis rests upon. Section 2.1 gives a brief historical background to social psychological experimentation. Section 2.2 discusses groups and decision-‐‑making (GDM), as groups and decision-‐‑making form the fundamental base of this thesis. The chapter also focuses on framing effects and raises the question of what a successful decision-‐‑making session could be, and how it can be measured. Section 2.3 discusses the concept of stereotypes, as stereotypes are the main psychological component studied in this thesis. Section 2.4 discusses communication and how interaction has an impact on groups and decision-‐‑making and how this might affect stereotyping. Moreover, the purpose of the chapter is to describe some research methods that can be used to conduct research on group interaction. Next, section 2.5 discusses gender and gender composition and how it might have effect on communication and stereotyping. Chapter 3 describes and motivates the aim of the thesis. Chapter 4 handles methodology. In chapter 5 are the empirical papers summarized. Finally, the thesis ends with a discussion in chapter 6. The empirical papers can be read in full in the appendix at the end of this thesis.

2.1 Brief historical background to experimental social psychology

How people interact and make decisions together has interested social psychologists for more than a century. Since the first social psychological experiment on social facilitation (how performance is affected by the mere presence of others) was conducted in the late 19th century (Triplett, 1898), research on the psychology of group interaction has been frequent. Mustafa Sherif (1936) was among the first to study intergroup conflicts, such as group norms, and how individuals were affected by conformity. After the atrocities that took place during World War II, there were many social psychologists (e.g. Asch, 1956; Lewin, 1951; Milgram, 1974) that understood that it was important, using scientific methods, to reach a better understanding of the acts carried out by nations, soldiers and civilians during the war. How could a democratic country vote for a political leadership that ended up carrying out genocide and war against other nations? How could soldiers commit the most heinous crimes? These questions were the starting point for studies with ethically problematic designs by modern standards. Kurt Lewin (Lewin & Lippit, 1938; Lewin, 1947), conducted field studies through action research with the aim to achieve a change in people'ʹs attitudes, values and behavior. It was also in the aftermath of industrialization that Lewin along with Lippit began studying various forms of leadership (Billig, 2015; Lewin & Lippit, 1938; Lippit, 1940; Lewin, Lippit & White, 1939).

6

Later, social psychological researchers moved into the laboratory and in experimental settings studied different components of human behavior and interaction. The famous conformity studies that were conducted in the 1950s demonstrated our human willingness to repeat other people’s behavior and how difficult it is for us to avoid conformity (Asch, 1956). Other experiments were related to obedience in the face of authority (Milgram, 1974). Even if these studies were ethically questionable, they gave us important knowledge about how people obey authority and diminish themselves in decision-‐‑making situations. In the aftermath of the obedience experiment, an essential discussion started about research ethics and what a researcher can expose a subject to in a study (Russell & Picard 2013).

One often mentioned quasi-‐‑experiment was the Stanford Prison Experiment in which university students were randomly assigned to the roles of prisoners or prison guards (Zimbardo, 1973; 2007). The purpose of this experiment was to study how the participants were shaped by their roles. The results were that they quickly fell into destructive patterns, as the participants who acted as prison guards abused the participants who were set to act as prisoners. The experiment was canceled in advance after just six days for safety reasons.

All these experiments are important, not only from a research perspective but also from the perspective of work life, as people often work together in groups and struggle with factors such as conformity and obedience. Thus it is important to perform experimental research on groups to investigate the interaction between the individual in the group.

2.2 Group decision-making (GDM) Among common definitions of a group is that it needs to be composed of more

than one member (Brown, 1999). Furthermore, to become a group, the members need some kind of social relationship (Forsyth, 2006). Moreover, a group by definition also needs one or more joint goals (Lennéer-‐‑Axelsson & Thylefors, 2018).

Working together with other people and making joint decisions starts early in life and continues through the educational system. It also follows people into working life, where collaboration and decision-‐‑making play an important role. Groups are important at all levels, from the factory floor to the boardrooms of multi-‐‑national companies.

How people communicate, negotiate and make decisions together has interested social psychologists for more than a century. Early in the 1920’s, research was conducted on group influence (Allport, 1920). Previous research has revealed a number of advantages and disadvantages with group decision-‐‑making compared to individual decision-‐‑making. The main reason to make decisions in

7

groups is to take advantage of the different experiences, strengths and expertise of the members (Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999). Another purpose is to evaluate more alternatives (Nemeth & Nemeth-‐‑Brown, 2003). This could have a democratic advantage, as more people feel that they understand and are involved in the decisions (Hinsz & Nickell, 2004). There are also many possible disadvantages that must be handled properly. The process is generally time-‐‑consuming when more people are involved in the decision-‐‑making process. There is also a risk that the members minimize themselves and just act the way the leader wants them to (Janis, 1972). Another discovered risk with group decision-‐‑making is group polarization, where a group might reach more extreme solutions to a problem than an individual would (Myers & Lamm, 1976; Van Swol & Lyn, 2009).

For a decision-‐‑making situation to appear, there must be different options to choose from (Lau, 2003). By applying so-‐‑called rational choice or prisoner’s dilemma designs, researchers can determine how and why the decision maker/s act the way they do (Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Ostrom, 2003; Russel & Fiske, 2008). Such tasks are often quite unrealistic, demanding a solution in mathematical (points, grades, tokens, etc.) or financial (money) terms. These research designs have improved understanding of group mechanisms, such as trust and strategies affecting group interaction (Ahn, et al., 2003). A common method to manipulate interaction is to tell a subject that he/she is interacting with other group members through a computer screen, while they in fact are not interacting with other participants at all (e.g. Ostrom, 2003; Yi, 2003). Researchers use this type of design to gain a high level of control over the interaction and to achieve high internal validity (Moyer & Gross, 2011). There are, in addition, variations in which participants interact with other people, either colleagues that they work with normally or other persons not previously known (e.g. Kahai, Huang & Jestice, 2012; Nawata & Yamaguchi, 2011). Previous research has revealed that most people begin an interaction collaboratively and that more cooperation and trust is formed when people interact face-‐‑to-‐‑face than in implicit interaction settings, when they interact through a computer screen (Ostrom, 2003). It has also been found that differences in goal settings might affect decision-‐‑making groups. A group with competitive goals seems to reach lower decision quality than groups with cooperative goals (Toma, Bry & Butera, 2013). Participants given competitive goals also shared less information with each other (Toma, Vasiljevic, Oberlé & Butera, 2013) and group members acted more often competitively and were less likely to share information with other participants (Toma & Butera, 2015).

8

2.2.1 Groups in real life versus ad-hoc groups? Working groups can be seen as a ‘living’ system that goes through different

stages of development (Wheelan, Davidson & Tilin, 2003; Wheelan, 2005). The first thing that happens when a group is established is that the participants enter a phase where they need to find acceptance and community with the other group members. The second stage involves opposition and conflicts. This occurs when the group members feel that they need to conform to fit into the group. In this stage, disagreement and conflict occur that sometimes lead to sub-‐‑groups. If the group can handle the second stage, they enter stage three. This stage is characterized by tolerance and structure. Group members will understand that the individuals in the group have different needs, and feelings of confidence grow. Conflicts are worked through and different roles are formed in relation to the group’s goals and ambitions. The fourth stage is the work and production phase, where members take and give feedback, problems are defined and group norms strengthen the quality (Wheelan, Murphy, Tsumura & Fried-‐‑Kline 1998; Wheelan, et al., 2003; Wheelan, 2005).

However important and beneficial it is to study group processes in real groups, where their maturation can be followed, sometimes, for example when emergent phenomena are in focus, ad-‐‑hoc groups are preferred. To study mechanisms within the group and factors such as status, gender and power there is a need to make controlled studies to reach a higher level of internal validity even if there may be problems with ecological validity. 2.2.2 What makes a group decision-making process effective, successful and democratic?

A considerable body of research has studied group effectiveness or group successfulness (DeStephen & Hirowaka, 1998; Kong, Konzak & Bottom, 2015, Michie & Williams, 2003). But what do those concepts mean and what is a good group result? The ambition here is to sort these questions out and briefly discuss the concept of group successfulness.

Satisfied group members are an important factor for a group to reach good results (DeStephen & Hirokawa, 1998). Besides satisfaction, experienced influence also leads to positive outcomes (Kong, et al., 2015; Michie & Williams, 2003). Other studies have found that negative experiences and lack of influence lead to frustration and conflict, making it difficult for the group to move forward (Mason & Griffin, 2002; 2003; Spector, 1988). When participants perceive that information is exchanged generously, it leads the group to make correct decisions, while poor exchange of information has the opposite effect (Larson, Christensen, Franz, & Abbot, 1998). Extensive information-‐‑sharing processes are also found to strengthen

9

the quality of the decisions (Peterson, Owens, Tetlock, Fan, & Martorana, 1998; Tasa & Whyte, 2005).

There are many different aspects that have an impact on group efficiency. An efficient process is not only one where the decision is reached in the shortest amount of time. For a decision-‐‑making process to be efficient, there also needs to be a constructive communication process (Kong, et al., 2015). A quick process without reasoning, questioning and objecting might obstruct the group from achieving their goals (Gelfand, Major, Raver, Nishii & O’Brien, 2006; Graziano, Jensen-‐‑Campbell & Hair, 1996).

Several components are essential for a group to be successful, such as correct understanding of the problem, what the group requires to reach the best alternatives and how they evaluate them (Gouran & Hirokawa, 1996; Kolbe & Boos, 2009). Previously, research has revealed different results according to how factors in the group interaction affect decision-‐‑making in groups. Some studies debates about if and how differences in opinion between the group members have positive effects (Schweiger, Sandberg & Ragan, 1986; Simons, Pelled & Smith 1999; Slotegraaf & Atuahene-‐‑Gima, 2011). Others argue that different opinions in the group likely have a positive impact on the group results (Barr & Gold, 2014; Gouran, 1982). Moreover, other researchers claim that different opinions might lead to pressure, frustration and tension amongst the group members (Behfar, Mannix, Peterson & Trochim, 2011; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1995). With these conflicting arguments it is easy to argue for the need for more research on group dynamics conducted in controlled situations.

How efficient or successful the group process becomes also depends on the definition of the outcome. In psychological experimental research this is seldom problematized, and the outcome is often measured in achievement terms (Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Ostrom, 2003). The need for studies with different goal terms has been argued for previously (Kray & Thompson, 2005).

How group members experience the opportunity for influence is an important factor in decision-‐‑making (Baird & Wang, 2010). However, it is also essential to take into account that influence might look differently in various parts of the decision-‐‑making process. There might be a difference between how people view influence over the actual decision and how they perceive influence over the decision process. Research thus needs to take into consideration influence over both decision outcome and decision process. Next question is whether influence should be studied in an objective sense or from a subjective perspective. To study influence in an objective sense can be done by observing the group interaction (e.g. Schmid Mast, 2001). On the other hand, if we ask the participants we get a first-‐‑hand account of the group process and how the influence was experienced. An

10

observer can evaluate the group as a whole but cannot judge what the participants experience as individuals during the decision-‐‑making process. As participants in the same group can have different experiences it is important to capture these differences by asking for their evaluations of different parts of the decision-‐‑making process.

Framing is a cognitive bias when people react differently depending on how a question or a problem is explained (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Previous research has shown that differences in framing have fundamental effects on the way people make decisions (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Framing helps people handle complex information. Our cognitive processes are framed since childhood and when we receive information or facts that fit into the frame, it is strengthened. However, when we encounter information or facts that do not fit into the frame, we may ignore it. The psychological term for this is cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962). How information is framed affects how people make their decisions (Kahneman & Tversky, 1981). The results from Tversky and Kahneman’s experiments have been replicated and it has been found that framing has major impact on the decision-‐‑makers (Gächter, Orzen, Renner & Starmer, 2009; Kühberger & Tanner, 2010). Framing effects has also been tested on groups in experimental situations (e.g. Curseu, Schruijer, & Fodor, 2016; Rees, 2014). Rees (2014) revealed that groups who received instructions with a deadline were better to predict successfulness. Curseu, et al. (2016) studied different rules in decision-‐‑making groups and they found that a collaborative decision rule decreased the sensitivity of framing effects in decision-‐‑making.

Examples that demonstrate the role of framing on social judgments in groups sometimes involve role-‐‑playing (Lawson, McDonough, & Bodle, 2010; McGregor, 1993). The most famous example is probably “A Class Divided”, an experiment conducted in the seventies by Jane Elliot (Peters, 1987) in which children were divided into two different groups and treated differently based on fictive eye color. Follow-‐‑up studies have confirmed that role-‐‑playing activities affect attitudes and behavior even if the activity causes stress to the participants (Byrnes & Kiger, 1990). The Stanford Prison Experiment also revealed how easily people adopt roles and fall into destructive patterns (Zimbardo, 2007). These examples of the classic scientific and non-‐‑scientific experiments on how people are affected by framing factors teach us a lot about how easily people adapt to stereotypic norms without questioning their validity.

Different aspects frame group decision-‐‑making situations; among them are different outcomes (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). For groups in sports the aim is often to perform well and to achieve good results. For a group of students at school the goal might be good grades, and for the board of a multi-‐‑national company the

11

goal could be a high yield and solid financial performance. The goals also often have a cooperative character, to have fun and to develop together. Likely, thoughts and feelings about the group processes will be affected by which goals are most prominent in the group. How goals for the decision-‐‑making situation are conceptualized then form the context against which the participants make their judgments One context that have been elaborated on are competition vs. cooperation. A more competitive context fosters a will to gain a positive individual outcome, while a more cooperative context leads to mutual gain (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg & Wilke, 2001). Time limit also influences the willingness to cooperate. Lack of time has also been found to force groups to be more cooperative even in competitive settings (Cone & Rand, 2014). It has also been found that decision-‐‑makers in a competitive environment feel less trust when crucial information is absent than in a cooperative environment (Rode, 2010). These examples indicate that goals serves as context and that they impact how people behave and experience group decision processes.

2.3 Stereotypes, attitudes and prejudice Social psychologists have for many years been studying attitudes and the

effects they have on people, interaction and society. One definition of an attitude is that it is an evaluative judgment about a stimulus object, that attitudes differ in valence and strength, and that attitude objects can be anything that is liked or disliked (Maio & Haddock, 2014). To complicate it further, attitudes can also be seen as context-‐‑driven, which mean that they are influenced by what groups individuals belong to and are affected by (Erber, Hodges & Wilson, 1995). Moreover, other social psychologists argue that attitudes are not stable and that they can change even within the same individual and in the same conversation (Potter, 1987). It is also necessary to take into consideration that the strength of the attitude varies and that this is critical for how it might change (Howe & Krosnick, 2017). In other words, meetings with other people influence attitudes and they might change when people communicate. This, in turn, might explain how the view of a social issue can change among a group of people over time. 2.3.1 Stereotyping

Stereotyping is the use of simplified categorizations or a collection of characteristics describing people from other groups; the main function of stereotypes is to help people categorize and understand others (Allport, 1954). It is an automatic process and stereotypes based on social group are easily applied in interaction with others (Brauer, Judd & Jacquelin 2001; Thompson, Judd & Park 2000). Stereotypes are easy to adopt but harder to avoid. They often occur in

12

situations where a person feels threatened or experiences anxiety or stress (Macrae, et al., 1993). One such situation where this happens is in decision-‐‑making (Bodenhausen, Mussweiler, Gabriel & Moreno, 2001; Bodenhausen, 2005). This happens because avoidance of adoption of stereotypes requires mental capacity, which must be focused on the situational demands at hand. Moreover, an important cognitive function of stereotypes is that they defend or rationalize feelings and behaviors (Jost & Major, 2001). Stereotypes can place the object in a worse or a better position than he or she deserves depending on the group or groups that the individual is associated with (Fiske, 2010).

As simplified group based categorizations that are automatically applied, stereotypes easily lead to prejudiced judgment and behaviors. Prejudice can be described as an attitude built up by an affective, cognitive and behavioral component (Fiske, 2014). One explanation for why people hold negative attitudes such as prejudice is that the world is often seen as competitive, and that prejudice works as a tool for a group to maintain a higher position over other groups in society (Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, & Esses, 2010). The same reasoning is found in the social dominance theory, which claims that people are biased to various degrees due to structural factors such as the power over social resources (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Thus, the reason to hold prejudiced attitudes towards certain groups is found in the need for hegemonic groups to uphold power differences (Pratto, et al, 2006). This means that which groups will be the target of prejudice depends on the power distribution within the society and may thus vary. However, one such power distribution not supposed to vary between societies is the one between men and women (Pratto, et al., 2006), indicating that power relations between men and women are stable and difficult to change, and hence the stereotypes connected to them. 2.3.2 The stereotype dimensions warmth and competence

According to the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) a stereotype consists of the two dimensions warmth and competence (Fiske et al, 2002; Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2004). Both dimensions are measurable and have been used in over 150 studies (i.e. Fiske, 2012; Durante, Tablante & Fiske, 2017). The competence dimension refers to the extent to which a group of people is seen as more or less efficient, organized or ambitious. The warmth dimension refers to the extent to which a group is seen as more or less trustworthy, friendly or emotional. The two dimensions together form four different positions (Fiske, 2015): Groups rated high on both dimensions belong to the in-‐‑group members’ allies or reference groups. Groups rated low on both dimensions are furthest away from power positions in the society, e.g. poor or homeless people. Two positions in the model describe ambivalent stereotypes, as

13

they are rated as high in one dimension and low on the other. For example career women or feminists are positioned as high on the competent dimension but low on warmth dimension and are seen as respected but disliked (Eagly & Kite, 1987; Glick & Fiske, 1996). The second ambivalent position contain groups that are seen as non-‐‑competitive, e.g., older or disabled people (Cuddy & Fiske, 2002; Fiske et al 2002). The stereotype content model has been tested in different cultures and is found to be stable even if there is variation regarding which groups that are seen as warm or cold and more or less competent in different cultures (Cuddy, et al., 2009). The normative and most dominant groups in a culture are always positioned highest on both dimensions, while groups furthest away from power positions are positioned lowest (Cuddy, et al., 2004; Fiske, et al., 2002; Fiske, Xu, Cuddy & Glick, 1999; Lee & Fiske, 2006). A recent study conducted in South East Asia found that foreigners from the West were seen as more competent while subgroups from South East Asia were seen as least competent (Ramsay & Pang 2017). Another study has found that it is important to consider the diversity of the immigrant population when studying stereotypes; this as the stereotypes slightly differ in different cultures (Binggeli, Krings, & Sczesny, 2014). This indicates that westerners are the dominant norm group not only in their own context but also all over the world. The SCM is also found to be applicable across cultures in terms of social class as people with high socioeconomic status are perceived as competent but cold, while people with low socioeconomic status are seen as less competent but warmer (Durante, et al., 2017).

The model is predominantly applied on individual level where people have rated different groups in society as described above. Another application is to judge individuals on these dimensions where group attributes are varied. Research in this respect studied the effects of ethnicity (Agerström, Björklund, Carlsson & Rooth, 2012), sexual orientation (Everly, Unzueta & Shih, 2016; Fingerhut & Peplau, 2006; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2004), and not least gender. Cuddy, et al. (2004) conducted an experiment where the participants were set to rate three candidates for a job as a consultant. The last candidate was either described as a man or a woman and in half of the cases information was added that the candidate recently had become a parent (Cuddy, et al., 2004). The results revealed a difference in the judgment of motherhood and fatherhood as the female candidate with a child lost in competence but gained in warmth, while the father gained in warmth. These results were replicated by Heilman and Okimoto (2008). They did not find the same patterns for men and they argue that the ”bad parent assumption” has its ground in gender stereotyping (Okimoto & Heilman, 2012)

As seen above, the stereotype content model has been applied in experimental situations at individual level within different contexts. But, what will happen when

14

people meet and need to negotiate their personal variants of such stereotypes in a decision-‐‑making situation? Thus it would be of interest to apply this model on communication on group level.

2.4 Communication and stereotyping The empirical work in this thesis leans on two experiments (described in section

4.4). Each investigates communication and how people negotiate when they make judgments and decisions about fictive persons. The aim with this section is; first, to give a brief theoretical introduction to why it is important to study communication; and second, to describe how communication can influence perceptions of other people (stereotyping); and third, to briefly describe two communication analysis methods that can help researchers analyze group communication.

Communication plays an essential part of people’s daily life. People in general spend around 75 percent of their waking hours to communicate with other people (Tubbs, Moss & Papastefanou, 2011). Language varies according to the context of the communication (Tubbs, 2007). The basic communication context is interpersonal communication, where two people communicate with each other (Tubbs, et al., 2011). Other contexts are intercultural, small group, public, organizational, mass communication, and interviewing (Tubbs, et al., 2011). This thesis primary focus is on communication in small groups, which can be defined as: “The process by which three or more members of a group exchange verbal and non-‐‑

verbal messages in an attempt to influence one another” (Tubbs, 2007, p.5) 2.4.1 Social constructionism and small group communication

According to social constructionism (Gergen, 2015), the perception of the outside world is based on many different conditions. For example, communication with experts, researchers, politicians, teachers, colleagues, neighbors and friends has an impact on how people view the outside world (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Some facts or values are seen as common sense, and few would dispute claims such as “the world is round” or “the world is divided into different continents” (Gergen, 2015). However, beliefs and stereotypes of groups of people are not ‘true facts’ as they are based on personal experiences and beliefs, how other people talk about groups of people etc. One reason for a social psychologist to study small group interaction (communication) is to get a better understanding about how a phenomenon is constituted (Billig, 1997), since how people communicate impacts the way they view the world (Knippendorf, 2005; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Moreover, the way people think is formed and constructed in different discourses (Potter & Edwards, 2001). The need for more knowledge of how people act in different contexts is perhaps more important than ever, as the spread of

15

information in modern society happens faster and in more complicated ways than ever before. To study small group conversation offers an opportunity to find out how context affects how stereotypes emerge.

When small group communication is studied, the context is sometimes manipulated (Rode, 2010) and sometimes differences in communication according to gender are studied (Hawkins & Power, 1999). At other times, the focus is on communication related to power (van Knippenberg, et al., 2001). This as power is used differently in competitive and cooperative contexts. In a cooperative context power is used to make joint decisions while in a competitive context the purpose is to use power to make a better position for oneself (Van Knippenberg, et al., 2001).

To get a better understanding of how factors such as external influence, group composition etc. might affect communication and which consequences these might have, it is important to have an innovative scientific approach. One such approach could be to study interaction and how communication and language affect the use of stereotypes (Kurz & Lyons, 2009; Lyons & Kashima, 2003). With this approach, communication is seen as social interaction that occurs in a specific context (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Language is from this perspective seen as something that people use for doing things, for example, persuading others or accusing someone (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Human communication may change how the social world is viewed (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). From this perspective, stereotypes are reproduced through communication in for example the choice of different phrases when people talk about other people that are not present (Kite & Whitley, 2012; von Hippel, Wiryakusuma, Bowden, & Shocket, 2011). With the awareness that language is a constructing force and that attitudes might be seen as changeable, it is of importance to get a better understanding of how language affects how stereotypes are used and how they are constructed. If we agree with this assumption from discursive social psychology, there is a need to study how people negotiate and communicate about other people and how stereotypes can be applied and are affected in different contexts. 2.4.2 Analysis methods for small group communication

Communication can be studied through different methodologies. One traditional method to study communication in groups is through so-‐‑called ‘turn-‐‑taking’ processes (Coates, 2004; Schegloff, 2000; Duncan & Fiske, 1977). All conversations are divided into various parts (turns); first someone says something and then another person takes over or chooses to pass on the right to speak, and so on. If no one else says anything, the speaker is able to continue. There are other more elaborate methods to study a group dialogue. A frequently used method is the Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) (Bales, 1950; 1999). The first part of the IPA

16

explores socio-‐‑emotional reactions (positive or negative), how the participants communicate in terms of agreements, laughter, giving help, disagreeing or avoiding helping behavior. The second part of the IPA focuses on attempts to give information and how questions are raised and answered.

Another method to study group conversations is by the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme (CACS) (Canary & Seibold, 2010; Meyers & Brashers, 2010). This method has a history in different scientific fields, including philosophy, psychology, cognitive studies, advertising, marketing and political psychology (Seibold & Meyers, 2007). CACS has for example been used with the ambition to study differences between men and women in argumentation patterns (Meyers, Brashers, Winston & Grob, 1997). The results indicate that there are some differences in conversation between men and women, especially as women were found to be more agreeable towards other group members than men were (Meyers, et al., 1997).

The benefits with conventional methods like these are that communication can be investigated in its smallest parts and answer different questions. But they are less adequate to study the content of an interaction process. In order to capture how stereotypes, for example, about men and women, are manifested in group conversations more content focused analyses have to be applied. Furthermore, how such stereotypes are built into different discourses and negotiated in groups broader perspectives have to be employed for example to use “gender glasses” throughout the whole analyses (Ridgeway, 2011).

2.5 The complexity of gender and gender stereotypes The first thing that people notice when they meet a new person is whether that

person is male or female (Fiske, et al., 1991). The gender categorization evokes associations and expectations of how a person will act. Men are expected to act and behave more or less similar to other men, and women are expected to act more or less similar to other women. Previous research proclaims that the ‘gender issue’ has extensive effects on an individual’s chances in life, and that there is an invisible ‘glass ceiling’ that women need to break through to earn a place in power positions in society (Barreto, Ryan & Schmitt, 2009). Furthermore, in all societies in the world with power differences men has in average more power than women (Pratto & Walker, 2004). Women are also underrepresented in the most competitive areas in society and the inequality increases the higher up in an organization you look (Latu & Schmid Mast, 2016).

The aim with this section is to discuss and problematize the gender concept and

briefly introduce research related to gender and group decision-‐‑making.

17

”With the possible exception of childbearing, no aspect of social life is more strongly associated with gender than power” (Pratto & Walker, p.242, 2004)

Gender stereotyping starts in early childhood when for example boys and girls are divided into gender-‐‑stereotyped groups. This might lead to a pattern where children play with other children of the same gender as this a ‘social norm’ (Lindsey, 2012). This norm might then follow from childhood to adolescence. Furthermore, this pattern runs the risk of being manifested when children are divided into different groups based on gender when they for example exercise sports. This in turn might reinforce the social norms where it might be odd for boys to play with girls and vice versa (Lindsey, 2012). According to the social role theory two sets of beliefs are predominately associated to gender; community and agency (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009). Women are supposed to display communal behaviors such as compassion (e.g. being friendly, kind and sympathetic) while men according to the social role theory seen more as agents (e.g. being aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-‐‑confident). As such these two dimensions correspond to the more general dimensions of competence and warmth (Cuddy, et al., 2008), although applied specifically to gender relations. Gender stereotypes withhold both descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes (Bobbitt-‐‑Zeher, 2011; Glick & Fiske, 2007; Meyer & Gelman, 2016). The descriptive stereotyping are preconceptions of traits related to a specific gender (e.g. women are warm), the prescriptive stereotype indicates how women should behave (e.g. caring). Moreover, gender stereotypes are related to prejudice as they put women and men in positions based on which gender they are associated with (Bobbit-‐‑Zeher, 2011). As men as a group in most societies are in a power position women may be viewed as a marginalized group (Bergh, Akrami, Sidanius & Sibley, 2016). Moreover, gender discrimination should not be viewed as an asset of evilness from the perpetrator (Glick & Fiske, 2007) it should instead be viewed as something that is related to situation and is affected by the interaction between people (Diekman & Eagly, 2000; Glick & Fiske, 2007).

As stereotypes influence perceptions of other people, how information about men and women is framed might evoke different stereotypic beliefs. The above mentioned research paradigm where information about parenthood was introduced (Cuddy, et al., 2004) is an example of such framing, evoking stereotypes about the normative roles for men and women in such a situation. It I reasonable to assume that these norms also are present and communicated in a group decision situation. But gender might also serve as a situational cue, in that

18

the gender composition in a group evokes different gender information. For example, in single gendered groups the gender composition might not contain any particular information about how to behave, while in a mixed gender group it is evident that the group differ as to the combination of men and women, thus highlighting gendered expectations, to which they could either submit or challenge. As concluded previously there is a need to study situational factors and how they affect stereotypes, one such could be gender composition.

Some studies have investigated which effects gender composition might have on decision-‐‑making groups (Lovaglia, Mannix, Samuelson, Sell & Wilson, 2005). Research has explored how masculine or feminine communication styles are affected under stereotype threat (von Hippel, et al., 2011). One result from their study reveals that women under stereotype threat who adopted a more masculine communication style were rated as less warm and likeable (von Hippel, et al., 2011). According to social role theory the distribution of men and women in social roles is important for the understanding of why men and women behave differently in different circumstances (Eagly, Wood & Johannesen-‐‑Schmidt, 2004). For example, in western societies the norm is that men are more responsible for the family income and women more responsible for taking care of the household. The gender roles then influence behavior and how men and women are viewed, this in turn leads to differences in the gender roles and men are more associated with agentic roles including for example leadership (Eagly, et al., 2004).

Previous studies have found that men more often prefer inequality in status and have less problems with power in social groups as they more easily adopt hierarchies (Schmid Mast, 2001; 2004). Men are also more motivated to take leading positions in hierarchical organizations, while women have a stronger strive for egalitarian values (Schmid Mast, 2004). Previous studies show diverging results concerning gender composition and group decision-‐‑making. Some of them indicate that groups with men outperform groups with women (Apesteguia, et al., 2012; Raghubir & Valenzuela, 2010), while others argue that groups with only women or mixed-‐‑gender groups perform better (Fenwick & Neal, 2001). Moreover, men have been found to cooperate more when they were under threat (competitive context), while women were not affected (Van Vugt, et al., 2007). This might explain why men make more competitive choices in social-‐‑dilemma games. Experiments on groups in laboratory settings have found that men and women act differently when they hold power positions. Men were found to be more dominating and women more compromising (Nelson, Bronstein, Shacham & Ben-‐‑Ari, 2015). Finally, previous studies has found that there is a difference between men and women in how they view mixed gendered groups, men were found to be more sensitive to gendered groups than women (Hannagan, 2006).

19

Therefore, gender needs to be considered a more complex variable in research. Structurally, as an aspect that explains how men and women are expected to behave in different contexts, situational, as an aspect that a person acts in conjunction with, and finally, individually, as an aspect according to which a participant identifies him-‐‑/herself.

3. AIM As argued in the introduction, stereotypes are simplifications of information

concerning other persons that people use in daily life. Stereotypes are biased on factors such as ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender, which might lead to discrimination (Glick & Fiske, 2001). There is a risk for decision-‐‑making groups of making biased judgments and commit discriminating decisions if they use stereotypic information in their decision-‐‑making processes. Previous research has revealed how individuals are affected by stereotypes (Agerström, et al., 2012; Cuddy, et al., 2004; Okimoto & Heilman, 2012) but less is known about how stereotypes and prejudice is communicated and negotiated in group decision-‐‑making situations. This is of importance as communication is a way of doing things (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). One approach to study how stereotypes emerge and are manifested in group decision-‐‑making is to study how different contexts may lead to different communication patterns.

One way of doing this is to vary the goal set for the decision-‐‑making. This is seldom problematized, and is often expressed only in achievement terms (Ahn, et al., 2003). Besides, there are reasons to believe that men and women respond to different goals in different ways (Van Vugt, et al., 2007). Another way is to vary the information given to see how this influence judgments. Previous research has revealed that variation of information affects how individuals use information of gender and parenthood in a stereotypic pattern (Cuddy, et al., 2004; Heilman & Okimoto, 2008). But, how is it processed in groups? Another factor to take into account is the situation in which the decision is being made. One such situation could be gender composition of the group as also this contains gendered information. This has previously been studied, but there is no consensus about which affects it might have (Hannagan & Larimer, 2010).

The form of the communication can be studied with for example interaction process analysis (Bales, 1999) or with the conversational argument scheme (Canary & Seibold, 2010). The content – how stereotypes emerge and are used – can be studied with an application of the stereotype content model and the dimensions of competence and warmth (Fiske, et al., 2007; Fiske, 2015).

20

Finally, although group communication patterns might vary and there are more or less stereotypic ways to make decisions in groups, how the participants experience the patterns may differ. As reported above, what kind of experiences that is of importance might correspond both to task and process, and could refer to satisfaction, efficiency and various forms of influence. Therefore there is a need to study how perceived influence over different parts in decision-‐‑making is perceived and which outcome the decision-‐‑making might lead to. This leads to a summary of the aims in this thesis, which was to investigate how stereotyping emerge, manifest, and change in group decision making by using two kinds of framing contexts; (1) the goal set for the task but with the same information given, and (2) the same goal set but with different information provided. The form and content of the communication could thus be analyzed, as well as how the group decision situation was experienced by the participants. 4. METHODOLOGY

The aim of this chapter is to give a brief summary of the methods used in the thesis. At first general considerations of the approaches taken in this thesis are reported. Then the outline of the experiments is described followed by descriptions of the qualitative and quantitative data used. Table 1 gives a summary of how the methodology corresponds to the four different papers.

21

Table 1. Key elements in respective paper

4.1 Mixed-method approach This thesis rests on a mixed-‐‑method design approach. The mixed-‐‑method

approach has the ambition to both answer questions about how it is and in what way (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2007). They define mixed methods as a methodology that involves a philosophical assumption and as a method that focuses on analyzing and collecting both quantitative and qualitative data (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Another view is that there is a misconception among social scientists

!

! Paper!I! Paper!II! Paper!III! Paper!IV!

Experiment! The!Relay!Team! The!Relay!Team! The!Consultant!! The!Relay!

Team/The!

Consultant!

Participants! 79,!20!groups! 81,!21!groups! 130,!35!groups! Study!1:!210,!

54!groups.!

Study!II:!272,!

71!groups!

!

Framing!

Variables!

Goal!setting! Goal!Setting! Parenthood! Goal!setting/!

Parenthood!

!

Gender!

composition!

! X! X! X!

!

!

Qualitative!

analyses!

Interaction!

Process!Analysis,!

Stereotype!

Content!Analysis,!

Conversational!

Pattern!Analysis!

!

Conversational!

Argument!Coding!

Scheme!

Stereotype!Content!

Analysis,!

Communication!

Pattern!Analysis!

!

!

Quantitative!

analyses!

! Equality!in!

influence!over!the!

discussion!and!

over!the!decision,!

Efficiency,!

Satisfaction!

! Democracy,!

Influence,!

Satisfaction,!

Efficiency,!

Outcome!

22

when they argue that statistical analysis is technical and objective while other forms of data are judgment based (Gorard, 2006). Furthermore Gorard (2007,) argues that mixed methods should not be seen as a new paradigm as it in itself preserves the schism between the two paradigms. However, the philosophical debate about the advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative methods is in my view not fruitful and will not lead research forward. But, on the other hand, mixed methods designs should in my point of view be seen as questions of design more than a philosophical argument about the need of a more overarching approach.

In my thesis I use mixed methods in three different ways 1), simultaneously collecting qualitative and quantitative data, 2), within (paper I-‐‑III) having an interchange between quantitative and qualitative analyses, and 3) by using an experimental design allowing for both quantitative and qualitative analyses within this context. The quantitative research questions aim to find patterns and reveal differences between the different experimental contexts, and further to explore differences according to gender composition of the groups. The qualitative research questions aim to explore how the suggestions from the quantitative hypothesis work out in communication. This thesis qualitative inquiry has the aim to go beyond traditional social psychological aspects such as attitudes and behavior. The ambition is to broaden understanding of how stereotypes emerge in different situations.

4.2 Group size of decision-making groups The groups studied in this thesis consist of three to five persons, most often

four. The main reason for this choice of group size was that more than two people secure a more elaborate discussion (Wheelan, 2009). A maximum of five persons was chosen for practical reasons, since more participants limit each person’s chance to take part in the discussion, and when group size increases, cooperation decreases (Wheelan, 2009). Early research argues for a maximum of five persons in small decision-‐‑making groups as the number of social interactions explodes with a higher number of participants (Hackman & Vidmar, 1970). More recent research (Wheelan, 2009) revealed that groups consisting of 3 -‐‑ 6 members were the most productive. Based on this reasoning it was considered suitable to use groups consisting of four participants in these experiments. Furthermore as the gender composition in the groups was to be varied, an even number makes its possible to have same number of men and women in the mixed groups. Due to practical reasons the group size came to vary between three and five.

23

4.3 Ad-hoc or real groups Research on real decision-‐‑making groups and temporary (ad-‐‑hoc) groups are

both common. One advantage with ad-‐‑hoc groups is that it is possible to carry out these studies in a laboratory setting with the aim to frame conditions. However, this can also be done with real decision-‐‑making groups. But one problem with experiments on real groups is that extraneous factors that might affect the results could be impossible to control. It is unclear if ad-‐‑hoc or real groups are better in making joint decisions. Some empirical studies have shown that real decision-‐‑making groups perform better than ad-‐‑hoc groups (Hall & Williams, 1966). However, other studies have found that ad-‐‑hoc groups outperform established decision-‐‑making groups in terms of decision-‐‑making effectiveness (Ford, Nemiroff & Pasmore, 1977). Other researchers argue that real decision-‐‑making groups might have a richer repertoire of decision-‐‑making strategies as the group members might be motivated by plans to work together in the future (Curşeu & Schruijer, 2012). Moreover, results reached with ad-‐‑hoc groups are also reached with real decision-‐‑making groups (Dubrovsky, Kolla & Sethna, 1991). The difference might be that results found in ad-‐‑hoc group might be stronger if conducted with real decision-‐‑making groups (Dubrovsky, et al., 1991).

To summarize, real groups have the advantage of being representative of the reality, for example is it possible to study group processes across time and how groups mature. On the other hand in an ad-‐‑hoc group it is possible to study how group norms begins, as the members have no common history or future. Thus, in order to study how a specific pattern emerges as for example in this thesis where the manifestations and negotiations of stereotypes are investigated ad-‐‑hoc groups might be preferable. Moreover, it might be easier to secure a strong internal validity by studying ad-‐‑hoc groups due to stronger control over extraneous variables.

4.4 The experiments This thesis consists of four papers that are based on two experiments conducted

on small group decision-‐‑making sessions. The basic outline of the two experiments is quite similar. Groups of approximately four participants are assigned to a task to come to a joint decision under different conditions. In both experiments groups are formed either as single gendered or mixed gendered. They complete almost identical questionnaires before and after the actual experiment. The difference between the two experiments concerns the setup of the experimental conditions. In the first experiment “The Relay Team” two different goals was set as the experimental conditions, competition vs. cooperation. In the second experiment

24

“The Consultant” two dimensions of information given, gender and parenthood, were varied forming four different conditions.

4.4.1 The Relay Team

4.4.1.2 Participants A total of 210 university students (138 women and 72 men) participated in The

Relay Team experiment. The mean age was 25 years (SD = 5.55). They were divided into 54 different groups consisting of 3-‐‑5 persons. Paper I and II are based on subsamples of the participants while paper IV uses the total sample. 4.4.1.3 Procedure

One week before the experiment the participants were approached in class and informed about the aim of the study and asked to participate. At the same time they completed a questionnaire with background data. After arriving to the laboratory, they were divided into groups of three to five persons, most often four either as all female (27), all male (10) or mixed gendered groups (17). The groups were then randomly assigned to one of two conditions. One condition was to assemble a team for a relay running competition with the goal to maximize the chance of winning the competition. The other condition was to assemble a team for a relay running competition with the goal to have fun and to maximize the sense of community within the team.

The participants were placed around a table and the experimenter read the instructions to the participants. The groups were then given two sheets of paper. The first paper consisted of instructions. It also contained pictures of 20 target persons (10 men and 10 women) with information about their first name, age, occupation and favorite hobby. Occupations and hobbies assigned to the targets were categorized as traditionally feminine, masculine, or gender-‐‑neutral based on ratings made by another group of students.

The second sheet was a protocol where the different relay sections of various lengths were outlined; the groups were told that they could use as many or as few runners as they wished and that they were allowed to split the relay sections. The time limit was set to 15 minutes. The sessions were filmed. Immediately after the session was stopped the participants completed a questionnaire, which asked about their reflections on their experiences of the decision task. Finally, they were debriefed about the specific aim of the study and about how the data were to be handled. Participation in the experiment was a course requirement (i.e. demonstration of experimental research methods) but being part of research was voluntary. After debriefing, if the participants agreed to be part of the research

25

they signed a consent form. Otherwise they could refrain which meant that their material was not to be used.

This procedure emanated in a design with two independent variables. One was the framing condition; either as a competition or as a community goal for the decision task. The other one was gender composition in the groups; male, female, or mixed.

4.4.2 The Consultant

4.4.2.1 Participants A total of 272 students (179 women, 93 men) participated in The Consultant

experiment. The mean age was 26 years (SD = 5.72). They were recruited from various study programs, mainly in social and behavioral sciences and were divided into 71 groups. Paper III is based on a subsample while paper IV uses the whole sample. 4.4.2.2. Procedure

One week before the experiment the participants were approached in class and informed of the aim of the study and asked to participate. At the same time they completed a questionnaire with background data. After arriving to the laboratory they were divided into groups of 3-‐‑5 persons (most often four), either as all male (16), all female (40), or mixed gendered groups (15).

The groups were then randomly assigned to one of four conditions. The task was to select one of three candidates to a position as a consultant. The first candidate was a man (Jörgen), the second a woman (Lena), and the third (target) was in half of the cases a man (Daniel) and in half of the cases a woman (Katarina). Information was given about each candidate’s age, education, work-‐‑life experience, preferred work style and hobbies. In half of the cases the target person had a newborn child. The setup was modeled after Cuddy, et al. (2004) and Heilman and Okimoto (2008) although the main objective here was that the decisions was to be made in groups and not individually. But before they were to work as a group they completed a questionnaire where they evaluated each candidate individually on items related to competence and warmth in order for the participants to form their own individual impressions of the candidates.

When this was done the instructions were read to the groups, they were told to evaluate the candidates of four items (on a response scale ranging from 1 to 5): to what extent they were considered to work efficiently, to what extent they were supposed to create a good atmosphere, to what extent they would likely be recommended for promotion, and to what extent they were regarded eligible for further training. Finally, they were asked to rank order the candidates for the

26

position as a consultant. They were given a protocol sheet on which they should indicate their choices. The group discussion was limited to 15 minutes and was filmed. When the session stopped they were asked to complete another questionnaire containing questions about their reflections on their experiences of the decision task. Finally, they were debriefed about the specific aim of the study and about how the data were to be handled. Participation in the experiment was a course requirement (i.e. demonstration of experimental research methods) but being part of research was voluntary. After debriefing, if the participants agreed to be part of the research they signed a consent form. Otherwise they could refrain which meant that their material was not to be used.

This procedure emanated in a design with three independent variables. Two were built upon the framing condition; the target person’s gender and the target person’s parental status. The other one was gender composition in the groups; male, female, or mixed.

4.5 Quantitative data Two of the papers (paper II and IV) report quantitative data from the

questionnaire completed after the experimental session. The dependent variables are presented below. Perceived equality in the influence over the decision was included in paper II. Each

participant rated in percentage how much each group member was involved in the decision. Participants who assigned the distribution of influence to equal (within a 5 % limit) were categorized as perceiving an equal distribution. Participants who assigned an unequal percentage were categorized as perceiving unequal influence over the decision. Perceived equality in the influence in the discussion was included in paper II. This

variable was measured similarly to the previous variable but with the question of how much each participant was involved in the discussion. Participants who assigned the distribution of influence in the discussion as equal (within a 5 % limit) were categorized as perceiving an equal distribution of influence in the discussion. Participants who assigned an unequal percentage were categorized as perceiving an unequal influence over the discussion. Perceived task difficulty was in paper II embraced as a control variable. The

variable served the purpose to control if task difficulty could affect satisfaction and group efficiency. It was measured with the question “how hard was the task to solve”. It was answered on a seven-‐‑step Likert scale ranging from one (very easy) to seven (very difficult).

27

Perceived satisfaction with the decision was included in paper II and IV. It was measured with the question “How good do you think the decision was”, ranging from one (very bad) to seven (Very good). Perceived group efficiency was included in paper II and IV. It was measured with

the question “How efficient do you think the group´s work was”, ranging from one (very bad) to seven (very good). Experienced own influence was included in paper IV. The variable was

constructed as a deviance score from a group norm of total equality in influence (i.e. 25 % in groups of four, 33 % in groups of three, and 20 % in groups of five). Evaluated democratic character. The variable was included in paper IV. It was

measured by 14 items inspired by Michels theory of “the iron law of oligarch” (1911, 1984) and as operationalized by Jonsson, Roempke and Zakrisson (2003). The questions included focused on how the participants perceived different democratic values in the decision-‐‑making process. Examples of items were: “There was a closed discussion climate and everybody was afraid to say the wrong things” (reversed) or “All members of the group took equal responsibility to lead the work forward”. The items were measured on a seven-‐‑step scale ranging from 1 “totally disagree” to 7 “totally agree”, and the variable was constructed as mean across the included items. Decision outcome -‐‑ proportion of women. The variable was included in paper IV,

study 1. The variable measured the proportion of selected women in each group in relation to the total number of fictive runners selected to the team. Decision outcome – ranking of target candidates. The variable was included in

paper IV, study 2. The variable measured the groups´ mean ranking of the candidates.

4.6 Qualitative data analysis All filmed sessions were transcribed and subjected to different forms of

qualitative analyses.

4.6.1 Interaction process analysis (IPA)

The interaction process analysis (Bales, 1950; 1999) is a method that has been used since the 1950’s to study communication in small groups. The method focuses on how people communicate, how they use positive or negative reactions and how they ask for and give information. The IPA has been used in several studies on small groups (Keyton & Beck, 2009; Nam, Lyons, Hwang, & Kim, 2009). It is an established and influential methodology (Hirokawa, 1988) with an inclusive coding scheme that allows all statements in a group to be coded (Keyton & Beck,

28

2009) and it has been tested for representational validity (Poole & Folger, 1981). Results from the analysis can be represented both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitatively to explore communication patterns and how discussants communicate different issues. Quantitatively to explore differences between various kinds of groups but also to identify differences depending on experimental conditions.

Paper I applies IPA quantitatively to explore differences due to experimental conditions of competition vs. cooperation. In order to do so the transcribed material was analyzed qualitatively in order to find examples of different categories and sub-‐‑categories.

4.6.2 Conversational argument coding scheme (CACS) The conversational argument-‐‑coding scheme (CACS; Canary & Seibold, 2010) is

a widespread coding scheme with the ambition of exploring arguments. The CACS consists of five major categories. Firstly, arguables is divided into two major parts. The first is called generative mechanisms containing assertions and propositions. The second is called reasoning activities and consists of elaborations, responses, amplifications and justifications. The second main category is convergence markers containing statements representing agreements and acknowledgments. The third category is called prompters, containing statements such as objections and challenges. The fourth category is labeled delimitors, containing statements that provide a context for arguables or attempts to secure common grounds or to remove possible objections. The last category is non-‐‑arguables, containing process statements or statements unrelated to the task or incomplete statements impossible to categorize (Canary & Seibold, 2010; Meyers & Brashers, 2010; Seibold & Meyers, 2007). Previous research has used the CACS in different contexts: to explore sex differences (Meyers, et al., 1997), to study majority vs. minority influence (Meyers, et al, 2000) and in different circumstances such as city commission meetings (Beck, Gronewold & Western, 2012).

This method was used in paper II and III. The transcribed group conversations were first analyzed qualitatively in order to find examples of the different categories. In paper II it was used quantitatively to explore differences between groups identified as either as successful or non-‐‑successful. Paper III applied CACS in a more extensive way and only qualitatively.

4.6.3 Stereotype content analysis The stereotype dimensions of warmth and competence (Fiske, et al., 2002) are

essential to this thesis. This analysis focuses on the content of the conversation instead of the form of the conversation. Unlike IPA and CACS there exist no

29

established coding system. In order to carry out this content analysis a working definition of how a stereotype would be manifested in the conversations was proposed. A stereotype was then defined as a statement about a target that went beyond the information given about that person. Secondly, from the stereotype content model and how the dimensions of competence and warmth have been operationalized in previous research stereotypic statements were categorized into these dimensions either as positive or negative (cold -‐‑ warm, competent -‐‑ incompetent). Stereotype content analysis in this way was applied in paper I and III.

4.6.4 Conversational pattern analysis A final kind of qualitative analyses was applied in order to identify how

stereotypic content was used in a broader pattern. In paper I this was done by analyzing how this was used in arguing for exclusion or inclusion of members to the relay team. In paper III the communication patterns were analyzed in order to discover whether and how gender ideologies were negotiated.

5. EMPIRICAL PAPERS

This section will present a brief summary of the studies and the most relevant analyses and results.

5.1 Paper I Löfstrand, P., & Zakrisson, I. (2014). Competitive versus non-‐‑competitive goals

in group decision-‐‑making. Small Group Research, 45 (4), 451-‐‑464.

5.1.1 Background and aim As stated in the aim of this thesis a way to study if and how biased information

processing appears in group decision-‐‑making is to frame the context for the decision situation. One such framing is to vary the goals set for the decision-‐‑making session. Groups most often have values and ambitions that vary between groups, tasks and situations. Often, goals are related to achievement, e.g. receiving high grades, making a profit or winning a competition. Besides the achievement goals, groups have a need to achieve good social relations among the group members. These two different kinds of goal setting often exist at the same time and this sometimes creates a dilemma. This is especially true for groups in the

30

voluntary sector (Vogel, Amnå, Munk, & Häll, 2003). This paper explores how differences in the decision-‐‑making context (competitive or non-‐‑competitive goals) affect the decision-‐‑making process simulating a sports association context. As reported previously in this thesis, research indicates that competitive and cooperative goals influence decision-‐‑making groups in different ways. The aim of this study was to explore how goal setting influenced communication patterns both as to form and to content. To study the form of the communication interaction process analysis (IPA; Bales, 1999) was used. The content was analyzed by applying the stereotype content model on if, and how, stereotypes were used in the argumentation in relation to decisions about inclusion and exclusion.

5.1.2 Methodology

5.1.2.1 Participants The data collected at the time for the compilation of this paper were 79

university students (50 female and 29 male) from different study program, participating in the experiment “The Relay Team”. They were divided into 20 groups of 3 to 5 persons (most often 4).

5.1.2.2 Data analysis The transcriptions of the group decision-‐‑making sessions were subjected to

three different analyses. First, the transcriptions were coded blindly using the Interaction Process Analysis into our main categories; information sharing, positive reactions, questions, and negative reactions. These were further subdivided into three sub-‐‑categories respectively. Second, a content analysis was carried out applying the stereotype dimensions of competence and warmth, to which examples from the transcribed material were matched. Furthermore, examples of inclusion and exclusion statements were extracted. Finally, arguments of warmth and competence were analyzed in relation to statements about inclusion and exclusion.

5.1.3 Results

Both main and sub-‐‑categories of the IPA were subjected to a quantitative analysis, which revealed only minor differences between the two goal settings. There were more positive reactions in groups with the cooperative goal than in groups with the competitive goal.

The remaining analyses focused on the content of the discussions within the groups. The main results were that the context had implications on how

31

stereotypes was negotiated and used in the decision-‐‑making process. In the competitive context, competence was positioned at the beginning of the discussion where the goal was to win the competition. Competence was more elaborated in groups with a competitive goal. Inclusion was important when it came to individuals who the group members assumed were the best performers. Exclusion was also important, but mainly to exclude the worst performers. Exclusions were motivated by stereotypical arguments such as “old people run slower”, “wine tasters are probably bad runners”, etc. In the non-‐‑competitive context, competent runners were included in the team with arguments such as “they will probably be happier”. Groups with a non-‐‑competitive goal had difficulties relating to how to approach the task, “what does it mean to have fun together”, etc. The warmth dimension was discussed often in the non-‐‑competitive context. Inclusion was discussed to find positions that would create a good team atmosphere.

5.1.4 Conclusion While the form of the communication did not differ much between the two

goals, the content of the discussions showed more systematic patterns. It seems as a competitive goal leads to both inclusion and exclusion with use of both positive and negative stereotypes. A non-‐‑competitive goal seems to lead to inclusions mechanisms and only use of positive stereotypes. That it seemed harder to understand how to approach the task in a non-‐‑competitive context suggests that competition is more normative and thus easier to relate to.

5.2 Paper II Löfstrand, P., (2015). Conversational arguments in small group decision-‐‑

making: reasoning activity and perceived influence over the decision are keys for success. In R. Thornberg & T. Jungert (Eds.), Independent in the heard: Inclusion and exclusion as social processes: Proceedings from the 9th GRASP conference, Linköping University (pp.64-‐‑81). (Research report in electronics) (Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings).

5.2.1 Background and aim Paper I showed that the context played an important role for the conversation

pattern in decision-‐‑making groups. However, from this it is not possible to say which kind of conversation is better than the other. Furthermore, what constitutes more constructive decision-‐‑making is also difficult to tell. It is not always easy to say whether a group process is good or successful. Often when groups are evaluated their successfulness is measured in achievement terms. How did they

32

perform in relation to other groups? How much did they gain? Even if the group is evaluated for its outcomes, the group members might not share the same view of the group’s successfulness. Thus, how the individual group members experience the situation is essential as it might influence their motivation to cooperate and move the work forward. As stated in chapter 2 what people experience might be of various kinds, it could be related to the outcome as for example satisfaction with the decision or it could be process oriented as for example the perceived efficiency with which the group has worked. It could also be related to how the participants experience own and other members’ influence over the actual decision or the decision-‐‑making process. These different kinds of evaluations do not necessarily need to be related to each other. It is for example possible to be content with the decision outcome but without experienced influence over the decision process. The individual experiences both influence and are influenced by the group. For example efficiency does not necessarily mean the ease or speed with which a decision is reached. Sooner it includes how the problem to be solved is elaborated – how information is shared, how different opinions and conflicts are handled thus the form of the communication within the group. In paper I IPA was used to study such form of interaction. However, it yielded few clear results. Another way is to focus on the form of the argumentation within the group.

This paper was divided into two parts. First, the relationship between satisfaction, perceived efficiency, perceived equality of influence over the discussion and perceived equality of influence over the decision were analyzed quantitatively. In the second part, the form of the communication in terms of argumentation processes was analyzed in groups that differed in their subjective experience of satisfaction, efficiency and influence.

5.2.2 Method

5.2.2.1 Participants Data from 81 participants (53 women, 28 men) forming 21 ad-‐‑hoc groups of 3 to

5 participants, (most often 4), took part in the experiment “The Relay Team”. This far in the project there was some more data collected compared to the sample in paper I. However due to missing data on some of the quantitative measures the number of participants differ between the papers.

5.2.2.2 Quantitative data Five variables based on answers to questions in the final questionnaire were

used in this paper: Perceived equality in the influence over the decision, Perceived

33

equality in the influence in the discussion, Perceived task difficulty, Perceived satisfaction with the decision and Perceived group efficiency. How these were operationalized is presented in chapter 4.

5.2.2.3 Qualitative data Based on the variables “perceived satisfaction with the decision”, and “perceived

group efficiency” a total of six groups were selected for further analysis, three among those with the highest mean values on both variables (labeled “successful”) and three among those with the lowest means on both variables (labeled “non-‐‑successful”). The three groups in each category were also matched according to the experimental condition and gender composition.

The transcripts for these groups were subjected to conversational argument analysis as conversational arguments described in chapter 4.

5.2.3 Results

The quantitative analyses revealed that perceived influence over the decision was more important than perceived influence over the discussion. Perceived equality in influence over the decision was related to both decision satisfaction and perceived group efficiency. The qualitative analysis of the transcriptions for six groups (three labeled successful and three labeled unsuccessful) was carried out with the conversational argument coding scheme. Examples of all types of conversational arguments were found in the present material. The groups defined as successful displayed overall more argumentation examples than the groups defined as unsuccessful although significant differences were only found for reasoning activities and non-‐‑arguables. More specifically the successful groups used both justifications of propositions and responses and these reasoning activities seemed to serve the function of moving the communication forward. These kinds of reasoning activities were found regardless of goal set for the task and group composition.

5.2.4 Conclusions These results indicate that equality in the influence over the actual decision is

important for how the decision process is experienced. The qualitative analyses of the conversational patterns seemed to validate this. A richer and more varied discussion tends to incorporate more of the participants making them feel more involved and thus satisfied.

34

5.3 Paper III Löfstrand, P. & Zakrisson, I. (2017). “What about the child issue?” Group

negotiations of gender and parenthood contracts in recruitment situations, Society, Health & Vulnerability, 8 (1), 19-‐‑30.

5.3.1 Background and aim In paper I it was found that stereotypic statements were used in the

argumentation for and against inclusion and exclusion. These patterns were related to the framing context of competition vs. cooperation. Paper II seemed to indicate that richer discussions were experienced as more constructive regardless of the framing context. What these two studies do not say is if and in what way the complexity of a discussion is related to how stereotypes are communicated. Although the framing context of competition and cooperation implicitly is related to gender perhaps a more explicit gender related framing would yield a better test of gender related stereotypes and how these are negotiated. For this purpose another framing situation was used in paper III.

Parenthood is a concept that has quite specific connotations for what is expected from men and women. For example men and women are found to be judged differently along the dimensions of competence and warmth, which has implications for their career opportunities (Cuddy, et al., 2004). Such judgments have mainly been studied on individual level but in a decision situation such stereotypes are probably manifested and negotiated. Discourses of parenthood and work have mainly been studied from the perspective of parents and more specifically implications for mothers. In the present study how parenthood is understood in relation to career situations is investigated by applying a recruitment paradigm normally used on individual level but here transferred to a group decision situation in order to study how gender in relation to parenthood was negotiated.

5.3.2 Method

5.3.2.1 Participants The participants in this paper were students from various university programs

that took part in experiment II, “The Consultant”. Data from groups in the parent condition was included for further analyses. The number of participants was 130 (85 women and 45 men) forming 35 ad-‐‑hoc groups.

35

5.3.2.2 Data and analysis The transcriptions for the decision sessions for each group were subjected to

two kinds of analysis. First content analysis was carried out applying the stereotype content model. The second analysis was to use a brief version of the conversational argument coding scheme (Canary & Seibold, 2010; Meyers & Brashers, 2010) in order to investigate how statements about competence and warmth formed different discourses within the group.

5.3.3 Results Parenthood dominated the discussions and was the only background

information that was discussed in all of the groups; this was more often than, for example, work experience, which was the second most common. Parenthood was sometimes seen as reducing competence, but it was more often viewed as adding to competence. Parenthood was also considered to add warmth to the organization. Interestingly, all groups avoided relating the parenthood issue to gender.

Parenthood was mainly discussed as beneficial for the organization. This was especially true in groups with only women discussing a female target or in groups with only men discussing a male target. Male groups discussing a female target shared this view although sometimes with a reservation. Warmth attributes were discussed more in the female groups than in the male groups. Regarding the female target both groups with only men and with only women saw warmth as general traits such as friendly and humble. The argument that warmth is an asset to the company was only found in the groups with only women and only for the female target.

Three conversation patterns were found, differing in the amount of elaboration of the topic of parenthood and work. The first pattern involved opinions and statements that were not negotiated at all. The second pattern involved opinions and statements that were supported by other group members. The arguments gave strength to the initial statements. The last and most frequent pattern was that opinions and statements were challenged, objected to or disagreed with. This pattern sometimes led to a change of opinions.

5.3.4 Conclusion It seems that parenthood evokes a lot of views and opinions. Although the

participants did differentiate between mothers and fathers they seemed to apply attributes of competence and warmth differently to the targets. Furthermore, it was also evident that gender and gender composition seemed to matter as male and female groups applied the attributes differently.

36

Similarly to paper II it was found that a richer conversation seemed more constructive, here the complexity constituted not only reasoning activities but also objections and counter arguments. This sometimes led to a change of initial opinions and to more elaborated decisions.

5.4 Paper IV Zakrisson, I., & Löfstrand, P. (2018) The multidimensionality of gender –

implications for group-‐‑based decision making. Submitted for publication.

5.4.1 Background and aim Paper II showed that how a decision situation is subjectively experienced is of

importance in the decision process. Paper I and III showed that the framing conditions had impact on the conversational pattern in the groups. Paper III furthermore implies that gender composition in the groups plays a role for the decision process. None of the previous presented papers deal with how these factors are related to the decision outcome. Both framing contexts, as well as gender composition can be seen as gendered variables. The aim of this study was to explore these factors further in relation to decision outcome and evaluations of the decision situation.

The norms in society about what are expected from men and women functions as a backdrop against which men and women are perceived and evaluated. In a decision situation societal norms form the context against which decisions are made. This can be seen as structural gender variable. But, how these norms are interpreted in a given situation is also influenced by situational cues. Gender composition might function as such a cue thus constituting gender as a situational variable. These can of course interact which each other and also with peoples own gender, which thus serves as an individual gender variable. In the present research framing as goal setting and framing as gender and parenthood form the structural level of gender and gender composition in the decision groups is regarded a situational level and own gender as individual level.

5.4.2 Method

5.4.2.1 Participants Paper IV consists of two studies based on both experiment I (The Relay Team)

and II (The Consultant). The total number of participants that took part in study I was 210 (138 women and 72 men), forming 54 groups. The gender composition was 27 female, 10 male and 17 mixed-‐‑gender groups. The total number of

37

participants in study II was 272 (179 women and 93 men). The gender composition of the groups in study II was 40 female, 16 male and 15 mixed-‐‑gender groups.

5.4.2.2. Quantitative data Decision outcome variables were analyzed on group level. In study I the

variable constituted the proportion of women chosen in relation to the total number of persons to choose from. In study II it was the mean rank of the target person.

On individual level the variables used were task satisfaction, evaluated efficiency, experienced influence and evaluated democratic character as described in chapter 4. The independent variables in experiment 1 were goal setting and gender composition in the group, and in experiment 2 they were gender and parental status of the target, and gender composition in the group.

5.4.3 Results For decision outcome the independent variables had very little effect. In study I

the effect of gender composition was marginally significant. Groups with only men chose fewer women to the team than groups with only women. In study II the only significant effect was the target candidate’s gender. The groups considered the female target regardless of her parental status as a better candidate than the male one. However, the experience of decision situation differed depending on some of the gendered variables. In study I men regarded the process as more efficient, democratic, and experienced more influence in groups with only men, while women seemed to prefer mixed gendered groups in the same respect. In study II men experienced more influence in male target and male parent conditions while women experienced more influence in the female parent condition.

5.5.4 Conclusion The results from the two studies do not present a clear picture. However what

is similar in the two studies is that different conceptualizations of gender seem to interact in various ways in relation to how a decision situation is experienced. Men seem more content in male groups, with male targets and male parent conditions, while women seemed more content in mixed gendered groups with female parent conditions. In society there are very few all-‐‑female decision groups while there are very many all male or to some extent mixed gendered decision-‐‑making groups. Hence, men and women may differ in their familiarity with decision situations – men more familiar with male contexts while women are more familiar with mixed contexts.

38

6. GENERAL DISCUSSION

The overall aim of this thesis was to explore how stereotypes were communicated, negotiated and constructed within communication in different decision-‐‑making contexts. Furthermore, the aim was to explore which parts of group communication that make a decision-‐‑making process more or less successful. Finally, the aim was to problematize the gender concept and study gender in decision-‐‑making situations from a situational, structural and individual perspective.

6.1 Stereotyping and context As mentioned in the introduction a dominant paradigm in group decision-‐‑

making is to use a context presented in achievements terms, the goal is most often operationalized as points, grades or money (Ahn, et al., 2003), and a broader range of goals has been inquired for (Kray & Thompson, 2005). There is however research that has compared competitive and non-‐‑competitive contexts, which has found differences regarding forms of interaction within groups (van Knippenberg, et al., 2001; Toma & Butera, 2015). In the present research interaction process analysis (Bales, 1999) was used to study variations in communication patterns depending on the goal set for the decision task, but with just minor differences found. Instead what seemed to matter was how stereotypes presented themselves within the communication. In groups with a competitive goal stereotypes were used to include and exclude people. In groups with a cooperative goal stereotypes were used only to include people. Furthermore, for groups with a competitive goal, the dimensions of warmth and competence were used both to include and exclude runners to the team. The fictive runners were described as high/low on the two stereotype content dimensions. For groups with a cooperative goal, mostly warmth was used to include runners in the team. Furthermore, the non-‐‑competitive groups rarely talked in terms of competence. The conclusion from this is that competitive goals lead to inclusion and exclusion mechanisms where stereotypes are used both positively and negatively. A non-‐‑competitive goal feeds the inclusion mechanisms, where stereotypes are used positively. Groups with a non-‐‑competitive goal used attributes related to both warmth and competence, while no references to the warmth dimension were found in groups with a competitive goal setting. This indicates that the groups in the non-‐‑competitive condition could not free themselves from the nature of the task – to be competitive. They even had to remind themselves that the task was to form a team with a good group atmosphere and not to win the competition.

39

How stereotypes are used when judging other people is predominately studied on individual level and very seldom introduced in a group setting. By varying the goals set for the task it is evident that this forms a context against which the same information is interpreted in different ways and stereotypes are thus communicated differently. The goals function as some kind of meta-‐‑information. This is also in line with other research where meta-‐‑information has been more explicitly varied (Rijnbout & McKimmie; 2012; Wolgast, 2017).

A more direct way of investigating the influence of context is to explicitly vary gender relevant information. This was done in experiment II “The Consultant”. The setup was modeled after Cuddy, et al. (2004) and Heilman and Okimoto (2008) but transferred to a group situation in order to investigate how stereotype dimensions such as competence and warmth were communicated. The purpose was mainly to study gender stereotypes and where parenthood was supposed to function as an amplifier of gender stereotypes. However, in the group discussions gender seemed to be relatively unimportant, the discussions were dominated by the “child issue”, far more than other variables such as preferred working style, hobbies or education. By use of a brief variant of the conversational argument coding scheme (Canary & Seibold, 2010) three different communication patterns, differing in depth of communication and argumentation, were revealed. The first pattern involved opinions and statements that were not responded to from the other discussants. The second pattern also involved opinions and statements, but instead, they were met by arguments to give strength to the initial statements. The third pattern was the most frequent communication pattern. This pattern also involved statements and opinions that were responded to, but here the arguments were challenged, objected to and disagreed with.

Similarly to the framing of context in experiment I also in this second experiment the framing of context resulted in different conversational pattern and how stereotypes manifested themselves in the discussions. However, what was surprising was that gender had very little importance and the discussions were dominated by parenthood and its possible benefits and disadvantages for the individual and the organization. How come? There could be several answers to this questions, the simplest answer are that it is only a question of social desirability (Bem, Wallach & Kogan, 1965). However, the results in paper IV regarding the decision outcome showed that the female candidate was preferred over the male one but that there was no difference in rank between parents and non-‐‑parents. If it were only a question of social desirability they would be assumed to discuss the benefits of the female target and disadvantages of the male target to a greater extent and parenthood would not have been an issue in the discussion. Sooner they seemed reluctant to introduce gender in the discussions and

40

parenthood seemed to be a safer topic. Another explanation could be that men and women having a job in fact is not an issue according to young adults in Sweden today. The relative frequency of men and women working is of about the same size, (SCB, 2016) although there are inequalities in other ways, for example, regarding salaries and career opportunities (Kugelberg, 2006). Nor should parenthood be an issue in recruitment situations and there is evidence that employers do not discriminate against parents in Sweden (Bygren, Erlandsson & Gähler, 2017) but it is perhaps less common that information about parenthood status is revealed in job applications. Thus, that the applicants differed as to gender in the present situation is more or less what is expected but information about parenthood is thus something extraordinarily that the attention of the groups is directed to. This again proves that the context is an important factor for how information is interpreted and negotiated but this can also take different forms. The conversational pattern analysis showed that a more elaborated conversational pattern seemed to be the most constructive one as it displayed how opinions could change within one and the same session.

Gender composition was introduced in the experiments as a situational aspect of gender. However, this variable did not show as clear-‐‑cut patterns regarding stereotypes as the two framing setups did. There was some evidence that it affected the decision outcome in the way that all women and mixed groups showed similar decision patterns compared to groups with only men, although these differences were moderately weak. The results are however, in line with the scarce research investigating gender composition in relation to decision-‐‑making (Hannagan & Larimer, 2010). Nor showed the qualitative analyses in experiment I any explicit pattern. Gender composition was not explicitly tested in relation to communication patterns and stereotypes in paper I and II, but from an inductive perspective it would have manifested itself had systematic differences existed as it did in paper III. Here group composition intersected with the gender of the target both regarding competence and warmth. So, although the main discussions referred to parenthood, when the material was analyzed in relation to gender composition it seemed as the target’s gender mattered to some degree after all. The general pattern was that groups with only women and groups with only men differed but that mixed gendered groups did not display any particular pattern. In such groups, where both men and women are present, the gender concept cues another kind of information, which seems to be of consequences for the communication pattern where systematic gender differences seem to disappear.

41

6.2 The role of experiences The previous section discussed communication patterns both as to content and

form in relation to stereotypes and context variables and gender composition. This says nothing about how the participants experience and evaluate the situation. Even though these various factors influences how constructive a decision process is, the participants may not necessarily experience it in the same way. Even though there is no absolute consensus about what leads to positive experiences (Barr & Gold, 2014) there is evidence that satisfaction (DeStephen & Hirokawa, 1988), influence (Kong, et al., 2015), information sharing (Larson et al, 1998; Tasa & Whyte, 2005), and the extent to which deviant opinions are allowed (De Dreu & West, 2001) are of importance. The results in paper II revealed that the discussions were broader in groups defined as successful based on the participants experienced satisfaction, perceived equality of influence and experienced efficiency. They used more reasoning activities, gave each other more responses and also argued more against each other than participants in groups defined as unsuccessful. The successful groups also displayed more of all of the conversation categories, which suggest a more complex decision-‐‑making process. According to the research presented above this is essential for the quality of decisions made. As discussed before a more complex discussion pattern, as revealed in paper III, also seem to inhibit the use of stereotypes. This means that it is not the amount of input information that is important for the decision-‐‑making process. Instead it is what the group allows the members to do with it.

Paper II showed that subjective experiences are of importance for the decision-‐‑making process. The next step was to see if experiences were dependent on the context variables and the gender composition in the groups. It is reasonable to assume that a situation you are familiar with is experienced as more comfortable (Rijnbout & McKimmie, 2012). Given that a competitive context is a norm in society (Pratto, et al., 2006) together with that career decisions are more often about men where parenthood is not an issue (Cuddy, et al., 2004) men and women might be differently familiar with such situations and hence will experience them differently. Adding to this, gender composition might also lead to different experiences (Hannagan, 2006). Indeed this was also what was found in paper IV. Own gender seemed to interact with gender composition and the framing variables. Men seemed to be more content in groups with only men and male target conditions and male target conditions while women seemed to prefer mixed gendered groups and female target conditions. This is not surprising as male dominated decision situations are a norm in society and all female decision-‐‑making groups rarely exist (International Labour Office, 2016; Petersson, Catásus & Danielsson, 2016).

42

6.3 Methodological considerations A number of methodological issues need to be discussed before implications

from the present research are introduced. First, the participants were students from different study programs. Even if no

differences according to study program were found, the choice of students might not be transferrable to other groups in society. With another sample, for example, people active in sports associations in experiment I, and people working with recruitment in experiment II, the results could have been different. However, the results might not have been weaker. With people who are familiar with the experimental conditions, the results could instead have been strengthened.

The second limitation is the choice of ad-‐‑hoc groups instead of real decision-‐‑making groups. As ad-‐‑hoc groups are immature and the participants know that they will not work together in similar situations in the future, this could affect the results. However, previous research has revealed that ad-‐‑hoc groups in experimental settings are as stable as real decision-‐‑making groups (Dubrovsky, et al., 1991), and many recent studies in GDM have been conducted with ad-‐‑hoc groups (e.g. Hogg, Sherman, Dierselhuis, Maitner & Moffit, 2007; Nawata & Yamaguchi, 2011; Kahai, Huang & Jestice, 2012).

A third aspect related to the experimental design could be the time constraint that forces the group to be more cooperative than if they did not have any time limit, something which has been revealed in previous research (Cone & Rand, 2014). However, as differences were found it seems that the time limit set was enough for making emergent communication patterns and subjective experiences visible.

A fourth limitation could be that this thesis uses an unorthodox design and perhaps could the lack of relevant previous studies be a limitation. The application of the stereotype content model may be an innovative approach to break down the stereotype dimensions in order to see how they are negotiated. However, this is a quite new approach as the SCM mostly is used on an individual level and related to how individuals perceive people associated with different groups. There is in other words a need for more future research to give strength to the validity of the stereotype content analysis that was used in this thesis.

A final aspect that could be a limitation is the choice of a qualitative approach within an experimental design. This is a quite unusual design to conduct group research. Most often, qualitative research is made in the field with real decision-‐‑making groups and quantitative methods chosen in experimental settings on ad-‐‑hoc groups. A strength with this approach is, however, that qualitative and

43

quantitative methods were used in conjunction with each other. This gives a richer picture of the results.

A couple of remarks regarding the research ethics have to be made. First of all the participants were not informed in advance of the specific aim of the research, as this would jeopardize the results. If they had knowledge of the independent variable they could adjust their responses in line with this information. However, they were debriefed immediately afterwards and were told that they could refrain from participation. A second remark is that the experiments were most often conducted by the students´ teachers, which put the participants in a dependent situation. Participation was in many cases part of course requirements, but participation in the research was voluntary. Again, in the debriefing afterwards they were informed explicitly that they could refrain from participation. Finally, the decision sessions were filmed which means that the collected data contained personal information to be stored for considerable period. The participants were also informed of this and if they consented to participation in the research and handling of personal information they signed an agreement form.

6.4 Practical implications One of the things that this thesis revealed was that competitive goals are easier to understand for a group in a decision-‐‑making situation than a non-‐‑competitive goal. This as groups in a non-‐‑competitive task could not free themselves from the competitive task. So, what does that tell us? I think that it indicates the need for groups to discuss goals and ambitions and how it might affect both the inner mechanisms in the group and how it might affect the way the members talk about each other and persons outside the group. This as it seem as the normative competitive environment triggers inclusion and exclusion mechanisms and the use of stereotypes. For sports associations, especially those involved in youth sports, it is important to understand that a competitive setting strengthen stereotypes of warmth and competence both to include in-‐‑group members and to exclude out-‐‑groups. Moreover, in competitive youth sports environments there is a risk that the stereotypes generalize outside the actual sports team and follow the youngsters to other environments such as for example school. The need for sports associations to understand these mechanisms is huge, especially since seventy percent of the youth in Sweden are involved in sports activities at least once a week (Statistiska centralbyrån, 2017). The number of people being involved as trainers and leaders in sports associations is considerable (Riksidrottsförbundet, 2011). How goals are discussed and mediated within an association, and how they influence stereotype use and inclusion and exclusion mechanisms, is crucial to understand and should be included in the educational programs of sports associations at national and local

44

level. My answer is not to forbid competitive goals but they need to be tuned down and the cooperative goals need to take much more place, not least, as inclusion patterns seem to emerge in that context. This dilemma is not new and it probably has to be handled over and over again, or as Vince Lombardi, a famous American football coach said: ”People who work together will win, whether it be against complex football defenses, or

the problems of modern society”. (Vince Lombardi, football coach, Benson, 2008). For parenthood and gender the results clearly showed that “the child issue”

triggers a lot of discussion and use of stereotypes in recruitment situations. In fact it seemed to be more important than both information of work-‐‑life experience and formal education. As previously mentioned gender was not introduced to the discussions, perhaps the answer is that young people in Sweden today knows that gender shouldn’t be an issue in recruitment situations.

Results from the thesis also tell us something about how to create a good decision-‐‑making group. Contexts seem to be important for how information is interpreted. Moreover, elaboration of arguments seemed to be most constructive as it displayed how stereotypes could change, even within in the same session and within the same individual. These results could all be used in order to enhance the quality of decision-‐‑making in groups. By setting up counter-‐‑stereotypical contextual information, as well as having discussion rules asking for counter-‐‑arguments more elaborate decision patterns may emerge. More complex conversation patterns are not only important for satisfaction it also prevents the use of stereotypes.

There has been a big change in the workforce in recent decades. More and more men work in typically female-‐‑dominated occupations, and more and more women have taken place in traditionally male-‐‑dominated work areas. However, there is still large disparities between different areas in the work place, i.e. men still dominate the better-‐‑paid jobs in industry and there are more men than women in the boardrooms. Women on the other hand dominate the less paid jobs in social service, health and education (World Economic Forum, 2015). The political debate about gender and equality in work life is often related to the representation in the boardrooms. Still in 2016, in all societies around the globe, men are to a much higher degree represented in the boardrooms (International Labour Office, 2016). All in all, men in important – financial – sectors are more often in charge of the decision-‐‑making and have the majority of the power positions (Smith, 2002). Some countries are considering political action such as affirmative action to change inequality. For example, Norway, Iceland, Israel and Spain have applied laws that allocate a percentage of women to the boardrooms (Brandth, & Bjørkhaug, 2015; Sheridan, Ross-‐‑Smith & Lord, 2015). But counting heads is perhaps not the only

45

solution, although the present research indicates that gender composition is not trivial. But the research also shows that gender is a complex phenomenon, and that a greater repertoire of actions need to be used. Affirmative action might lead to more gender balance in power positions, but more actions are needed if we really want a change.

6.5 Future research A number of research ideas have emerged during the work with this thesis. In

the present research (paper III) the conversation patterns within the parent condition was analyzed, and it was found that all groups discussed “the child issue” a lot. But how do these groups differ from those where the parenthood status was not explicitly mentioned? Thus there is a need to analyze also how groups without a parent target discussed the different candidates. Do more gender related stereotypes emerge in these groups? This could be done with the use of the conversational argument coding scheme and/or an analysis of the stereotype contents.

The “parenthood” design would also work very well with other discrimination bases. First, ethnicity could easily be manipulated by using a non-‐‑normative name for the target person. A previous study conducted on real persons working with recruitment revealed that a person with a non-‐‑normative name needs to be rated higher on both competence and warmth compared to his competitors to be selected for an interview, while a man with a normative name only needs to be rated higher in one of the two dimensions (Agerström, et al., 2012).

Another aspect that might have an impact on the stereotype dimensions warmth and competence is sexual orientation. Previous research reveals that sexuality is strongly related to stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination (e.g. Fraïssé, & Barrientos, 2016; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Peplau & Fingerhut; 2004). But there is a need for experiments in the area to explore how people communicate and negotiate stereotypes contents related to sexual orientation especially in relation to power positions.

Finally, the use of different goal setting, here related to a sports scenario would also be of interest to study within other situations, for example to investigate different power mechanisms in decision-‐‑making groups. For example to find out how different context (goal setting) affects democratically related components in a political decision-‐‑making group.

46

6.6 The Bottom Line We know from a theoretical perspective that people use stereotypes in daily life

to process information about other people (Fiske, et al, 2002). The stereotype bias is formed from structures in society and some groups are viewed as more or less competent and some as more or less warm (Fiske, 2015).

Previous research has revealed that stereotypes function as a tool to maintain structures in society (Dovidio, et al., 2010). With the knowledge that attitudes should be seen as constructs (Howe & Krosnick, 2017) and that the strength of an attitude is critical for the possibility to change it. It was interesting to study which effect negotiation and communication had on the stereotype dimensions warmth and competence. The way a decision-‐‑making group solves a problem, handles difficulties or develops manifests stereotypes about others, plays an important role in society. Often, rational choice or prisoners’ dilemmas are chosen in the experimental design when group decision-‐‑making is studied. The experiments in this thesis were instead designed to frame either the context or the object without competitive achievement goals. The aim was to study the role that stereotypes had in decision-‐‑making in groups. The methodology chosen to study communication and the communication patterns was mainly qualitative. Both previously used methods such as interaction process analyses and conversational arguments coding scheme and two invented methods Stereotype Content Analysis and Communication Pattern Analysis were used. The main reason to apply new methods was to get a better understanding of how differences such as gender composition and framing in different decision-‐‑making contexts might affect the use of stereotypes. This thesis has explored how stereotypes may be constructed when people communicate, negotiate and make decisions together.

All in all, the results from this thesis indicate both challenges from a democratic perspective and from a gender perspective.

This thesis, along with previous research, reveals that stereotypes have an important role in decision-‐‑making situations. How stereotypes are negotiated and communicated is affected by contextual factors. Finally, people can simultaneously be seen as social animals (Aronson, 1984), social beings (Fiske, 2014) and relational beings (Gergen, 2011).

”Keep on rockin’ in a free world”, Neil Young, 1989

47

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without support from many people had this thesis been impossible to finish. First of all do I have to bring many thanks to my supervisor and colleague Ingrid Zakrisson for years of discussions with so much help and when in need a push to come forward. I also want to thank my two co-‐‑supervisors Richard Ahlström and Patric Millet for framing my scientific mind and for suggestions.

I also want to thank all colleagues from the department of psychology at Mid Sweden University, for advices and ideas from seminars, meetings, and coffee room discussions. I also want to bring thanks to colleagues from other departments at Mid Sweden for good companionship.

A special thanks to one of my first university teachers Sten Antilla who probably don’t remember, but who with a small question probably changed the way I framed myself. It was after a course in methodology that I talked to Sten about options for the future. I was at the moment a young student who was the first from the family to attend university studies. When he suggested me to be a teacher was my answer “I don’t think I want work with education and small children”. Sten responded, “I meant a university teacher”, that certainly changed something for me.

I also want to bring thanks to colleagues from Universities abroad at John Moores, Bremen, Trier, Stenden and Coe College where the ideas of the parenthood experiment took form. Mostly thanks to the whole bunch of political psychologist from all around the globe that I had the opportunity to spend a great time together with at Stanford last summer. I also want to thank all students that I have met during my process; you are a source that always forces me to bring out the best for my lectures.

There have also been a lot of persons that in different degrees has been involved in my experiments. Henrik, Emma, Katarina and Kibebe, thank you for the help with different parts with the experiments. I would also like to thank all the participants in my experiments, without whom not much would have been achieved.

Another special thanks to Ulrika Danielsson and Kerstin Weimer for reading my manuscript for the half-‐‑time seminar and also to Eva Hammar Chiriac from Linköping for important suggestions from this seminar. Another special thanks to Lina Eriksson and Francisco Esteves for reading my manuscript for my final seminar and to Michael Rosander for important suggestions at the final seminar.

48

Since a lot of my ideas comes from life outside the laboratory do I also want to thank colleagues from my political life and a special thanks to everyone that is evolved in the sports association Ope IF.

I also want to thank my ”brother from the academy”, Ulrik Terp for years of inspiration, discussions and fun together. Thanks to mom and dad and my brother and his family for always being there.

Finally, my most important acknowledgement goes to my wife, Monica and my

girls Minna & Sofia who continuously has supported me with love and enthusiasm.

49

8. REFERENCES Agerström, J., Björklund, F., Carlsson, R., & Rooth, D. (2012). Warm and competent

Hassan = cold and incompetent Eric: A harsh equation of real-‐‑life hiring discrimination. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 359-‐‑366.

Ahn, T. K., Ostrom, E., Schmidt, D., & Walker, J. (2003). Trust in two-‐‑person games: Game structures and linkages. In E. Ostrom & J. Walker (Eds.), Trust and reciprocity (pp. 323-‐‑351). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(3), 159-‐‑182.

Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-‐‑Wesley. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as

predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-‐‑analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256-‐‑274.

Apesteguia, J., Azmat, G., & Iriberri, N. (2012). The impact of gender composition on team performance and decision making: Evidence from the field. Management Science, 58 (1), 78-‐‑93.

Aronson, E. (1984). The social animal. New York: W.H. Freeman. Asch, S. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against

a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole No.416). Baird, K., & Wang, H. (2010). Employee empowerment: Extent of adoption and

influential factors. Personnel Review, 39(5), 574-‐‑599. Bales, R.F. (1950). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction.

Americal Sociological Review, 15, 257-‐‑263. Bales, R.F. (1999). Social interaction systems. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Barr, S., & Gold, J. M. (2014). Redundant visual information enhances group decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(6), 2124-‐‑2130.

Barreto, M., Ryan, M.K., & Schmitt, M.T. (2009). Introduction: Is the glass ceiling still relevant in the 21st century? In M. Barreto, M.K. Ryan, & M.T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp.3-‐‑18). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Beck, S.J., Gronewold, K.L., & Western, K.J. (2012). Intergroup argumentation in city government decision-‐‑making: The wal-‐‑mart dilemma. Small Group Research, 43(5), 587-‐‑612.

50

Behfar, K.J., Mannix, E.A., Peterson, R.S., & Trochim, W.M. (2011). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42, 127-‐‑176.

Bem, D. J., Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Group decision making under risk of aversive consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(5), 453-‐‑460).

Bergh, R., Akrami, N., Sidanius, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2016). Is group membership necessary for understanding generalized prejudice? A re-‐‑evaluation of why prejudices are interrelated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 367-‐‑395.

Benson, M. (2008) Winning words, classic quotes from the world of sports. Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing.

Billig, M. (1997). Discursive, rhetorical, and ideological messages. In C. McGarty, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society; the message of social psychology: (pp. 36-‐‑53), Malden, NY: Blackwell.

Billig, M. (2015). Kurt Lewin’s leadership studies and his legacy to social psychology: Is there nothing as practical as a good theory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(4), 440-‐‑460.

Binggeli, S., Krings, F., & Sczesny, S. (2014). Stereotype content associated with immigrant groups in switzerland. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 73(3), 123-‐‑133.

Bobbitt-‐‑Zeher, D. (2011). Gender discrimination at work: Connecting gender stereotypes, institutional policies, and gender composition of workplace. Gender & Society, 25(6), 764-‐‑786.

Bodenhausen, G. V. (2005). The role of stereotypes in decision-‐‑making processes. Medical Decision Making, 25(1), 112-‐‑118.

Bodenhausen, G. V., & Macrae, C. N. (1998). Stereotype activation and inhibition. In R. S. Wyer Jr. (Ed.), Stereotype activation and inhibition; stereotype activation and inhibition, (pp. 1-‐‑52), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Bodenhausen, G. V., Mussweiler, T., Gabriel, S., & Moreno, K. N. (2001). Affective influences on stereotyping and intergroup relations. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition; handbook of affect and social cognition, (pp. 319-‐‑343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Brandth, B., & Bjørkhaug, H. (2015). Gender quotas for agricultural boards: Changing constructions of gender? Gender, Work and Organization, 22(6), 614-‐‑628.

Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Jacquelin, V. (2001). The communication of social stereotypes: The effects of group discussion and information distribution on

51

stereotypic appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 463-‐‑475.

Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 543-‐‑549.

Brown, R., (1999) Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. Oxford: WileyBlackwell.

Bygren, M., Erlandsson, A., & Gähler, M. (2017). Do employers prefer fathers? Evidence from a field experiment testing the gender by parenthood interaction effect on callbacks to job applications. European Sociological Review, 33(3), 337-‐‑348.

Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1990), The effect of a prejudice-‐‑reduction simulation on attitude Change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 341–356.

Canary, D.J., & Seibold, D.R. (2010). Origins and development of the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme Communication Methods and Measures, 4,(1-‐‑2), 7-‐‑26.

Coates, J (2004). Women, men and language. Edinburgh, UK, Pearson Longman.

Cone, J., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Time pressure increases cooperation in competitively framed social dilemmas. PLoS ONE, 9(12), 13.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cuddy, A. J. C., & Fiske, S. T. (2002). Doddering but dear: Process, content, and function in stereotyping of older persons. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons; ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons (pp. 3-‐‑26). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn'ʹt cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 701-‐‑718.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 40; advances in experimental social psychology, vol 40 (pp. 61-‐‑149). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press,.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J., . . . Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 1-‐‑33.

52

Curseu, P., & Schruijer, S. (2012). Normative interventions, emergent cognition and decision rationality in ad hoc and established groups. Management Decision, 50(6), 1062-‐‑1075.

Curseu, P. L., Schruijer, S. G. L., & Fodor, O. C. (2016). Decision rules, escalation of commitment and sensitivity to framing in group decision-‐‑making: An experimental investigation. Management Decision, 54(7), 1649-‐‑1668.

DeStephen, R.S., & Hirokawa, R.Y. (1998). Small group consensus: Stability of group support of the decision, task process, and group relationships. Small Group Behavior, 19, 227-‐‑239.

De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance and team satisfaction: A meta-‐‑analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-‐‑749.

De Dreu, Carsten K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191-‐‑1201.

Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1171-‐‑1188.

Dovidio, J., Hewstone, M., Glick, P. & Esses, V. (2010). The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination. London: Sage Publications.

Duncan, S, Jr., & Fiske, D.W. (1977). Face-‐‑to-‐‑face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Hilisdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dubrovsky, V., Kolla, S., & Sethna, B.N. (1991). Effects of status on group decision making: Ad hoc versus real groups. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 35, (13), p. 969 – 973.

Durante, F., Tablante, C. B., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Poor but warm, rich but cold (and competent): Social classes in the stereotype content model. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 138-‐‑157.

Eagly, A. H., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both women and men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 451-‐‑462.

Eagly, A. H., & Sczesny, S. (2009). Stereotypes about women, men, and leaders: Have times changed? In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality; (pp. 21-‐‑47), American Psychological Association.

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Johannesen-‐‑Schmidt, M. (2004). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: Implications for the partner preferences of women and men. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), 2nd ed.;

53

the psychology of gender (2nd ed.) (2nd ed. ed., pp. 269-‐‑295), New York, NY, Guilford Press.

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.

Erber, M.W., Hodges, S.D., & Wilson, T.D. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude stability, and the effects of analyzing reasons. In R.E. Petty & J.A. Krosnick (Eds)., Attitude strentgh: Antecedents and consequences (pp433-‐‑454). Mahwa, NJ: Erlbaum.

Everly, B. A., Unzueta, M. M., & Shih, M. J. (2016). Can being gay provide a boost in the hiring process? Maybe if the boss is female. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(2), 293-‐‑306.

Fenwick, G.D., & Neal, D.J., (2001). Effect of gender composition on group performance. Gender, Work and Organization, 8 (2), 205-‐‑225.

Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93-‐‑106.

Fingerhut, A. W., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The impact of social roles on stereotypes of gay men. Sex Roles, 55(3-‐‑4), 273-‐‑278.

Fiske, S. T. (2015). Intergroup Biases: A focus on stereotype content. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 45–50.

Fiske, A.P., Haslam, N., & Fiske, S.T. (1991). Confusing one person with another: What errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 656-‐‑674.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-‐‑902.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-‐‑83.

Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 473-‐‑489.

Fiske, S. T. (2014). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons.

Fiske, S. T. (2012). The continuum model and the stereotype content model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (vol. 1); (pp. 267-‐‑288), London, Sage.

Ford, D. L., Nemiroff, P. M., & Pasmore, W. A. (1977). Group decision-‐‑making performance as influenced by group tradition. Small Group Behavior, 8(2), 223-‐‑228.

54

Forsyth, D.R. (2006) Group Dynamics 4e [International Student Edition]. Belmont CA.: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing.

Fraïssé, C., & Barrientos, J. (2016). The concept of homophobia: A psychosocial perspective. Sexologies: European Journal of Sexology and Sexual Health / Revue Européenne De Sexologie Et De Santé Sexuelle, 25(4), e65-‐‑e69.

Gavac, S., Murrar, S., & Brauer, M. (2017). Group perception and social norms. In R. W. Summers (Ed.), Social psychology: How other people influence our thoughts and actions (vol. 1) (pp. 333-‐‑359), Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press/ABC-‐‑CLIO.

Gelfand, M. J., Major, V. S., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., & O’Brien, K. (2006). Negotiating relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Academy of Management Review, 31, 427-‐‑451.

Gergen, K. J. (2011). Relational being: A brief introduction. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 24(4), 280-‐‑282.

Gergen, K. J. (2015). An invitation to social construction (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing Ltd.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109-‐‑118.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2007). Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In F. J. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale & S. A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives; (pp. 155-‐‑187), Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishing.

Gorard, S. (2006). Towards a judgement-‐‑based statistical analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education 27 (1): 67-‐‑80.

Gorard, S. (2007). Mixing methods is wrong: An everyday approach to educational justice. Paper presented at British Educational Research Association. 5-‐‑8 september, 2007, London.

Gouran, D.S. (1982). Making decisions in groups. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman

Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-‐‑making and problem-‐‑solving groups: An expanded view. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole, Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 55–80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Graziano, W. G., Jensen-‐‑Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820-‐‑835.

55

Gächter, S., Orzen, H., Renner, E., & Starmer, C. (2009). Are experimental economists prone to framing effects? A natural field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70, 443-‐‑446.

Hackman J.R & Vidmar N.J. (1970). Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reaction. Sociometry, 33, p.37-‐‑54.

Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Doosje, B. (2002). From personal pictures in the head to collective tools in the world: How shared stereotypes allow groups to represent and change social reality. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups; stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 157-‐‑185), New York, NY, Cambridge University Press.

Hall, J., & Williams, M. S. (1966). A comparison of decision-‐‑making performances in established and ad hoc groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(2), 214-‐‑222.

Hannagan, R.J. (2006). Perceptual asymmetry in gendered group decision making.. ETD collection for University of Nebraska -‐‑ Lincoln.

Hannagan, R.J. & Larimer, C.W. (2010). Does gender composition affect group decision outcomes? Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Political Behavior, 32, 51-‐‑67.

Hawkins, K & Power, S, (1999). Gender differences in questions asked during small decision-‐‑making group discussions Small Group Research,30 (2), 235-‐‑256.

Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 189-‐‑198.

Hermann, K. (2015). Field theory and working with group dynamics in debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 46(2), 209-‐‑220.

Hinsz, V.B., & Nickell, G.S. (2004). Positive reactions to working in groups in a study of group and individual goal decision-‐‑making. Group Dynamics 8, 253–264.

Hirokawa, R.Y. (1988). Group communication research: Considerations for the use of interaction analysis. In C.H. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and insruments for observing, measureing, and assessing communication processes (pp.229-‐‑245). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hogg, M. A., Sherman, D. K., Dierselhuis, J., Maitner, A. T., & Moffitt, G. (2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 135-‐‑142.

56

Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-‐‑ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(46), 16385-‐‑16389.

Howe, L. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2017). Attitude strength. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 327-‐‑351.

International Labour Office. (2016). Women at work: Trends 2016, http://www.ilo.org/gender/Informationresources/Publications/WCMS_457317/lang-‐‑-‐‑en/index.htm.

Janis, I.L. (1972), Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos (2nd edn). Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-‐‑282.

Jonsson, G., Roempke, S. & Zakrisson, I. (2003). Att undvika oligarki i teori och praktik. I Kooperation, ideellt arebte & lokal ekonomisk utveckling. Stockholm: Fören. Kooperativa studier (Kooperativ årsbok). S. 43-‐‑72.

Jost, J.T., & Major, B. (Eds.) (2001). The psychology of legitimacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kahai, S. S., Huang, R., & Jestice, R. J. (2012). Interaction effect of leadership and communication media on feedback positivity in virtual teams. Group & Organization Management, 37(6), 716-‐‑751.

Kameda, T., Tsukasaki, T., Hastie, R., & Berg, N. (2011). Democracy under uncertainty: The wisdom of crowds and the free-‐‑rider problem in group decision making. Psychological Review, 118(1), 76-‐‑96.

Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (2012). Ethnic and nationality stereotypes in everyday language. Teaching of Psychology, 39(1), 54-‐‑56.

Kong, D. T., Konczak, L. J., & Bottom, W. P. (2015). Team performance as a joint function of team member satisfaction and agreeableness. Small Group Research, 46(2), 160-‐‑178.

Keyton, J., & Beck, S.J. (2009). The influential role of relational messages in group interaction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 13, 14-‐‑30.

Kolbe, M., & Boos, M. (2009). Facilitating Group decision-‐‑making: Facilitator´s subjective theories on group coordination. Forum Qualitative Socialforschung 10, (1). Art.28.

Kray, L. J., & Thompson, L. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research. Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, 26, 103-‐‑182.

57

Knippendorff, K. (2005). The social construction of public opinion. Kommunikation über kommunikation. Theorie, Methoden und Praxis. Festschrift für Klaus Merten, 129-‐‑149.

Kugelberg, C. (2006). Constructing the deviant other: Mothering and fathering at the workplace. Gender, Work and Organization, 13(2), 152-‐‑173.

Kurz, T., & Lyons, A. (2009). Intergroup influences on the stereotype consistency bias in communication: Does it matter who we are communicating about and to whom we are communicating? Social Cognition, 27(6), 893-‐‑904.

Kühberger, A., & Tanner, C. (2010). Risky choice framing: Task versions and a comparison of prospect theory and fuzzy-‐‑trace theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(3), 314-‐‑329.

Lau, R. R. (2003). Models of decision-‐‑making. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology; oxford handbook of political psychology, (pp. 19-‐‑59), New York, Oxford University Press.

Larson, J. R., Jr., Christensen, C., Franz, T. M., & Abbott, A. S. (1998). Diagnosing groups: The pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-‐‑based medical decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 93-‐‑108.

Latu, l., & Schmid Mast, M. (2016). The effects of stereotypes of women'ʹs performance in male-‐‑dominated hierarchies: Stereotype threat activation and reduction through role models. In K. Faniko, F. Lorenzi-‐‑Cioldi, O. Sarrasin & E. Mayor (Eds.), Gender and social hierarchies: Perspectives from social psychology; (pp. 75-‐‑87). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Lawson, T. J., McDonough, T. A., & Bodle, J. H. (2010). Confronting prejudiced comments: Effectiveness of a role-‐‑playing exercise. Teaching of Psychology, 37(4), 257-‐‑261.

Lee, T. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in the stereotype content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 751-‐‑768.

Lennéer-‐‑Axelson, B. & Thylefors, I. (2018). Arbetsgruppens psykologi. (5., [omarb.] utg.) Stockholm: Natur och kultur.

Leong, L. M., McKenzie, C. R. M., Sher, S., & Müller-‐‑Trede, J. (2017). The role of inference in attribute framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 30, 1147-‐‑1156.

Levin, I. P., Johnson, R. D., & Davis, M. L. (1987). How information frame influences risky decisions: Between-‐‑subjects and within-‐‑subject comparisons. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, 43–54.

Lewin, K., & Lippit, R. (1938). An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and democracy: a preliminary study. Sociometry, 1, 292–300.

58

Lewin, K., Lippit, R. & White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-‐‑301.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (edited by Dowrin Cartwright), Oxford, Harper & Row.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics; concept, method and reality in social science; Social equilibria and Social change. Human Relations, 1, 5-‐‑41.

Lindsey, E. W. (2012). In McGeown S. P. (Ed.), Girl'ʹs and boy'ʹs play form preferences and gender segregation in early childhood, Hauppauge, NY, Nova Science Publishers.

Lippit, R. (1940). An experimental study of the effect of democratic and authoritarian group atmospheres. University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 16, 43–195.

Lira E. M., Ripoll P., Peiró J. M., Zornoza A. M. (2008). The role of information and communication technologies in the relationship between group effectiveness and group potency. Small Group Research, 39, 728-‐‑74.

Lovaglia, M., Mannix, E.A., Samuelson, C.D., Sell, J., & Wilsson, R.K. (2005) Conflict, power and status in groups. In M.S. Poole, & A.B. Hollnigshead (eds) Theories of small groups: interdisciplinary perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Lyons, A., & Kashima, Y. (2003). How are stereotypes maintained through communication? the influence of stereotype sharedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition, 85(6), 989-‐‑1005.

Maio, G., & Haddock, G. (2014). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. London, Sage.

Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M.A. (2002). Group task satisfaction: Applying the construct of job satisfaction to groups. Small Group Research, 22, 271-‐‑312.

Mason. C.M.,& Griffin, M.A. (2003). Identifying group task satisfaction at work. Small Group Research 34, 413-‐‑435.

Macrae, C. N., Hewstone, M., & Griffiths, R. J. (1993). Processing load and memory for stereotype-‐‑based information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(1), 77-‐‑87.

McGregor, J. (1993). Effectiveness of role playing and antiracist teaching in reducing student prejudice. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(4), 215-‐‑226.

59

McNeill, A., & Burton, A. M. (2002). The locus of semantic priming effects in person recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 55a(4), 1141-‐‑1156.

Meyer, M., & Gelman, S. A. (2016). Gender essentialism in children and parents: Implications for the development of gender stereotyping and gender-‐‑typed preferences. Sex Roles, 75(9-‐‑10), 409-‐‑421.

Meyers, R.A., Brashers, D.E., Winston, L & Grob, L (1997) Sex differences and group argument: A theoretical framework and empirical investigation. Communication Studies, 48, 19-‐‑41.

Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (2010). Extending the conversational argument coding scheme: Argument categories, units and coding procedures. Communication Methods and Measures, 4, 27-‐‑45.

Meyers, R.A., Brashers, D.E., & Hanner, J. (2000). Majority-‐‑minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-‐‑outcome links. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 3-‐‑30.

Myers, D.G.; H. Lamm (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–627.

Michie, S. & Williams, S. (2003). Reducing work related psychological ill health and sickness absence: a systematic literature review. Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 60(1), 3-‐‑9.

Michels (1911/1983). Organisationer och demokrati: en sociologisk studie av de oligarkiska tendenserna i vår tid. (Political parties. A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy). Stockholm: Ratio.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.

Moyer, K. H., & Gross, A. (2011). Group designs. In J. C. Thomas, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Understanding research in clinical and counseling psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 155-‐‑179), New York, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Nam, C. S., Lyons, J. B., Hwang, H., & Kim, S. (2009). The process of team communication in multi-‐‑cultural contexts: An empirical study using bales’ interaction process analysis (IPA). International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(5), 771-‐‑782.

Nawata, K., & Yamaguchi, H. (2011). The escalation of personal altercations into intergroup conflict: Initiating intergroup vicarious retribution in an ad hoc laboratory experiment group. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51(1), 52-‐‑63.

60

Nelson, N., Bronstein, I., Shacham, R., & Ben-‐‑Ari, R. (2015). The power to oblige: Power, gender, negotiation behaviors, and their consequences. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 8(1), 1-‐‑24.

Nemeth, C. J., & Goncalo, J. A. (2005). Influence and persuasion in small groups. In T. C. Brock, & M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed.) (pp. 171-‐‑194), Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, Inc.

Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-‐‑Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? the potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus, & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration; group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63-‐‑84), New York: Oxford University Press.

Okimoto, T. G., & Heilman, M. E. (2012). The “bad parent” assumption: How gender stereotypes affect reactions to working mothers. Journal of Social Issues, 68(4), 704-‐‑724.

Ostrom, E. (2003). Toward a behavioral theory linking trust, reciprocity, and reputation. IN E.Osterom & J.Walker (Eds.), Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research. (pp. 19-‐‑79). New York, Russell Sage Foundation.

Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. (2004). The paradox of the lesbian worker. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 719-‐‑735.

Peters, W. (1987). A Class Divided: Then and now: 1st Edition. Yale University Press.

Petersson, S., Catásus, H., & Danielsson, E. (2016). Vem håller i klubban? Om demokrati och delaktighet i idrottsföreningar, Stockholm, Centrum för idrottsforskning, 1, 1-‐‑52.

Peterson, R., Owens, P., Tetlock, P.E., Fan, E. & Martorana. (1998). Group dynamics in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of failure and success in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 77-‐‑99.

Poole, M. S., & Folger, J. P. (1981). A method for establishing the representational validity of interaction coding systems: Do we see what they see. Human Communication Research, 8, 26-‐‑42.

Potter, J. (1988). Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluative practices. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol.9, pp. 233-‐‑266). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

61

Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2001). Discursive social psychology. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 103– 118). London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.

Pratto & Walker. (2004). The bases of gendered power. In A.H. Eagly, A.E. Beall & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), 2nd ed, the psychology of gender (2nd ed). (pp. 242-‐‑268). New York: Guilford.)

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-‐‑320.

Raghubir, P. & Valenzuela, A. (2010). Male-‐‑female dynamics in groups: A field study of The Weakest Link. Small Group Research, 41 (1), 41-‐‑70.

Ramsay, J. E., & Pang, J. S. (2017). Anti-‐‑immigrant prejudice in rising east asia: A stereotype content and integrated threat analysis. Political Psychology, 38(2), 227-‐‑244.

Rees, D. M. (2014). Framing group decisions: How emphasizing deadline vs. teamwork influences group decision making. (Doctoral dissertation, The Chicago School of Professional psychology, Ann Arbor, MI.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rijnbout, J. S., & McKimmie, B. M. (2012). Deviance in group decision making: Group-‐‑member centrality alleviates negative consequences for the group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(7), 915-‐‑923.

Riksidrottsförbundet. (2011). Svenska folkets idrotts-‐‑ och motionsvanor. Stockholm: http://www.rf.se/globalassets/riksidrottsforbundet/dokument/motionsidrott/svenska-‐‑folkets-‐‑motionsvanor-‐‑2011.pdf.

Rode, J. (2010). Truth and trust in communication: Experiments on the effect of a competitive context. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(1), 325-‐‑338.

Russell, A. M. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2008). It'ʹs all relative: Competition and status drive interpersonal perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1193-‐‑1201.

Russell, N., & Picard, J. (2013). Review of behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 49(2), 221-‐‑223.

Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-‐‑taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1-‐‑63.

62

Schultz, J.M., Sjøvold, E., & Andre, B., (2017) Can group climate explain innovative readiness for change? Journal of Organizational Change Management. 30(3), 440-‐‑452.

Schmid Mast, M. (2001). Gender differences and similarities in dominance hierarchies in same-‐‑gender groups based on speaking time. Sex Roles, 44, 537–556.

Schmid Mast, M. (2004). Men are hierarchical, women are egalitarian: An implicit gender stereotype. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 63, 107–111.

Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R., & Ragan, J.W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil´s advocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745-‐‑772.

Seibold, D.R., & Meyers, R.A., (2007) Group argument: A Structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38, 312-‐‑336.

Sheridan, A., Ross-‐‑Smith, A., & Lord, L. (2015). Women on boards in Australia: Achieving real change or more of the same? In A. M. Broadbridge, & S. L. Fielden (Eds.), Handbook of gendered careers in management: Getting in, getting on, getting out, (pp. 322-‐‑340) Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Sherif, M. (1936), The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social

hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. Simons T, Pelled L, Smith K. (1999) Making use of difference: Diversity, debate,

and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal. 42, 662-‐‑673.

Sinaceur, M., Thomas-‐‑Hunt, M., Neale, M. A., O'ʹNeill, O. A., & Haag, C. (2010). Accuracy and perceived expert status in group decisions: When minority members make majority members more accurate privately. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 423-‐‑437.

Slotegraaf, R.J., & Atuahene-‐‑Gima, K. (2011). Product development team stability and new product advantage: The role of decision-‐‑making processes. Journal of Marketing, 75, 96-‐‑108.

Smith, R.A. (2002). Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: theory and tesearch.” Annual Review of Sociology 28(1), 509-‐‑542.

Spector, P. E. (1988), Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61: 335–340.

Statistiska centralbyrån (2016). På tal om kvinnor och män: lathund om jämställdhet. Örebro: SCB.

63

Statistiska centralbyrån. (2017). Undersökningarna av barns levnadsförhållanden. Stockholm: https://www.scb.se/.

Summers, R.W., (2017) Social psychology: How other people influence our thoughts and actions (2017). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press/ABC-‐‑CLIO.

Tasa, K., & Whyte, G. (2005). Collective efficacy and vigilant problem solving in group decision making: A non-‐‑linear model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 119-‐‑129.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, M. S., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (2000). The consequences of communicating social stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(6), 567-‐‑599.

Toma, C., Bry, C., & Butera, F. (2013). Because I’m worth it! (more than others...): Cooperation, competition, and ownership bias in group decision-‐‑making. Social Psychology, 44(4), 248-‐‑255.

Toma, C., & Butera, F. (2015). Cooperation versus competition effects on information sharing and use in group decision-‐‑making. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(9), 455-‐‑467.

Toma, C., Vasiljevic, D., Oberlé, D., & Butera, F. (2013). Assigned experts with competitive goals withhold information in group decision making. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(1), 161-‐‑172.

Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-‐‑533.

Tubbs, S.L. (2007). A systems Approach to small Group interaction, (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-‐‑Hill.

Tubbs, S., Moss, S. & Papastefanou, N. (2011). Human Communication Principles and Contexts. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-‐‑Hill Education.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., & Wilke, H. A. (2001). Power use in cooperative and competitive settings. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23(4), 291-‐‑300.

Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male-‐‑warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science, 18(1), 19-‐‑23.

64

Vogel, J., Amnå., E., Munk, I., & Häll, L. (2003). Associational life in Sweden: General welfare production, social capital, training in democracy, living condition (Report No. 98). Stockholm, Sweden: SCB (Statistics Sweden).

von Hippel, C., Wiryakusuma, C., Bowden, J., & Shochet, M. (2011). Stereotype threat and female communication styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(10), 1312-‐‑1324.

Van Swol, L.M. (2009). Extreme members and group polarization. Social Influence, 4 (3), 185–199.

van Woerkom, M., & Sanders, K. (2010). The romance of learning from disagreement. The effect of cohesiveness and disagreement on knowledge sharing behavior and individual performance within teams. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 139-‐‑149.

Wheelan, S.A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity Small Group Research, 40, 2, 247 – 262.

Wheelan, S. A., Murphy, D., Tsumura, E., & Fried-‐‑Kline, S. (1998). Member perceptions of internal group dynamics and productivity. Small Group Research, 29, 371-‐‑ 393.

Wheelan, S.A. & Davidson, B & Tilin, F (2003). Group development across time. reality or illusion? Small Group Research, 34, 2, 223-‐‑245.

Wheelan, S.A. (2005). Creating Effective Teams. A guide for members and leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wolgast, S. (2017). How does the job applicants’ ethnicity affect the selection process? Norms, Preferred competencies and expected fit, (doctoral thesis), Lund.

Yi, R. (2003). A modified tit-‐‑for-‐‑tat strategy in a 5-‐‑person prisoner'ʹs dilemma, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York State University.

Zakrisson, I. (2008). Gender differences in social dominance orientation: Gender invariance may be situation invariance. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 59(3-‐‑4), 254-‐‑263.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the stanford prison experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243-‐‑256.

Zimbardo, Philip (2007). The Lucifer Effect. New York: The Random House. World Economic Forum. (2015). Ten years of the global gender gap. Geneva: Report Highlights (2015). http://reports.weforum.org/global-‐‑gap-‐‑report-‐‑2015/.

COMMUNICATING, NEGOTIATING, AND STEREOTYPING: THE …1183806/... · 2018. 2. 20. · SMALL GROUP...

Documents

Transcript of COMMUNICATING, NEGOTIATING, AND STEREOTYPING: THE …1183806/... · 2018. 2. 20. · SMALL GROUP...