The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of biological sex as a nonverbal indicator of status on the use of information in a decision-making group. Drawing on status characteristics theory, this article posits that the sex of the group member who introduces a piece of information into discussion affects the likelihood of the information's use in making a decision. More specifically, the author hypothesizes that information introduced by males has a higher probability of use than information introduced by females. The results of the statistical analyses support the hypothesis. Furthermore, if the information is known to all members of the group before discussion, the sex of the group member who introduces it in the discussion has less impact on its use than if the information is unique to one member
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aronsson, K. , & Nilholm, C. (1990). On memory and the collaborative construction and deconstruction of custody case arguments. Hwnan Communication Research, 17,289-314.
2.
Balkwell, J. W. (1991). From expectations to behavior: An improved postulate for expectation states theory. American Sociological Review, 56, 355-369.
3.
Berger, J. , Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1973). Status characteristics and social interaction. In R. Ofshe (Ed.), Interpersonal behavior in small groups (pp. 194-216). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
Berger, J. , Conner, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (1974). Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
5.
Berger, J. , Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Wagner, D. G. (1985). The formation of reward expectation in status situations. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 215-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Berger, J. , Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479-508.
7.
Bradley, P. H. (1980). Sex, competence, and opinion deviation: An expectation states approach. Communication Monographs, 47, 101-110.
8.
Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97-125.
9.
Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47-58.
10.
Hirokawa, R. Y (1980). A function-oriented analysis of small group interaction within effective and ineffective decision-making groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
11.
Hirokawa, R. Y (1987). Why informed groups make faulty decisions: An investigation of possible interaction-based explanations. Small Group Behavior, 18, 3-29.
12.
Hirokawa, R. Y , & Pace, R. (1983). Adescriptive investigation of the possible communicationbased reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making. Communication Monographs, 50, 363-379.
13.
Hirokawa, R. Y , & Scheerhorn, D. R. (1986). Communication in faulty group decision-making. In R. Y Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 63-80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Leavitt, H. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 38-50.
15.
Lee, M. (1991). Gender, group composition, and peer interaction in computer-based cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9, 549-577.
16.
Martin, P. Y , & Shanahan, K. A. (1983). Transcending the effects of sex composition in small groups. Social Work With Groups, 6, 19-32.
17.
Maupin, H. E. , & Fisher, R. J. (1989). The effects of superior female performance and sex-role orientation on gender conformity. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21, 55-69.
18.
Meeker, B. F. , & Weitzel-O'Neill, P. A. (1977). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review, 42, 91-105.
19.
Piliavin, J. A. , & Martin, R. R. (1978). The effects of the sex composition of groups on the style of social interaction. Sex Roles, 4, 281-296.
20.
Pugh, M. D. , & Wahrman, R. (1983). Neutralizing sexism in mixed-sex groups: Do women have to be better than men?American Journal of Sociology, 88, 746-762.
21.
Ridgeway, C. L. , & Berger, J. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51, 603-617.
22.
Roseborough, M. E. (1953). Experimental studies of small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 275-303.
23.
Shaw, M. E. , & Penrod, W. T. (1962). Does more information available to a group always improve group performance?Sociometry, 25, 377-390.
24.
Smith-Lovin, L. , Skvoretz, J. V., & Hudson, C. G. (1986). Status and participation in six-person groups: A test of Skvoretz's comparative status model. Social Forces, 64, 992-1005.
25.
Stasser, G. , Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of threeand six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67-78.
26.
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.
27.
Stasser, G. , & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81-93.
28.
Strodtbeck, F L. , & Mann, R. D. (1956). Sex role differentiation in jury deliberations. Sociometry, 19, 3-11.
29.
Thibaut, J. W. , & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley.
