IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v128y2015icp49-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The double-edged impact of future expectations in groups: Minority influence depends on minorities’ and majorities’ expectations to interact again

Author

Listed:
  • San Martin, Alvaro
  • Swaab, Roderick I.
  • Sinaceur, Marwan
  • Vasiljevic, Dimitri

Abstract

Two studies examined whether expecting future interaction with the same group members affects minority influence. Holding constant majority members’ expectation of future interaction, Study 1 demonstrated that minorities had more influence on majorities’ private decisions and the group’s public decision when they did not expect future interaction with the majority than when they did. Study 2 demonstrated that this minority influence effect only emerged when majority members themselves expected future interaction. Study 2 also shed light on the early information sharing dynamics underlying this effect: minorities expressed more dissent when they did not expect future interaction and majorities were more open to divergent information when they expected future interaction. These two forces combined promoted more systematic information processing by the group as a whole and, eventually, resulted in greater minority influence on both private and public decisions. Implications for our understanding of minority influence and group decision-making are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • San Martin, Alvaro & Swaab, Roderick I. & Sinaceur, Marwan & Vasiljevic, Dimitri, 2015. "The double-edged impact of future expectations in groups: Minority influence depends on minorities’ and majorities’ expectations to interact again," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 49-60.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:128:y:2015:i:c:p:49-60
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597815000102
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.03.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohammed, Susan & Harrison, David A., 2013. "The clocks that time us are not the same: A theory of temporal diversity, task characteristics, and performance in teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 244-256.
    2. Marwan Sinaceur & Melissa C. Thomas-Hunt & Margaret A. Neale & Olivia A. O'Neill & Christophe Haag, 2010. "Accuracy and perceived expert status in group decisions : When minority members make majority members more accurate privately," Post-Print hal-02312443, HAL.
    3. Wendi L. Adair & Jeanne M. Brett, 2005. "The Negotiation Dance: Time, Culture, and Behavioral Sequences in Negotiation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 33-51, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schaerer, Michael & Kern, Mary & Berger, Gail & Medvec, Victoria & Swaab, Roderick I., 2018. "The illusion of transparency in performance appraisals: When and why accuracy motivation explains unintentional feedback inflation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 171-186.
    2. Dorit Efrat-Treister & Hadar Moriah & Anat Rafaeli, 2020. "The effect of waiting on aggressive tendencies toward emergency department staff: Providing information can help but may also backfire," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michele Griessmair & Johannes Gettinger, 2020. "Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 425-459, June.
    2. Ott, Ursula F. & Prowse, Peter & Fells, Ray & Rogers, Helen, 2016. "The DNA of negotiations as a set theoretic concept: A theoretical and empirical analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3561-3571.
    3. Johannes Gettinger & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2016. "Why can’t we settle again? Analysis of factors that influence agreement prospects in the post-settlement phase," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(4), pages 413-440, May.
    4. Michele Griessmair & Daniel Druckman, 2018. "To Match or Not to Match? Reactions to Turning Points in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-83, February.
    5. Brian Klaas & Anna-Katherine Ward, 2015. "Formal, Justice-Oriented Voice in the Nonunion Firm: Who Speaks Up and When?," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 321-356, April.
    6. William W. Baber, 2018. "Identifying Macro Phases Across the Negotiation Lifecycle," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 885-903, December.
    7. Yunxia Zhu, 2009. "Managing Business Relationships in New Zealand and China," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 225-248, April.
    8. Muhammed-Fatih Kaya & Mareike Schoop, 2022. "Analytical Comparison of Clustering Techniques for the Recognition of Communication Patterns," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 555-589, June.
    9. Roger Volkema, 2012. "Understanding initiation behavior in Brazilian negotiations: an analysis of four regional subcultures," Brazilian Business Review, Fucape Business School, vol. 9(2), pages 88-108, April.
    10. Alexandra A. Mislin & Peter A. Boumgarden & Daisung Jang & William P. Bottom, 2015. "Accounting for reciprocity in negotiation and social exchange," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(6), pages 571-589, November.
    11. Kern, Mary C. & Brett, Jeanne M. & Weingart, Laurie R. & Eck, Chase S., 2020. "The “fixed” pie perception and strategy in dyadic versus multiparty negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 143-158.
    12. Yu Yang & David De Cremer & Chao Wang, 2017. "How Ethically Would Americans and Chinese Negotiate? The Effect of Intra-cultural Versus Inter-cultural Negotiations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 659-670, October.
    13. John F. McCarthy & Carl A. Scheraga & Donald E. Gibson, 2010. "Culture, Cognition and Conflict: How Neuroscience Can Help to Explain Cultural Differences in Negotiation and Conflict Management," Chapters, in: Angela A. Stanton & Mellani Day & Isabell M. Welpe (ed.), Neuroeconomics and the Firm, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Maximilian Weis & Patricia Klarner, 2022. "A CEO’s Future Temporal Depth and Organizational Resilience," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 659-693, December.
    15. Junjun Cheng, 2020. "Bidirectional Relationship Progression in Buyer–Seller Negotiations: Evidence from South Korea," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 293-320, April.
    16. B. Westbrock & K.S. Muehlfeld & Utz Weitzel, 2017. "Selecting Legal Advisor in M&A’s: Organizational Learning and the Role of Multiplicity of Mental Models," Working Papers 17-19, Utrecht School of Economics.
    17. Michael Filzmoser & Patrick Hippmann & Rudolf Vetschera, 2016. "Analyzing the Multiple Dimensions of Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1169-1188, November.
    18. Daniel Druckman & Ronald Mitterhofer & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2014. "Resolving Impasses in e-Negotiation: Does e-Mediation Work?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 193-210, March.
    19. Möllering, Guido & Stache, Florian, 2007. "German-Ukrainian business relationships: Trust development in the face of institutional uncertainty and cultural differences," MPIfG Discussion Paper 07/11, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    20. Sabine T. Koeszegi & Eva-Maria Pesendorfer & Rudolf Vetschera, 2011. "Data-Driven Phase Analysis of E-negotiations: An Exemplary Study of Synchronous and Asynchronous Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 385-410, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:128:y:2015:i:c:p:49-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.