While deviance can foster innovation within groups, research does not always find beneficial effects. The current studies provide an information processing account of the influence of deviants in group decision-making. We predicted deviants would undermine decision confidence and promote greater elaboration when tasks were difficult. Study 1 manipulated the strength (systematic cue) and gender (heuristic cue) of a job applicant to investigate the effect of a deviant in a difficult task. As predicted, a deviant was associated with lowered confidence, greater elaboration, and higher decision quality, but also decreased group cohesion and task satisfaction. Study 2 investigated the effect of a deviant during a simple task and found the same decrease in group cohesion and task satisfaction, but this time with no increase in elaboration or improvement in decision outcome quality. Results indicate that deviance, when seen as justified, has the potential to reduce the occurrence of prejudice and produce fairer decision outcomes during decision-making.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.
2.
ChristianJ.PorterL. W.MoffittG. (2006). Workplace diversity and group relations: An overview. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 459–466.
3.
De DreuC. K. W. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 285–298.
4.
De DreuC. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107.
5.
De DreuC. K. W.BeersmaB. (2005). Conflict in organizations: Beyond effectiveness and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 105–117.
6.
De DreuC. K. W.van DierendonckD.DijkstraM. T. M. (2004). Conflict at work and individual well-being. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 6–26.
7.
De DreuC. K. W.WeingartL. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.
8.
De DreuC. K. W.WestM. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.
9.
EaglyA.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
10.
FoschiMFoddyM. (1988). Standards, performances, and the formation of self-other expectations. In WebsterM.Jr.Foschi MM. (Eds.). Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 248–60), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
FoschiM.LaiL.SigersonK. (1994). Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly57, 326–339.
12.
GreitemeyerT.Schulz-HardtS.BrodbeckF. C.FreyD. (2006). Information sampling and group decision-making: The effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 31–42.
13.
HobmanE. V.BordiaP. (2006). The role of team identification in the dissimilarity–conflict relationship. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 483–507.
14.
HoggM. A.ShermanD. K.DierselhuisJ.MaitnerA. T.MoffittG. (2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identifcation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 135–142.
15.
JanisI.MannL. (1977). Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
16.
JehnK. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
17.
KerrN. LNiedermeierK. E.KaplanM. F. (2000). On the virtues of assuming minimal differences in information processing in individuals and groups. Group Processes ad Intergroup Relations, 3, 203–217.
18.
LarsonJ. R.Jr.HarmonV. M. (2007). Recalling shared vs. unshared information mentioned during group discussion: Toward understanding differential repetition rates. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 311–322.
19.
MaheswaranD.ChaikenS. (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13–25.
20.
MasonC. M.GriffinM. A. (2005). Group task satisfaction: The group’s shared attitude to its task and work environment. Group and Organization Management, 30, 625–652.
21.
NemethC. J.BrownK. S.RogersJ. D. (2001). Devil’s advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 707–720.
22.
NemethC. J.ConnellJ. B.RogersJ. D.BrownK. S. (2001). Improving decision-making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 48–58.
23.
NemethC. J.OrmistonM. (2007). Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 524–535.
24.
NemethC. J.PersonnazB.PersonnazM.GoncaloJ. A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 364–375.
25.
OckerR. J.YaverbaumG. J. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face collaboration: Results on student learning, quality, and satisfaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 427–440.
26.
RinkF.EllemersN. (2010). Benefiting from deep-level diversity: How congruence between knowledge and decision rules improves team decision making and team perceptions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 345–359.
27.
SalancikG. R.PfefferJ. (1977). An examination of need satisfaction models of job satisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 427–456.
28.
SargisE. G.LarsonJ. R.Jr. (2002). Informational centrality and member participation during group decision making. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 333–347.
29.
Schulz-HardtS.JochimsM.FreyD. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision-making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 563–586.
30.
SchwenkC. R. (1990). Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision-making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 161–176.
31.
TindaleS. R.SheffeyS. (2002). Shared information, cognitive load, and group memory. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 5–18.
32.
TrumboC. W. (2002). Information processing and risk perception: An adaption of the Heuristic-Systematice Model. Journal of Communication, 52, 367–382.
33.
Van SwolL. M. V.SavadoriL.SniezekJ. A. (2003). Factors that may affect the difficulty of uncovering hidden profiles. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 285–304.
