This study examined if information similarity, treated as a group-level phenomenon, moderates the effect of gender on participation and related perceptions (e.g., satisfaction) in small groups. Participants responded privately to a psychological profile task, writing their impressions of the person described in it, and then interacted in three-person groups to reach a consensus concerning the target’s characteristics. The written profiles were evaluated for their similarity within groups. Discussions were coded for substantive (task-related) and nonsubstantive contributions. Results of the multilevel analysis revealed that substantive participation was affected by the interaction of one’s gender with that of his or her partners in different ways at high and low levels of information similarity. The effect of gender on the perception variables was also moderated by information similarity. Discussion addresses a dual-process approach to the study of participation.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
3.
Balkwell, J. W. (1994). Status. In M. F. Lawler (Ed.), Group processes: Sociological analyses (pp. 119-148). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
4.
Balkwell, J. W., & Berger, J. (1996). Gender, status, and behavior in task situations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 273-283.
5.
Berger, J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction:The status-organizing process. In J. Berger, M. H. Fisek, R. Z. Norman, & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation-states approach (pp. 3-87). New York: Elsevier.
6.
Bonito, J. A. (2000). The effect of contributing substantively on perceptions of participation. Small Group Research, 31, 528-553.
7.
Bonito, J. A. (2001). An information-processing approach to participation in small groups. Communication Research, 28, 275-303.
8.
Bonito, J. A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups: Methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33, 412-438.
9.
Bonito, J. A. (2003a). A social relations analysis of participation in small groups. Communication Monographs, 70, 83-97.
10.
Bonito, J. A. (2003b, November). A social relations model of participation in small groups. Paper presented at the National Communication Association, Miami, FL.
11.
Bonito, J. A., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1997). Participation in small groups. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 227-261). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
Brashers, D. E., Adkins, M., & Meyers, R. A. (1994). Argumentation and computer-mediated group decision making. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (pp. 263-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327-342.
14.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (pp. 3-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
Cruz, M. G., Henningsen, D. D., & Williams, M. L. M. (2000). The presence of norms in the absence of groups? The impact of normative influence under hidden-profile conditions. Human Communication Research, 26, 104-124.
16.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Fararo, T. J. (1989). The meaning of general theoretical sociology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Fisek, M. H., & Ofshe, R. (1970). The process of status evolution. Sociometry, 33, 327-335.
19.
Folger, J. P., Hewes, D. E., & Poole, M. S. (1984). Coding social interaction. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 4, pp. 115-161). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
20.
Forsyth, D. R., & Kelley, K. N. (1996). Heuristic-basedbiases in estimations of personal contributions to collective endeavors. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 106-123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Foschi, M. (1996). Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 237-254.
22.
Foschi, M. (1998). Double standards: Types, conditions, and consequences. In J. Skvoretz & J. Szmatka (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 15, pp. 59-80). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
23.
Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21-42.
24.
Foschi, M., & Foddy, M. (1988). Standards, performances, and the formation of self-other expectations. In M. Webster, Jr., & M. Foschi (Eds.), Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 248-260). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there “his” and “hers” types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77, 642-655.
26.
Gill, S. J., Menlo, A., & Keel, L. P. (1984). Antecedents to member participation within small groups:A review of theory and research. Journalfor Specialistsin Group Work, 9, 68-76.
27.
Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47-58.
28.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64.
29.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292-316.
30.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451-477). New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
32.
Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptualissues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448.
33.
Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). The statistical analysis ofdatafromsmall groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126-137.
34.
Knottnerus, J. D. (1997). Social structural analysis and status generalization: The contributions and potential of expectation states theory. In J. Szmatka, J. Skvoretz, & J. Berger (Eds.), Status, network, and structure: Theory development in group processes (pp. 119-136). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
35.
Kreft, I. G. G., de Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L. S. (1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 1-21.
36.
Lambert, B. L. (2001). Automatic content analysis of pharmacist-patient interactions using the Theme Machine document clustering system. In M. West (Ed.), Progress in communication sciences, Volume 17: Applications of computer content analysis (pp. 103-122). New York: Ablex.
37.
Larson, J. R. (1997). Modeling the entry of shared and unshared information into group discussion: A review and BASIC language computer program. Small Group Research, 28, 454-479.
38.
Larson, J. R., Sargis, E. G., Elstein, A. S., & Schwartz, A. (2002). Holding shared versus unshared information: Its impact on perceived member influence in decision-making groups. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 24, 145-155.
39.
Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177-189.
40.
Marcus, D. K., & Kashy, D. A. (1995). The social relations model: A tool for group psychotherapy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 383-389.
41.
Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1998). Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication Monographs, 65, 261-281.
42.
Pavitt, C. (1993). Does communication matter in social influence during small group discussion? Five positions. Communication Studies, 44, 216-227.
43.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
44.
Poole, M. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1996). Introduction: Communication and group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 3-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1982). Status in groups:The importanceof motivation. American Sociological Review, 47, 76-88.
46.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191-216.
47.
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323-355.
48.
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solvinga problemversus makinga judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426-434.
49.
Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67-78.
50.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.
51.
Stasser, G., & Vaughan, S. I. (1996). Models of participation during face-to-face unstructured discussion. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 165-192). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52.
Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I., & Stewart, D. D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 102-116.
53.
Weiner, S. L., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). A move toward a psychologyof conversation. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 213-225). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
54.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P., & Zuckerman, C. (1999). Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 967-978.
55.
Wood, W. (1987). Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53-71.
