Effects of group-discussion integrative complexity on intergroup relations in a social dilemma

• Main Authors: PARK, Guihyun, DESHON, Richard P.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2018
• Subjects: Industrial and Organizational Psychology
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/2485; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/3742/viewcontent/Effects_group_discussion_integrative_afv_2018.pdf
• Institution: Singapore Management University

Organizations increasingly rely on team-based work systems-yet intergroup behavior is predisposed toward competition, which can render conflict management in organizations especially difficult. Based on the integrative complexity model of group decision-making and the literature on intergroup social dilemmas, we argue that a lack of quality group discussion (i.e., low integrative complexity) can heighten group members' sense of greed toward and fear of other groups-and, by doing so, increase the likelihood that a group will decide to compete. Accordingly, we propose and evaluate two interventions that target group-discussion dynamics to promote the integrative complexity of group discussion and intergroup cooperation: structured group discussion and discussion led by a group member who favors cooperation. Two hundred eighty-five participants were assigned to groups of three and played an iterated prisoner's dilemma game. Results demonstrate that participating in a structured group discussion increased the integrative complexity of group discussion, during which different perspectives were fully deliberated before making a final decision. This, in turn, decreased the sense of greed and fear, and reduced the likelihood that a group would decide to compete against other groups. In contrast, a cooperative discussion leader was only helpful in reducing group decisions to compete in the first round: Because it did not increase the integrative complexity of group discussion, this method failed to motivate cooperation over time. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.