Effects of differential status of group members on process and outcome of deliberation

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 347-364

  Kaplan, Martin F ^a   Martin, Ana M ^b  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LA LAGUNA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Factions; Groups; Influence; Processes; Status

Indexed keywords

EID: 0043244290     PISSN: 13684302     EISSN: 14617188     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1368430299024003     Document Type: Article

References (44)

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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autûnoma de Barcelona.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 Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, Chicago.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