IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v17y2011i2d10.1007_s10588-011-9087-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How attitude certainty tempers the effects of faultlines in demographically diverse teams

Author

Listed:
  • André Grow

    (University of Groningen)

  • Andreas Flache

    (University of Groningen)

Abstract

Lau and Murnighan’s faultline theory suggests that strong demographic faultlines can undermine cohesion in work teams. A strong faultline splits a team into internally homogeneous but mutually dissimilar subgroups based on demographic characteristics. Social influence processes within these subgroups then lead to the polarization of team members’ attitudes along the divisions imposed by the faultline. However, faultline theory hitherto neglects effects of attitude certainty. Research shows that the certainty with which individuals hold their attitudes affects social influence processes. We extend theoretical faultline research by integrating attitude certainty. For this, we incorporate the interplay of the dynamics of attitude certainty and social influence into a formal model of demographic faultline effects developed by Flache and Mäs. Computational experiments suggest a moderation effect. Demographic faultlines only affect team cohesion if attitude certainty is low. We discuss implications for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • André Grow & Andreas Flache, 2011. "How attitude certainty tempers the effects of faultlines in demographically diverse teams," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 196-224, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:17:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s10588-011-9087-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-011-9087-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-011-9087-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-011-9087-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    2. Guillaume Deffuant & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2002. "How Can Extremism Prevail? a Study Based on the Relative Agreement Interaction Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(4), pages 1-1.
    3. Sherry M.B. Thatcher & Karen A. Jehn & Elaine Zanutto, 2003. "Cracks in Diversity Research: The Effects of Diversity Faultlines on Conflict and Performance," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 217-241, May.
    4. Eric Molleman, 2005. "Diversity in Demographic Characteristics, Abilities and Personality Traits: Do Faultlines Affect Team Functioning?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 173-193, May.
    5. Sara L. Keck, 1997. "Top Management Team Structure: Differential Effects by Environmental Context," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(2), pages 143-156, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Davide Secchi & Raffaello Seri, 2017. "Controlling for false negatives in agent-based models: a review of power analysis in organizational research," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 94-121, March.
    2. Andreas Flache, 2018. "About Renegades And Outgroup Haters: Modeling The Link Between Social Influence And Intergroup Attitudes," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-32, September.
    3. Liang Chen & Guy G. Gable & Haibo Hu, 2013. "Communication and organizational social networks: a simulation model," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 460-479, December.
    4. Fabrizio Maturo & Stefania Migliori & Francesco Paolone, 2019. "Measuring and monitoring diversity in organizations through functional instruments with an application to ethnic workforce diversity of the U.S. Federal Agencies," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 357-388, December.
    5. Thomas Feliciani & Andreas Flache & Michael Mäs, 2021. "Persuasion without polarization? Modelling persuasive argument communication in teams with strong faultlines," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-92, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andreas Flache & Michael Mäs, 2008. "How to get the timing right. A computational model of the effects of the timing of contacts on team cohesion in demographically diverse teams," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 23-51, March.
    2. Danielle Cooper & Pankaj C. Patel & Sherry M. B. Thatcher, 2014. "It Depends: Environmental Context and the Effects of Faultlines on Top Management Team Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 633-652, April.
    3. Veltrop, D.B. & Hermes, C.L.M. & Postma, T.J.B.M. & de Haan, J., 2012. "A tale of two factions," Research Report 12001-HRM&OB, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    4. repec:dgr:rugsom:12001-hrmob is not listed on IDEAS
    5. George Butler & Gabriella Pigozzi & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-31, August.
    6. María Cecilia Gimenez & Luis Reinaudi & Ana Pamela Paz-García & Paulo Marcelo Centres & Antonio José Ramirez-Pastor, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the presence of constant propaganda: homogeneous and localized cases," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(1), pages 1-11, January.
    7. Lipiecki, Arkadiusz & Sznajd-Weron, Katarzyna, 2022. "Polarization in the three-state q-voter model with anticonformity and bounded confidence," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 165(P1).
    8. Song, Xiao & Shi, Wen & Tan, Gary & Ma, Yaofei, 2015. "Multi-level tolerance opinion dynamics in military command and control networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 437(C), pages 322-332.
    9. Song, Xiao & Zhang, Shaoyun & Qian, Lidong, 2013. "Opinion dynamics in networked command and control organizations," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(20), pages 5206-5217.
    10. Wander Jager & Frédéric Amblard, 2005. "Uniformity, Bipolarization and Pluriformity Captured as Generic Stylized Behavior with an Agent-Based Simulation Model of Attitude Change," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 295-303, January.
    11. Gabbay, Michael, 2007. "The effects of nonlinear interactions and network structure in small group opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 378(1), pages 118-126.
    12. AskariSichani, Omid & Jalili, Mahdi, 2015. "Influence maximization of informed agents in social networks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 254(C), pages 229-239.
    13. Sylvie Huet & Jean-Denis Mathias, 2018. "Few Self-Involved Agents Among Bounded Confidence Agents Can Change Norms," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-27, September.
    14. Robinson, Scott A. & Rai, Varun, 2015. "Determinants of spatio-temporal patterns of energy technology adoption: An agent-based modeling approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 273-284.
    15. Kurmyshev, Evguenii & Juárez, Héctor A. & González-Silva, Ricardo A., 2011. "Dynamics of bounded confidence opinion in heterogeneous social networks: Concord against partial antagonism," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 390(16), pages 2945-2955.
    16. Song, Xiao & Shi, Wen & Ma, Yaofei & Yang, Chen, 2015. "Impact of informal networks on opinion dynamics in hierarchically formal organization," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 436(C), pages 916-924.
    17. Si, Xia-Meng & Liu, Yun & Xiong, Fei & Zhang, Yan-Chao & Ding, Fei & Cheng, Hui, 2010. "Effects of selective attention on continuous opinions and discrete decisions," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 389(18), pages 3711-3719.
    18. Gary Mckeown & Noel Sheehy, 2006. "Mass Media and Polarisation Processes in the Bounded Confidence Model of Opinion Dynamics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11.
    19. Haan & Postma & Hermes & Veltrop, 2012. "A Tale of Two Factions: Exploring the Relationship between Factional Faultlines and Conflict Management in Pension Fund Boards," Research Report 12001-HRMOB, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    20. Shane T. Mueller & Yin-Yin Sarah Tan, 2018. "Cognitive perspectives on opinion dynamics: the role of knowledge in consensus formation, opinion divergence, and group polarization," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 15-48, January.
    21. Weimer, Christopher W. & Miller, J.O. & Hill, Raymond R. & Hodson, Douglas D., 2022. "An opinion dynamics model of meta-contrast with continuous social influence forces," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 589(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:17:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s10588-011-9087-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.