Mary Lynn Miller Henningsen

Examining Social Influence in Information-Sharing Contexts

Research on hidden profiles has found that groups tend to make decisions reflecting the information shared among group members prior to discussion. However, shared information is confounded with individual prediscussion preferences in hidden profile situations. In this article, the authors manipulate information distribution to examine hidden, ambiguous (i.e., prediscussion preferences favor no alternative), and clear (i.e., prediscussion preferences support the decision alternative favored by the total information) profiles. They examine the influence of profile type on group decisions, use of shared and unshared information, and perceptions of normative and informational influence. Results indicate that groups make superior decisions and rely more on unshared information in clear and ambiguous profiles than in hidden profiles. In addition, perceived social influence is most prevalent in ambiguous profiles.

Examining the symptoms of groupthink and retrospective sensemaking

The symptoms of groupthink traditionally have been treated as part of a single process associated with poor decision making in groups. The present study explores the symptoms of groupthink as reflecting two distinct processes that vary depending on the confidence individuals have in the decision favored by the group. It is further argued that past research using qualitative approaches may produce an illusory correlation among the groupthink symptoms because of retrospective sensemaking occurring when individuals have evidence they have made a poor decision. An experiment, providing support for each of these contentions, is performed.

Social influence in groups: A comparative application of relational framing theory and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion

Normative influence, as opposed to informational influence, in groups often diminishes decision-making outcomes. Despite the important effect of social influence on group performance, prior research on social influence in groups has largely focused on variable analytic conditions that affect influence, instead of on theoretical explanations of the use of social influence. This paper addressed that limitation by applying Relational Framing Theory (Dillard, Solomon, & Samp, 1996) and the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) to social influence in groups. A 3 (group interaction goal: task, group, control)×2 (involvement: high or control) factorial design experiment was conducted to test the applicability of these two theories. Results demonstrated that neither theory predicted the occurrence of normative and informational statements in discussion. Additional tests, however, showed greater general support for Relational Framing Theory.

Student–Faculty Interactions about Disappointing Grades: Application of the Goals–Plans–Actions Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior

The goals–plans–actions model and the theory of planned behavior were used to predict what lead to students having a conversation about a disappointing grade with a faculty member. Participants (N=130) completed two surveys. In the first survey, participants completed measures of primary and secondary goals, planning, decision to engage, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions. In the second survey, administered two to four weeks after the first, participants completed measures of action or behavior. Structural equation modeling was used to complete the data analysis. The results indicated support for both theories.

Generating Ideas About the Uses of Brainstorming: Reconsidering the Losses and Gains of Brainstorming Groups Relative to Nominal Groups

The virtue of using nominal groups compared to brainstorming groups for idea generation is questionable. Brainstorming groups presumably will develop higher levels of cohesiveness than nominal groups following an idea generation task. Furthermore, the productivity of nominal groups is apt to be limited over time. Nominal (N = 31) and brainstorming (N = 28) groups of three or four members performed an idea generation task for two 10-minute periods. Brainstorming groups reported higher levels of cohesiveness than nominal groups. Furthermore, only during the first 10-minute period did nominal groups generate more ideas than brainstorming groups.

Pre‐deliberation moderation on choice dilemmas: proposing a moderation–elasticity theory of choice shift

A moderation–elasticity theory to explain the choice shift is proposed and tested. The theory predicts that group members engage in moderation of initial decision choices in anticipation of future interaction. These moderate choices are strategic in nature, and thus are posited to disappear when anticipated interaction is eliminated. Moderation–elasticity is proposed as a form of predeliberation normative influence. A test of the theory finds support for both moderation and elasticity processes on choice dilemma item decisions.

Do Groups Know What They Don't Know? Dealing With Missing Information in Decision-Making Groups:

Although scholars have examined how individuals deal with information that is unavailable on decision-making tasks, little research has explored how groups deal with missing information. The present study proposes two ways groups can address information that is unavailable: by employing a diminished information set or by inferring the value of missing information. Both of these approaches are tested using an information sharing task. Groups are compared with information unavailable to any member, available but unshared among group members (i.e., hidden profile), and available and shared among all group members. Evidence indicates that group members may utilize both strategies to deal with missing information.

Sex differences in the transition to a heterosexual romantic relationship

Contents: Preface. Part I: Framing Sex Differences and Similarities. K. Dindia, Men Are From North Dakota, Women Are From South Dakota. E. Aries, Gender Differences in Interaction: A Reexamination. P.H. Wright, Toward an Expanded Orientation to the Comparative Study of Womens and Mens Same-Sex Friendships. J.A. Hall, How Big Are Nonverbal Sex Differences? The Case of Smiling and Nonverbal Sensitivity. G.N. Powell, L.M. Graves, Gender and Leadership: Perceptions and Realities. M. Allen, K.S. Valde, Researching a Gendered World: The Intersection of Methodological and Ethical Concerns. Part II: Approaches to Sex Differences and Similarities. P.A. Anderson, The Evolution of Biological Sex Differences in Communication. B.R. Burleson, A.W. Kunkel, Revisiting the Different Cultures Thesis: An Assessment of Sex Differences and Similarities in Supportive Communication. A.H. Eagly, A.M. Koenig, Social Role Theory of Sex Differences and Similarities: Implication for Prosocial Behavior. M. Crawford, M.R. Kaufman, Sex Differences Versus Social Processes in the Construction of Gender. L. Di Mare, V.R. Waldron, Researching Gendered Communication in Japan and the United States: Current Limitations and Alternative Approaches. Part III: Sex Differences and Similarities in Communicative Behaviors. A. Mulac, The Gender-Linked Language Effect: Do Language Differences Really Make a Difference? L.K. Guerrero, S.M. Jones, R.R. Boburka, Sex Differences in Emotional Communication. J.K. Burgoon, J.P. Blair, D.B. Buller, P. Tilley, Sex Differences in Presenting and Detecting Deceptive Messages. A.E. Lindsey, W.R. Zakahi, Perceptions of Men and Women Departing From Conversational Sex-Role Stereotypes. P.J. Kalbfleisch, A.L. Herold, Sex, Power, and Communication. Part IV: Sex Differences and Similarities in Romantic Relationships. M.R. Trost, J.K. Alberts, How Men and Women Communicate Attraction: An Evolutionary View. P.A. Mongeau, M.C.M. Serewicz, M.L.M. Henningsen, K.L. Davis, Sex Differences in the Transition to a Heterosexual Romantic Relationship. D.J. Canary, J. Wahba, Do Women Work Harder Than Men at Maintaining Relationships? L.M. Sagrestano, C.L. Heavey, A. Christensen, Individual Differences Versus Social Structural Approaches to Explaining Demand-Withdraw and Social Influence Behaviors. J.T. Wood, Gender, Power, and Violence in Heterosexual Relationships. J.S. Hyde, Epilogue.

Academic Misconduct: A Goals–Plans–Action Approach to Peer Confrontation and Whistle-Blowing

Academic misconduct is a serious, pervasive, communication phenomenon on college campuses. In this study, the goals–plans–action model (Dillard, 1990) was used as a theoretical framework to investigate peer confrontation of cheating and whistle-blowing to a course instructor. In an experiment, participants were asked to respond to measures of primary and secondary goals, plans, explicit confrontation of a peer, and whistle-blowing. The primary goal and secondary goal predicted explicit confrontation. Whistle-blowing was predicted by either the primary goal and the affect management secondary goal (for same-group peers) or the personal resource secondary goal (for peers in other class groups).

A Preliminary Examination of Perceptions of Social Influence in Group Decision Making in the Workplace

Theory and research on social influence in groups indicate that normative influence can be detrimental to important group outcomes, whereas informational influence tends to have positive effects. However, much of the research providing these results consists of experimental studies conducted in laboratory settings. We examine how normative and informational influences are perceived in decision-making groups in the workplace. We find, in a survey of 197 individuals involved in group decision making in their workplaces, that the use of informational influence is viewed as enhancing group decision-making effectiveness and group cohesiveness. In contrast, normative influence has a negative effect on perceptions of decision-making effectiveness. Flirting as a form of idiosyncratic influence in the workplace is also considered and is found to have negative effects on perceptions of decision-making effectiveness and cohesiveness.