In this invited contribution to Beck’s forum, I explain how comments from members of other scientific subdisciplines can be useful for advancing one’s own research.
BroströmG. (2012). Event history analysis with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
2.
FowlerS. (2006). Training across cultures: What intercultural trainers bring to diversity training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 401-411. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.12.001
3.
GonzálezR.BrownR. (2006). Dual identities in intergroup contact: Group status and size moderate the generalization of positive attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 753-767. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.008
4.
GruenfeldD.MannixE.WilliamsK.NealeM. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 1-15. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0061
5.
HomanA. C.van KnippenbergD.van KleefG. A.De DreuC. K. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189-1199. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189
6.
McCraeR. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258-1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258
7.
MeyerB.SchermulyC. C. (2012). When beliefs are not enough: Examining the interaction of diversity faultlines, task motivation, and diversity beliefs on team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 456-487. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.560383
8.
MeyerB.ShemlaM.SchermulyC. C. (2011). Social category salience moderates the effect of diversity faultlines on information elaboration. Small Group Research, 42, 257-282. doi:10.1177/1046496411398396
9.
MeyersR.SeiboldD.BrashersD. (1991). Argument in initial group decision-making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis. Western Journal of Communication, 55, 47-68. doi:10.1080/10570319109374370
10.
PolanyiM. (1958). Personal knowledge. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
11.
RoeR.GockelC.MeyerB. (2012). Time and change in teams: Where we are and where we are going. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 629-656. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.729821
12.
SchermulyC. C.SchollW. (2012). The Discussion Coding System (DCS): A new instrument for analyzing communication processes. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 12-40. doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.651346
13.
SchollW. (1996). Effective teamwork—A theoretical model and a test in the field. In WitteE.DavisJ. H. (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 127-146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
StewartD.StasserG. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 619-628. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.619
15.
TurnerJ.HoggM.OakesP.ReicherS.WetherellM. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
16.
WittenbaumG.BowmanJ. (2005). Member status and information exchange in decision-making groups. In MannixE.NealeM. (Series Ed.) & Thomas-HuntM. C. (Vol. Ed.), Research on managing groups and teams: Status and groups (Vol. 7, pp. 143-168). Bingley, UK: Emerald. doi:10.1016/S1534-0856(05)07007-6
