Agree or not agree? The role of cognitive and affective processes in group disagreements

We develop and test a theoretical framework for understanding how cognitive and affective processes (cognitive and affective integration) influence the way in which disagreements (task and process) among group members affect their performance (individual and group level performance). We use this framework to explain how and why diversity may be either beneficial or detrimental to group process and outcomes. Specifically, we examine how group faultlines may hinder members\u27 ability to create a shared understanding of the problem (cognitive integration) and a shared motivation to synthesize their knowledge (affective integration). If this happens, then groups will fail to share and process information, which will hinder group performance and satisfaction. We test this theory on 321MBA students in 88 five to six person teams from a prestigious East Coast university

The role of Simmelian friendship ties on retaliation within triads

We examine the effect of friendship in triads on retaliatory responses to unfair outcomes that originate from a group member. Drawing on Simmel’s classic discussion of relationships in social triads versus dyads, we hypothesized that the effect of unfairness on retaliation between friends is stronger when the third party in the triad is a mutual friend, rather than a stranger. We also draw on social categorization theory to hypothesize that the effect of unfairness on retaliation between strangers is stronger when the third party is a friend of that stranger than when the triad consists of all strangers. Hypotheses were tested in an experiment where participants negotiated with one another in a three-person exchange network. The results supported our hypothesis that between friends, the increase in retaliation was stronger following an unfair deal when third parties were mutual friends, rather than strangers. </jats:p

Team-focused implementation strategies to improve implementation of mental health screening and referral in rural Children\u27s Advocacy Centers: Study protocol for a pilot cluster randomized hybrid type 2 trial

BACKGROUND: Children\u27s Advocacy Centers (CACs) use multidisciplinary teams to investigate and respond to maltreatment allegations. CACs play a critical role in connecting children with mental health needs to evidence-based mental health treatment, especially in low-resourced rural areas. Standardized mental health screening and referral protocols can improve CACs\u27 capacity to identify children with mental health needs and encourage treatment engagement. In the team-based context of CACs, teamwork quality is likely to influence implementation processes and outcomes. Implementation strategies that target teams and apply the science of team effectiveness may enhance implementation outcomes in team-based settings. METHODS: We will use Implementation Mapping to develop team-focused implementation strategies to support the implementation of the Care Process Model for Pediatric Traumatic Stress (CPM-PTS), a standardized screening and referral protocol. Team-focused strategies will integrate activities from effective team development interventions. We will pilot team-focused implementation in a cluster-randomized hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial. Four rural CACs will implement the CPM-PTS after being randomized to either team-focused implementation (n = 2 CACs) or standard implementation (n = 2 CACs). We will assess the feasibility of team-focused implementation and explore between-group differences in hypothesized team-level mechanisms of change and implementation outcomes (implementation aim). We will use a within-group pre-post design to test the effectiveness of the CPM-PTS in increasing caregivers\u27 understanding of their child\u27s mental health needs and caregivers\u27 intentions to initiate mental health services (effectiveness aim). CONCLUSIONS: Targeting multidisciplinary teams is an innovative approach to improving implementation outcomes. This study will be one of the first to test team-focused implementation strategies that integrate effective team development interventions. Results will inform efforts to implement evidence-based practices in team-based service settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05679154 . Registered on January 10, 2023

Available as:

We propose a model of negotiation that may better explain how the specific progression of offer traces emerge in a dyadic negotiation and how those traces converge to a solution. Negotiation is viewed as a type of ill-structured collaborative problem that negotiators attempt to resolve by jointly searching the offer space, which is an abstract representation of the entire set of potential solutions to the problem. We suggest that boundedly rational negotiators simplify the task by systematically coordinating searches of small subsets of the offer space. These coordinated searches define a common ground of understanding of the regions of the space that may contain a solution. Furthermore, these regions are defined more by their structural (rather than value) properties of offers. Consequently, we propose that the early phase of negotiation is described by search processes that explore the offer space to discover regions of potential (joint) interest. When a promising region is found, a second “final path ” phase of search begins whereby that region is exploited in order to achieve a final solution. Both phases are revealed by examining sequential offers which afford a trace of the paths taken to an agreement. We describe a method of representing sequences of offers that categorizes exploration and exploitation patterns. We argue that by incorporating these concepts in analyses, insight into the underlying dynamics of negotiation can be better understood. To illustrate, we apply these concepts to an illustrative set of dyadic negotiation data

Running Head: STRUCTURE IN NEGOTIATION Structure Matters in Negotiation Offers and the Search for Agreement

Structure Matters in Negotiation 2 We present a theoretical framework and associated propositions for interpreting a key component of negotiation dynamics – offer exchange. We view negotiation as collaborative search of a complex offer space, whereby negotiators simplify and coordinate search via information contained in offer exchanges, isolating sub-regions of the offer space for potential solutions. We suggest that early search is influenced more by value of offers to the negotiators, but later is influenced more by structure of offers in the exchange, whereby there appears to be a heuristic for selecting offers that are structurally similar to prior offers. As both negotiators tend to engage this heuristic, the result is a joint-focusing on subsets of the offer space and a bias toward structural proximity of offers and agreements

"Can Conflict be Energizing? A Study of Task Conflict, Positive Emotions, and Job Satisfaction"

Scholars have assumed that the presence of negative emotions during task conflict implies the absence of positive emotions. However, emotions researchers have shown that positive and negative emotions are not 2 ends of a bipolar continuum; rather, they represent 2 separate, orthogonal dimensions. Drawing on affective events theory, we develop and test hypotheses about the effects of task conflict on positive emotions and job satisfaction. To this end, we distinguish among the frequency, intensity, and information gained from task conflict. Using field data from 232 employees in a long-term health care organization, we find that more frequent mild task conflict expression engenders more information acquisition, but more frequent intense task conflict expression hinders it. Because of the information gains from mild task conflict expression, employees feel more active, energized, interested, and excited, and these positive active emotions increase job satisfaction. The information gained during task conflict, however, is not always energizing: It depends on the extent to which the behavioral context involves active learning and whether the conflict is cross-functional. We discuss theoretical implications for conflict, emotions, and job satisfaction in organizations

Team diversity and information use

Educational and national diversity are proposed to influence work teams' information use differently, with educational diversity mainly enhancing information use and national diversity invoking social categorization, thus hindering information use. As expected, increasing educational diversity positively influenced the range and depth of information use for all except the most diverse teams we studied, but negatively influenced information integration. In contrast to our expectations, national diversity had curvilinear relationships with the range, depth, and integration of information use. Both types of diversity provided information-processing benefits that outweighed the limitations associated with social categorization processes