Collaborative Voice: Examining the Role of Voice in Interdisciplinary Collaboration

The present study examined the role of voice in facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration. According to the group-value model of procedural justice, voice relates to interpersonal relationships among co-workers because it facilitates a greater interest in helping the group (e.g. group-serving behavior). We argue that because of the relationship between voice and one type of group-serving behavior--advice sharing--that greater perceptions of voice would also predict more collaboration. In a field study examining collaborative social networks among university researchers, we found that greater perceptions of voice positively related to both degree of advice sharing and collaboration. Moreover, the extent to which individuals shared advice fully mediated the relationship between perceived voice and collaboration. Implications for voice and collaboration are discussed

Is Pressure Stressful? The Impact of Pressure on the Stress Response and Category Learning

We examine the basic question of whether pressure is stressful. We propose that when examining the role of stress or pressure in cognitive performance it is important to consider the type of pressure, the stress response, and the aspect of cognition assessed. In Experiment 1, outcome pressure was not experienced as stressful but did lead to impaired performance on a rule-based (RB) category learning task and not a more procedural information-integration (II) task. In Experiment 2, the addition of monitoring pressure resulted in a modest stress response to combined pressure and impairment on both tasks. Across experiments, higher stress appraisals were associated with decreased performance on the RB, but not the II, task. In turn, higher stress-reactivity (heart rate) was associated with enhanced performance on the II, but not the RB, task. This work represents an initial step towards integrating the stress-cognition and pressure-cognition literatures and suggests that integrating these fields may require consideration of the type of pressure, the stress-response, and the cognitive system mediating performance

Is Pressure Stressful? The Impact of Pressure on the Stress Response and Category Learning

We examine the basic question of whether pressure is stressful. We propose that when examining the role of stress or pressure in cognitive performance it is important to consider the type of pressure, the stress response, and the aspect of cognition assessed. In Experiment 1, outcome pressure was not experienced as stressful but did lead to impaired performance on a rule-based (RB) category learning task and not a more procedural information-integration (II) task. In Experiment 2, the addition of monitoring pressure resulted in a modest stress response to combined pressure and impairment on both tasks. Across experiments, higher stress appraisals were associated with decreased performance on the RB, but not the II, task. In turn, higher stress-reactivity (heart rate) was associated with enhanced performance on the II, but not the RB, task. This work represents an initial step towards integrating the stress-cognition and pressure-cognition literatures and suggests that integrating these fields may require consideration of the type of pressure, the stress-response, and the cognitive system mediating performance

Relatively Good or Absolutely Not: Examining Relative vs Absolute Stereotyping in Emotional Reactions to Discrimination

In 1962, Robert Lane argued that members of disadvantaged groups rationalize and defend their relative status positions by endorsing the idea that high status individuals are better than they are. The present work tested Lane\u27s idea by examining whether members of disadvantaged groups will embrace negative group stereotypes relative to other groups in order to protect their negative emotional reactions to discrimination. Three studies examined whether greater endorsement of relative stereotypes would protect women from the negative emotional consequences of exposure to group discrimination. In Study 1, women exposed to discrimination showed less negative (more positive) emotional reactions the more they endorsed stereotypes described as relative to another group. Importantly, this effect was only found for those given the opportunity to endorse relative stereotypes prior to completing measures of well-being, suggesting that relative stereotyping is a strategic response and not an individual difference variable. Study 2 focused solely on discrimination but included a condition where participants were given absolute stereotypes instead of relative stereotypes. This study replicated the pattern of effects found in study 1, supporting a protective function for relative stereotyping and showed that absolute stereotypes are not protective. Study 3 served as a conceptual replication of study 2, where new measures of relative and absolute stereotyping were used. The findings from study 3 and an internal meta-analysis performed on the effect sizes for relative stereotyping across the three studies, support the idea that relative stereotypes serve a protective function in response to the threat of discrimination. Together, these findings suggest that members of disadvantaged groups may endorse negative relative stereotypes in order to protect themselves from negative emotional reactions to discriminatio