Communicating, Negotiating and Seterotyping - The Roles of Contextm Situation and Gender in Small Group Decision-Making

Thesis for Doctoral degree in Psychology, Östersund 2018

COMMUNICATING, NEGOTIATING, AND STEREOTYPING:
THE ROLES OF CONTEXT, SITUATION AND GENDER IN

SMALL GROUP DECISION-MAKING
Pär Löfstrand
Main supervisor: Ingrid Zakrisson

Co-supervisors: Patrick Millet, Richard Ahlström
Department of Psychology
Mid Sweden University, SE-831 25 Östersund, Sweden
ISSN 1652-‐‑893X
Mid Sweden University Doctoral Thesis 277
ISBN 978-‐‑91-‐‑88527-‐‑43-‐‑1
Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av Mittuniversitetet i Östersund
framläggs till offentlig granskning för avläggande av Filosofie Doktorsexamen
fredagen den 6:e april, 2018, klockan 10.15, i sal F234, Mittuniversitetet
Östersund. Seminariet kommer att hållas på svenska
COMMUNICATING, NEGOTIATING AND STEREOTYPING:

THE ROLES OF CONTEXT, SITUATION AND GENDER IN
SMALL GROUP DECISION-MAKING
Pär Löfstrand

© Pär Löfstrand, 2018

Printed by Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall
ISSN: 1652-‐‑893X
ISBN: 978-‐‑91-‐‑88527-‐‑43-‐‑1

Department of Psychology
Mid Sweden University, SE-‐‑831 25 Östersund, Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)10-‐‑142 80 00
Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden, Doctoral Thesis 277

To Daniel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... viii
SVENSK SAMMANFATTNING ......................................................................... x
LIST OF PAPERS .................................................................................................. xii
1. PREFACE ........................................................................................................... 1
2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
2.1 Brief historical background to experimental social psychology ............................ 5
2.2 Group decision-making (GDM)............................................................................. 6
2.2.1 Groups in real life versus ad-hoc groups? ................................................. 8
2.2.2 What makes a group decision-making process effective, successful and
democratic? ......................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Stereotypes, attitudes and prejudice..................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Stereotyping .............................................................................................. 11
2.3.2 The stereotype dimensions warmth and competence ................................ 12
2.4 Communication and stereotyping ........................................................................ 14
2.4.1 Social constructionism and small group communication ......................... 14
2.4.2 Analysis methods for small group communication ................................... 15
2.5 The complexity of gender and gender stereotypes .............................................. 16
3. AIM ................................................................................................................... 19
4. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 20

4.1 Mixed-method approach ...................................................................................... 21
4.2 Group size of decision-making groups ................................................................ 22
4.3 Ad-hoc or real groups? ........................................................................................ 23
4.4 The experiments ................................................................................................... 23
4.4.1 The Relay Team ........................................................................................ 24
4.4.2 The Consultant .......................................................................................... 25
4.5 Quantitative data .................................................................................................. 26
4.6 Qualitative data analysis .................................................................................. 27

4.6.1 Interaction process analysis (IPA) ........................................................... 27
4.6.2 Conversational argument coding scheme (CACS) ................................... 28
4.6.3 Stereotype content analysis....................................................................... 28
4.6.4 Conversational pattern analysis ............................................................... 29
5. EMPIRICAL PAPERS ................................................................................... 29

5.1 Paper I .................................................................................................................. 29
5.1.1 Background and aim ................................................................................. 29
5.1.2 Methodology ............................................................................................. 30
5.1.3 Results ....................................................................................................... 30
5.1.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 31
5.2 Paper II ................................................................................................................. 31
5.2.2 Method ...................................................................................................... 32
5.2.3 Results ....................................................................................................... 33
5.2.4 Conclusions............................................................................................... 33
5.3 Paper III ............................................................................................................... 34
5.3.2 Method ...................................................................................................... 34
5.3.3 Results ....................................................................................................... 35
5.3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 35
5.4 Paper IV ............................................................................................................... 36
5.4.2 Method ...................................................................................................... 36
5.4.3 Results ....................................................................................................... 37
5.5.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 37
6. GENERAL DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 38

6.1 Stereotyping and context ..................................................................................... 38
6.2 The role of experiences ........................................................................................ 41
6.3 Methodological considerations ............................................................................ 42
6.4 Practical implications ........................................................................................... 43
vi
6.5 Future research ..................................................................................................... 45
6.6 The Bottom Line .................................................................................................. 46
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................... 47
8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 49
9. APPENDIX: EMPIRICAL PAPERS I-‐‑IV ................................................... 65

COMMUNICATING, NEGOTIATING AND STEREOTYPING:
THE ROLES OF CONTEXT, SITUATION AND GENDER IN SMALL
GROUP DECISION-MAKING
Pär Löfstrand
Department of Psychology,
ISSN 1652-‐‑893X Mid Sweden University Doctoral Thesis 277;
ISBN 978-‐‑91-‐‑88527-‐‑43-‐‑1

ABSTRACT
Making decisions together in groups takes an important role in society.
Everywhere and in many different contexts people meet to make more or less
formal decisions. As stereotypes constitute simplified group based perceptions of
other people, decision-‐‑making groups risk making biased judgments and commit
discriminating decisions. Stereotyping often follow the two universal dimensions
competence and warmth (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008). How people´s judgments
are affected by stereotypes has mainly been studied on individual level and less is
known about how stereotypes and prejudice is communicated and negotiated in
group decision-‐‑making situations. One approach to study this is to investigate how
different contexts may lead to different communication patterns, different
experiences, and different decisions. In this thesis context was varied in two
different ways in two experiments. In the first experiment the goal set for the
decision-‐‑making was varied. A competitive goal was contrasted to a cooperative
goal in a group decision task using a sports scenario where the participants had to
select members to a relay team. In the second experiment different information
was used as a context variable. This was done by varying the information of
gender and parenthood status of the applicants in a fictive recruitment scenario. In
addition, in both experiments the gender composition in the groups was varied,
forming yet another variable that might play a role for how the decision-‐‑making
was carried out. These three factors were assumed to influence the form of the
communication, the content of the communication in terms of stereotyping, and
how the decision-‐‑making process was experienced. A mixed-‐‑method approach
was chosen where quantitative and qualitative data were used in conjunction with
each other, which was assumed to give a richer picture of the results.
viii
In paper I the form of the communication, as analyzed with interaction process
analysis (IPA), did not differ much between the two goals. On the other hand, the
content showed more systematic patterns. A competitive goal seemed to lead to
both inclusion and exclusion with use of both positive and negative stereotypes. A
cooperative goal seemed to lead to inclusion mechanisms and only use of positive
stereotypes. In paper II where the aim was to investigate what was experienced as
constituting a successful decision-‐‑making process it was found that equality of
influence was of importance. Furthermore, qualitative analyses of the conversation
patterns, by use of the conversational argument coding scheme (CACS), seemed to
validate this. The successful groups had a more complex communication pattern
than the less successful groups. In paper III, where the information for the decision
task was varied in terms of gender and parenthood status of the applicants, it was
found that parenthood information triggered a lot of discussion. The participants
did not differentiate between mothers and fathers, but they applied attributes of
competence and warmth differently to the targets. Furthermore, gender and
gender composition seemed to matter as male and female groups applied the
attributes differently. Paper IV used data from both experiments in order to
investigate how the context variables and gender composition influenced how the
decision situation was experienced. The results indicate that the context variables
and gender composition interacted with own gender. Men seemed more content in
male groups with male targets and a male parent condition while women seemed
more content in mixed groups and a female parent condition.
Context seems to play an important role, as it provides the participants in the
group discussions with different information, leading to different patterns of
stereotyping in the discussions. Also how the decision was experienced seems to
be related to the context. Furthermore, group composition seems to function in this
way too. The results are discussed in relation to practical implications and
suggestions for future research.

Keywords: Competition, Cooperation, Gender, Group Decision-‐‑Making,
Stereotype Content Model

KOMMUNICERA, FÖRHANDLA OCH ANVÄNDA STEREOTYPER:
VILKEN ROLL SPELAR KONTEXT, SITUATION OCH GENUS I
SMÅ GRUPPERS BESLUTSFATTANDE
Pär Löfstrand
Department of Psychology,
ISSN 1652-‐‑893X Mid Sweden University Doctoral Thesis 277;
ISBN 978-‐‑91-‐‑88527-‐‑43-‐‑1
SVENSK SAMMANFATTNING
Att fatta beslut tillsammans spelar en viktig roll i samhället. I alla möjliga
sammanhang träffas människor för att ta mer eller mindre formella beslut.
Beslutsfattande grupper riskerar att fatta felaktiga och diskriminerande beslut om
beslutsfattarna påverkas av psykologiska mekanismer som stereotyper, d.v.s.
förenklad information baserad på upplevelser av andra människor och till vilken
grupp de associeras till. Hur människors bedömningar påverkas av stereotyper har
tidigare framförallt studerats ur ett individuellt perspektiv men vi vet mindre om
hur stereotyper och de universella stereotypdimensionerna kompetens och värme
(Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008) samt fördomar kommuniceras och förhandlas när
beslut fattas i grupp. Ett sätt att studera detta är genom att undersöka hur olika
kontext kan leda till olika kommunikationsmönster, olika erfarenheter, och olika
beslut. I denna avhandling varieras kontexten på två olika sätt i två experiment. I
det första experimentet där deltagarna hade till uppgift att sätta samman ett
stafettlag varierades målinriktningen. Ett tävlingsinriktat mål jämförs med ett mål
inriktat mot gemenskap. I det andra experimentet användes olika information som
kontextvariabel. Detta gjordes genom att information om genus och föräldraskap
för en fiktiv aspirant till ett jobb som konsult i en fiktiv anställningssituation
varierades. Därtill studerades i båda experimenten vilka effekter gruppers
könssammansättning och deltagarnas genus kan spela i en beslutsprocess. Dessa
faktorer förväntades påverka hur beslutsfattande grupperna resonerade, innehållet
i kommunikation påverkades i termer av stereotyper och hur beslutsfattande-‐‑
processen upplevdes. För att ge en bredare bild användes både kvalitativ och
kvantitativ data som kopplades samman med gruppernas givna målsättning.
I artikel I analyserades formen av kommunikation genom en interaktions-‐‑
processanalys (IPA), här skilde det inte mycket mellan de två olika
målsättningarna. Däremot visade en innehållsanalys ett mer systematiskt mönster.
x
Grupper med tävlingsinriktade mål använde sig av både inkludering och
exkludering genom användande av såväl positiva som negativa stereotyper.
Grupper med en gemenskapsinriktad målsättning använde inkluderande
målsättningar och enbart positiva stereotyper. I artikel II där målet var att
undersöka vad som skapar en framgångsrik beslutsprocess visade det sig att
upplevelsen av en jämlik beslutsprocess spelar stor roll. En kvalitativ analys av
konversationsargumenten (CACS) stärkte denna slutsats.
I artikel III, där informationen av genus och föräldraskap för de fiktiva
aspiranterna varierades, visade det sig att föräldraskap gav upphov till omfattande
diskussion. Deltagarna gjorde ingen större skillnad mellan mammor och pappor,
men de använde sig av attribut relaterade till stereotypdimensionerna värme och
kompetens olika beroende på om de talade om mammor eller pappor. I artikel IV
användes data från båda experimenten för att undersöka hur kontextvariablerna
och könssammansättning av grupperna påverkade hur beslutssituationen
upplevdes. Resultaten visar att kontextvariablerna och könssammansättning
samspelar med deltagarens eget genus. Män upplevde sig mer nöjda när de
arbetade tillsammans med andra män som hade en manlig target person och en
fiktiv manlig förälder att ta ställning till. Kvinnor kände sig mer nöjda i grupper
bestående av både kvinnor och män som diskuterade om en kvinnlig förälder.
Kontext spelade en stor roll eftersom variationen av information ledde till olika
mönster av hur stereotyper användes i diskussionerna. Vidare, köns-‐‑
sammansättningen av grupperna fungerade på ett liknande sätt. Resultaten
diskuteras i relation till hur detta kan påverka beslutsfattandesituationer. Slutligen
gavs förslag till framtida forskning inom området.

LIST OF PAPERS
This thesis is mainly based on the following four papers, herein referred to by their
Roman numerals:

Paper I Löfstrand, P., & Zakrisson, I. (2014). Competitive versus non-‐‑
competitive goals in group decision-‐‑making. Small Group Research,
45 (4), 451-‐‑464.

Paper II Löfstrand, P., (2015). Conversational arguments in small group
decision-‐‑making: reasoning activity and perceived influence over
the decision are keys for success. In R. Thornberg & T. Jungert (Eds.),
Independent in the heard: Inclusion and exclusion as social
processes: Proceedings from the 9th GRASP conference, Linköping
University (pp.64-‐‑81). (Research report in electronics) (Linköping
Electronic Conference Proceedings).

Paper III Löfstrand, P., & Zakrisson, I. (2017). “What about the child
issue?” Group negotiations of gender and parenthood contracts in
recruitment situations, Society, Health & Vulnerability, 8 (1), 19-‐‑30.

Paper IV Zakrisson, I., & Löfstrand, P. (2018). The multidimensionality of
gender – implications for group-‐‑based decision making. Manuscript
submitted
xii
1. PREFACE
”With the possible exception of childbearing, no aspect of social life is more strongly
associated with gender than power.”
(Pratto & Walker, p.242, 2004)

”People who work together will win, whether it be against complex football defenses, or
the problems of modern society.”
(Vince Lombardi, football coach, Benson, p.217, 2008)

It is a privilege to be part of a free research community and to have the
opportunity to communicate research results as well as to defend them. The right
to express our research and take part in the political debate might be taken for
granted. However, many researchers today live and work in societies where free
research and freedom of speech are a distant vision. For us to have the opportunity
to write and do research on what we think is necessary, without control from
authorities, is important if we are to continue our research applied to human
interaction and communication to shed light on different democratic dilemmas.
My thesis is connected to the basics of social psychology; how human interaction
affects our views of each other, and how, in a broader sense, it might also affect
society.
During the years I have worked on this thesis I have often thought about the
philosophical dilemma, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” This is something I
am reminded of daily; both by myself but also by people I meet. I often hear
questions like: ”Why are you in so active in a sports club?” “Why do you spend so much
time getting involved in social issues?”, and so on.
Certainly, when I started writing, I was already to some extent involved in non-‐‑
profit work in different associations. I was a football coach for one of my children’s
team and I was also a nominee for a laidback position in the local elections.
However, during the time I have been working with this thesis, my non-‐‑profit
commitments has expanded a lot. One led to another and today I am chairman of
one of the regional football clubs, while also being engaged in the municipal
council as a deputy chairman of the Municipality Educational Board. I also have
various missions at the national political level. So let us go back and try to answer
the initial question, ”which came first, the egg or the chicken?” As a graduate student
in psychology, with, as teenagers would say, ‘a morbid’ interest in the nuances of
communication, I am thinking, “it requires a deeper understanding outside the
laboratory to get a better grip of my research questions”. My ambitions are inspired by
Kurt Lewin, willing to face theoretical issues to get the necessary in-‐‑depth
1
knowledge of practical implications of group decision-‐‑making and its implicit and
explicit outcomes. For my case, I am not sure whether the scientific interest has
increased my civic interest or if it is the other way around. This curiosity and wish
for a deeper understanding has of course influenced me in my activities in society.
2. INTRODUCTION
When people interact with each other, e.g. in decision-‐‑making situations, they
sometimes discuss and evaluate individuals who are not present in the room. This
is done in more or less formal situations. Informally when friends discuss absent
friends, and formally, for example, in team selections or recruitment situations
where decision-‐‑makers evaluate and make decisions about candidates. In every
situation when people speak of persons not present they use a number of attributes
applied to describe the absentees and to justify opinions of how they can be
expected to act. Those attributes are related to the stereotype dimensions warmth
and competence (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick & Xu, 2002). The two dimensions together
form “the stereotype content model” (Fiske, et al., 2002). Stereotypes are something
that helps people use simplified categorizations or a collection of characteristics to
understand other people (Allport, 1954). Stereotypes are beliefs and they serve the
purpose of identifying and discriminating people from other groups based on
attributes such as age, gender, occupation, race, etc. (Haslam, Turner, Oakes,
Reynolds, & Doosje, 2002; Tajfel, 1981). In other words, stereotypes help a person
understand how another person might act or behave without making a totally new
evaluation each time he/she meets a new person. Stereotypes are biased against
another person according to which group he/she belongs to (Fiske, et al., 2002).
Furthermore, stereotypes assist people in defending or rationalizing their feelings
and behaviors (Jost & Major, 2001). They are easy to adapt but harder to avoid and
are at high risk to be used in situations when people feel threatened or experience
anxiety and stress (Macrae, Hewstone & Griffiths, 1993). Groups with people that
are associated farthermost away from power in society are rated the lowest on the
two stereotype dimensions. Elderly and disabled people are positioned high in
warmth but low on the competence dimension. People with a business career or
people in a power position are often positioned high in competence but low in
warmth. Groups that are positioned the highest on both dimensions belong to the
dominant norm group in society, the in-‐‑groups, or “us” (Fiske, Cuddy & Glick,
2007). Previous research has also revealed that the stereotype dimensions are stable
across cultures (Fiske et al, 2007). However, different groups are positioned
differently in different cultures (Fiske et al, 2002). Another view is that how people
view other people is a constantly ongoing process. Attitudes and opinions change
2
all the time, even within the same individual and in the same conversation (Potter,
1988). How people view the world around them and how they view other people
are factors built in since early childhood (Gergen, 2015) through the interaction
with parents, neighbors, friends and teachers and later in life through politicians,
managers and colleagues (Summers, 2017). People are not aware of their
attribution processes, as these are quick and occur automatically (Ambady &
Rosenthal, 1992; Bodenhausen & Macrae, 1998; McNeill & Burton, 2002).
One of the first things people notice when they meet a new person is which
gender the person is associated with (Fiske, Haslam & Fiske, 1991). This starts in
early age (Lindsey, 2012) and children are framed by gender from early childhood
(Ridgeway, 2011). This means that gender is one of the most general stereotypes
permeating people’s perceptions. Depending on how gender relevant information
is framed in a situation it leads to biased judgments of women and men (Fiske, et
al., 2002; Okimoto & Heilman, 2012).
Not only are men and women judged differently, it is also possible that there
are differences between men and women in how they perceive and judge other
people. For example, men have been found to have higher levels of social
dominant attitudes and prejudice than women (Pratto, Sidanius & Levin, 2006).
But it is also possible that what is seen as differences at individual level is indeed a
result of what is expected due to norms in society and perhaps that men and
women positioned in the same gendered situation act in the same way. It has been
found that men and women in situations with an asymmetric distribution of men
have similar social attitudes (Zakrisson, 2008). In addition, previous research has
revealed differences in performance and interaction dependent on gender
composition in decision-‐‑making (Apesteguia, Azmat, & Iriberri, 2012; Fenwick &
Neal, 2001; Hannagan & Larimer, 2010; Van Vugt, De Cremer, & Janssen, 2007;
Raghubir & Valenzuela, 2010).
Sometimes humans are described as “social animals” (Aronson, 1984), meaning
that people are more or less born into groups that they live in and work in (Gavac,
Murrar & Brauer, 2017). Working together with other people and making joint
decisions in groups is also something that starts in early childhood. This continues
through the educational system and later through work life, where group work
and joint decision-‐‑making takes an important part. Social psychological research
on groups and decision-‐‑making has a long record and research has been conducted
both in laboratory settings, with temporal, ad-‐‑hoc groups (Ahn, Ostrom, Schmidt
& Walker, 2003) and in the field on real decision-‐‑making groups (Barr & Gold,
2014). In the laboratory it is common with experimental designs that focus on
different parts of the decision-‐‑making process, e.g. free riding effects (Kameda,
Tsukasaki, Hastie, & Berg, 2011), majority and minority influence (Sinaceur,
3
Thomas-‐‑Hunt, Neale, O'ʹNeill, & Haag, 2010), or framing effects (Leong, McKenzie,
Sher & Müller-‐‑Trede, 2017).
Research conducted in the field sometimes focuses on processes within the
group (Wheelan, 2009) or on factors such as group climate (Schultz, Sjøvold &
Andre, 2017) or with an ambition to achieve a change (Lewin, 1947). Lewin’s
research has been important in the work with group dynamics and even if not
often cited it is still in use (Hermann, 2015). When you are studying group
interaction in experimental situations it is hard not to think of what it is that makes
decision-‐‑making processes more or less successful. The results of a “good group
process” can be measured in terms of achievement. How much did the group
achieve (van Woerkom & Sanders, 2010) or how efficient were they (Lira, Ripoll,
Peiró, Zornoza, 2008), or if different groups might outperform others (Hong &
Page, 2004). Another approach to study group processes is to study democratic
factors in the decision-‐‑making process, such as majority vs. minority influence and
how much influence each participant has over different parts of the session
(Meyers, Brashers & Hanner, 2000; Nemeth & Goncalo, 2005).
This short introduction leads us to the core of this thesis. How do people in
groups negotiate and how are stereotypes constructed in different contexts? Do
women and men communicate and negotiate stereotypes differently? Are decision-‐‑
making groups affected by the gender of the object? Does gender composition
affect communication and communication patterns? Moreover, there is a need for
studies on communication in experimental settings to control how stereotyping
mechanisms take shape in different situations. Experimental designs have an
advantage over field studies as they offer a better opportunity to control threats to
the internal validity (Moyer & Gross, 2011). Finally, all this reasoning leads to the
question whether communication and communication patterns might explain what
it is that makes a group decision-‐‑making process more successful.
In decision-‐‑making research, relatively little empirical attention has been given
to manipulation of the goal-‐‑settings of the decision-‐‑making task and most often the
goal is expressed in extrinsic, achievement terms. As such, the task is set to appeal
to achievement motivation, which would lead to less responsiveness to other
people’s views. What if the goal was expressed in intrinsic terms, as for example;
what is good for the group”? Would that lead the group members to more
responsiveness towards each other? All group decision-‐‑making situations are
framed by different aspects, such as different outcomes and contingencies
associated with a particular choice (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). One way to study
framing effects is to give groups different information, which can be done in an
experimental setting (e.g. Levin, Johnson & Davis, 1987).
4
The following sections in the thesis aim to give a theoretical background to the
main areas and research questions that the thesis rests upon. Section 2.1 gives a
brief historical background to social psychological experimentation. Section 2.2
discusses groups and decision-‐‑making (GDM), as groups and decision-‐‑making
form the fundamental base of this thesis. The chapter also focuses on framing
effects and raises the question of what a successful decision-‐‑making session could
be, and how it can be measured. Section 2.3 discusses the concept of stereotypes, as
stereotypes are the main psychological component studied in this thesis. Section
2.4 discusses communication and how interaction has an impact on groups and
decision-‐‑making and how this might affect stereotyping. Moreover, the purpose of
the chapter is to describe some research methods that can be used to conduct
research on group interaction. Next, section 2.5 discusses gender and gender
composition and how it might have effect on communication and stereotyping.
Chapter 3 describes and motivates the aim of the thesis. Chapter 4 handles
methodology. In chapter 5 are the empirical papers summarized. Finally, the thesis
ends with a discussion in chapter 6. The empirical papers can be read in full in the
appendix at the end of this thesis.
2.1 Brief historical background to experimental social

psychology
How people interact and make decisions together has interested social
psychologists for more than a century. Since the first social psychological
experiment on social facilitation (how performance is affected by the mere
presence of others) was conducted in the late 19th century (Triplett, 1898), research
on the psychology of group interaction has been frequent. Mustafa Sherif (1936)
was among the first to study intergroup conflicts, such as group norms, and how
individuals were affected by conformity. After the atrocities that took place during
World War II, there were many social psychologists (e.g. Asch, 1956; Lewin, 1951;
Milgram, 1974) that understood that it was important, using scientific methods, to
reach a better understanding of the acts carried out by nations, soldiers and
civilians during the war. How could a democratic country vote for a political
leadership that ended up carrying out genocide and war against other nations?
How could soldiers commit the most heinous crimes? These questions were the
starting point for studies with ethically problematic designs by modern standards.
Kurt Lewin (Lewin & Lippit, 1938; Lewin, 1947), conducted field studies through
action research with the aim to achieve a change in people'ʹs attitudes, values and
behavior. It was also in the aftermath of industrialization that Lewin along with
Lippit began studying various forms of leadership (Billig, 2015; Lewin & Lippit,
1938; Lippit, 1940; Lewin, Lippit & White, 1939).
5
Later, social psychological researchers moved into the laboratory and in
experimental settings studied different components of human behavior and
interaction. The famous conformity studies that were conducted in the 1950s
demonstrated our human willingness to repeat other people’s behavior and how
difficult it is for us to avoid conformity (Asch, 1956). Other experiments were
related to obedience in the face of authority (Milgram, 1974). Even if these studies
were ethically questionable, they gave us important knowledge about how people
obey authority and diminish themselves in decision-‐‑making situations. In the
aftermath of the obedience experiment, an essential discussion started about
research ethics and what a researcher can expose a subject to in a study (Russell &
Picard 2013).
One often mentioned quasi-‐‑experiment was the Stanford Prison Experiment in
which university students were randomly assigned to the roles of prisoners or
prison guards (Zimbardo, 1973; 2007). The purpose of this experiment was to study
how the participants were shaped by their roles. The results were that they quickly
fell into destructive patterns, as the participants who acted as prison guards
abused the participants who were set to act as prisoners. The experiment was
canceled in advance after just six days for safety reasons.
All these experiments are important, not only from a research perspective but
also from the perspective of work life, as people often work together in groups and
struggle with factors such as conformity and obedience. Thus it is important to
perform experimental research on groups to investigate the interaction between
the individual in the group.
2.2 Group decision-making (GDM)

Among common definitions of a group is that it needs to be composed of more
than one member (Brown, 1999). Furthermore, to become a group, the members
need some kind of social relationship (Forsyth, 2006). Moreover, a group by
definition also needs one or more joint goals (Lennéer-‐‑Axelsson & Thylefors, 2018).
Working together with other people and making joint decisions starts early in
life and continues through the educational system. It also follows people into
working life, where collaboration and decision-‐‑making play an important role.
Groups are important at all levels, from the factory floor to the boardrooms of
multi-‐‑national companies.
How people communicate, negotiate and make decisions together has
interested social psychologists for more than a century. Early in the 1920’s,
research was conducted on group influence (Allport, 1920). Previous research has
revealed a number of advantages and disadvantages with group decision-‐‑making
compared to individual decision-‐‑making. The main reason to make decisions in
6
groups is to take advantage of the different experiences, strengths and expertise of
the members (Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999). Another purpose is to evaluate more
alternatives (Nemeth & Nemeth-‐‑Brown, 2003). This could have a democratic
advantage, as more people feel that they understand and are involved in the
decisions (Hinsz & Nickell, 2004). There are also many possible disadvantages that
must be handled properly. The process is generally time-‐‑consuming when more
people are involved in the decision-‐‑making process. There is also a risk that the
members minimize themselves and just act the way the leader wants them to (Janis,
1972). Another discovered risk with group decision-‐‑making is group polarization,
where a group might reach more extreme solutions to a problem than an
individual would (Myers & Lamm, 1976; Van Swol & Lyn, 2009).
For a decision-‐‑making situation to appear, there must be different options to
choose from (Lau, 2003). By applying so-‐‑called rational choice or prisoner’s dilemma
designs, researchers can determine how and why the decision maker/s act the way
they do (Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Ostrom, 2003; Russel & Fiske, 2008). Such tasks
are often quite unrealistic, demanding a solution in mathematical (points, grades,
tokens, etc.) or financial (money) terms. These research designs have improved
understanding of group mechanisms, such as trust and strategies affecting group
interaction (Ahn, et al., 2003). A common method to manipulate interaction is to
tell a subject that he/she is interacting with other group members through a
computer screen, while they in fact are not interacting with other participants at all
(e.g. Ostrom, 2003; Yi, 2003). Researchers use this type of design to gain a high
level of control over the interaction and to achieve high internal validity (Moyer &
Gross, 2011). There are, in addition, variations in which participants interact with
other people, either colleagues that they work with normally or other persons not
previously known (e.g. Kahai, Huang & Jestice, 2012; Nawata & Yamaguchi, 2011).
Previous research has revealed that most people begin an interaction
collaboratively and that more cooperation and trust is formed when people
interact face-‐‑to-‐‑face than in implicit interaction settings, when they interact
through a computer screen (Ostrom, 2003). It has also been found that differences
in goal settings might affect decision-‐‑making groups. A group with competitive
goals seems to reach lower decision quality than groups with cooperative goals
(Toma, Bry & Butera, 2013). Participants given competitive goals also shared less
information with each other (Toma, Vasiljevic, Oberlé & Butera, 2013) and group
members acted more often competitively and were less likely to share information
with other participants (Toma & Butera, 2015).

7
2.2.1 Groups in real life versus ad-hoc groups?
Working groups can be seen as a ‘living’ system that goes through different
stages of development (Wheelan, Davidson & Tilin, 2003; Wheelan, 2005). The first
thing that happens when a group is established is that the participants enter a
phase where they need to find acceptance and community with the other group
members. The second stage involves opposition and conflicts. This occurs when
the group members feel that they need to conform to fit into the group. In this
stage, disagreement and conflict occur that sometimes lead to sub-‐‑groups. If the
group can handle the second stage, they enter stage three. This stage is
characterized by tolerance and structure. Group members will understand that the
individuals in the group have different needs, and feelings of confidence grow.
Conflicts are worked through and different roles are formed in relation to the
group’s goals and ambitions. The fourth stage is the work and production phase,
where members take and give feedback, problems are defined and group norms
strengthen the quality (Wheelan, Murphy, Tsumura & Fried-‐‑Kline 1998; Wheelan,
et al., 2003; Wheelan, 2005).
However important and beneficial it is to study group processes in real groups,
where their maturation can be followed, sometimes, for example when emergent
phenomena are in focus, ad-‐‑hoc groups are preferred. To study mechanisms
within the group and factors such as status, gender and power there is a need to
make controlled studies to reach a higher level of internal validity even if there
may be problems with ecological validity.

2.2.2 What makes a group decision-making process effective, successful and
democratic?
A considerable body of research has studied group effectiveness or group
successfulness (DeStephen & Hirowaka, 1998; Kong, Konzak & Bottom, 2015,
Michie & Williams, 2003). But what do those concepts mean and what is a good
group result? The ambition here is to sort these questions out and briefly discuss
the concept of group successfulness.
Satisfied group members are an important factor for a group to reach good
results (DeStephen & Hirokawa, 1998). Besides satisfaction, experienced influence
also leads to positive outcomes (Kong, et al., 2015; Michie & Williams, 2003). Other
studies have found that negative experiences and lack of influence lead to
frustration and conflict, making it difficult for the group to move forward (Mason
& Griffin, 2002; 2003; Spector, 1988). When participants perceive that information is
exchanged generously, it leads the group to make correct decisions, while poor
exchange of information has the opposite effect (Larson, Christensen, Franz, &
Abbot, 1998). Extensive information-‐‑sharing processes are also found to strengthen
8
the quality of the decisions (Peterson, Owens, Tetlock, Fan, & Martorana, 1998;
Tasa & Whyte, 2005).
There are many different aspects that have an impact on group efficiency. An
efficient process is not only one where the decision is reached in the shortest
amount of time. For a decision-‐‑making process to be efficient, there also needs to
be a constructive communication process (Kong, et al., 2015). A quick process
without reasoning, questioning and objecting might obstruct the group from
achieving their goals (Gelfand, Major, Raver, Nishii & O’Brien, 2006; Graziano,
Jensen-‐‑Campbell & Hair, 1996).
Several components are essential for a group to be successful, such as correct
understanding of the problem, what the group requires to reach the best
alternatives and how they evaluate them (Gouran & Hirokawa, 1996; Kolbe & Boos,
2009). Previously, research has revealed different results according to how factors
in the group interaction affect decision-‐‑making in groups. Some studies debates
about if and how differences in opinion between the group members have positive
effects (Schweiger, Sandberg & Ragan, 1986; Simons, Pelled & Smith 1999;
Slotegraaf & Atuahene-‐‑Gima, 2011). Others argue that different opinions in the
group likely have a positive impact on the group results (Barr & Gold, 2014;
Gouran, 1982). Moreover, other researchers claim that different opinions might
lead to pressure, frustration and tension amongst the group members (Behfar,
Mannix, Peterson & Trochim, 2011; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1995). With
these conflicting arguments it is easy to argue for the need for more research on
group dynamics conducted in controlled situations.
How efficient or successful the group process becomes also depends on the
definition of the outcome. In psychological experimental research this is seldom
problematized, and the outcome is often measured in achievement terms (Brewer
& Kramer, 1986; Ostrom, 2003). The need for studies with different goal terms has
been argued for previously (Kray & Thompson, 2005).
How group members experience the opportunity for influence is an important
factor in decision-‐‑making (Baird & Wang, 2010). However, it is also essential to
take into account that influence might look differently in various parts of the
decision-‐‑making process. There might be a difference between how people view
influence over the actual decision and how they perceive influence over the
decision process. Research thus needs to take into consideration influence over
both decision outcome and decision process. Next question is whether influence
should be studied in an objective sense or from a subjective perspective. To study
influence in an objective sense can be done by observing the group interaction (e.g.
Schmid Mast, 2001). On the other hand, if we ask the participants we get a first-‐‑
hand account of the group process and how the influence was experienced. An
9
observer can evaluate the group as a whole but cannot judge what the participants
experience as individuals during the decision-‐‑making process. As participants in
the same group can have different experiences it is important to capture these
differences by asking for their evaluations of different parts of the decision-‐‑making
process.
Framing is a cognitive bias when people react differently depending on how a
question or a problem is explained (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Previous research
has shown that differences in framing have fundamental effects on the way people
make decisions (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Framing helps people handle
complex information. Our cognitive processes are framed since childhood and
when we receive information or facts that fit into the frame, it is strengthened.
However, when we encounter information or facts that do not fit into the frame,
we may ignore it. The psychological term for this is cognitive dissonance (Festinger,
1962). How information is framed affects how people make their decisions
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1981). The results from Tversky and Kahneman’s
experiments have been replicated and it has been found that framing has major
impact on the decision-‐‑makers (Gächter, Orzen, Renner & Starmer, 2009;
Kühberger & Tanner, 2010). Framing effects has also been tested on groups in
experimental situations (e.g. Curseu, Schruijer, & Fodor, 2016; Rees, 2014). Rees
(2014) revealed that groups who received instructions with a deadline were better
to predict successfulness. Curseu, et al. (2016) studied different rules in decision-‐‑
making groups and they found that a collaborative decision rule decreased the
sensitivity of framing effects in decision-‐‑making.
Examples that demonstrate the role of framing on social judgments in groups
sometimes involve role-‐‑playing (Lawson, McDonough, & Bodle, 2010; McGregor,
1993). The most famous example is probably “A Class Divided”, an experiment
conducted in the seventies by Jane Elliot (Peters, 1987) in which children were
divided into two different groups and treated differently based on fictive eye color.
Follow-‐‑up studies have confirmed that role-‐‑playing activities affect attitudes and
behavior even if the activity causes stress to the participants (Byrnes & Kiger,
1990). The Stanford Prison Experiment also revealed how easily people adopt roles
and fall into destructive patterns (Zimbardo, 2007). These examples of the classic
scientific and non-‐‑scientific experiments on how people are affected by framing
factors teach us a lot about how easily people adapt to stereotypic norms without
questioning their validity.
Different aspects frame group decision-‐‑making situations; among them are
different outcomes (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). For groups in sports the aim is
often to perform well and to achieve good results. For a group of students at school
the goal might be good grades, and for the board of a multi-‐‑national company the
10
goal could be a high yield and solid financial performance. The goals also often
have a cooperative character, to have fun and to develop together. Likely, thoughts
and feelings about the group processes will be affected by which goals are most
prominent in the group. How goals for the decision-‐‑making situation are
conceptualized then form the context against which the participants make their
judgments One context that have been elaborated on are competition vs.
cooperation. A more competitive context fosters a will to gain a positive individual
outcome, while a more cooperative context leads to mutual gain (van Knippenberg,
van Knippenberg & Wilke, 2001). Time limit also influences the willingness to
cooperate. Lack of time has also been found to force groups to be more cooperative
even in competitive settings (Cone & Rand, 2014). It has also been found that
decision-‐‑makers in a competitive environment feel less trust when crucial
information is absent than in a cooperative environment (Rode, 2010). These
examples indicate that goals serves as context and that they impact how people
behave and experience group decision processes.
2.3 Stereotypes, attitudes and prejudice

Social psychologists have for many years been studying attitudes and the
effects they have on people, interaction and society. One definition of an attitude is
that it is an evaluative judgment about a stimulus object, that attitudes differ in
valence and strength, and that attitude objects can be anything that is liked or
disliked (Maio & Haddock, 2014). To complicate it further, attitudes can also be
seen as context-‐‑driven, which mean that they are influenced by what groups
individuals belong to and are affected by (Erber, Hodges & Wilson, 1995).
Moreover, other social psychologists argue that attitudes are not stable and that
they can change even within the same individual and in the same conversation
(Potter, 1987). It is also necessary to take into consideration that the strength of the
attitude varies and that this is critical for how it might change (Howe & Krosnick,
2017). In other words, meetings with other people influence attitudes and they
might change when people communicate. This, in turn, might explain how the
view of a social issue can change among a group of people over time.
2.3.1 Stereotyping
Stereotyping is the use of simplified categorizations or a collection of
characteristics describing people from other groups; the main function of
stereotypes is to help people categorize and understand others (Allport, 1954). It is
an automatic process and stereotypes based on social group are easily applied in
interaction with others (Brauer, Judd & Jacquelin 2001; Thompson, Judd & Park
2000). Stereotypes are easy to adopt but harder to avoid. They often occur in
11
situations where a person feels threatened or experiences anxiety or stress (Macrae,
et al., 1993). One such situation where this happens is in decision-‐‑making
(Bodenhausen, Mussweiler, Gabriel & Moreno, 2001; Bodenhausen, 2005). This
happens because avoidance of adoption of stereotypes requires mental capacity,
which must be focused on the situational demands at hand. Moreover, an
important cognitive function of stereotypes is that they defend or rationalize
feelings and behaviors (Jost & Major, 2001). Stereotypes can place the object in a
worse or a better position than he or she deserves depending on the group or
groups that the individual is associated with (Fiske, 2010).
As simplified group based categorizations that are automatically applied,
stereotypes easily lead to prejudiced judgment and behaviors. Prejudice can be
described as an attitude built up by an affective, cognitive and behavioral
component (Fiske, 2014). One explanation for why people hold negative attitudes
such as prejudice is that the world is often seen as competitive, and that prejudice
works as a tool for a group to maintain a higher position over other groups in
society (Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, & Esses, 2010). The same reasoning is found in
the social dominance theory, which claims that people are biased to various
degrees due to structural factors such as the power over social resources (Sidanius
& Pratto, 1999). Thus, the reason to hold prejudiced attitudes towards certain
groups is found in the need for hegemonic groups to uphold power differences
(Pratto, et al, 2006). This means that which groups will be the target of prejudice
depends on the power distribution within the society and may thus vary. However,
one such power distribution not supposed to vary between societies is the one
between men and women (Pratto, et al., 2006), indicating that power relations
between men and women are stable and difficult to change, and hence the
stereotypes connected to them.

2.3.2 The stereotype dimensions warmth and competence
According to the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) a stereotype consists of the
two dimensions warmth and competence (Fiske et al, 2002; Cuddy, Fiske & Glick,
2004). Both dimensions are measurable and have been used in over 150 studies (i.e.
Fiske, 2012; Durante, Tablante & Fiske, 2017). The competence dimension refers to
the extent to which a group of people is seen as more or less efficient, organized or
ambitious. The warmth dimension refers to the extent to which a group is seen as
more or less trustworthy, friendly or emotional. The two dimensions together form
four different positions (Fiske, 2015): Groups rated high on both dimensions
belong to the in-‐‑group members’ allies or reference groups. Groups rated low on
both dimensions are furthest away from power positions in the society, e.g. poor or
homeless people. Two positions in the model describe ambivalent stereotypes, as
12
they are rated as high in one dimension and low on the other. For example career
women or feminists are positioned as high on the competent dimension but low on
warmth dimension and are seen as respected but disliked (Eagly & Kite, 1987;
Glick & Fiske, 1996). The second ambivalent position contain groups that are seen
as non-‐‑competitive, e.g., older or disabled people (Cuddy & Fiske, 2002; Fiske et al
2002). The stereotype content model has been tested in different cultures and is
found to be stable even if there is variation regarding which groups that are seen
as warm or cold and more or less competent in different cultures (Cuddy, et al.,
2009). The normative and most dominant groups in a culture are always
positioned highest on both dimensions, while groups furthest away from power
positions are positioned lowest (Cuddy, et al., 2004; Fiske, et al., 2002; Fiske, Xu,
Cuddy & Glick, 1999; Lee & Fiske, 2006). A recent study conducted in South East
Asia found that foreigners from the West were seen as more competent while
subgroups from South East Asia were seen as least competent (Ramsay & Pang
2017). Another study has found that it is important to consider the diversity of the
immigrant population when studying stereotypes; this as the stereotypes slightly
differ in different cultures (Binggeli, Krings, & Sczesny, 2014). This indicates that
westerners are the dominant norm group not only in their own context but also all
over the world. The SCM is also found to be applicable across cultures in terms of
social class as people with high socioeconomic status are perceived as competent
but cold, while people with low socioeconomic status are seen as less competent
but warmer (Durante, et al., 2017).
The model is predominantly applied on individual level where people have
rated different groups in society as described above. Another application is to
judge individuals on these dimensions where group attributes are varied. Research
in this respect studied the effects of ethnicity (Agerström, Björklund, Carlsson &
Rooth, 2012), sexual orientation (Everly, Unzueta & Shih, 2016; Fingerhut &
Peplau, 2006; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2004), and not least gender. Cuddy, et al. (2004)
conducted an experiment where the participants were set to rate three candidates
for a job as a consultant. The last candidate was either described as a man or a
woman and in half of the cases information was added that the candidate recently
had become a parent (Cuddy, et al., 2004). The results revealed a difference in the
judgment of motherhood and fatherhood as the female candidate with a child lost
in competence but gained in warmth, while the father gained in warmth. These
results were replicated by Heilman and Okimoto (2008). They did not find the
same patterns for men and they argue that the ”bad parent assumption” has its
ground in gender stereotyping (Okimoto & Heilman, 2012)
As seen above, the stereotype content model has been applied in experimental
situations at individual level within different contexts. But, what will happen when
13
people meet and need to negotiate their personal variants of such stereotypes in a
decision-‐‑making situation? Thus it would be of interest to apply this model on
communication on group level.
2.4 Communication and stereotyping

The empirical work in this thesis leans on two experiments (described in section
4.4). Each investigates communication and how people negotiate when they make
judgments and decisions about fictive persons. The aim with this section is; first, to
give a brief theoretical introduction to why it is important to study communication;
and second, to describe how communication can influence perceptions of other
people (stereotyping); and third, to briefly describe two communication analysis
methods that can help researchers analyze group communication.
Communication plays an essential part of people’s daily life. People in general
spend around 75 percent of their waking hours to communicate with other people
(Tubbs, Moss & Papastefanou, 2011). Language varies according to the context of
the communication (Tubbs, 2007). The basic communication context is interpersonal
communication, where two people communicate with each other (Tubbs, et al.,
2011). Other contexts are intercultural, small group, public, organizational, mass
communication, and interviewing (Tubbs, et al., 2011). This thesis primary focus is on
communication in small groups, which can be defined as:
“The process by which three or more members of a group exchange verbal and non-‐‑
verbal messages in an attempt to influence one another” (Tubbs, 2007, p.5)

2.4.1 Social constructionism and small group communication
According to social constructionism (Gergen, 2015), the perception of the
outside world is based on many different conditions. For example, communication
with experts, researchers, politicians, teachers, colleagues, neighbors and friends
has an impact on how people view the outside world (Potter & Wetherell, 1987).
Some facts or values are seen as common sense, and few would dispute claims
such as “the world is round” or “the world is divided into different continents”
(Gergen, 2015). However, beliefs and stereotypes of groups of people are not ‘true
facts’ as they are based on personal experiences and beliefs, how other people talk
about groups of people etc. One reason for a social psychologist to study small
group interaction (communication) is to get a better understanding about how a
phenomenon is constituted (Billig, 1997), since how people communicate impacts
the way they view the world (Knippendorf, 2005; Potter & Wetherell, 1987).
Moreover, the way people think is formed and constructed in different discourses
(Potter & Edwards, 2001). The need for more knowledge of how people act in
different contexts is perhaps more important than ever, as the spread of
14
information in modern society happens faster and in more complicated ways than
ever before. To study small group conversation offers an opportunity to find out
how context affects how stereotypes emerge.
When small group communication is studied, the context is sometimes
manipulated (Rode, 2010) and sometimes differences in communication according
to gender are studied (Hawkins & Power, 1999). At other times, the focus is on
communication related to power (van Knippenberg, et al., 2001). This as power is
used differently in competitive and cooperative contexts. In a cooperative context
power is used to make joint decisions while in a competitive context the purpose is
to use power to make a better position for oneself (Van Knippenberg, et al., 2001).
To get a better understanding of how factors such as external influence, group
composition etc. might affect communication and which consequences these might
have, it is important to have an innovative scientific approach. One such approach
could be to study interaction and how communication and language affect the use
of stereotypes (Kurz & Lyons, 2009; Lyons & Kashima, 2003). With this approach,
communication is seen as social interaction that occurs in a specific context
(Edwards & Potter, 1992; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Language is from this
perspective seen as something that people use for doing things, for example,
persuading others or accusing someone (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Human
communication may change how the social world is viewed (Potter & Wetherell,
1987). From this perspective, stereotypes are reproduced through communication
in for example the choice of different phrases when people talk about other people
that are not present (Kite & Whitley, 2012; von Hippel, Wiryakusuma, Bowden, &
Shocket, 2011). With the awareness that language is a constructing force and that
attitudes might be seen as changeable, it is of importance to get a better
understanding of how language affects how stereotypes are used and how they are
constructed. If we agree with this assumption from discursive social psychology,
there is a need to study how people negotiate and communicate about other
people and how stereotypes can be applied and are affected in different contexts.

2.4.2 Analysis methods for small group communication
Communication can be studied through different methodologies. One
traditional method to study communication in groups is through so-‐‑called ‘turn-‐‑
taking’ processes (Coates, 2004; Schegloff, 2000; Duncan & Fiske, 1977). All
conversations are divided into various parts (turns); first someone says something
and then another person takes over or chooses to pass on the right to speak, and so
on. If no one else says anything, the speaker is able to continue. There are other
more elaborate methods to study a group dialogue. A frequently used method is
the Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) (Bales, 1950; 1999). The first part of the IPA
15
explores socio-‐‑emotional reactions (positive or negative), how the participants
communicate in terms of agreements, laughter, giving help, disagreeing or
avoiding helping behavior. The second part of the IPA focuses on attempts to give
information and how questions are raised and answered.
Another method to study group conversations is by the Conversational
Argument Coding Scheme (CACS) (Canary & Seibold, 2010; Meyers & Brashers,
2010). This method has a history in different scientific fields, including philosophy,
psychology, cognitive studies, advertising, marketing and political psychology
(Seibold & Meyers, 2007). CACS has for example been used with the ambition to
study differences between men and women in argumentation patterns (Meyers,
Brashers, Winston & Grob, 1997). The results indicate that there are some
differences in conversation between men and women, especially as women were
found to be more agreeable towards other group members than men were (Meyers,
et al., 1997).
The benefits with conventional methods like these are that communication can
be investigated in its smallest parts and answer different questions. But they are
less adequate to study the content of an interaction process. In order to capture
how stereotypes, for example, about men and women, are manifested in group
conversations more content focused analyses have to be applied. Furthermore,
how such stereotypes are built into different discourses and negotiated in groups
broader perspectives have to be employed for example to use “gender glasses”
throughout the whole analyses (Ridgeway, 2011).
2.5 The complexity of gender and gender stereotypes

The first thing that people notice when they meet a new person is whether that
person is male or female (Fiske, et al., 1991). The gender categorization evokes
associations and expectations of how a person will act. Men are expected to act and
behave more or less similar to other men, and women are expected to act more or
less similar to other women. Previous research proclaims that the ‘gender issue’
has extensive effects on an individual’s chances in life, and that there is an invisible
‘glass ceiling’ that women need to break through to earn a place in power positions
in society (Barreto, Ryan & Schmitt, 2009). Furthermore, in all societies in the world
with power differences men has in average more power than women (Pratto &
Walker, 2004). Women are also underrepresented in the most competitive areas in
society and the inequality increases the higher up in an organization you look
(Latu & Schmid Mast, 2016).

The aim with this section is to discuss and problematize the gender concept and
briefly introduce research related to gender and group decision-‐‑making.
16

”With the possible exception of childbearing, no aspect of social life is more strongly
associated with gender than power”
(Pratto & Walker, p.242, 2004)

Gender stereotyping starts in early childhood when for example boys and girls
are divided into gender-‐‑stereotyped groups. This might lead to a pattern where
children play with other children of the same gender as this a ‘social norm’
(Lindsey, 2012). This norm might then follow from childhood to adolescence.
Furthermore, this pattern runs the risk of being manifested when children are
divided into different groups based on gender when they for example exercise
sports. This in turn might reinforce the social norms where it might be odd for
boys to play with girls and vice versa (Lindsey, 2012). According to the social role
theory two sets of beliefs are predominately associated to gender; community and
agency (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009). Women are supposed to display communal
behaviors such as compassion (e.g. being friendly, kind and sympathetic) while
men according to the social role theory seen more as agents (e.g. being aggressive,
ambitious, dominant, self-‐‑confident). As such these two dimensions correspond to
the more general dimensions of competence and warmth (Cuddy, et al., 2008),
although applied specifically to gender relations. Gender stereotypes withhold
both descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes (Bobbitt-‐‑Zeher, 2011; Glick & Fiske,
2007; Meyer & Gelman, 2016). The descriptive stereotyping are preconceptions of
traits related to a specific gender (e.g. women are warm), the prescriptive
stereotype indicates how women should behave (e.g. caring). Moreover, gender
stereotypes are related to prejudice as they put women and men in positions based
on which gender they are associated with (Bobbit-‐‑Zeher, 2011). As men as a group
in most societies are in a power position women may be viewed as a marginalized
group (Bergh, Akrami, Sidanius & Sibley, 2016). Moreover, gender discrimination
should not be viewed as an asset of evilness from the perpetrator (Glick & Fiske,
2007) it should instead be viewed as something that is related to situation and is
affected by the interaction between people (Diekman & Eagly, 2000; Glick & Fiske,
2007).
As stereotypes influence perceptions of other people, how information about
men and women is framed might evoke different stereotypic beliefs. The above
mentioned research paradigm where information about parenthood was
introduced (Cuddy, et al., 2004) is an example of such framing, evoking
stereotypes about the normative roles for men and women in such a situation. It I
reasonable to assume that these norms also are present and communicated in a
group decision situation. But gender might also serve as a situational cue, in that
17
the gender composition in a group evokes different gender information. For
example, in single gendered groups the gender composition might not contain any
particular information about how to behave, while in a mixed gender group it is
evident that the group differ as to the combination of men and women, thus
highlighting gendered expectations, to which they could either submit or challenge.
As concluded previously there is a need to study situational factors and how they
affect stereotypes, one such could be gender composition.
Some studies have investigated which effects gender composition might have
on decision-‐‑making groups (Lovaglia, Mannix, Samuelson, Sell & Wilson, 2005).
Research has explored how masculine or feminine communication styles are
affected under stereotype threat (von Hippel, et al., 2011). One result from their
study reveals that women under stereotype threat who adopted a more masculine
communication style were rated as less warm and likeable (von Hippel, et al.,
2011). According to social role theory the distribution of men and women in social
roles is important for the understanding of why men and women behave
differently in different circumstances (Eagly, Wood & Johannesen-‐‑Schmidt, 2004).
For example, in western societies the norm is that men are more responsible for the
family income and women more responsible for taking care of the household. The
gender roles then influence behavior and how men and women are viewed, this in
turn leads to differences in the gender roles and men are more associated with
agentic roles including for example leadership (Eagly, et al., 2004).
Previous studies have found that men more often prefer inequality in status
and have less problems with power in social groups as they more easily adopt
hierarchies (Schmid Mast, 2001; 2004). Men are also more motivated to take
leading positions in hierarchical organizations, while women have a stronger strive
for egalitarian values (Schmid Mast, 2004). Previous studies show diverging results
concerning gender composition and group decision-‐‑making. Some of them
indicate that groups with men outperform groups with women (Apesteguia, et al.,
2012; Raghubir & Valenzuela, 2010), while others argue that groups with only
women or mixed-‐‑gender groups perform better (Fenwick & Neal, 2001). Moreover,
men have been found to cooperate more when they were under threat (competitive
context), while women were not affected (Van Vugt, et al., 2007). This might
explain why men make more competitive choices in social-‐‑dilemma games.
Experiments on groups in laboratory settings have found that men and women act
differently when they hold power positions. Men were found to be more
dominating and women more compromising (Nelson, Bronstein, Shacham & Ben-‐‑
Ari, 2015). Finally, previous studies has found that there is a difference between
men and women in how they view mixed gendered groups, men were found to be
more sensitive to gendered groups than women (Hannagan, 2006).
18
Therefore, gender needs to be considered a more complex variable in research.
Structurally, as an aspect that explains how men and women are expected to
behave in different contexts, situational, as an aspect that a person acts in
conjunction with, and finally, individually, as an aspect according to which a
participant identifies him-‐‑/herself.
3. AIM
As argued in the introduction, stereotypes are simplifications of information
concerning other persons that people use in daily life. Stereotypes are biased on
factors such as ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender, which might lead to
discrimination (Glick & Fiske, 2001). There is a risk for decision-‐‑making groups of
making biased judgments and commit discriminating decisions if they use
stereotypic information in their decision-‐‑making processes. Previous research has
revealed how individuals are affected by stereotypes (Agerström, et al., 2012;
Cuddy, et al., 2004; Okimoto & Heilman, 2012) but less is known about how
stereotypes and prejudice is communicated and negotiated in group decision-‐‑
making situations. This is of importance as communication is a way of doing
things (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). One approach to study how stereotypes emerge
and are manifested in group decision-‐‑making is to study how different contexts
may lead to different communication patterns.
One way of doing this is to vary the goal set for the decision-‐‑making. This is
seldom problematized, and is often expressed only in achievement terms (Ahn, et
al., 2003). Besides, there are reasons to believe that men and women respond to
different goals in different ways (Van Vugt, et al., 2007). Another way is to vary the
information given to see how this influence judgments. Previous research has
revealed that variation of information affects how individuals use information of
gender and parenthood in a stereotypic pattern (Cuddy, et al., 2004; Heilman &
Okimoto, 2008). But, how is it processed in groups? Another factor to take into
account is the situation in which the decision is being made. One such situation
could be gender composition of the group as also this contains gendered
information. This has previously been studied, but there is no consensus about
which affects it might have (Hannagan & Larimer, 2010).
The form of the communication can be studied with for example interaction
process analysis (Bales, 1999) or with the conversational argument scheme (Canary
& Seibold, 2010). The content – how stereotypes emerge and are used – can be
studied with an application of the stereotype content model and the dimensions of
competence and warmth (Fiske, et al., 2007; Fiske, 2015).
19
Finally, although group communication patterns might vary and there are
more or less stereotypic ways to make decisions in groups, how the participants
experience the patterns may differ. As reported above, what kind of experiences
that is of importance might correspond both to task and process, and could refer to
satisfaction, efficiency and various forms of influence. Therefore there is a need to
study how perceived influence over different parts in decision-‐‑making is perceived
and which outcome the decision-‐‑making might lead to. This leads to a summary
of the aims in this thesis, which was to investigate how stereotyping emerge,
manifest, and change in group decision making by using two kinds of framing
contexts; (1) the goal set for the task but with the same information given, and (2)
the same goal set but with different information provided. The form and content of
the communication could thus be analyzed, as well as how the group decision
situation was experienced by the participants.

4. METHODOLOGY
The aim of this chapter is to give a brief summary of the methods used in the
thesis. At first general considerations of the approaches taken in this thesis are
reported. Then the outline of the experiments is described followed by descriptions
of the qualitative and quantitative data used. Table 1 gives a summary of how the
methodology corresponds to the four different papers.

20
Table 1. Key elements in respective paper
! Paper!I! Paper!II! Paper!III! Paper!IV!
Experiment! The!Relay!Team! The!Relay!Team! The!Consultant!! The!Relay!
Team/The!
Consultant!
Participants! 79,!20!groups! 81,!21!groups! 130,!35!groups! Study!1:!210,!
54!groups.!
Study!II:!272,!
71!groups!
Framing! Goal!setting! Goal!Setting! Parenthood! Goal!setting/!
Variables! Parenthood!
Gender! ! X! X! X!
composition!
!
Qualitative! Interaction! Conversational! Stereotype!Content! !
analyses! Process!Analysis,! Argument!Coding! Analysis,!
Stereotype! Scheme! Communication!
Content!Analysis,! Pattern!Analysis!
Conversational!
!
Pattern!Analysis!
Quantitative! ! Equality!in! ! Democracy,!
analyses! influence!over!the! Influence,!
discussion!and! Satisfaction,!
over!the!decision,! Efficiency,!
Efficiency,! Outcome!
Satisfaction!
!
4.1 Mixed-method approach

This thesis rests on a mixed-‐‑method design approach. The mixed-‐‑method
approach has the ambition to both answer questions about how it is and in what way
(Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2007). They define mixed methods as a methodology
that involves a philosophical assumption and as a method that focuses on
analyzing and collecting both quantitative and qualitative data (Cresswell & Plano
Clark, 2007). Another view is that there is a misconception among social scientists
21
when they argue that statistical analysis is technical and objective while other
forms of data are judgment based (Gorard, 2006). Furthermore Gorard (2007,)
argues that mixed methods should not be seen as a new paradigm as it in itself
preserves the schism between the two paradigms. However, the philosophical
debate about the advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative
methods is in my view not fruitful and will not lead research forward. But, on the
other hand, mixed methods designs should in my point of view be seen as
questions of design more than a philosophical argument about the need of a more
overarching approach.
In my thesis I use mixed methods in three different ways 1), simultaneously
collecting qualitative and quantitative data, 2), within (paper I-‐‑III) having an
interchange between quantitative and qualitative analyses, and 3) by using an
experimental design allowing for both quantitative and qualitative analyses within
this context. The quantitative research questions aim to find patterns and reveal
differences between the different experimental contexts, and further to explore
differences according to gender composition of the groups. The qualitative
research questions aim to explore how the suggestions from the quantitative
hypothesis work out in communication. This thesis qualitative inquiry has the aim
to go beyond traditional social psychological aspects such as attitudes and
behavior. The ambition is to broaden understanding of how stereotypes emerge in
different situations.
4.2 Group size of decision-making groups

The groups studied in this thesis consist of three to five persons, most often
four. The main reason for this choice of group size was that more than two people
secure a more elaborate discussion (Wheelan, 2009). A maximum of five persons
was chosen for practical reasons, since more participants limit each person’s
chance to take part in the discussion, and when group size increases, cooperation
decreases (Wheelan, 2009). Early research argues for a maximum of five persons in
small decision-‐‑making groups as the number of social interactions explodes with a
higher number of participants (Hackman & Vidmar, 1970). More recent research
(Wheelan, 2009) revealed that groups consisting of 3 -‐‑ 6 members were the most
productive. Based on this reasoning it was considered suitable to use groups
consisting of four participants in these experiments. Furthermore as the gender
composition in the groups was to be varied, an even number makes its possible to
have same number of men and women in the mixed groups. Due to practical
reasons the group size came to vary between three and five.
22
4.3 Ad-hoc or real groups
Research on real decision-‐‑making groups and temporary (ad-‐‑hoc) groups are
both common. One advantage with ad-‐‑hoc groups is that it is possible to carry out
these studies in a laboratory setting with the aim to frame conditions. However,
this can also be done with real decision-‐‑making groups. But one problem with
experiments on real groups is that extraneous factors that might affect the results
could be impossible to control. It is unclear if ad-‐‑hoc or real groups are better in
making joint decisions. Some empirical studies have shown that real decision-‐‑
making groups perform better than ad-‐‑hoc groups (Hall & Williams, 1966).
However, other studies have found that ad-‐‑hoc groups outperform established
decision-‐‑making groups in terms of decision-‐‑making effectiveness (Ford, Nemiroff
& Pasmore, 1977). Other researchers argue that real decision-‐‑making groups might
have a richer repertoire of decision-‐‑making strategies as the group members might
be motivated by plans to work together in the future (Curşeu & Schruijer, 2012).
Moreover, results reached with ad-‐‑hoc groups are also reached with real decision-‐‑
making groups (Dubrovsky, Kolla & Sethna, 1991). The difference might be that
results found in ad-‐‑hoc group might be stronger if conducted with real decision-‐‑
making groups (Dubrovsky, et al., 1991).
To summarize, real groups have the advantage of being representative of the
reality, for example is it possible to study group processes across time and how
groups mature. On the other hand in an ad-‐‑hoc group it is possible to study how
group norms begins, as the members have no common history or future. Thus, in
order to study how a specific pattern emerges as for example in this thesis where
the manifestations and negotiations of stereotypes are investigated ad-‐‑hoc groups
might be preferable. Moreover, it might be easier to secure a strong internal
validity by studying ad-‐‑hoc groups due to stronger control over extraneous
variables.
4.4 The experiments

This thesis consists of four papers that are based on two experiments conducted
on small group decision-‐‑making sessions. The basic outline of the two experiments
is quite similar. Groups of approximately four participants are assigned to a task to
come to a joint decision under different conditions. In both experiments groups are
formed either as single gendered or mixed gendered. They complete almost
identical questionnaires before and after the actual experiment. The difference
between the two experiments concerns the setup of the experimental conditions. In
the first experiment “The Relay Team” two different goals was set as the
experimental conditions, competition vs. cooperation. In the second experiment
23
“The Consultant” two dimensions of information given, gender and parenthood,
were varied forming four different conditions.

4.4.1 The Relay Team
4.4.1.2 Participants
A total of 210 university students (138 women and 72 men) participated in The
Relay Team experiment. The mean age was 25 years (SD = 5.55). They were divided
into 54 different groups consisting of 3-‐‑5 persons. Paper I and II are based on
subsamples of the participants while paper IV uses the total sample.

4.4.1.3 Procedure
One week before the experiment the participants were approached in class and
informed about the aim of the study and asked to participate. At the same time
they completed a questionnaire with background data. After arriving to the
laboratory, they were divided into groups of three to five persons, most often four
either as all female (27), all male (10) or mixed gendered groups (17). The groups
were then randomly assigned to one of two conditions. One condition was to
assemble a team for a relay running competition with the goal to maximize the
chance of winning the competition. The other condition was to assemble a team for
a relay running competition with the goal to have fun and to maximize the sense of
community within the team.
The participants were placed around a table and the experimenter read the
instructions to the participants. The groups were then given two sheets of paper.
The first paper consisted of instructions. It also contained pictures of 20 target
persons (10 men and 10 women) with information about their first name, age,
occupation and favorite hobby. Occupations and hobbies assigned to the targets
were categorized as traditionally feminine, masculine, or gender-‐‑neutral based on
ratings made by another group of students.
The second sheet was a protocol where the different relay sections of various
lengths were outlined; the groups were told that they could use as many or as few
runners as they wished and that they were allowed to split the relay sections. The
time limit was set to 15 minutes. The sessions were filmed. Immediately after the
session was stopped the participants completed a questionnaire, which asked
about their reflections on their experiences of the decision task. Finally, they were
debriefed about the specific aim of the study and about how the data were to be
handled. Participation in the experiment was a course requirement (i.e.
demonstration of experimental research methods) but being part of research was
voluntary. After debriefing, if the participants agreed to be part of the research
24
they signed a consent form. Otherwise they could refrain which meant that their
material was not to be used.
This procedure emanated in a design with two independent variables. One was
the framing condition; either as a competition or as a community goal for the
decision task. The other one was gender composition in the groups; male, female,
or mixed.

4.4.2 The Consultant
A total of 272 students (179 women, 93 men) participated in The Consultant
experiment. The mean age was 26 years (SD = 5.72). They were recruited from
various study programs, mainly in social and behavioral sciences and were
divided into 71 groups. Paper III is based on a subsample while paper IV uses the
whole sample.
4.4.2.2. Procedure
One week before the experiment the participants were approached in class and
informed of the aim of the study and asked to participate. At the same time they
completed a questionnaire with background data. After arriving to the laboratory
they were divided into groups of 3-‐‑5 persons (most often four), either as all male
(16), all female (40), or mixed gendered groups (15).
The groups were then randomly assigned to one of four conditions. The task
was to select one of three candidates to a position as a consultant. The first
candidate was a man (Jörgen), the second a woman (Lena), and the third (target)
was in half of the cases a man (Daniel) and in half of the cases a woman (Katarina).
Information was given about each candidate’s age, education, work-‐‑life
experience, preferred work style and hobbies. In half of the cases the target person
had a newborn child. The setup was modeled after Cuddy, et al. (2004) and
Heilman and Okimoto (2008) although the main objective here was that the
decisions was to be made in groups and not individually. But before they were to
work as a group they completed a questionnaire where they evaluated each
candidate individually on items related to competence and warmth in order for the
participants to form their own individual impressions of the candidates.
When this was done the instructions were read to the groups, they were told to
evaluate the candidates of four items (on a response scale ranging from 1 to 5): to
what extent they were considered to work efficiently, to what extent they were
supposed to create a good atmosphere, to what extent they would likely be
recommended for promotion, and to what extent they were regarded eligible for
further training. Finally, they were asked to rank order the candidates for the
25
position as a consultant. They were given a protocol sheet on which they should
indicate their choices. The group discussion was limited to 15 minutes and was
filmed. When the session stopped they were asked to complete another
questionnaire containing questions about their reflections on their experiences of
the decision task. Finally, they were debriefed about the specific aim of the study
and about how the data were to be handled. Participation in the experiment was a
course requirement (i.e. demonstration of experimental research methods) but
being part of research was voluntary. After debriefing, if the participants agreed to
be part of the research they signed a consent form. Otherwise they could refrain
which meant that their material was not to be used.
This procedure emanated in a design with three independent variables. Two
were built upon the framing condition; the target person’s gender and the target
person’s parental status. The other one was gender composition in the groups;
male, female, or mixed.
4.5 Quantitative data

Two of the papers (paper II and IV) report quantitative data from the
questionnaire completed after the experimental session. The dependent variables
are presented below.
Perceived equality in the influence over the decision was included in paper II. Each
participant rated in percentage how much each group member was involved in the
decision. Participants who assigned the distribution of influence to equal (within a
5 % limit) were categorized as perceiving an equal distribution. Participants who
assigned an unequal percentage were categorized as perceiving unequal influence
over the decision.
Perceived equality in the influence in the discussion was included in paper II. This
variable was measured similarly to the previous variable but with the question of
how much each participant was involved in the discussion. Participants who
assigned the distribution of influence in the discussion as equal (within a 5 % limit)
were categorized as perceiving an equal distribution of influence in the discussion.
Participants who assigned an unequal percentage were categorized as perceiving
an unequal influence over the discussion.
Perceived task difficulty was in paper II embraced as a control variable. The
variable served the purpose to control if task difficulty could affect satisfaction and
group efficiency. It was measured with the question “how hard was the task to solve”.
It was answered on a seven-‐‑step Likert scale ranging from one (very easy) to seven
(very difficult).
26
Perceived satisfaction with the decision was included in paper II and IV. It was
measured with the question “How good do you think the decision was”, ranging from
one (very bad) to seven (Very good).
Perceived group efficiency was included in paper II and IV. It was measured with
the question “How efficient do you think the group´s work was”, ranging from one
(very bad) to seven (very good).
Experienced own influence was included in paper IV. The variable was
constructed as a deviance score from a group norm of total equality in influence
(i.e. 25 % in groups of four, 33 % in groups of three, and 20 % in groups of five).
Evaluated democratic character. The variable was included in paper IV. It was
measured by 14 items inspired by Michels theory of “the iron law of oligarch”
(1911, 1984) and as operationalized by Jonsson, Roempke and Zakrisson (2003).
The questions included focused on how the participants perceived different
democratic values in the decision-‐‑making process. Examples of items were: “There
was a closed discussion climate and everybody was afraid to say the wrong
things” (reversed) or “All members of the group took equal responsibility to lead
the work forward”. The items were measured on a seven-‐‑step scale ranging from 1
“totally disagree” to 7 “totally agree”, and the variable was constructed as mean
across the included items.
Decision outcome -‐‑ proportion of women. The variable was included in paper IV,
study 1. The variable measured the proportion of selected women in each group in
relation to the total number of fictive runners selected to the team.
Decision outcome – ranking of target candidates. The variable was included in
paper IV, study 2. The variable measured the groups´ mean ranking of the
candidates.
4.6 Qualitative data analysis

All filmed sessions were transcribed and subjected to different forms of
qualitative analyses.
4.6.1 Interaction process analysis (IPA)

The interaction process analysis (Bales, 1950; 1999) is a method that has been
used since the 1950’s to study communication in small groups. The method focuses
on how people communicate, how they use positive or negative reactions and how
they ask for and give information. The IPA has been used in several studies on
small groups (Keyton & Beck, 2009; Nam, Lyons, Hwang, & Kim, 2009). It is an
established and influential methodology (Hirokawa, 1988) with an inclusive
coding scheme that allows all statements in a group to be coded (Keyton & Beck,
27
2009) and it has been tested for representational validity (Poole & Folger, 1981).
Results from the analysis can be represented both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Qualitatively to explore communication patterns and how discussants
communicate different issues. Quantitatively to explore differences between
various kinds of groups but also to identify differences depending on experimental
conditions.
Paper I applies IPA quantitatively to explore differences due to experimental
conditions of competition vs. cooperation. In order to do so the transcribed
material was analyzed qualitatively in order to find examples of different
categories and sub-‐‑categories.

4.6.2 Conversational argument coding scheme (CACS)
The conversational argument-‐‑coding scheme (CACS; Canary & Seibold, 2010) is
a widespread coding scheme with the ambition of exploring arguments. The CACS
consists of five major categories. Firstly, arguables is divided into two major parts.
The first is called generative mechanisms containing assertions and propositions. The
second is called reasoning activities and consists of elaborations, responses,
amplifications and justifications. The second main category is convergence markers
containing statements representing agreements and acknowledgments. The third
category is called prompters, containing statements such as objections and
challenges. The fourth category is labeled delimitors, containing statements that
provide a context for arguables or attempts to secure common grounds or to
remove possible objections. The last category is non-‐‑arguables, containing process
statements or statements unrelated to the task or incomplete statements impossible
to categorize (Canary & Seibold, 2010; Meyers & Brashers, 2010; Seibold & Meyers,
2007). Previous research has used the CACS in different contexts: to explore sex
differences (Meyers, et al., 1997), to study majority vs. minority influence (Meyers,
et al, 2000) and in different circumstances such as city commission meetings (Beck,
Gronewold & Western, 2012).
This method was used in paper II and III. The transcribed group conversations
were first analyzed qualitatively in order to find examples of the different
categories. In paper II it was used quantitatively to explore differences between
groups identified as either as successful or non-‐‑successful. Paper III applied CACS
in a more extensive way and only qualitatively.

4.6.3 Stereotype content analysis
The stereotype dimensions of warmth and competence (Fiske, et al., 2002) are
essential to this thesis. This analysis focuses on the content of the conversation
instead of the form of the conversation. Unlike IPA and CACS there exist no
28
established coding system. In order to carry out this content analysis a working
definition of how a stereotype would be manifested in the conversations was
proposed. A stereotype was then defined as a statement about a target that went
beyond the information given about that person. Secondly, from the stereotype
content model and how the dimensions of competence and warmth have been
operationalized in previous research stereotypic statements were categorized into
these dimensions either as positive or negative (cold -‐‑ warm, competent -‐‑
incompetent). Stereotype content analysis in this way was applied in paper I and
III.

4.6.4 Conversational pattern analysis
A final kind of qualitative analyses was applied in order to identify how
stereotypic content was used in a broader pattern. In paper I this was done by
analyzing how this was used in arguing for exclusion or inclusion of members to
the relay team. In paper III the communication patterns were analyzed in order to
discover whether and how gender ideologies were negotiated.

5. EMPIRICAL PAPERS

This section will present a brief summary of the studies and the most relevant
analyses and results.
5.1 Paper I
Löfstrand, P., & Zakrisson, I. (2014). Competitive versus non-‐‑competitive goals
in group decision-‐‑making. Small Group Research, 45 (4), 451-‐‑464.

5.1.1 Background and aim
As stated in the aim of this thesis a way to study if and how biased information
processing appears in group decision-‐‑making is to frame the context for the
decision situation. One such framing is to vary the goals set for the decision-‐‑
making session. Groups most often have values and ambitions that vary between
groups, tasks and situations. Often, goals are related to achievement, e.g. receiving
high grades, making a profit or winning a competition. Besides the achievement
goals, groups have a need to achieve good social relations among the group
members. These two different kinds of goal setting often exist at the same time and
this sometimes creates a dilemma. This is especially true for groups in the
29
voluntary sector (Vogel, Amnå, Munk, & Häll, 2003). This paper explores how
differences in the decision-‐‑making context (competitive or non-‐‑competitive goals)
affect the decision-‐‑making process simulating a sports association context. As
reported previously in this thesis, research indicates that competitive and
cooperative goals influence decision-‐‑making groups in different ways. The aim of
this study was to explore how goal setting influenced communication patterns
both as to form and to content. To study the form of the communication interaction
process analysis (IPA; Bales, 1999) was used. The content was analyzed by
applying the stereotype content model on if, and how, stereotypes were used in
the argumentation in relation to decisions about inclusion and exclusion.

5.1.2 Methodology
The data collected at the time for the compilation of this paper were 79
university students (50 female and 29 male) from different study program,
participating in the experiment “The Relay Team”. They were divided into 20
groups of 3 to 5 persons (most often 4).
5.1.2.2 Data analysis

The transcriptions of the group decision-‐‑making sessions were subjected to
three different analyses. First, the transcriptions were coded blindly using the
Interaction Process Analysis into our main categories; information sharing,
positive reactions, questions, and negative reactions. These were further
subdivided into three sub-‐‑categories respectively. Second, a content analysis was
carried out applying the stereotype dimensions of competence and warmth, to
which examples from the transcribed material were matched. Furthermore,
examples of inclusion and exclusion statements were extracted. Finally, arguments
of warmth and competence were analyzed in relation to statements about inclusion
and exclusion.
5.1.3 Results
Both main and sub-‐‑categories of the IPA were subjected to a quantitative
analysis, which revealed only minor differences between the two goal settings.
There were more positive reactions in groups with the cooperative goal than in
groups with the competitive goal.
The remaining analyses focused on the content of the discussions within the
groups. The main results were that the context had implications on how
30
stereotypes was negotiated and used in the decision-‐‑making process. In the
competitive context, competence was positioned at the beginning of the discussion
where the goal was to win the competition. Competence was more elaborated in
groups with a competitive goal. Inclusion was important when it came to
individuals who the group members assumed were the best performers. Exclusion
was also important, but mainly to exclude the worst performers. Exclusions were
motivated by stereotypical arguments such as “old people run slower”, “wine tasters
are probably bad runners”, etc. In the non-‐‑competitive context, competent runners
were included in the team with arguments such as “they will probably be happier”.
Groups with a non-‐‑competitive goal had difficulties relating to how to approach
the task, “what does it mean to have fun together”, etc. The warmth dimension was
discussed often in the non-‐‑competitive context. Inclusion was discussed to find
positions that would create a good team atmosphere.

5.1.4 Conclusion
While the form of the communication did not differ much between the two
goals, the content of the discussions showed more systematic patterns. It seems as
a competitive goal leads to both inclusion and exclusion with use of both positive
and negative stereotypes. A non-‐‑competitive goal seems to lead to inclusions
mechanisms and only use of positive stereotypes. That it seemed harder to
understand how to approach the task in a non-‐‑competitive context suggests that
competition is more normative and thus easier to relate to.
5.2 Paper II
Löfstrand, P., (2015). Conversational arguments in small group decision-‐‑
making: reasoning activity and perceived influence over the decision are keys for
success. In R. Thornberg & T. Jungert (Eds.), Independent in the heard: Inclusion
and exclusion as social processes: Proceedings from the 9th GRASP conference,
Linköping University (pp.64-‐‑81). (Research report in electronics) (Linköping Electronic
Conference Proceedings).

Paper I showed that the context played an important role for the conversation
pattern in decision-‐‑making groups. However, from this it is not possible to say
which kind of conversation is better than the other. Furthermore, what constitutes
more constructive decision-‐‑making is also difficult to tell. It is not always easy to
say whether a group process is good or successful. Often when groups are
evaluated their successfulness is measured in achievement terms. How did they
31
perform in relation to other groups? How much did they gain? Even if the group is
evaluated for its outcomes, the group members might not share the same view of
the group’s successfulness. Thus, how the individual group members experience
the situation is essential as it might influence their motivation to cooperate and
move the work forward. As stated in chapter 2 what people experience might be of
various kinds, it could be related to the outcome as for example satisfaction with
the decision or it could be process oriented as for example the perceived efficiency
with which the group has worked. It could also be related to how the participants
experience own and other members’ influence over the actual decision or the
decision-‐‑making process. These different kinds of evaluations do not necessarily
need to be related to each other. It is for example possible to be content with the
decision outcome but without experienced influence over the decision process.
The individual experiences both influence and are influenced by the group. For
example efficiency does not necessarily mean the ease or speed with which a
decision is reached. Sooner it includes how the problem to be solved is elaborated
– how information is shared, how different opinions and conflicts are handled thus
the form of the communication within the group. In paper I IPA was used to study
such form of interaction. However, it yielded few clear results. Another way is to
focus on the form of the argumentation within the group.
This paper was divided into two parts. First, the relationship between
satisfaction, perceived efficiency, perceived equality of influence over the
discussion and perceived equality of influence over the decision were analyzed
quantitatively. In the second part, the form of the communication in terms of
argumentation processes was analyzed in groups that differed in their subjective
experience of satisfaction, efficiency and influence.

5.2.2 Method
Data from 81 participants (53 women, 28 men) forming 21 ad-‐‑hoc groups of 3 to
5 participants, (most often 4), took part in the experiment “The Relay Team”. This
far in the project there was some more data collected compared to the sample in
paper I. However due to missing data on some of the quantitative measures the
number of participants differ between the papers.
5.2.2.2 Quantitative data

Five variables based on answers to questions in the final questionnaire were
used in this paper: Perceived equality in the influence over the decision, Perceived
32
equality in the influence in the discussion, Perceived task difficulty, Perceived satisfaction
with the decision and Perceived group efficiency. How these were operationalized is
presented in chapter 4.
5.2.2.3 Qualitative data

Based on the variables “perceived satisfaction with the decision”, and “perceived
group efficiency” a total of six groups were selected for further analysis, three
among those with the highest mean values on both variables (labeled “successful”)
and three among those with the lowest means on both variables (labeled “non-‐‑
successful”). The three groups in each category were also matched according to the
experimental condition and gender composition.
The transcripts for these groups were subjected to conversational argument
analysis as conversational arguments described in chapter 4.
5.2.3 Results
The quantitative analyses revealed that perceived influence over the decision
was more important than perceived influence over the discussion. Perceived
equality in influence over the decision was related to both decision satisfaction and
perceived group efficiency. The qualitative analysis of the transcriptions for six
groups (three labeled successful and three labeled unsuccessful) was carried out
with the conversational argument coding scheme. Examples of all types of
conversational arguments were found in the present material. The groups defined
as successful displayed overall more argumentation examples than the groups
defined as unsuccessful although significant differences were only found for
reasoning activities and non-‐‑arguables. More specifically the successful groups
used both justifications of propositions and responses and these reasoning
activities seemed to serve the function of moving the communication forward.
These kinds of reasoning activities were found regardless of goal set for the task
and group composition.
5.2.4 Conclusions
These results indicate that equality in the influence over the actual decision is
important for how the decision process is experienced. The qualitative analyses of
the conversational patterns seemed to validate this. A richer and more varied
discussion tends to incorporate more of the participants making them feel more
involved and thus satisfied.
33
5.3 Paper III
Löfstrand, P. & Zakrisson, I. (2017). “What about the child issue?” Group
negotiations of gender and parenthood contracts in recruitment situations, Society,
Health & Vulnerability, 8 (1), 19-‐‑30.

In paper I it was found that stereotypic statements were used in the
argumentation for and against inclusion and exclusion. These patterns were
related to the framing context of competition vs. cooperation. Paper II seemed to
indicate that richer discussions were experienced as more constructive regardless
of the framing context. What these two studies do not say is if and in what way the
complexity of a discussion is related to how stereotypes are communicated.
Although the framing context of competition and cooperation implicitly is related
to gender perhaps a more explicit gender related framing would yield a better test
of gender related stereotypes and how these are negotiated. For this purpose
another framing situation was used in paper III.
Parenthood is a concept that has quite specific connotations for what is
expected from men and women. For example men and women are found to be
judged differently along the dimensions of competence and warmth, which has
implications for their career opportunities (Cuddy, et al., 2004). Such judgments
have mainly been studied on individual level but in a decision situation such
stereotypes are probably manifested and negotiated. Discourses of parenthood and
work have mainly been studied from the perspective of parents and more
specifically implications for mothers. In the present study how parenthood is
understood in relation to career situations is investigated by applying a
recruitment paradigm normally used on individual level but here transferred to a
group decision situation in order to study how gender in relation to parenthood
was negotiated.

5.3.2 Method
The participants in this paper were students from various university programs
that took part in experiment II, “The Consultant”. Data from groups in the parent
condition was included for further analyses. The number of participants was 130
(85 women and 45 men) forming 35 ad-‐‑hoc groups.
34
5.3.2.2 Data and analysis
The transcriptions for the decision sessions for each group were subjected to
two kinds of analysis. First content analysis was carried out applying the
stereotype content model. The second analysis was to use a brief version of the
conversational argument coding scheme (Canary & Seibold, 2010; Meyers &
Brashers, 2010) in order to investigate how statements about competence and
warmth formed different discourses within the group.

5.3.3 Results
Parenthood dominated the discussions and was the only background
information that was discussed in all of the groups; this was more often than, for
example, work experience, which was the second most common. Parenthood was
sometimes seen as reducing competence, but it was more often viewed as adding
to competence. Parenthood was also considered to add warmth to the organization.
Interestingly, all groups avoided relating the parenthood issue to gender.
Parenthood was mainly discussed as beneficial for the organization. This was
especially true in groups with only women discussing a female target or in groups
with only men discussing a male target. Male groups discussing a female target
shared this view although sometimes with a reservation. Warmth attributes were
discussed more in the female groups than in the male groups. Regarding the
female target both groups with only men and with only women saw warmth as
general traits such as friendly and humble. The argument that warmth is an asset
to the company was only found in the groups with only women and only for the
female target.
Three conversation patterns were found, differing in the amount of elaboration
of the topic of parenthood and work. The first pattern involved opinions and
statements that were not negotiated at all. The second pattern involved opinions
and statements that were supported by other group members. The arguments gave
strength to the initial statements. The last and most frequent pattern was that
opinions and statements were challenged, objected to or disagreed with. This
pattern sometimes led to a change of opinions.

5.3.4 Conclusion
It seems that parenthood evokes a lot of views and opinions. Although the
participants did differentiate between mothers and fathers they seemed to apply
attributes of competence and warmth differently to the targets. Furthermore, it was
also evident that gender and gender composition seemed to matter as male and
female groups applied the attributes differently.
35
Similarly to paper II it was found that a richer conversation seemed more
constructive, here the complexity constituted not only reasoning activities but also
objections and counter arguments. This sometimes led to a change of initial
opinions and to more elaborated decisions.
5.4 Paper IV
Zakrisson, I., & Löfstrand, P. (2018) The multidimensionality of gender –
implications for group-‐‑based decision making. Submitted for publication.

Paper II showed that how a decision situation is subjectively experienced is of
importance in the decision process. Paper I and III showed that the framing
conditions had impact on the conversational pattern in the groups. Paper III
furthermore implies that gender composition in the groups plays a role for the
decision process. None of the previous presented papers deal with how these
factors are related to the decision outcome. Both framing contexts, as well as
gender composition can be seen as gendered variables. The aim of this study was
to explore these factors further in relation to decision outcome and evaluations of
the decision situation.
The norms in society about what are expected from men and women functions
as a backdrop against which men and women are perceived and evaluated. In a
decision situation societal norms form the context against which decisions are
made. This can be seen as structural gender variable. But, how these norms are
interpreted in a given situation is also influenced by situational cues. Gender
composition might function as such a cue thus constituting gender as a situational
variable. These can of course interact which each other and also with peoples own
gender, which thus serves as an individual gender variable. In the present research
framing as goal setting and framing as gender and parenthood form the structural
level of gender and gender composition in the decision groups is regarded a
situational level and own gender as individual level.

5.4.2 Method
Paper IV consists of two studies based on both experiment I (The Relay Team)
and II (The Consultant). The total number of participants that took part in study I
was 210 (138 women and 72 men), forming 54 groups. The gender composition
was 27 female, 10 male and 17 mixed-‐‑gender groups. The total number of
36
participants in study II was 272 (179 women and 93 men). The gender composition
of the groups in study II was 40 female, 16 male and 15 mixed-‐‑gender groups.
5.4.2.2. Quantitative data

Decision outcome variables were analyzed on group level. In study I the
variable constituted the proportion of women chosen in relation to the total
number of persons to choose from. In study II it was the mean rank of the target
person.
On individual level the variables used were task satisfaction, evaluated
efficiency, experienced influence and evaluated democratic character as described
in chapter 4. The independent variables in experiment 1 were goal setting and
gender composition in the group, and in experiment 2 they were gender and
parental status of the target, and gender composition in the group.

5.4.3 Results
For decision outcome the independent variables had very little effect. In study I
the effect of gender composition was marginally significant. Groups with only men
chose fewer women to the team than groups with only women. In study II the only
significant effect was the target candidate’s gender. The groups considered the
female target regardless of her parental status as a better candidate than the male
one. However, the experience of decision situation differed depending on some of
the gendered variables. In study I men regarded the process as more efficient,
democratic, and experienced more influence in groups with only men, while
women seemed to prefer mixed gendered groups in the same respect. In study II
men experienced more influence in male target and male parent conditions while
women experienced more influence in the female parent condition.

5.5.4 Conclusion
The results from the two studies do not present a clear picture. However what
is similar in the two studies is that different conceptualizations of gender seem to
interact in various ways in relation to how a decision situation is experienced. Men
seem more content in male groups, with male targets and male parent conditions,
while women seemed more content in mixed gendered groups with female parent
conditions. In society there are very few all-‐‑female decision groups while there are
very many all male or to some extent mixed gendered decision-‐‑making groups.
Hence, men and women may differ in their familiarity with decision situations –
men more familiar with male contexts while women are more familiar with mixed
contexts.
37

6. GENERAL DISCUSSION

The overall aim of this thesis was to explore how stereotypes were
communicated, negotiated and constructed within communication in different
decision-‐‑making contexts. Furthermore, the aim was to explore which parts of
group communication that make a decision-‐‑making process more or less successful.
Finally, the aim was to problematize the gender concept and study gender in
decision-‐‑making situations from a situational, structural and individual
perspective.
6.1 Stereotyping and context

As mentioned in the introduction a dominant paradigm in group decision-‐‑
making is to use a context presented in achievements terms, the goal is most often
operationalized as points, grades or money (Ahn, et al., 2003), and a broader range
of goals has been inquired for (Kray & Thompson, 2005). There is however
research that has compared competitive and non-‐‑competitive contexts, which has
found differences regarding forms of interaction within groups (van Knippenberg,
et al., 2001; Toma & Butera, 2015). In the present research interaction process
analysis (Bales, 1999) was used to study variations in communication patterns
depending on the goal set for the decision task, but with just minor differences
found. Instead what seemed to matter was how stereotypes presented themselves
within the communication. In groups with a competitive goal stereotypes were
used to include and exclude people. In groups with a cooperative goal stereotypes
were used only to include people. Furthermore, for groups with a competitive goal,
the dimensions of warmth and competence were used both to include and exclude
runners to the team. The fictive runners were described as high/low on the two
stereotype content dimensions. For groups with a cooperative goal, mostly warmth
was used to include runners in the team. Furthermore, the non-‐‑competitive groups
rarely talked in terms of competence. The conclusion from this is that competitive
goals lead to inclusion and exclusion mechanisms where stereotypes are used both
positively and negatively. A non-‐‑competitive goal feeds the inclusion mechanisms,
where stereotypes are used positively. Groups with a non-‐‑competitive goal used
attributes related to both warmth and competence, while no references to the
warmth dimension were found in groups with a competitive goal setting. This
indicates that the groups in the non-‐‑competitive condition could not free
themselves from the nature of the task – to be competitive. They even had to
remind themselves that the task was to form a team with a good group atmosphere
and not to win the competition.
38
How stereotypes are used when judging other people is predominately studied
on individual level and very seldom introduced in a group setting. By varying the
goals set for the task it is evident that this forms a context against which the same
information is interpreted in different ways and stereotypes are thus
communicated differently. The goals function as some kind of meta-‐‑information.
This is also in line with other research where meta-‐‑information has been more
explicitly varied (Rijnbout & McKimmie; 2012; Wolgast, 2017).
A more direct way of investigating the influence of context is to explicitly vary
gender relevant information. This was done in experiment II “The Consultant”.
The setup was modeled after Cuddy, et al. (2004) and Heilman and Okimoto (2008)
but transferred to a group situation in order to investigate how stereotype
dimensions such as competence and warmth were communicated. The purpose
was mainly to study gender stereotypes and where parenthood was supposed to
function as an amplifier of gender stereotypes. However, in the group discussions
gender seemed to be relatively unimportant, the discussions were dominated by
the “child issue”, far more than other variables such as preferred working style,
hobbies or education. By use of a brief variant of the conversational argument
coding scheme (Canary & Seibold, 2010) three different communication patterns,
differing in depth of communication and argumentation, were revealed. The first
pattern involved opinions and statements that were not responded to from the
other discussants. The second pattern also involved opinions and statements, but
instead, they were met by arguments to give strength to the initial statements. The
third pattern was the most frequent communication pattern. This pattern also
involved statements and opinions that were responded to, but here the arguments
were challenged, objected to and disagreed with.
Similarly to the framing of context in experiment I also in this second
experiment the framing of context resulted in different conversational pattern and
how stereotypes manifested themselves in the discussions. However, what was
surprising was that gender had very little importance and the discussions were
dominated by parenthood and its possible benefits and disadvantages for the
individual and the organization. How come? There could be several answers to
this questions, the simplest answer are that it is only a question of social
desirability (Bem, Wallach & Kogan, 1965). However, the results in paper IV
regarding the decision outcome showed that the female candidate was preferred
over the male one but that there was no difference in rank between parents and
non-‐‑parents. If it were only a question of social desirability they would be assumed
to discuss the benefits of the female target and disadvantages of the male target to
a greater extent and parenthood would not have been an issue in the discussion.
Sooner they seemed reluctant to introduce gender in the discussions and
39
parenthood seemed to be a safer topic. Another explanation could be that men and
women having a job in fact is not an issue according to young adults in Sweden
today. The relative frequency of men and women working is of about the same size,
(SCB, 2016) although there are inequalities in other ways, for example, regarding
salaries and career opportunities (Kugelberg, 2006). Nor should parenthood be an
issue in recruitment situations and there is evidence that employers do not
discriminate against parents in Sweden (Bygren, Erlandsson & Gähler, 2017) but it
is perhaps less common that information about parenthood status is revealed in
job applications. Thus, that the applicants differed as to gender in the present
situation is more or less what is expected but information about parenthood is thus
something extraordinarily that the attention of the groups is directed to. This again
proves that the context is an important factor for how information is interpreted
and negotiated but this can also take different forms. The conversational pattern
analysis showed that a more elaborated conversational pattern seemed to be the
most constructive one as it displayed how opinions could change within one and
the same session.
Gender composition was introduced in the experiments as a situational aspect
of gender. However, this variable did not show as clear-‐‑cut patterns regarding
stereotypes as the two framing setups did. There was some evidence that it
affected the decision outcome in the way that all women and mixed groups
showed similar decision patterns compared to groups with only men, although
these differences were moderately weak. The results are however, in line with the
scarce research investigating gender composition in relation to decision-‐‑making
(Hannagan & Larimer, 2010). Nor showed the qualitative analyses in experiment I
any explicit pattern. Gender composition was not explicitly tested in relation to
communication patterns and stereotypes in paper I and II, but from an inductive
perspective it would have manifested itself had systematic differences existed as it
did in paper III. Here group composition intersected with the gender of the target
both regarding competence and warmth. So, although the main discussions
referred to parenthood, when the material was analyzed in relation to gender
composition it seemed as the target’s gender mattered to some degree after all. The
general pattern was that groups with only women and groups with only men
differed but that mixed gendered groups did not display any particular pattern. In
such groups, where both men and women are present, the gender concept cues
another kind of information, which seems to be of consequences for the
communication pattern where systematic gender differences seem to disappear.
40
6.2 The role of experiences
The previous section discussed communication patterns both as to content and
form in relation to stereotypes and context variables and gender composition. This
says nothing about how the participants experience and evaluate the situation.
Even though these various factors influences how constructive a decision process
is, the participants may not necessarily experience it in the same way. Even though
there is no absolute consensus about what leads to positive experiences (Barr &
Gold, 2014) there is evidence that satisfaction (DeStephen & Hirokawa, 1988),
influence (Kong, et al., 2015), information sharing (Larson et al, 1998; Tasa &
Whyte, 2005), and the extent to which deviant opinions are allowed (De Dreu &
West, 2001) are of importance. The results in paper II revealed that the discussions
were broader in groups defined as successful based on the participants
experienced satisfaction, perceived equality of influence and experienced efficiency.
They used more reasoning activities, gave each other more responses and also
argued more against each other than participants in groups defined as
unsuccessful. The successful groups also displayed more of all of the conversation
categories, which suggest a more complex decision-‐‑making process. According to
the research presented above this is essential for the quality of decisions made. As
discussed before a more complex discussion pattern, as revealed in paper III, also
seem to inhibit the use of stereotypes. This means that it is not the amount of input
information that is important for the decision-‐‑making process. Instead it is what
the group allows the members to do with it.
Paper II showed that subjective experiences are of importance for the decision-‐‑
making process. The next step was to see if experiences were dependent on the
context variables and the gender composition in the groups. It is reasonable to
assume that a situation you are familiar with is experienced as more comfortable
(Rijnbout & McKimmie, 2012). Given that a competitive context is a norm in
society (Pratto, et al., 2006) together with that career decisions are more often about
men where parenthood is not an issue (Cuddy, et al., 2004) men and women might
be differently familiar with such situations and hence will experience them
differently. Adding to this, gender composition might also lead to different
experiences (Hannagan, 2006). Indeed this was also what was found in paper IV.
Own gender seemed to interact with gender composition and the framing
variables. Men seemed to be more content in groups with only men and male
target conditions and male target conditions while women seemed to prefer mixed
gendered groups and female target conditions. This is not surprising as male
dominated decision situations are a norm in society and all female decision-‐‑
making groups rarely exist (International Labour Office, 2016; Petersson, Catásus
& Danielsson, 2016).
41
6.3 Methodological considerations
A number of methodological issues need to be discussed before implications
from the present research are introduced.
First, the participants were students from different study programs. Even if no
differences according to study program were found, the choice of students might
not be transferrable to other groups in society. With another sample, for example,
people active in sports associations in experiment I, and people working with
recruitment in experiment II, the results could have been different. However, the
results might not have been weaker. With people who are familiar with the
experimental conditions, the results could instead have been strengthened.
The second limitation is the choice of ad-‐‑hoc groups instead of real decision-‐‑
making groups. As ad-‐‑hoc groups are immature and the participants know that
they will not work together in similar situations in the future, this could affect the
results. However, previous research has revealed that ad-‐‑hoc groups in
experimental settings are as stable as real decision-‐‑making groups (Dubrovsky, et
al., 1991), and many recent studies in GDM have been conducted with ad-‐‑hoc
groups (e.g. Hogg, Sherman, Dierselhuis, Maitner & Moffit, 2007; Nawata &
Yamaguchi, 2011; Kahai, Huang & Jestice, 2012).
A third aspect related to the experimental design could be the time constraint
that forces the group to be more cooperative than if they did not have any time
limit, something which has been revealed in previous research (Cone & Rand,
2014). However, as differences were found it seems that the time limit set was
enough for making emergent communication patterns and subjective experiences
visible.
A fourth limitation could be that this thesis uses an unorthodox design and
perhaps could the lack of relevant previous studies be a limitation. The
application of the stereotype content model may be an innovative approach to
break down the stereotype dimensions in order to see how they are negotiated.
However, this is a quite new approach as the SCM mostly is used on an individual
level and related to how individuals perceive people associated with different
groups. There is in other words a need for more future research to give strength to
the validity of the stereotype content analysis that was used in this thesis.
A final aspect that could be a limitation is the choice of a qualitative approach
within an experimental design. This is a quite unusual design to conduct group
research. Most often, qualitative research is made in the field with real decision-‐‑
making groups and quantitative methods chosen in experimental settings on ad-‐‑
hoc groups. A strength with this approach is, however, that qualitative and
42
quantitative methods were used in conjunction with each other. This gives a richer
picture of the results.
A couple of remarks regarding the research ethics have to be made. First of all
the participants were not informed in advance of the specific aim of the research,
as this would jeopardize the results. If they had knowledge of the independent
variable they could adjust their responses in line with this information. However,
they were debriefed immediately afterwards and were told that they could refrain
from participation. A second remark is that the experiments were most often
conducted by the students´ teachers, which put the participants in a dependent
situation. Participation was in many cases part of course requirements, but
participation in the research was voluntary. Again, in the debriefing afterwards
they were informed explicitly that they could refrain from participation. Finally,
the decision sessions were filmed which means that the collected data contained
personal information to be stored for considerable period. The participants were
also informed of this and if they consented to participation in the research and
handling of personal information they signed an agreement form.
6.4 Practical implications

One of the things that this thesis revealed was that competitive goals are easier to
understand for a group in a decision-‐‑making situation than a non-‐‑competitive goal.
This as groups in a non-‐‑competitive task could not free themselves from the
competitive task. So, what does that tell us? I think that it indicates the need for
groups to discuss goals and ambitions and how it might affect both the inner
mechanisms in the group and how it might affect the way the members talk about
each other and persons outside the group. This as it seem as the normative
competitive environment triggers inclusion and exclusion mechanisms and the use
of stereotypes. For sports associations, especially those involved in youth sports, it
is important to understand that a competitive setting strengthen stereotypes of
warmth and competence both to include in-‐‑group members and to exclude out-‐‑
groups. Moreover, in competitive youth sports environments there is a risk that the
stereotypes generalize outside the actual sports team and follow the youngsters to
other environments such as for example school. The need for sports associations to
understand these mechanisms is huge, especially since seventy percent of the
youth in Sweden are involved in sports activities at least once a week (Statistiska
centralbyrån, 2017). The number of people being involved as trainers and leaders
in sports associations is considerable (Riksidrottsförbundet, 2011). How goals are
discussed and mediated within an association, and how they influence stereotype
use and inclusion and exclusion mechanisms, is crucial to understand and should
be included in the educational programs of sports associations at national and local
43
level. My answer is not to forbid competitive goals but they need to be tuned down
and the cooperative goals need to take much more place, not least, as inclusion
patterns seem to emerge in that context. This dilemma is not new and it probably
has to be handled over and over again, or as Vince Lombardi, a famous American
football coach said:
”People who work together will win, whether it be against complex football defenses, or
the problems of modern society”. (Vince Lombardi, football coach, Benson, 2008).
For parenthood and gender the results clearly showed that “the child issue”
triggers a lot of discussion and use of stereotypes in recruitment situations. In fact
it seemed to be more important than both information of work-‐‑life experience and
formal education. As previously mentioned gender was not introduced to the
discussions, perhaps the answer is that young people in Sweden today knows that
gender shouldn’t be an issue in recruitment situations.
Results from the thesis also tell us something about how to create a good
decision-‐‑making group. Contexts seem to be important for how information is
interpreted. Moreover, elaboration of arguments seemed to be most constructive as
it displayed how stereotypes could change, even within in the same session and
within the same individual. These results could all be used in order to enhance the
quality of decision-‐‑making in groups. By setting up counter-‐‑stereotypical
contextual information, as well as having discussion rules asking for counter-‐‑
arguments more elaborate decision patterns may emerge. More complex
conversation patterns are not only important for satisfaction it also prevents the
use of stereotypes.
There has been a big change in the workforce in recent decades. More and more
men work in typically female-‐‑dominated occupations, and more and more women
have taken place in traditionally male-‐‑dominated work areas. However, there is
still large disparities between different areas in the work place, i.e. men still
dominate the better-‐‑paid jobs in industry and there are more men than women in
the boardrooms. Women on the other hand dominate the less paid jobs in social
service, health and education (World Economic Forum, 2015). The political debate
about gender and equality in work life is often related to the representation in the
boardrooms. Still in 2016, in all societies around the globe, men are to a much
higher degree represented in the boardrooms (International Labour Office, 2016).
All in all, men in important – financial – sectors are more often in charge of the
decision-‐‑making and have the majority of the power positions (Smith, 2002). Some
countries are considering political action such as affirmative action to change
inequality. For example, Norway, Iceland, Israel and Spain have applied laws that
allocate a percentage of women to the boardrooms (Brandth, & Bjørkhaug, 2015;
Sheridan, Ross-‐‑Smith & Lord, 2015). But counting heads is perhaps not the only
44
solution, although the present research indicates that gender composition is not
trivial. But the research also shows that gender is a complex phenomenon, and that
a greater repertoire of actions need to be used. Affirmative action might lead to
more gender balance in power positions, but more actions are needed if we really
want a change.
6.5 Future research

A number of research ideas have emerged during the work with this thesis. In
the present research (paper III) the conversation patterns within the parent
condition was analyzed, and it was found that all groups discussed “the child issue”
a lot. But how do these groups differ from those where the parenthood status was
not explicitly mentioned? Thus there is a need to analyze also how groups without
a parent target discussed the different candidates. Do more gender related
stereotypes emerge in these groups? This could be done with the use of the
conversational argument coding scheme and/or an analysis of the stereotype
contents.
The “parenthood” design would also work very well with other discrimination
bases. First, ethnicity could easily be manipulated by using a non-‐‑normative name
for the target person. A previous study conducted on real persons working with
recruitment revealed that a person with a non-‐‑normative name needs to be rated
higher on both competence and warmth compared to his competitors to be
selected for an interview, while a man with a normative name only needs to be
rated higher in one of the two dimensions (Agerström, et al., 2012).
Another aspect that might have an impact on the stereotype dimensions
warmth and competence is sexual orientation. Previous research reveals that
sexuality is strongly related to stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination (e.g.
Fraïssé, & Barrientos, 2016; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Peplau & Fingerhut; 2004). But
there is a need for experiments in the area to explore how people communicate and
negotiate stereotypes contents related to sexual orientation especially in relation to
power positions.
Finally, the use of different goal setting, here related to a sports scenario would
also be of interest to study within other situations, for example to investigate
different power mechanisms in decision-‐‑making groups. For example to find out
how different context (goal setting) affects democratically related components in a
political decision-‐‑making group.
45
6.6 The Bottom Line
We know from a theoretical perspective that people use stereotypes in daily life
to process information about other people (Fiske, et al, 2002). The stereotype bias is
formed from structures in society and some groups are viewed as more or less
competent and some as more or less warm (Fiske, 2015).
Previous research has revealed that stereotypes function as a tool to maintain
structures in society (Dovidio, et al., 2010). With the knowledge that attitudes
should be seen as constructs (Howe & Krosnick, 2017) and that the strength of an
attitude is critical for the possibility to change it. It was interesting to study which
effect negotiation and communication had on the stereotype dimensions warmth
and competence. The way a decision-‐‑making group solves a problem, handles
difficulties or develops manifests stereotypes about others, plays an important role
in society. Often, rational choice or prisoners’ dilemmas are chosen in the
experimental design when group decision-‐‑making is studied. The experiments in
this thesis were instead designed to frame either the context or the object without
competitive achievement goals. The aim was to study the role that stereotypes had
in decision-‐‑making in groups. The methodology chosen to study communication
and the communication patterns was mainly qualitative. Both previously used
methods such as interaction process analyses and conversational arguments
coding scheme and two invented methods Stereotype Content Analysis and
Communication Pattern Analysis were used. The main reason to apply new methods
was to get a better understanding of how differences such as gender composition
and framing in different decision-‐‑making contexts might affect the use of
stereotypes. This thesis has explored how stereotypes may be constructed when
people communicate, negotiate and make decisions together.
All in all, the results from this thesis indicate both challenges from a democratic
perspective and from a gender perspective.
This thesis, along with previous research, reveals that stereotypes have an
important role in decision-‐‑making situations. How stereotypes are negotiated and
communicated is affected by contextual factors. Finally, people can simultaneously
be seen as social animals (Aronson, 1984), social beings (Fiske, 2014) and relational
beings (Gergen, 2011).

”Keep on rockin’ in a free world”, Neil Young, 1989

46
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without support from many people had this thesis been impossible to finish.
First of all do I have to bring many thanks to my supervisor and colleague Ingrid
Zakrisson for years of discussions with so much help and when in need a push to
come forward. I also want to thank my two co-‐‑supervisors Richard Ahlström and
Patric Millet for framing my scientific mind and for suggestions.
I also want to thank all colleagues from the department of psychology at Mid
Sweden University, for advices and ideas from seminars, meetings, and coffee
room discussions. I also want to bring thanks to colleagues from other departments
at Mid Sweden for good companionship.
A special thanks to one of my first university teachers Sten Antilla who
probably don’t remember, but who with a small question probably changed the
way I framed myself. It was after a course in methodology that I talked to Sten
about options for the future. I was at the moment a young student who was the
first from the family to attend university studies. When he suggested me to be a
teacher was my answer “I don’t think I want work with education and small children”.
Sten responded, “I meant a university teacher”, that certainly changed something for
me.
I also want to bring thanks to colleagues from Universities abroad at John
Moores, Bremen, Trier, Stenden and Coe College where the ideas of the
parenthood experiment took form. Mostly thanks to the whole bunch of political
psychologist from all around the globe that I had the opportunity to spend a great
time together with at Stanford last summer. I also want to thank all students that I
have met during my process; you are a source that always forces me to bring out
the best for my lectures.
There have also been a lot of persons that in different degrees has been
involved in my experiments. Henrik, Emma, Katarina and Kibebe, thank you for
the help with different parts with the experiments. I would also like to thank all the
participants in my experiments, without whom not much would have been
achieved.
Another special thanks to Ulrika Danielsson and Kerstin Weimer for reading
my manuscript for the half-‐‑time seminar and also to Eva Hammar Chiriac from
Linköping for important suggestions from this seminar. Another special thanks to
Lina Eriksson and Francisco Esteves for reading my manuscript for my final
seminar and to Michael Rosander for important suggestions at the final seminar.
47
Since a lot of my ideas comes from life outside the laboratory do I also want to
thank colleagues from my political life and a special thanks to everyone that is
evolved in the sports association Ope IF.
I also want to thank my ”brother from the academy”, Ulrik Terp for years of
inspiration, discussions and fun together. Thanks to mom and dad and my brother
and his family for always being there.

Finally, my most important acknowledgement goes to my wife, Monica and my
girls Minna & Sofia who continuously has supported me with love and enthusiasm.

48
8. REFERENCES

Agerström, J., Björklund, F., Carlsson, R., & Rooth, D. (2012). Warm and competent
Hassan = cold and incompetent Eric: A harsh equation of real-‐‑life hiring
discrimination. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 359-‐‑366.
Ahn, T. K., Ostrom, E., Schmidt, D., & Walker, J. (2003). Trust in two-‐‑person
games: Game structures and linkages. In E. Ostrom & J. Walker (Eds.), Trust
and reciprocity (pp. 323-‐‑351). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(3), 159-‐‑182.
Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-‐‑Wesley.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as
predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-‐‑analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 111(2), 256-‐‑274.
Apesteguia, J., Azmat, G., & Iriberri, N. (2012). The impact of gender composition
on team performance and decision making: Evidence from the field.
Management Science, 58 (1), 78-‐‑93.
Aronson, E. (1984). The social animal. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Asch, S. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against
a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole No.416).
Baird, K., & Wang, H. (2010). Employee empowerment: Extent of adoption and
influential factors. Personnel Review, 39(5), 574-‐‑599.
Bales, R.F. (1950). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction.
Americal Sociological Review, 15, 257-‐‑263.
Bales, R.F. (1999). Social interaction systems. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Barr, S., & Gold, J. M. (2014). Redundant visual information enhances group
decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 40(6), 2124-‐‑2130.
Barreto, M., Ryan, M.K., & Schmitt, M.T. (2009). Introduction: Is the glass ceiling
still relevant in the 21st century? In M. Barreto, M.K. Ryan, & M.T. Schmitt
(Eds.), The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender
equality (pp.3-‐‑18). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Beck, S.J., Gronewold, K.L., & Western, K.J. (2012). Intergroup argumentation in
city government decision-‐‑making: The wal-‐‑mart dilemma. Small Group
Research, 43(5), 587-‐‑612.
49
Behfar, K.J., Mannix, E.A., Peterson, R.S., & Trochim, W.M. (2011). Conflict in small
groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group
Research, 42, 127-‐‑176.
Bem, D. J., Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Group decision making under risk
of aversive consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(5),
453-‐‑460).
Bergh, R., Akrami, N., Sidanius, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2016). Is group membership
necessary for understanding generalized prejudice? A re-‐‑evaluation of why
prejudices are interrelated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3),
367-‐‑395.
Benson, M. (2008) Winning words, classic quotes from the world of sports. Lanham,
MD: Taylor Trade Publishing.
Billig, M. (1997). Discursive, rhetorical, and ideological messages. In C. McGarty, &
S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in
society; the message of social psychology: (pp. 36-‐‑53), Malden, NY: Blackwell.
Billig, M. (2015). Kurt Lewin’s leadership studies and his legacy to social
psychology: Is there nothing as practical as a good theory. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(4), 440-‐‑460.
Binggeli, S., Krings, F., & Sczesny, S. (2014). Stereotype content associated with
immigrant groups in switzerland. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 73(3), 123-‐‑133.
Bobbitt-‐‑Zeher, D. (2011). Gender discrimination at work: Connecting gender
stereotypes, institutional policies, and gender composition of workplace.
Gender & Society, 25(6), 764-‐‑786.
Bodenhausen, G. V. (2005). The role of stereotypes in decision-‐‑making processes.
Medical Decision Making, 25(1), 112-‐‑118.
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Macrae, C. N. (1998). Stereotype activation and inhibition.
In R. S. Wyer Jr. (Ed.), Stereotype activation and inhibition; stereotype activation
and inhibition, (pp. 1-‐‑52), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Bodenhausen, G. V., Mussweiler, T., Gabriel, S., & Moreno, K. N. (2001). Affective
influences on stereotyping and intergroup relations. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.),
Handbook of affect and social cognition; handbook of affect and social cognition, (pp.
319-‐‑343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Brandth, B., & Bjørkhaug, H. (2015). Gender quotas for agricultural boards:
Changing constructions of gender? Gender, Work and Organization, 22(6), 614-‐‑
628.
Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Jacquelin, V. (2001). The communication of social
stereotypes: The effects of group discussion and information distribution on
50
stereotypic appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 463-‐‑
475.
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects
of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50(3), 543-‐‑549.
Brown, R., (1999) Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. Oxford:
WileyBlackwell.
Bygren, M., Erlandsson, A., & Gähler, M. (2017). Do employers prefer fathers?
Evidence from a field experiment testing the gender by parenthood
interaction effect on callbacks to job applications. European Sociological Review,
33(3), 337-‐‑348.
Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1990), The effect of a prejudice-‐‑reduction simulation on
attitude Change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 341–356.
Canary, D.J., & Seibold, D.R. (2010). Origins and development of the
Conversational Argument Coding Scheme Communication Methods and
Measures, 4,(1-‐‑2), 7-‐‑26.
Coates, J (2004). Women, men and language. Edinburgh, UK, Pearson Longman.
Cone, J., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Time pressure increases cooperation in
competitively framed social dilemmas. PLoS ONE, 9(12), 13.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cuddy, A. J. C., & Fiske, S. T. (2002). Doddering but dear: Process, content, and
function in stereotyping of older persons. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Ageism:
Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons; ageism: Stereotyping and
prejudice against older persons (pp. 3-‐‑26). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become
mothers, warmth doesn'ʹt cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 701-‐‑718.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as
universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and
the BIAS map. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology,
vol 40; advances in experimental social psychology, vol 40 (pp. 61-‐‑149). San
Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press,.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J., . . .
Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards
universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology,
48(1), 1-‐‑33.
51
Curseu, P., & Schruijer, S. (2012). Normative interventions, emergent cognition and
decision rationality in ad hoc and established groups. Management
Decision, 50(6), 1062-‐‑1075.
Curseu, P. L., Schruijer, S. G. L., & Fodor, O. C. (2016). Decision rules, escalation of
commitment and sensitivity to framing in group decision-‐‑making: An
experimental investigation. Management Decision, 54(7), 1649-‐‑1668.
DeStephen, R.S., & Hirokawa, R.Y. (1998). Small group consensus: Stability of
group support of the decision, task process, and group relationships. Small
Group Behavior, 19, 227-‐‑239.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance and team satisfaction: A meta-‐‑analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 741-‐‑749.
De Dreu, Carsten K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team
innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191-‐‑1201.
Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women
and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26(10), 1171-‐‑1188.
Dovidio, J., Hewstone, M., Glick, P. & Esses, V. (2010). The SAGE Handbook of
Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination. London: Sage Publications.
Duncan, S, Jr., & Fiske, D.W. (1977). Face-‐‑to-‐‑face interaction: Research, methods, and
theory. Hilisdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dubrovsky, V., Kolla, S., & Sethna, B.N. (1991). Effects of status on group decision
making: Ad hoc versus real groups. Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 35, (13), p. 969 – 973.
Durante, F., Tablante, C. B., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Poor but warm, rich but cold (and
competent): Social classes in the stereotype content model. Journal of Social
Issues, 73(1), 138-‐‑157.
Eagly, A. H., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both
women and men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 451-‐‑462.
Eagly, A. H., & Sczesny, S. (2009). Stereotypes about women, men, and leaders:
Have times changed? In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The
glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality; (pp.
21-‐‑47), American Psychological Association.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Johannesen-‐‑Schmidt, M. (2004). Social role theory of sex
differences and similarities: Implications for the partner preferences of
women and men. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), 2nd ed.;
52
the psychology of gender (2nd ed.) (2nd ed. ed., pp. 269-‐‑295), New York, NY,
Guilford Press.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Erber, M.W., Hodges, S.D., & Wilson, T.D. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude
stability, and the effects of analyzing reasons. In R.E. Petty & J.A. Krosnick
(Eds)., Attitude strentgh: Antecedents and consequences (pp433-‐‑454). Mahwa, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Everly, B. A., Unzueta, M. M., & Shih, M. J. (2016). Can being gay provide a boost
in the hiring process? Maybe if the boss is female. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 31(2), 293-‐‑306.
Fenwick, G.D., & Neal, D.J., (2001). Effect of gender composition on group
performance. Gender, Work and Organization, 8 (2), 205-‐‑225.
Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93-‐‑106.
Fingerhut, A. W., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The impact of social roles on stereotypes
of gay men. Sex Roles, 55(3-‐‑4), 273-‐‑278.
Fiske, S. T. (2015). Intergroup Biases: A focus on stereotype content. Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 45–50.
Fiske, A.P., Haslam, N., & Fiske, S.T. (1991). Confusing one person with another:
What errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 656-‐‑674.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed)
stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from
perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82(6), 878-‐‑902.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social
cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-‐‑83.
Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus
(dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of
competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 473-‐‑489.
Fiske, S. T. (2014). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. Hoboken, NJ, John
Wiley & Sons.
Fiske, S. T. (2012). The continuum model and the stereotype content model. In P. A.
M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories
of social psychology (vol. 1); (pp. 267-‐‑288), London, Sage.
Ford, D. L., Nemiroff, P. M., & Pasmore, W. A. (1977). Group decision-‐‑making
performance as influenced by group tradition. Small Group Behavior, 8(2),
223-‐‑228.
53
Forsyth, D.R. (2006) Group Dynamics 4e [International Student Edition]. Belmont
CA.: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing.
Fraïssé, C., & Barrientos, J. (2016). The concept of homophobia: A psychosocial
perspective. Sexologies: European Journal of Sexology and Sexual Health / Revue
Européenne De Sexologie Et De Santé Sexuelle, 25(4), e65-‐‑e69.
Gavac, S., Murrar, S., & Brauer, M. (2017). Group perception and social norms. In R.
W. Summers (Ed.), Social psychology: How other people influence our thoughts
and actions (vol. 1) (pp. 333-‐‑359), Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press/ABC-‐‑
CLIO.
Gelfand, M. J., Major, V. S., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., & O’Brien, K. (2006).
Negotiating relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations.
Academy of Management Review, 31, 427-‐‑451.
Gergen, K. J. (2011). Relational being: A brief introduction. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 24(4), 280-‐‑282.
Gergen, K. J. (2015). An invitation to social construction (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing Ltd.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent
sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American
Psychologist, 56(2), 109-‐‑118.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2007). Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In
F. J. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale & S. A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the
workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives; (pp. 155-‐‑187), Malden, MA, Blackwell
Publishing.
Gorard, S. (2006). Towards a judgement-‐‑based statistical analysis. British Journal of
Sociology of Education 27 (1): 67-‐‑80.
Gorard, S. (2007). Mixing methods is wrong: An everyday approach to educational
justice. Paper presented at British Educational Research Association. 5-‐‑8
september, 2007, London.
Gouran, D.S. (1982). Making decisions in groups. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman
Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in
decision-‐‑making and problem-‐‑solving groups: An expanded view. In R. Y.
Hirokawa & M. S. Poole, Communication and group decision making (2nd ed.,
pp. 55–80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-‐‑Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving
interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820-‐‑835.
54
Gächter, S., Orzen, H., Renner, E., & Starmer, C. (2009). Are experimental
economists prone to framing effects? A natural field experiment. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 70, 443-‐‑446.
Hackman J.R & Vidmar N.J. (1970). Effects of size and task type on group
performance and member reaction. Sociometry, 33, p.37-‐‑54.
Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Doosje, B. (2002). From
personal pictures in the head to collective tools in the world: How shared
stereotypes allow groups to represent and change social reality. In C.
McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The
formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups; stereotypes as explanations: The
formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 157-‐‑185), New York,
NY, Cambridge University Press.
Hall, J., & Williams, M. S. (1966). A comparison of decision-‐‑making performances
in established and ad hoc groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 3(2), 214-‐‑222.
Hannagan, R.J. (2006). Perceptual asymmetry in gendered group decision making..
ETD collection for University of Nebraska -‐‑ Lincoln.
Hannagan, R.J. & Larimer, C.W. (2010). Does gender composition affect group
decision outcomes? Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Political Behavior,
32, 51-‐‑67.
Hawkins, K & Power, S, (1999). Gender differences in questions asked during
small decision-‐‑making group discussions Small Group Research,30 (2), 235-‐‑
256.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Motherhood: A potential source of bias in
employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 189-‐‑198.
Hermann, K. (2015). Field theory and working with group dynamics in debriefing.
Simulation & Gaming, 46(2), 209-‐‑220.
Hinsz, V.B., & Nickell, G.S. (2004). Positive reactions to working in groups in a
study of group and individual goal decision-‐‑making. Group Dynamics 8, 253–
264.
Hirokawa, R.Y. (1988). Group communication research: Considerations for the use
of interaction analysis. In C.H. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human
communication: Methods and insruments for observing, measureing, and assessing
communication processes (pp.229-‐‑245). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hogg, M. A., Sherman, D. K., Dierselhuis, J., Maitner, A. T., & Moffitt, G. (2007).
Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental
55
Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform
groups of high-‐‑ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 101(46), 16385-‐‑16389.
Howe, L. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2017). Attitude strength. Annual Review of Psychology,
68, 327-‐‑351.
International Labour Office. (2016). Women at work: Trends 2016,
http://www.ilo.org/gender/Informationresources/Publications/WCMS_45731
7/lang-‐‑-‐‑en/index.htm.
Janis, I.L. (1972), Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos
(2nd edn). Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of
intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-‐‑282.
Jonsson, G., Roempke, S. & Zakrisson, I. (2003). Att undvika oligarki i teori och
praktik. I Kooperation, ideellt arebte & lokal ekonomisk utveckling. Stockholm:
Fören. Kooperativa studier (Kooperativ årsbok). S. 43-‐‑72.
Jost, J.T., & Major, B. (Eds.) (2001). The psychology of legitimacy. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Kahai, S. S., Huang, R., & Jestice, R. J. (2012). Interaction effect of leadership and
communication media on feedback positivity in virtual teams. Group &
Organization Management, 37(6), 716-‐‑751.
Kameda, T., Tsukasaki, T., Hastie, R., & Berg, N. (2011). Democracy under
uncertainty: The wisdom of crowds and the free-‐‑rider problem in group
decision making. Psychological Review, 118(1), 76-‐‑96.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (2012). Ethnic and nationality stereotypes in
everyday language. Teaching of Psychology, 39(1), 54-‐‑56.
Kong, D. T., Konczak, L. J., & Bottom, W. P. (2015). Team performance as a joint
function of team member satisfaction and agreeableness. Small Group
Research, 46(2), 160-‐‑178.
Keyton, J., & Beck, S.J. (2009). The influential role of relational messages in group
interaction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 13, 14-‐‑30.
Kolbe, M., & Boos, M. (2009). Facilitating Group decision-‐‑making: Facilitator´s
subjective theories on group coordination. Forum Qualitative Socialforschung
10, (1). Art.28.
Kray, L. J., & Thompson, L. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation
performance: An examination of theory and research. Research in
organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews,
26, 103-‐‑182.
56
Knippendorff, K. (2005). The social construction of public opinion. Kommunikation
über kommunikation. Theorie, Methoden und Praxis. Festschrift für Klaus Merten,
129-‐‑149.
Kugelberg, C. (2006). Constructing the deviant other: Mothering and fathering at
the workplace. Gender, Work and Organization, 13(2), 152-‐‑173.
Kurz, T., & Lyons, A. (2009). Intergroup influences on the stereotype consistency
bias in communication: Does it matter who we are communicating about
and to whom we are communicating? Social Cognition, 27(6), 893-‐‑904.
Kühberger, A., & Tanner, C. (2010). Risky choice framing: Task versions and a
comparison of prospect theory and fuzzy-‐‑trace theory. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 23(3), 314-‐‑329.
Lau, R. R. (2003). Models of decision-‐‑making. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy & R. Jervis
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology; oxford handbook of political
psychology, (pp. 19-‐‑59), New York, Oxford University Press.
Larson, J. R., Jr., Christensen, C., Franz, T. M., & Abbott, A. S. (1998). Diagnosing
groups: The pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case
information in team-‐‑based medical decision making. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 75(1), 93-‐‑108.
Latu, l., & Schmid Mast, M. (2016). The effects of stereotypes of women'ʹs
performance in male-‐‑dominated hierarchies: Stereotype threat activation
and reduction through role models. In K. Faniko, F. Lorenzi-‐‑Cioldi, O.
Sarrasin & E. Mayor (Eds.), Gender and social hierarchies: Perspectives from
social psychology; (pp. 75-‐‑87). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Lawson, T. J., McDonough, T. A., & Bodle, J. H. (2010). Confronting prejudiced
comments: Effectiveness of a role-‐‑playing exercise. Teaching of
Psychology, 37(4), 257-‐‑261.
Lee, T. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in
the stereotype content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
30(6), 751-‐‑768.
Lennéer-‐‑Axelson, B. & Thylefors, I. (2018). Arbetsgruppens psykologi. (5., [omarb.]
utg.) Stockholm: Natur och kultur.
Leong, L. M., McKenzie, C. R. M., Sher, S., & Müller-‐‑Trede, J. (2017). The role of
inference in attribute framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 30,
1147-‐‑1156.
Levin, I. P., Johnson, R. D., & Davis, M. L. (1987). How information frame
influences risky decisions: Between-‐‑subjects and within-‐‑subject
comparisons. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, 43–54.
Lewin, K., & Lippit, R. (1938). An experimental approach to the study of autocracy
and democracy: a preliminary study. Sociometry, 1, 292–300.
57
Lewin, K., Lippit, R. & White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-‐‑
301.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (edited by
Dowrin Cartwright), Oxford, Harper & Row.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics; concept, method and reality in
social science; Social equilibria and Social change. Human Relations, 1, 5-‐‑41.
Lindsey, E. W. (2012). In McGeown S. P. (Ed.), Girl'ʹs and boy'ʹs play form
preferences and gender segregation in early childhood, Hauppauge, NY,
Nova Science Publishers.
Lippit, R. (1940). An experimental study of the effect of democratic and
authoritarian group atmospheres. University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare,
16, 43–195.
Lira E. M., Ripoll P., Peiró J. M., Zornoza A. M. (2008). The role of information and
communication technologies in the relationship between group effectiveness
and group potency. Small Group Research, 39, 728-‐‑74.
Lovaglia, M., Mannix, E.A., Samuelson, C.D., Sell, J., & Wilsson, R.K. (2005)
Conflict, power and status in groups. In M.S. Poole, & A.B. Hollnigshead
(eds) Theories of small groups: interdisciplinary perspectives. Thousand Oaks,
CA, Sage.
Lyons, A., & Kashima, Y. (2003). How are stereotypes maintained through
communication? the influence of stereotype sharedness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition, 85(6), 989-‐‑1005.
Maio, G., & Haddock, G. (2014). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change.
London, Sage.
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M.A. (2002). Group task satisfaction: Applying the
construct of job satisfaction to groups. Small Group Research, 22, 271-‐‑312.
Mason. C.M.,& Griffin, M.A. (2003). Identifying group task satisfaction at work.
Small Group Research 34, 413-‐‑435.
Macrae, C. N., Hewstone, M., & Griffiths, R. J. (1993). Processing load and memory
for stereotype-‐‑based information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(1),
77-‐‑87.
McGregor, J. (1993). Effectiveness of role playing and antiracist teaching in
reducing student prejudice. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(4), 215-‐‑
226.
58
McNeill, A., & Burton, A. M. (2002). The locus of semantic priming effects in
person recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human
Experimental Psychology, 55a(4), 1141-‐‑1156.
Meyer, M., & Gelman, S. A. (2016). Gender essentialism in children and parents:
Implications for the development of gender stereotyping and gender-‐‑typed
preferences. Sex Roles, 75(9-‐‑10), 409-‐‑421.
Meyers, R.A., Brashers, D.E., Winston, L & Grob, L (1997) Sex differences and
group argument: A theoretical framework and empirical investigation.
Communication Studies, 48, 19-‐‑41.
Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (2010). Extending the conversational argument
coding scheme: Argument categories, units and coding procedures.
Communication Methods and Measures, 4, 27-‐‑45.
Meyers, R.A., Brashers, D.E., & Hanner, J. (2000). Majority-‐‑minority influence:
Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-‐‑outcome links.
Journal of Communication, 50(4), 3-‐‑30.
Myers, D.G.; H. Lamm (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological
Bulletin, 83, 602–627.
Michie, S. & Williams, S. (2003). Reducing work related psychological ill health and
sickness absence: a systematic literature review. Occupational &
Environmental Medicine. 60(1), 3-‐‑9.
Michels (1911/1983). Organisationer och demokrati: en sociologisk studie av de oligarkiska
tendenserna i vår tid. (Political parties. A sociological study of the oligarchical
tendencies of modern democracy). Stockholm: Ratio.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper
& Row.
Moyer, K. H., & Gross, A. (2011). Group designs. In J. C. Thomas, & M. Hersen
(Eds.), Understanding research in clinical and counseling psychology (2nd ed.) (pp.
155-‐‑179), New York, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Nam, C. S., Lyons, J. B., Hwang, H., & Kim, S. (2009). The process of team
communication in multi-‐‑cultural contexts: An empirical study using bales’
interaction process analysis (IPA). International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 39(5), 771-‐‑782.
Nawata, K., & Yamaguchi, H. (2011). The escalation of personal altercations into
intergroup conflict: Initiating intergroup vicarious retribution in an ad hoc
laboratory experiment group. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 51(1), 52-‐‑63.
59
Nelson, N., Bronstein, I., Shacham, R., & Ben-‐‑Ari, R. (2015). The power to oblige:
Power, gender, negotiation behaviors, and their consequences. Negotiation
and Conflict Management Research, 8(1), 1-‐‑24.
Nemeth, C. J., & Goncalo, J. A. (2005). Influence and persuasion in small groups. In
T. C. Brock, & M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and
perspectives (2nd ed.) (pp. 171-‐‑194), Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications,
Inc.
Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-‐‑Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? the potential
benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus, & B. A.
Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration; group
creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63-‐‑84), New York: Oxford
University Press.
Okimoto, T. G., & Heilman, M. E. (2012). The “bad parent” assumption: How
gender stereotypes affect reactions to working mothers. Journal of Social
Issues, 68(4), 704-‐‑724.
Ostrom, E. (2003). Toward a behavioral theory linking trust, reciprocity, and
reputation. IN E.Osterom & J.Walker (Eds.), Trust and reciprocity:
Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research. (pp. 19-‐‑79). New York,
Russell Sage Foundation.
Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. (2004). The paradox of the lesbian worker. Journal of
Social Issues, 60(4), 719-‐‑735.
Peters, W. (1987). A Class Divided: Then and now: 1st Edition. Yale University
Press.
Petersson, S., Catásus, H., & Danielsson, E. (2016). Vem håller i klubban? Om
demokrati och delaktighet i idrottsföreningar, Stockholm, Centrum för
idrottsforskning, 1, 1-‐‑52.
Peterson, R., Owens, P., Tetlock, P.E., Fan, E. & Martorana. (1998). Group dynamics
in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of
failure and success in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 73, 77-‐‑99.
Poole, M. S., & Folger, J. P. (1981). A method for establishing the representational
validity of interaction coding systems: Do we see what they see. Human
Communication Research, 8, 26-‐‑42.
Potter, J. (1988). Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluative
practices. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social
psychology (Vol.9, pp. 233-‐‑266). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
60
Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2001). Discursive social psychology. In W. P. Robinson &
H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 103–
118). London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and
behaviour. London: Sage.
Pratto & Walker. (2004). The bases of gendered power. In A.H. Eagly, A.E. Beall &
R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), 2nd ed, the psychology of gender (2nd ed). (pp. 242-‐‑268).
New York: Guilford.)
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the
dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward.
European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-‐‑320.
Raghubir, P. & Valenzuela, A. (2010). Male-‐‑female dynamics in groups: A field
study of The Weakest Link. Small Group Research, 41 (1), 41-‐‑70.
Ramsay, J. E., & Pang, J. S. (2017). Anti-‐‑immigrant prejudice in rising east asia: A
stereotype content and integrated threat analysis. Political Psychology, 38(2),
227-‐‑244.
Rees, D. M. (2014). Framing group decisions: How emphasizing deadline vs. teamwork
influences group decision making. (Doctoral dissertation, The Chicago School of
Professional psychology, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern
world. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rijnbout, J. S., & McKimmie, B. M. (2012). Deviance in group decision making:
Group-‐‑member centrality alleviates negative consequences for the group.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(7), 915-‐‑923.
Riksidrottsförbundet. (2011). Svenska folkets idrotts-‐‑ och motionsvanor. Stockholm:
http://www.rf.se/globalassets/riksidrottsforbundet/dokument/motionsidrott/
svenska-‐‑folkets-‐‑motionsvanor-‐‑2011.pdf.
Rode, J. (2010). Truth and trust in communication: Experiments on the effect of a
competitive context. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(1), 325-‐‑338.
Russell, A. M. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2008). It'ʹs all relative: Competition and status drive
interpersonal perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1193-‐‑
1201.
Russell, N., & Picard, J. (2013). Review of behind the shock machine: The untold
story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. Journal of the
History of the Behavioral Sciences, 49(2), 221-‐‑223.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-‐‑taking for
conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1-‐‑63.
61
Schultz, J.M., Sjøvold, E., & Andre, B., (2017) Can group climate explain innovative
readiness for change? Journal of Organizational Change Management. 30(3),
440-‐‑452.
Schmid Mast, M. (2001). Gender differences and similarities in dominance
hierarchies in same-‐‑gender groups based on speaking time. Sex Roles, 44,
537–556.
Schmid Mast, M. (2004). Men are hierarchical, women are egalitarian: An implicit
gender stereotype. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 63, 107–111.
Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R., & Ragan, J.W. (1986). Group approaches for
improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical
inquiry, devil´s advocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 32,
745-‐‑772.
Seibold, D.R., & Meyers, R.A., (2007) Group argument: A Structuration perspective
and research program. Small Group Research, 38, 312-‐‑336.
Sheridan, A., Ross-‐‑Smith, A., & Lord, L. (2015). Women on boards in Australia:
Achieving real change or more of the same? In A. M. Broadbridge, & S. L.
Fielden (Eds.), Handbook of gendered careers in management: Getting in, getting
on, getting out, (pp. 322-‐‑340) Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sherif, M. (1936), The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social
hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Simons T, Pelled L, Smith K. (1999) Making use of difference: Diversity, debate,
and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of
Management Journal. 42, 662-‐‑673.
Sinaceur, M., Thomas-‐‑Hunt, M., Neale, M. A., O'ʹNeill, O. A., & Haag, C. (2010).
Accuracy and perceived expert status in group decisions: When minority
members make majority members more accurate privately. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 423-‐‑437.
Slotegraaf, R.J., & Atuahene-‐‑Gima, K. (2011). Product development team stability
and new product advantage: The role of decision-‐‑making processes. Journal
of Marketing, 75, 96-‐‑108.
Smith, R.A. (2002). Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: theory and
tesearch.” Annual Review of Sociology 28(1), 509-‐‑542.
Spector, P. E. (1988), Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 61: 335–340.
Statistiska centralbyrån (2016). På tal om kvinnor och män: lathund om jämställdhet.
Örebro: SCB.
62
Statistiska centralbyrån. (2017). Undersökningarna av barns levnadsförhållanden.
Stockholm: https://www.scb.se/.
Summers, R.W., (2017) Social psychology: How other people influence our thoughts and
actions (2017). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press/ABC-‐‑CLIO.
Tasa, K., & Whyte, G. (2005). Collective efficacy and vigilant problem solving in
group decision making: A non-‐‑linear model. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 96, 119-‐‑129.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Thompson, M. S., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (2000). The consequences of
communicating social stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
36(6), 567-‐‑599.
Toma, C., Bry, C., & Butera, F. (2013). Because I’m worth it! (more than others...):
Cooperation, competition, and ownership bias in group decision-‐‑making.
Toma, C., & Butera, F. (2015). Cooperation versus competition effects on
information sharing and use in group decision-‐‑making. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 9(9), 455-‐‑467.
Toma, C., Vasiljevic, D., Oberlé, D., & Butera, F. (2013). Assigned experts with
competitive goals withhold information in group decision making. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 52(1), 161-‐‑172.
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and
competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-‐‑533.
Tubbs, S.L. (2007). A systems Approach to small Group interaction, (9th ed.). New York:
McGraw-‐‑Hill.
Tubbs, S., Moss, S. & Papastefanou, N. (2011). Human Communication Principles and
Contexts. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-‐‑Hill Education.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology
of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., & Wilke, H. A. (2001). Power use in
cooperative and competitive settings. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
23(4), 291-‐‑300.
Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in
cooperation and competition: The male-‐‑warrior hypothesis. Psychological
Science, 18(1), 19-‐‑23.
63
Vogel, J., Amnå., E., Munk, I., & Häll, L. (2003). Associational life in Sweden:
General welfare production, social capital, training in democracy, living
condition (Report No. 98). Stockholm, Sweden: SCB (Statistics Sweden).
von Hippel, C., Wiryakusuma, C., Bowden, J., & Shochet, M. (2011). Stereotype
threat and female communication styles. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 37(10), 1312-‐‑1324.
Van Swol, L.M. (2009). Extreme members and group polarization. Social Influence, 4
(3), 185–199.
van Woerkom, M., & Sanders, K. (2010). The romance of learning from
disagreement. The effect of cohesiveness and disagreement on knowledge
sharing behavior and individual performance within teams. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 25(1), 139-‐‑149.
Wheelan, S.A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity
Small Group Research, 40, 2, 247 – 262.
Wheelan, S. A., Murphy, D., Tsumura, E., & Fried-‐‑Kline, S. (1998). Member
perceptions of internal group dynamics and productivity. Small Group
Research, 29, 371-‐‑ 393.
Wheelan, S.A. & Davidson, B & Tilin, F (2003). Group development across time.
reality or illusion? Small Group Research, 34, 2, 223-‐‑245.
Wheelan, S.A. (2005). Creating Effective Teams. A guide for members and leaders.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wolgast, S. (2017). How does the job applicants’ ethnicity affect the selection process?
Norms, Preferred competencies and expected fit, (doctoral thesis), Lund.
Yi, R. (2003). A modified tit-‐‑for-‐‑tat strategy in a 5-‐‑person prisoner'ʹs dilemma,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York State University.
Zakrisson, I. (2008). Gender differences in social dominance orientation: Gender
invariance may be situation invariance. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 59(3-‐‑
4), 254-‐‑263.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological
research: With special reference to the stanford prison
experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243-‐‑256.
Zimbardo, Philip (2007). The Lucifer Effect. New York: The Random House.

World Economic Forum. (2015). Ten years of the global gender gap. Geneva: Report
Highlights (2015). http://reports.weforum.org/global-‐‑gap-‐‑report-‐‑2015/.

64

Communicating, Negotiating and Seterotyping - The Roles of Contextm Situation and Gender in Small Group Decision-Making

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Communicating, Negotiating and Seterotyping - The Roles of Contextm Situation and Gender in Small Group Decision-Making

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE ROLES OF CONTEXT, SITUATION AND GENDER IN

Main supervisor: Ingrid Zakrisson

COMMUNICATING, NEGOTIATING AND STEREOTYPING:

© Pär Löfstrand, 2018

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... viii

SVENSK SAMMANFATTNING ......................................................................... x

LIST OF PAPERS .................................................................................................. xii

3. AIM ................................................................................................................... 19

4. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 20

5. EMPIRICAL PAPERS ................................................................................... 29

6. GENERAL DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 38

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................... 47

8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 49

9. APPENDIX: EMPIRICAL PAPERS I-­‐‑IV ................................................... 65

2.1 Brief historical background to experimental social

2.2 Group decision-making (GDM)

2.3 Stereotypes, attitudes and prejudice

2.4 Communication and stereotyping

2.5 The complexity of gender and gender stereotypes

Experiment! The!Relay!Team! The!Relay!Team! The!Consultant!! The!Relay!

Participants! 79,!20!groups! 81,!21!groups! 130,!35!groups! Study!1:!210,!

Framing! Goal!setting! Goal!Setting! Parenthood! Goal!setting/!

Qualitative! Interaction! Conversational! Stereotype!Content! !

analyses! Process!Analysis,! Argument!Coding! Analysis,!

Stereotype! Scheme! Communication!

Quantitative! ! Equality!in! ! Democracy,!

analyses! influence!over!the! Influence,!

4.1 Mixed-method approach

4.2 Group size of decision-making groups

4.4 The experiments

4.5 Quantitative data

4.6 Qualitative data analysis

4.6.1 Interaction process analysis (IPA)

5.1.2.2 Data analysis

5.2.2.2 Quantitative data

5.2.2.3 Qualitative data

5.4.2.2. Quantitative data

6.1 Stereotyping and context

6.4 Practical implications

6.5 Future research

Вам также может понравиться

9. APPENDIX: EMPIRICAL PAPERS I-‐‑IV ................................................... 65