Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This research was supported by grants from the Dutch National Science
Foundation (NWO Grant 410.21.010P), awarded to Carsten K. W. De
Dreu, and the Van der Gaag Stichting, awarded to Carsten K. W. De Dreu
and Aukje Nauta. I thank Bart de Vries, Hanneke Franssen, and Nieske
Winters for their help with data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carsten
K. W. De Dreu, University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology,
Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail:
c.k.w.dedreu@uva.nl
628
Although encouraging, the work described above leaves unclear whether and why cooperative outcome interdependence by
itself leads to positive team outcomes. There is little doubt that
cooperative outcome interdependence helps constructive dispute resolution and fosters between-member coordination. But
why would people perceiving cooperative outcome interdependence use higher reasoning strategies more frequently, and why
would it lead them to learn more and to work harder? Equally
likely, it seems, is that cooperative outcome interdependence
leads people to focus on harmony and consensus, to maintain
their pleasant and peaceful situation, and to rely on harmonysecuring and easy-to-defend heuristics such as equal split is
fair and consensus implies correctness. In fact, research in a
variety of domains has suggested that cooperative outcome
interdependence by itself contributes little to team processes
and performance. First, evidence suggests that cooperative outcome interdependence by itself does not predispose individuals
to engage in more or less deliberate and thorough, or shallow
and heuristic, information processing (De Dreu, 2006; De Dreu,
Koole, & Oldersma, 1999). Second, research has suggested that
perceived cooperative outcome interdependence affects job satisfaction and individual and team performance only when task
interdependence is high and team members need each other to
complete their tasks (e.g., Fan & Gruenfeld, 1998; Van der Vegt
et al., 2001; Wageman & Baker, 1997). Third, recent work has
indicated that individuals become more creative when they
work under competitive outcome interdependence (Munkes &
Diehl, 2003) and that groups with prosocially motivated members are better in planning and coordination, but worse in
creative ideation, than are groups with proself motivated members (Beersma & De Dreu, 2005; Goncalo & Staw, 2006).
Perhaps the most troubling evidence comes from studies that
use the so-called hidden-profile task (Stasser, 1999). Under
hidden-profile conditions, each individual group member holds
some items of information that are shared with other group
members and some that are available to the individual only. On
629
DE DREU
630
Whether group members engage in information-driven interaction and concomitant deep processing of information depends on
individual differences such as need for cognitive closure or need
for cognition (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Petty & Cacioppo,
1986). The epistemic motivation to engage in systematic information processing may also derive from the situation. For example,
individuals under low rather than high time pressure tend to
engage in systematic information processing and are less influenced by inadequate heuristics (De Dreu, 2003; Kruglanski &
Freund, 1983). Also, when individuals are held accountable for the
decision-making process, they engage in deep information processing and develop an accurate and multifaceted understanding of
the decision problem. When such process accountability is lacking,
however, individuals are more likely to jump to conclusions on the
basis of insufficient evidence, do not engage in deep thinking, and
are heavily influenced by heuristic cues (e.g., Lerner & Tetlock,
1999; Simonson & Staw, 1992). Finally, team members may
engage in systematic information processing under high levels of
task reflexivity, that is, the extent to which team members overtly
reflect upon the groups objectives, strategies, and processes and
adapt them to current or anticipated endogenous or environmental
circumstances (West, 1996, p. 559). Under high task reflexivity,
team members overtly reflect on the groups objectives, strategies,
and processes and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances (Carter & West, 1998).
Several studies support the idea that factors that increase systematic information processing help groups to overcome their
information sampling bias and to reach better decisions. For example, Postmes, Spears, and Cihangir (2001) showed that when a
criticality norm has been induced in the group, more even-handed
consideration of unshared information takes place and groups
make high-quality decisions more often. Kelly and Loving (2003;
see also De Grada, Kruglanski, Mannetti, & Pierro, 1999) showed
that mild rather than acute time pressure resulted in better information exchange and better decisions, and Galinsky and Kray
(2004) showed that the activation of a counterfactual mindset
increased the discussion of unshared information and helped
groups to identify the correct decision alternative. Groups under
process accountability reported higher motivation to process information systematically, repeated unshared information more often during group discussion, and more often chose the correct
decision alternative (Scholten, Van Knippenberg, Nijstad, & De
Dreu, in press). Finally, groups under high task reflexivity report
higher team effectiveness (Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman, &
Wienk, 2003) and are more innovative (De Dreu, 2002; Tjosvold,
Tang, & West, 2004).
631
Task
Reflexivity
Motivation to Systematically
Process information
Cooperative
Outcome
Interdependence
Information
Sharing
Learning
Team
Effectiveness
Figure 1. Motivated information processing and team effectiveness. Only the solid variables were included in
the study.
Method
Participants and Procedure
A database of a private company involved in selection and
assessment was used to select clients who were members of, or
could get me into contact with, organizational groups that fit the
definition of teams as ongoing, semiautonomous groups whose
members have joint responsibility for accomplishing a set of tasks
(Guzzo & Shea, 1992). A research assistant and I approached 52
clients and asked them to introduce us to their team supervisor.
Forty-eight clients agreed to do so, and 46 of the 48 supervisors
responded positively. Thus, the final sample included 368 individuals in 46 teams, with team size ranging between 4 and 13 (M
8.0) individuals. The average response per team was 84%, with a
minimum of 75% and a maximum of 98%. Sixty-five percent of
the respondents were male, and respondents averaged 34.8 (SD
6.75) years of age. Team members had received some type of
Team Measures
All teams were located in the Netherlands, and as team
members were Dutch speaking, all materials were presented in
Dutch. All teams performed tasks that rendered moderate to
high levels of task interdependence; in fact, a set of items
assessing task interdependence yielded high and strongly
skewed scores, with little variance within or across teams.
632
DE DREU
Team Effectiveness
Team supervisors were in close contact with their teams (80% of
the respondents reported meeting informally or formally with their
team at least once a week). Team effectiveness was assessed with
a scale developed by Hackman (1987) and previously used in
Dutch translation by Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001). Supervisors
were asked to rate, on 7-point scales ranging from 1 (totally
disagree) to 7 (totally agree), their team on five statements tapping
into aspects of team effectiveness. Sample items are This team is
good in coming up with ways to complete their tasks; This team
effectively deals with uncertainty and unexpected events; and At
times, this team fails to approach its task adequately (reverse
coded).
Results
Treatment of the Data and Descriptive Statistics
Individual missing values were substituted with the overall
samples average for that particular item, provided the number of
missing values per individual did not exceed 10% of his or her
answers (which was the case for 5 individuals from three different
teams; the data from these individuals were not included in the
analyses). Alternative substitution methods did not alter the conclusions. Because some constructs were available at the team level
only (supervisor ratings of team effectiveness) and other constructs
pertained to group-level processes rather than individual-level
processes, I checked whether data from individual team members
could be aggregated within teams (for discussions on multilevel
issues, see Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Table 1 provides, for each
measure, the ICC(1) and ICC(2), which were computed following
the formulas presented in studies by Bliese (2000) and Bliese &
Halverson (1998) (see also Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Eta-squared
statistics were .26 for workload, .32 for cooperative outcome
interdependence, .29 for task reflexivity, .55 for learning, and .43
for information sharing: all Fs(1, 45) 2.09, all ps .05. These
statistics support and justify aggregation of individual data to the
team level (cf. Bliese, 2000).
Table 1 shows small to moderate correlations among the study
variables. Cooperative outcome interdependence was not significantly related to any variable, supporting the notion that important
moderator variables may be at work. Consistent with the idea that
task reflexivity fosters information processing, a significant positive correlation between task reflexivity and information sharing
emerged. Also, task reflexivity was negatively related (marginally)
to team effectiveness, suggesting that deep information processing
is not necessarily good. Finally, team effectiveness only positively
related to learning.
633
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations for All Study Variables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Team size
Team tenurea
Workload
Coop. Outc. Interdep.
Task reflexivity
Information sharing
Learning
Team effectivenessa
SD
ICC(1)
ICC(2)
8.03
3.70
3.50
4.04
3.12
3.58
3.94
4.22
3.86
0.44
0.39
0.30
0.49
0.51
0.69
0.89
.21***
.20***
.19**
.26**
.13**
.66***
.66***
.63***
.70***
.55***
.01
.11
.07
.23
.11
.15
.16
.31*
.07
.01
.01
.08
.16
.67
.22
.28*
.27
.16
.07
.75
.14
.08
.26
.15
.79
.48**
.29*
.25
.66
.26
.08
.81
.43**
.69
Note. N 46. Dashes indicate that data were not applicable. Cronbachs alphas are on the diagonal. Coop. Outc. Interdep. cooperative outcome
interdependence.
a
Supervisor ratings.
outcome interdependence was not significantly related to information sharing, B .12, t 1, ns (see also Figure 2 [middle
panel]). The results support Hypothesis 2.
Learning. The overall regression model was significant, R2
.42, F(6, 39) 5.31, p .001. The control variables in Step 1 did
not explain a significant amount of variance in learning, F(3,
39) 1.70, ns, but the main effects did so in Step 2, F(2, 39)
5.18, p .01. Task reflexivity was positively associated with
learning, as expected. Adding the interaction between cooperative
outcome interdependence and task reflexivity in Step 3 led to a
further increase in explained variance, F(1, 39) 14.48, p .001.
Simple slope analyses showed that cooperative outcome interdependence related to more learning when task reflexivity was high,
B 2.09, t 4.70, p .001. When task reflexivity was low,
cooperative outcome interdependence was not significantly related
to learning, B .71, t 1.12, p .26, ns. The results support
Hypothesis 3 (see also Figure 2 [bottom panel]).
Table 2
Regressions of Team Effectiveness, Information Sharing, and Learning on Cooperative Outcome Interdependence (CI), Task
Reflexivity (TR), and Their Interaction
Dependent variable
Team effectiveness
Predictor variable
Step 1 (control)
Team size
Team tenure
Workload
Step 2 (main effects)
CI
TR
Step 3 (interaction effect)
CI TR
*
p .05.
**
p .025.
SE
Information sharing
R2
SE
.043
0.02
0.23
0.46
0.01
0.17
0.39
0.40
0.82**
0.39
0.29
2.35**
0.86
Learning
R2
.036
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.09
0.21
.147**
.182**
0.09
0.53**
0.22
0.15
1.44**
0.46
.124**
B
0.02
0.10
0.10
SE
R2
.072
0.01
0.12
0.27
.146**
0.58*
0.52**
0.28
0.20
2.32**
0.61
.143**
.204**
DE DREU
634
Table 3
Regressions of Team Effectiveness on Cooperative Outcome Interdependence (CI), Task Reflexivity (TR), and Their Interaction After
Controlling for Information Sharing (Model 1) and Learning (Model 2)
Model 1
Predictor variable
Step 1 (control)
Team size
Team tenure
Workload
Step 2 (mediator)
Information sharing (Model 1)
Learning (Model 2)
Step 3 (main effects)
CI
TR
Step 4 (interaction effect)
CI TR
SE
0.01
0.28
0.42
0.01
0.16
0.36
R2
.054
B
0.02
0.21
0.48
SE
0.28
0.33
1.19**
0.37
0.31
3.36**
0.91
R2
.043
0.12
0.17
0.38
.035
.091
0.69**
0.22
0.12
0.27
0.70**
0.42
0.31
1.85
1.01
.23**
.087
.20**
Model 2
.036
Team Effectiveness
5,5
5
Task Refl
(-1sd)
4,5
4
3,5
Task Refl
(+1sd)
3
2,5
2
low (-1sd)
high (+1sd)
Information Sharing
5,5
5
4,5
4
Task Refl
(-1sd)
3,5
3
2,5
Task Refl
(+1sd)
2
low (-1sd)
high (+1sd)
5,5
5
Learning
4,5
Task Refl
(+1sd)
4
3,5
3
Task Refl
(-1sd)
635
2,5
2
low (-1sd)
high (+1sd)
636
DE DREU
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression. London: Sage.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management,
efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625 642.
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert,
S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 282316). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). Conflicts consequences:
Effects of social motives on postnegotiation creative and convergent
group functioning and performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89, 358 374.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein
& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods
in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349
381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group size and measures of
group-level properties: An examination of eta-squared and ICC values.
Journal of Management, 24, 157172.
Bridgeman, D. L. (1981). Enhanced role-taking through cooperative interdependence: A field study. Child Development, 52, 12311238.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between
work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing
effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823 850.
Carter, S., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental
health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583
601.
Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual
Review of Psychology, 38, 575 630.
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group
effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal
of Management, 23, 239 290.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Team innovation and effectiveness: The
importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 285298.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in
negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
91, 280 295.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). A PACT against conflict escalation in negotiation and dispute resolution. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 149 152.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). Rational self-interest and other-orientation in
organizational behavior: A critical appraisal and extension of Meglino
and Korsgaard (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 12451252.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Beersma, B., Stroebe, K., & Euwema, M. C. (2006).
Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of
negotiated agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90,
927943.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Carnevale, P. J. D. (2003). Motivational bases for
information processing and strategic choice in conflict and negotiation.
In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
35, pp. 235291). New York: Academic Press.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Giebels, E., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Social motives
and trust in integrative negotiation: Disruptive effects of punitive capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 408 422.
637
Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay
inferences: Effects of impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and
numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19,
448 468.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the
mind: Seizing and freezing. Psychological Review, 103, 263283.
Larson, J. R., Jr., Christensen, C., Abbott, A. S., & Franz, T. M. (1996).
Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical
decision-making teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
71, 315330.
Lerner, J. S., &. Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of
accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255275.
Meglino, B., & Korsgaard, M. (2004). Considering the rational self-interest
as a disposition: Organizational implications of other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 946 959.
Munkes, J., & Diehl, M. (2003). Matching or competition? Performance
comparison processes in an idea generation task. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 6, 305320.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123205). New York: Academic Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organizational theory: Problems and
prospects. New York: Oxford University Press.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making
and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
918 930.
Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation. New York: Academic Press.
Schelling, T. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Boston: Cambridge University Press.
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D., Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. A. (2003).
Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 779 802.
Scholten, L., Van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W.
(in press). Motivated information processing and group decisionmaking: Effects of process accountability on information sharing and
decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in
assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420 428.
Simonson, I., & Staw, B. M. (1992). Deescalation strategies: A comparison
of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 419 426.
Stanne, M. B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Does competition
enhance or inhibit motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 133154.
Stasser, G. (1999). The uncertain role of unshared information in collective
choice. In L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared
cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 49 69).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stasser, G., & Birchmeier, Z. (2003). Group creativity and collective
choice. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity:
Innovation through collaboration (pp. 85109). New York: Oxford
University Press.
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, 14671478.
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, 8193.
Ten Velden, F., Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Majority and
minority influence in group negotiation: The moderating effects of social
motivation and decision rules. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 259
268.
638
DE DREU
Wageman, R., & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint
effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 139 158.
Weingart, L. R., Bennett, R. J., & Brett, J. M. (1993). The impact of
consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
504 517.
West, M. A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 555579). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Wittenbaum, G. M. (2000). The bias toward discussing shared information:
Why are high status members immune? Communication Research, 27,
379 401.
Wittenbaum, G. M., & Stasser, G. (1996). Management of information in
small groups. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), Whats social about
social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups
(pp. 328). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., & Yu, Z.-Y. (2005). Organizational partnership in
China: Self-interest, goal interdependence, and opportunism. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 782791.