New members are important sources of innovative perspectives in groups. However, it can be very difficult for newcomers’ ideas to be heard. It is likely that group members with high (vs. low) levels of need for closure (NFC) are more resistant to newcomers’ innovative ideas. Moreover, when group epistemic authority (EA) is high, members should “freeze” on the group’s ideas, regardless of the newcomer’s EA. In contrast, when group EA is low, members would be expected to “seize” the ideas proposed by newcomers with high EA. Study 1 confirmed that high (vs. low) NFC group members are more resistant to newcomers’ innovative ideas. In Study 2, in high NFC groups, evidence was obtained for seizing but not freezing. In Study 3, for group members with heightened NFC, both freezing and seizing results were obtained. Findings suggest that both NFC and EA play important roles in receptivity to newcomers’ ideas.
BottgerP. C. (1984). Expertise and air time as bases of actual and perceived influence in problem-solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.214
2.
ChernikovaM.KruglanskiA. W.GiovanniniD.VezzaliL.SuJ. (2017). Need for closure and reactions to innovation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12451
3.
ChirumboloA.LiviS.MannettiL.PierroA.KruglanskiA. W. (2004). Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. European Journal of Personality, 18, 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.518
4.
ChirumboloA.MannettiL.PierroA.AreniA.KruglanskiA. W. (2005). Motivated closed-mindedness and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 36, 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404268535
5.
ChoiH.-S.LevineJ. M. (2004). Minority influence in work teams: The impact of newcomers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00101-X
6.
ChoiH.-S.ThompsonL. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.06.003
7.
De GradaE.KruglanskiA. W.MannettiL.PierroA. (1999). Motivated cognition and group interaction: Need for closure affects the contents and processes of collective negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 346–365. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1376
8.
DohertyK. T. (1998). A mind of her own: Effects of need for closure and gender on reactions to nonconformity. Sex Roles, 38, 801–819. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018825231362
9.
EchterhoffG.KopietzR.HigginsE. T. (2017). Shared reality in intergroup communication: Increasing the epistemic authority of an out-group audience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 806–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000289
10.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
11.
GruenfeldD. H.MartoranaP. V.FanE. T. (2000). What do groups learn from their worldliest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2886
12.
HallJ.WatsonW. H. (1970). The effects of a normative intervention on group decision-making performance. Human Relations, 23, 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677002300404
13.
HansenT.LevineJ. M. (2009). Newcomers as change agents: Effects of newcomers’ behavioral style and teams’ performance optimism. Social Influence, 4, 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802280827
14.
HigginsE. T. (2019). Shared reality: What makes us strong and tears us apart. Oxford University Press.
15.
HornseyM. J.GriceT.JettenJ.PaulsenN.CallanV. (2007). Group-directed criticisms and recommendations for change: Why newcomers arouse more resistance than old-timers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1036–1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301029
16.
KaneA. A.ArgoteL.LevineJ. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.09.002
17.
KaneA. A.RinkF. A. (2015). How newcomers influence group utilization of their knowledge: Integrating versus differentiating strategies. Group Dynamics, 19, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000024
18.
KaneA. A.RinkF. A. (2016). When and how groups utilize dissenting newcomer knowledge: Newcomers’ future prospects condition the effect of language-based identity strategies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216638534
19.
KennyD. A.MannettiL.PierroA.LiviS.KashyD. A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.126
KruglanskiA. W. (1989b). The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.3.395
22.
KruglanskiA. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. Psychology Press.
23.
KruglanskiA. W.DechesneM.OrehekE.PierroA. (2009). Three decades of lay epistemics: The why, how, and who of knowledge formation. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 146–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280902860037
24.
KruglanskiA. W.PeriN.ZakaiD. (1991). Interactive effects of need for closure and initial confidence on social information seeking. Social Cognition, 9, 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1991.9.2.127
25.
KruglanskiA. W.PierroA.HigginsE. T.CapozzaD. (2007). “On the move” or “staying put”: Locomotion, need for closure, and reactions to organizational change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1305–1340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00214.x
26.
KruglanskiA. W.PierroA.MannettiL.De GradaE. (2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review, 113, 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.84
27.
KruglanskiA. W.RavivA.Bar-TalD.RavivA.SharvitK.EllisS.BarR.PierroA.MannettiL. (2005). Says who? Epistemic authority effects in social judgment. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 346–392). Academic Press.
28.
KruglanskiA. W.ShahJ. Y.PierroA.MannettiL. (2002). When similarity breeds content: Need for closure and the allure of homogeneous and self-resembling groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 648–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.648
29.
KruglanskiA. W.WebsterD. M. (1991). Group members’ reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and of environmental noise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.212
KruglanskiA. W.WebsterD. M.KlemA. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.861
32.
LeBretonJ. M.SenterJ. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
33.
LevineJ. M. (2017). Factional conflict in groups: How majorities and minorities relate to one another. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 644–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217702726
34.
LevineJ. M.ChoiH.-S. (2011). Minority influence in interacting groups: The impact of newcomers. In JettenJ.HornseyM. (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference and defiance (pp. 73–92). Wiley-Blackwell.
35.
LevineJ. M.ChoiH.-S.MorelandR. L. (2003). Newcomer innovation in work teams. In PaulusP. B.NijstadB. A. (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 202–224). Oxford University Press.
36.
LevineJ. M.ChoiH.-S.MorelandR. L. (2019). Newcomer influence and creativity in work groups. In PaulusP. B.NijstadB. A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 51–72). Oxford University Press.
37.
LevineJ. M.MorelandR. L. (1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 305–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000093
38.
LevineJ. M.TindaleR. S. (2015). Social influence in groups. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 2. Group processes (pp. 3–34). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14342-001
39.
LittlepageG.RobisonW.ReddingtonK. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2677
40.
LiviS.KruglanskiA. W.PierroA.MannettiL.KennyD. A. (2015). Epistemic motivation and perpetuation of group culture: Effects of need for cognitive closure on trans-generational norm transmission. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.09.010
41.
LiviS.PierroA.RulloM.KruglanskiA. W. (2015). Motivational underpinnings of intergenerational transmission. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 1356–1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115605902
42.
MannettiL.LevineJ. M.PierroA.KruglanskiA. W. (2010). Group reaction to defection: The impact of shared reality. Social Cognition, 28, 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2010.28.3.447
43.
MorelandR. L.LevineJ. M. (2001). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In TurnerM. E. (Ed.), Groups at work (pp. 69–112). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44.
MoscoviciS. (1976). Social influence and social change. Academic Press.
45.
MoscoviciS.LageE. (1976). Studies in social influence III: Majority versus minority influence in a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420060202
46.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
47.
PicaG.MilyavskyM.PierroA.KruglanskiA. W. (2021). The epistemic bases of changes of opinion and choices: The joint effects of the need for cognitive closure, ascribed epistemic authority and quality of advice. European Journal of Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2753
48.
PierroA.KruglanskiA. W. (2005). Revised Need for Cognitive Closure Scale [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Rome “La Sapienza.”
49.
PierroA.MannettiL. (2004). Motivated consumer search behavior: The effects of epistemic authority [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Rome “La Sapienza.”
RinkF. A.EllemersN. (2009). Temporary versus permanent group membership: How the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer acceptance and newcomer influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 764–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209333177
52.
RinkF. A.KaneA. A.EllemersN.van der VegtG. (2013). Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 247–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.766405
53.
RoetsA.KruglanskiA. W.KossowskaM.PierroA.HongY. (2015). The motivated gatekeeper of our minds: New directions in need for closure theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 221–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.001
54.
SankaranS.Grzymala-MoszczynskaJ.StrojnyA.StrojnyP.KossowskaM. (2017). Rising up to the “challenge”? The role of need for closure and situational appraisals in creative performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.045
TabachnickB.FidellL. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education.
57.
ThayerA. L.PetruzzelliA.McClurgC. E. (2018). Addressing the paradox of the team innovation process: A review and practical considerations. American Psychologist, 73, 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000310
58.
TheodorouA. (2019). Reviewing two sides of the socialization literature: A comprehensive theoretical model of social receptivity of newcomers. Rassegna Di Psicologia, 36. https://doi.org/10.4458/2733-05
ZillerR. C.BehringerR. D. (1960). Assimilation of the knowledgeable newcomer under conditions of group success and failure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 288–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045769
61.
ZillerR. C.BehringerR. D.GoodchildsJ. D. (1962). Group creativity under conditions of success or failure and variations in group stability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045647
