Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-h52fh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T09:10:32.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differentiated selves help only when identification is strong and tasks are complex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2016

Bernard A. Nijstad  and
Carsten K. W. De Dreu
Bernard A. Nijstad
Affiliation:
Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior, University of Groningen, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands b.a.nijstad@rug.nl http://www.rug.nl/staff/b.a.nijstad/
Carsten K. W. De Dreu
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Leiden University, 2300 RB, Leiden, The Netherlands. c.k.w.dedreu@uva.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Whereas differentiation is overestimated – it more often hurts than helps group performance – identification is underestimated. A more viable perspective sees identification and cooperative motivation as the sine qua non of group functioning, with differentiation helping in a relatively narrow set of cognitively complex tasks that require creativity and deep and deliberate information processing by individual members.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bechtoldt, M. N., Choi, H.-S. & Nijstad, B. A. (2012) Individuals in mind, mates by heart: Individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48:838–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G. & Ostrom, T. M. (1986) Effects of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:763–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007) Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology 92:628–38.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A. & van Knippenberg, D. (2008) Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12(1):22–49. doi: 10.1177/1088868307304092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Dreu, C. K. W. & West, M. A. (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology 86:1191–1201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goncalo, J. A. & Staw, B. M. (2006) Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 100:96–109.Google Scholar
Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J. & Peckham, V. (1974) The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10:371–84.Google Scholar
Karau, S. J. & Williams, K. D. (1993) Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(4):681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, N. L. & Bruun, S. E. (1983) Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44:78–94. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.78.Google Scholar
Latané, B., Williams, K. & Harkins, S. (1979) Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:822–32. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, J. E. (1984) Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nijstad, B. A., Berger-Selman, F. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014) Innovation in top management teams: Minority dissent, transformational leadership, and radical innovations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 23:310–22.Google Scholar
Nijstad, B. A. & De Dreu, C. K. W (2012) Motivated information processing in organizational teams: Progress, puzzles, and prospects. Research in Organizational Behavior 32:87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringelmann, M. (1913a) Recherches sur les moteurs animés: Travail de l'homme. Annales de l'Insitut National Agronomique 12:1–40.Google Scholar
Smith, B. N., Kerr, N. A., Markus, M. J. & Stasson, M. F. (2001) Individual differences in social loafing: Need for cognition as a motivator in collective performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 5:150–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, I. D. (1972) Group process and productivity. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Williams, K., Harkins, S. G. & Latané, B. (1981) Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40:303–11. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaccaro, S. J. (1984) Social loafing: The role of task attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 10:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar