Advances in Group Processes: Volume 33

Balance Theory has accumulated an impressive record of empirical confirmation at both the micro- and macro-levels. Yet, it is unclear why humans consistently prefer balanced relations when imbalance offers the opportunity to reap material rewards. We argue that balance is preferred because it functions as a “compression heuristic,” allowing networks to be more easily encoded in, and recalled from, memory.

We present the results of a novel randomized laboratory experiment using nearly 300 subjects. We evaluate the independent and joint effects of degree of balance/imbalance and presence/absence of kin compression heuristics on network recall.

We find that memory for relationship valence is more accurate for balanced, rather than imbalanced, networks and that relationship existence and relationship valence are separable cognitive elements. We also use comparisons between kin and non-kin networks to suggest that humans are implicitly aware of the conditions under which imbalanced networks will be most durable.

We show that the tension/strain postulated to generate mental and behavioral responses to increase balance likely stems from cognitive limitations. More broadly, this connects balance theory to models of human cognition and evolution and suggests that human general processing ability may have evolved in response to social, rather than physical, challenges.

We propose that social projection – assuming a connection between your and others’ attitudes – can promote participation in generalized exchange.

Drawing on the social projection literature, we posit that false consensus (overestimating the similarity between our attitudes and others’) can increase people’s willingness to participate in generalized exchange. In contrast, we expect that pluralistic ignorance (underestimating the similarity between our attitudes and others’) can undermine the same motivation. We propose that false consensus will not only make people more inclined to participate in generalized exchange but also lead to more successful exchanges through an advantageous self-selection process. Finally, we propose that perceived similarity will lead to false consensus, and in turn, increased participation in generalized exchange, whereas perceived dissimilarity will lead to pluralistic ignorance.

We suggest several ways to influence false consensus in order to promote a healthy pattern of generalized exchange.

We put forth a set of novel predictions concerning the relationship between social projection and social exchange. Our theorizing contributes to the existing literature on antecedents of generalized exchange.

We examine collective responses to identity threats in organizations, conceptualizing these responses as identity contests in which members of opposing groups share an identity and strive to protect the social psychological rewards derived from that identity.

We present an argument for the importance of identity as a basis for motivation, suggesting that the desires to obtain and protect identity rewards underlie much behavior in organizations. We also present two case studies from which we derive further theoretical implications about identity contests as drivers of organizational change.

Our case studies show how organizational subgroups perceived identity threats arising from actual or proposed changes in policies and practices, mobilized to resist these threats, and negotiated further changes in organizational structure, policies, and practices.

Applying this analysis, social psychologists who study identity threats can see how responses to such threats are not solely individual and cognitive but sometimes collective and behavioral, leading to changes in organizations and in the surrounding culture.

Our analysis of how identity contests arise and unfold can enrich understandings of how self-definition and mental well-being are shaped by organizational life.

By focusing on collective responses to identity threats, we offer a new way of seeing how intra-organizational identity struggles are implicated in social change.

This study examines the effects of a firm’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative on its employees’ organizational attachment and intent to leave. We propose that employees’ perceived authenticity of their firm’s CSR activity mediates the effects of a firm’s CSR initiative on employees’ attachment to the firm and intent to leave. We also hypothesize that employees understand the authenticity of their firm’s CSR initiative based on internal and external attribution mechanisms. We propose that internal attribution enhances authenticity, while external attribution reduces it.

We surveyed a sample of 450 employees from 38 Korean companies that were included in the 2009 Dow Jones Sustainability Index Korea (DJSI Korea). To test the theoretical model, we employed a linear structural equation modeling which allows the causal estimation of theoretical constructs after taking into account their measurement errors.

As predicted, internal attribution significantly increases employees’ perceptions of their firm’s CSR authenticity, whereas external attribution significantly reduces such perceptions. Employees’ perceptions of authenticity, in turn, increase their affective attachment and decrease their intent to leave. In addition, the effects of the two attribution mechanisms on organizational attachment and intent to leave were mediated by employees’ perceptions on authenticity.

Research on authenticity has been case studies or narrative ones. This is one of the first studies investigating the role of authentic management empirically.

We demonstrate that a firm’s CSR initiative is a double-edged sword. When employees perceive inauthenticity of their firm’s CSR initiative, the CSR initiative could be detrimental to employees’ attachment to the firm. This study calls attention to the importance of authentic management of CSR.

Informational transparency through social network services become the foundational reality to the contemporary management. To maintain competitive edge in this changing world, every stakeholder of a firm including managers, employees, customers, shareholders, government, and communities should collaborate and help each other live the principle of authenticity.

This research identifies the conditions under which minority views are likely to be influential in problem-solving groups.

Predictions that status processes moderate the effect of being exposed to minority views on idea generation are tested with data collected from a controlled laboratory experiment.

Results indicate some support for the hypotheses that groups exposed to minority views generate more novel ideas, as do groups in which minority views are espoused by higher-status confederates.

Future research is required to establish the parameters that reduce flawed decision making based on convergence around the majority view.

Groups may realize their problem-solving potential through the consideration of more information and an examination of alternative views to the majority view by exposure to minority views, particularly those presented by higher-status people.

By integrating status characteristics theory and minority influence theory, we explain how the greater attention granted to higher-status people and their ideas results in the generation of more unique ideas by other members in a group. The integrated theory explains how status processes affect the consideration of ideas, the examination of alternatives to the majority view, and the generation of new ideas among group members.

Identifies where status and identity processes converge in social interaction and when one process may become more consequential than the other.

Drawing upon existing experimental data, we illustrate how affect control theory and status characteristics theory make seemingly contradictory predictions in certain limited interactions and propose a theoretical framework to potentially reconcile these differences.

Three pivot points are identified at which status and identity processes meet and then one of the processes more strongly predicts interaction outcomes.

The chapter represents a starting point for future research examining situations where status and identity processes converge.

We suggest ways to empirically test related claims made by both theories in an array of circumstances.

The goal of this chapter is to both provide a sociological explanation for gender differences in risk-taking behavior and to explain how such gender differences in behavior may contribute to women’s underrepresentation at the top of hierarchies.

I synthesize relevant research findings from the fields of social psychology, economics, psychology, decisions science, and sociology.

I argue that risk-taking is a gendered action due to both prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes. The fact that risk-taking is a gendered action offers sociological insights as to why women take fewer risks than men. First, women may rationally choose to take fewer risks, given that risk-taking is less rewarding for them. Second, the aforementioned gender stereotypes may cause institutional gatekeepers to give women fewer opportunities to take risks.

Sociologists should care about this phenomenon because large rewards are attached to successful risk-taking behavior. Thus, if men as a group take more successful risks than women as a group – simply because they take more risks, and thus by chance experience more successful risks – then more men than women will experience upward mobility caused by risk-taking.

Gender differences in risk-taking behavior likely depress the upward mobility of women and are a contributing factor to the dearth of women in top positions. In this era of falling formal barriers and women’s educational gains, gender differences in risk-taking behavior are likely of increasing importance for understanding the inequalities in hierarchies in U.S. society.

In this project, we propose and test a new device – wearable sociometric badges containing small microphones – as a low-cost and relatively unobtrusive tool for measuring stress response to group processes. Specifically, we investigate whether voice pitch, measured using the microphone of the sociometric badge, is associated with physiological stress response to group processes.

We collect data in a laboratory setting using participants engaged in two types of small-group interactions: a social interaction and a problem-solving task. We examine the association between voice pitch (measured by fundamental frequency of the participant’s speech) and physiological stress response (measured using salivary cortisol) in these two types of small-group interactions.

We find that in the social task, participants who exhibit a stress response have a statistically significant greater deviation in voice pitch (from their overall average voice pitch) than those who do not exhibit a stress response. In the problem-solving task, participants who exhibit a stress response also have a greater deviation in voice pitch than those who do not exhibit a stress response, however, in this case, the results are only marginally significant. In both tasks, among participants who exhibited a stress response, we find a statistically significant correlation between physiological stress response and deviation in voice pitch.

We conclude that wearable microphones have the potential to serve as cheap and unobtrusive tools for measuring stress response to group processes.