ArticlePDF Available

Work Group Diversity

February 2007
Annual Review of Psychology 58(1):515-41

February 2007
58(1):515-41

DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546

Source
PubMed

Authors:

Michaéla Schippers

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Work group diversity, the degree to which there are differences between group members, may affect group process and performance positively as well as negatively. Much is still unclear about the effects of diversity, however. We review the 1997-2005 literature on work group diversity to assess the state of the art and to identify key issues for future research. This review points to the need for more complex conceptualizations of diversity, as well as to the need for more empirical attention to the processes that are assumed to underlie the effects of diversity on group process and performance and to the contingency factors of these processes.

Content uploaded by Michaéla Schippers

Content may be subject to copyright.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

Work Group Diversity

Daan van Knippenberg

and Micha

ela C. Schippers

RSM Erasmus University, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam 3000 DR, The

Netherlands; email: dvanknippenberg@rsm.nl, mschippers@rsm.nl

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007. 58:515–41

First published online as a Review in

Advance on August 11, 2006

The Annual Review of Psychology is online

at http://psych.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:

10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546

 2007 by Annual Reviews.

0066-4308/07/0110-0515$20.00

Key Words

group composition, group performance, teams, team effectiveness,

organizational behavior

Abstract

Work group diversity, the degree to which there are differences be-

tween group members, may affect group process and performance

positively as well as negatively. Much is still unclear about the effects

of diversity, however. We review the 1997–2005 literature on work

group diversity to assess the state of the art and to identify key issues

for future research. This review points to the need for more com-

plex conceptualizations of diversity, as well as to the need for more

empirical attention to the processes that are assumed to underlie the

effects of diversity on group process and performance and to the

contingency factors of these processes.

515

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

Diversity: a

characteristic of

social grouping that

reﬂects the degree to

which objective or

subjective differences

exist between group

members

Contents

WORK GROUP DIVERSITY ...... 516

WORK GROUP DIVERSITY: AN

INTRODUCTION IN BROAD

STROKES....................... 517

CONCEPTUALIZING

DIVERSITY..................... 519

Typologies of Diversity ........... 519

Beyond Demographic and

Functional Diversity ........... 521

Beyond Dispersion ............... 522

Faultlines: Interacting Dimensions

of Diversity ................... 523

PROCESSES UNDERLYING THE

INFLUENCE OF DIVERSITY

AND THEIR

CONTINGENCIES............. 524

Social Categorization Processes . . . 525

Information/Decision-Making

Processes ..................... 527

Social Categorization Processes As

Moderator of Information/

Decision-Making Processes .... 528

Cooperation and

Interdependence .............. 529

Time/Team Tenure ............... 530

Diversity Mind-Sets .............. 531

CURVILINEAR

RELATIONSHIPS .............. 532

CONCLUSIONS................... 532

WORK GROUP DIVERSITY

Groups in organizations have become increas-

ingly diverse over the years and will con-

tinue to become more diverse in years to

come ( Jackson et al. 2003, Triandis et al.

1994, Williams & O’Reilly 1998). Organi-

zations have become more diverse in terms

of demographic differences between people

(e.g., in terms of gender, age, and ethnic-

ity). Moreover, organizations are increasingly

adopting work group compositions that in-

corporate differences in functional or educa-

tional background, such as in cross-functional

project teams; mergers, acquisitions, and joint

ventures also introduce diversity into work

groups. Because work group diversity may

have positive as well as negative effects on

group performance (for reviews, see Jack-

son et al. 2003, Milliken & Martins 1996,

Williams & O’Reilly 1998; also see recent An-

nual Review of Psychology chapters by Guzzo &

Dickson 1996, Ilgen et al. 2005, Kerr & Tin-

dale 2004), the questions of which processes

underlie these effects of diversity and how to

manage these processes pose major challenges

to research in organizational behavior. In the

present article, we aim to assess the state of

the art in this ﬁeld. In doing so, we strive to

answer the question of what we may conclude

from the extant research as well as to provide a

research agenda for diversity research in years

to come.

Although the ﬁeld is known as “organi-

zational diversity,” theory and research fo-

cus almost exclusively on the work group

level, studying how group composition affects

group performance, cohesion, and social in-

teraction, and group members’ commitment,

satisfaction, and other indicators of subjec-

tive well-being. This review, therefore, fo-

cuses on work group diversity and how it af-

fects groups and their members. Diversity is

a group characteristic, but there is a stream

of research on what is called relational de-

mography (Chattopadhyay et al. 2004a, Tsui

& O’Reilly 1989) that studies the effects of

individuals’ similarity to their work group

(e.g., Chatman & Flynn 2001, Chatman &

O’Reilly 2004, Chattopadhyay 1999, Chat-

topadhyay & George 2001) or to their leader

(Epitropaki & Martin 1999, Tsui et al. 2002)

as predictors of individual outcomes. Because

greater dissimilarity from the group does not

necessarily imply greater work group diver-

sity (e.g., a sole female in an otherwise all-

male group is very dissimilar to the group in

terms of gender, while at the same time the

group is quite gender-homogeneous), results

from studies on relational demography cannot

be taken to directly reﬂect diversity effects.

Space limitations force us to restrict the cur-

rent review to studies of diversity as a group

516 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

characteristic, although we do refer to rela-

tional demography studies when they seem

relevant to the issue under consideration.

The starting point for our article is a sem-

inal review by Williams & O’Reilly (1998),

who examined 40 years of diversity research

covering more than 80 studies. The Williams

& O’Reilly review is an important milestone

not only because it provides a comprehensive

review of the diversity literature at the time,

but also because it is somewhat of a watershed

in diversity research. The state of the ﬁeld

that emerged from the Williams & O’Reilly

review is one that has yielded largely incon-

sistent results, probably in part as a result of

a somewhat too simpliﬁed approach to diver-

sity. In the years following the review, how-

ever, the ﬁeld moved to more sophisticated

conceptualizations of diversity and its effects,

and we hope to capture this development in

the present review. We take the excellent work

done by Williams & O’Reilly as a stepping-

stone and review diversity research in the pe-

riod from 1997 to 2005.

To access the relevant literature, we con-

ducted a PsycInfo search of titles and abstracts

covering this period and a manual search of

the 2000–2005 volumes of major journals in

applied psychology and organizational behav-

ior. We also sent out a mailing to solicit pa-

pers in press. We should note, however, that

our aim is not an exhaustive coverage of the

literature, but rather a more selective review

that highlights the developments we judge to

be most relevant and important.

In the following sections, we ﬁrst intro-

duce the research ﬁeld. Second, we address

the issue of the conceptualization and opera-

tionalization of diversity, arguing in favor of

more complex conceptualizations of diversity

than typically have been used in diversity re-

search. Next, we focus on what we may learn

about the processes underlying the effects of

work group diversity by reviewing studies of

the mediators and moderators of the effects

of diversity, and we brieﬂy touch on possible

curvilinear effects of diversity. We conclude

by summarizing what we see as the most im-

Social

categorization

perspective:

differences between

work group members

may engender the

classiﬁcation of

others as either

ingroup/similar or

outgroup/dissimilar,

categorizations that

may disrupt group

process

Information/

decision-making

perspective:

diversity may

introduce differences

in knowledge,

expertise, and

perspectives that

may help work

groups reach higher

quality and more

creative and

innovative outcomes

portant questions for future research. These

questions center around the need to develop

conceptualizations of diversity that go beyond

mere dispersion as well as the need to pay

greater attention to the processes mediating

the effects of diversity and to the contingen-

cies of these processes.

WORK GROUP DIVERSITY: AN

INTRODUCTION IN BROAD

STROKES

Diversity is typically conceptualized as re-

ferring to differences between individuals on

any attribute that may lead to the percep-

tion that another person is different from self

( Jackson 1992, Triandis et al. 1994, Williams

& O’Reilly 1998). In principle, diversity re-

search may concern any possible dimension

of differentiation, but in practice diversity

research has primarily focused on differ-

ences in gender, age, ethnicity, tenure, ed-

ucational background, and functional back-

ground (Milliken & Martins 1996, Williams

& O’Reilly 1998). The key question in di-

versity research is how differences between

work group members affect group process and

performance, as well as group member atti-

tudes and subjective well-being. To address

this question, diversity research has largely

been guided by two research traditions:

the social categorization perspective and

the information/decision-making perspective

(Williams & O’Reilly 1998). This is not to say,

however, that these are well-articulated theo-

retical perspectives in diversity research. Of-

ten they represent a more loosely deﬁned em-

phasis on either the preference to work with

similar others or the value of diverse informa-

tion, knowledge, and perspectives.

The starting point for the social catego-

rization perspective is the notion that simi-

larities and differences between work group

members form the basis for categorizing self

and others into groups, distinguishing be-

tween similar ingroup members and dissimi-

lar outgroup members. In diverse groups, this

may mean that people distinguish subgroups

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 517

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

within the work group. People tend to fa-

vor ingroup members over outgroup mem-

bers, to trust ingroup members more, and

to be more willing to cooperate with them

(Brewer 1979, Brewer & Brown 1998, Tajfel

& Turner 1986). The result of such catego-

rization processes may be that work groups

function more smoothly when they are homo-

geneous than when they are more diverse, and

that group members are more satisﬁed with

and attracted to the group when it is homoge-

neous and they are similar to the other group

members. This analysis is corroborated by

ﬁndings of, for instance, higher group cohe-

sion (e.g., O’Reilly et al. 1989), lower turnover

(e.g., Wagner et al. 1984), and higher perfor-

mance (e.g., Murnighan & Conlon 1991) in

more homogeneous groups.

The social categorization perspective is

complemented by the similarity/attraction

perspective (Williams & O’Reilly 1998),

which does not concern social groups but

rather focuses on interpersonal similarity (pri-

marily in attitudes and values) as determinants

of interpersonal attraction (Berscheid & Reis

1998, Byrne 1971). The similarity/attraction

perspective arrives at the same basic predic-

tion as the social categorization perspective in

diversity research, that people prefer to work

with similar others ( Jackson 1992).

In contrast to the social categoriza-

tion (and similarity/attraction) perspective,

the information/decision-making perspective

emphasizes the positive effects of work group

diversity. The starting point for this perspec-

tive is the notion that diverse groups are likely

to possess a broader range of task-relevant

knowledge, skills, and abilities, and members

with different opinions and perspectives. This

gives diverse groups a larger pool of resources

that may be helpful in dealing with nonrou-

tine problems. It may also set the stage for

more creative and innovative group perfor-

mance because the need to integrate diverse

information and reconcile diverse perspec-

tives may stimulate thinking that is more cre-

ative and prevent groups from moving to pre-

mature consensus on issues that need careful

consideration (van Knippenberg et al. 2004).

Corroborating this analysis, some studies ﬁnd

an association of diversity with higher perfor-

mance and innovation (e.g., Bantel & Jackson

1989).

In their simplest form (a main effect of

diversity), neither analysis is supported. Ev-

idence for the positive effects as well as for

the negative effects of diversity is highly in-

consistent (Bowers et al. 2000, Webber &

Donahue 2001, Williams & O’Reilly 1998)

and raises the question of whether, and

how, the perspectives on the positive and

the negative effects of diversity can be

reconciled and integrated. Because the

information/decision-making perspective fo-

cuses on task performance, whereas the social

categorization perspective seems to put the re-

lational aspect more center stage, some schol-

ars have concluded that diversity may be good

for group performance while at the same time

it is bad for interpersonal relations and atti-

tudes toward the work group (e.g., Triandis

et al. 1994). Given the relationship between

group interaction and cohesiveness on the one

hand and group performance on the other

hand (De Dreu & Weingart 2003, Mullen

& Copper 1994), however, it is difﬁcult to

see how the outcomes described by the social

categorization and the information/decision-

making perspectives could occur simultane-

ously. Indeed, there hardly seems to be ev-

idence for both occurring at the same time

(but see Keller 2001).

One thing that stands out in this respect

is that the ﬁeld has been dominated by stud-

ies focusing on “main effects,” testing rela-

tionships between dimensions of diversity and

outcomes without taking potentially moder-

ating variables into account ( Jackson & Joshi

2004, Pelled et al. 1999). Narrative reviews

and meta-analyses alike seem to corroborate

the conclusions that this main effects ap-

proach is unable to account for the effects

of diversity adequately (Bowers et al. 2000,

Webber & Donahue 2001, Williams &

O’Reilly 1998). It seems time to declare the

bankruptcy of the main effects approach and

518 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

to argue for models that are more complex

and that consider moderating variables in ex-

plaining the effects of diversity. Accordingly,

the present review largely disregards studies of

potential main effects in favor of studies iden-

tifying moderators of the effects of diversity.

This focus on moderators is important not

only to identify when diversity may be ex-

pected to have positive or negative effects, but

also because it is informative about the pro-

cesses underlying the inﬂuence of work group

diversity (i.e., moderator effects observed may

corroborate conclusions about the processes

in operation). Attention to these processes

is important, because another major imped-

iment to the advancement of the ﬁeld is a ten-

dency to assume rather than assess mediat-

ing processes. When a social categorization

perspective is argued to predict negative ef-

fects of diversity and these are observed, the

implicit conclusion is that social categoriza-

tion processes occurred even when no em-

pirical evidence for such processes is pro-

vided. In similar vein, often the occurrence

of information/decision-making processes is

concluded from the observation of positive ef-

fects of diversity on group performance with-

out evidence regarding the processes taking

place during group interaction. The predicted

outcome is not necessarily evidence of the

predicted process, however, and relying on

outcomes to determine process runs the risk

of resulting in misleading conclusions. The

ﬁeld may thus beneﬁt from more attention to

the processes translating work group diversity

into outcomes, and the current review empha-

sizes studies that shed light on these mediating

processes. First, however, we address another

issue that emerged more recently—the possi-

bility that conceptualizations of diversity that

are more complex may yield more insight into

the effects of diversity.

CONCEPTUALIZING

DIVERSITY

Diversity may be seen as a characteristic of a

social grouping (i.e., group, organization, so-

ciety) that reﬂects the degree to which there

are objective or subjective differences between

people within the group (without presuming

that group members are necessarily aware of

objective differences or that subjective dif-

ferences are strongly related to more objec-

tive differences). Such a deﬁnition and similar

deﬁnitions coined by others (see above) leave

unanswered a couple of important questions

about how to deal with diversity conceptually,

however, and some of these are quite salient

in current research in diversity. Our review

of the ﬁeld suggests that four issues in this

respect especially warrant attention: ﬁrst, the

possibility to better understand the effects of

diversity by distinguishing between different

types of diversity; second, the potential added

value of moving beyond the study of demo-

graphic and functional diversity; third, the po-

tential added value of conceptualizations of

diversity that move beyond simple dispersion;

and fourth, the notion that diversity’s effects

may be better understood if the inﬂuence of

different dimensions of diversity is studied in

interactions rather than as additive effects.

Typologies of Diversity

To introduce some higher-order structure in

diversity research, a number of researchers

have proposed typologies that may be used

to classify different dimensions of diversity.

These typologies include the distinction be-

tween readily observable demographic at-

tributes (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, age) that

may be less job related and less easily dis-

cernable, and more job-related attributes such

as differences in educational or functional

background ( Jackson 1992, Jehn et al. 1999,

Milliken & Martins 1996, Pelled et al. 1999,

Schneider & Northcraft 1999, Tsui et al. 1992;

cf. Harrison et al. 1998). In addition, a number

of researchers have argued that it is also im-

portant to take into account differences that

may not be readily visible but are not always

job-related either, such as differences in per-

sonality, attitudes, and values (Bowers et al.

2000, Harrison et al. 1998, Jehn et al. 1999).

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 519

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

The question from the current perspective is,

Do these typologies help in making sense of

the effects of diversity?

Some researchers have proposed that de-

mographic diversity, as well as diversity in

personality, values, and attitudes, has negative

effects on group performance and affective-

evaluative responses to the group, whereas

diversity on more information-related dimen-

sions, such as education and functional back-

ground, is more likely to have positive ef-

fects on group performance ( Jehn et al. 1999,

Pelled et al. 1999). Although this reason-

ing makes intuitive sense, it does not seem

to be supported by the data. In support of

the moderating role of diversity type, Jehn

et al. (1999) found that informational diver-

sity was positively related to group perfor-

mance and commitment, whereas perceived

value diversity (which does not necessarily re-

ﬂect actual value diversity; cf. Harrison et al.

2002) was negatively related to group perfor-

mance and group member satisfaction, intent

to remain, and commitment. Contrary to pre-

dictions, however, demographic diversity was

unrelated to group performance and was pos-

itively related to member satisfaction, intent

to remain, and commitment, as well as to per-

ceived work group performance. Pelled et al.’s

(1999) hypotheses implied that functional di-

versity would be positively related to group

performance, whereas demographic diversity

would be negatively related to group perfor-

mance, but neither type of diversity was re-

lated to group performance.

Other studies incorporating both demo-

graphic and informational dimensions of di-

versity report very similar relationships for,

on the one hand, demographic diversity and

presumably more job-related dimensions of

diversity and, on the other hand, outcomes

such as group performance, information use,

and learning as well as team member sat-

isfaction and commitment (Dahlin et al.

2005, Schippers et al. 2003, van der Vegt

& Bunderson 2005). Bunderson & Sutcliffe

(2002) report positive and negative relation-

ships with team process and performance for

different forms of informational diversity. In

addition, there are also other reports of pos-

itive effects of demographic diversity (e.g.,

Bantel & Jackson 1989) and negative effects

of informational diversity (e.g., Simons et al.

1999) that run against the proposed moder-

ating role of diversity type. Together these

ﬁndings suggest that the distinction between

diversity types is not associated with differ-

ential relationships with outcome variables.

Most importantly, perhaps, meta-analyses do

not support the notion of type of diversity as

moderator of the positive versus the negative

effects of diversity either—although it should

be noted that these meta-analyses only cov-

ered a subset of the studies that could poten-

tially have been included. In a meta-analysis of

13 studies, Bowers et al. (2000) distinguished

gender, personality, attitude, and ability di-

versity and found no reliable relationship

between any form of diversity and group per-

formance. In a meta-analysis of 24 studies,

Webber & Donahue (2001) distinguished be-

tween highly job-related and less job-related

diversity and found no reliable relationships

for either form of diversity, neither with group

performance nor with group cohesiveness.

An important conclusion to emerge from

the current state of the art is that, contrary to

what seems popular belief, the positive versus

the negative effects of diversity are not associ-

ated with job-related informational diversity

versus less job-related demographic diversity,

neither for group performance nor for more

affective/evaluative responses to the group.

Interestingly, this means not only that orga-

nizations should be a bit more cautious in

their enthusiasm for functional diversity, but

also that they can be more optimistic about

the possibilities to beneﬁt from demographic

diversity.

The inability to reliably link the positive

and negative effects of diversity to types of di-

versity has led van Knippenberg et al. (2004)

to propose that diversity research abandon

attempts to explain the effects of diversity

through typologies of diversity. In contrast,

they propose that all dimensions of diversity

520 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

may in principle elicit social categorization

processes as well as information/decision-

making processes, because all dimensions of

diversity in principle both provide a basis for

differentiation and may be associated with dif-

ferences in task-relevant information and per-

spectives. Following this conclusion, and in

deviation from earlier reviews (e.g., Milliken

& Martins 1996, Williams & O’Reilly 1998),

we do not structure the current review by di-

versity dimension, but rather we aim to high-

light the processes that may be engendered

by diversity and the contingencies of these

processes.

Beyond Demographic and Functional

Diversity

Perhaps understandably, diversity research

has mainly focused on demographic and func-

tional/educational diversity. Other dimen-

sions of diversity that may be less easily cap-

tured by the existing typologies have received

less attention, although they may be equally

relevant to our understanding of group func-

tioning. For instance, a growing number of

studies link diversity in group member per-

sonality (mostly conceptualized in terms of

the ﬁve-factor model of personality; Costa

& Macrae 1992) to group performance and

more processes-related measures, such as

team social integration (Barrick et al. 1998;

Barry & Stewart 1997; Harrison et al. 2002;

Mohammed & Angell 2003, 2004; Neuman

et al. 1999; Neuman & Wright 1999; Schnei-

der et al. 1998; Van Vianen & De Dreu 2001).

So far, the picture emerging from these stud-

ies is quite inconsistent for the relationship

between personality diversity and group pro-

cess and performance, and further research

addressing the contingencies of these rela-

tionships seems in order.

Others have also pointed to diversity in at-

titudes and values as an inﬂuence on group

functioning (Hoffman & Maier 1961). Here,

too, ﬁndings are highly inconsistent. Some

studies suggest that diversity in attitudes and

values may be associated with negative out-

comes (Harrison et al. 1998, 2002; Jehn &

Mannix 2001; also see Jehn et al. 1997, 1999).

Some of these studies also show, however,

that diversity in attitudes and values may be

associated with positive outcomes (e.g., so-

cial integration) or may be unrelated to these

outcomes (Harrison et al. 1998, 2002). The

conclusion seems justiﬁed that diversity in

attitudes and values, too, is worthy of research

attention, but that we need more complex

models to capture the potential inﬂuence of

this diversity (cf. Harrison et al. 1998).

Socially shared cognition and affect typi-

cally is not considered in diversity research,

but it arguably concerns dimensions of di-

versity. Research in socially shared cognition

shows how individuals’ understanding of their

team and their task (conceptualized as task

representations, Tindale et al. 1996; mental

models, Cannon-Bowers et al. 1993; team

schemas, Rentsch & Hall 1994; or beliefs,

Cannon & Edmondson 2001) may be shared

among group members to a greater or lesser

extent [i.e., group members may be more or

less similar in their understanding of the team

and the task (Mohammed & Ringseis 2001;

also see Colquitt et al. 2002, Klein et al.

2001, Schneider et al. 2002)]. Because the

level of sharedness may affect group perfor-

mance (Mathieu et al. 2005), diversity in such

team- and task-relevant cognitions deserves

a place on the agenda of diversity research.

In a similar vein, affective states (i.e., moods,

emotions) may be shared to a greater or

lesser extent (George 1990, Totterdell 2000,

Totterdell et al. 1998), and the extent to which

affect is shared has been shown to be related to

group cooperation and conﬂict (Barsade et al.

2000). Affective diversity thus also warrants

further research.

In sum, then, without denying the impor-

tance of the study of demographic diversity

and diversity in functional and educational

background, many other dimensions of diver-

sity may inﬂuence group process and perfor-

mance and therefore deserve research atten-

tion. This would seem to hold all the more

because an understanding of the effects of

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 521

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

demographic diversity seems at least partially

to require an understanding of the more psy-

chological dimensions that demographic dif-

ferences are often presumed to be associ-

ated with, such as differences in attitudes,

values, and perspectives (Beyer et al. 1997,

Chattopadhyay et al. 1999, Cox et al. 1991).

That is, analyses of demographic diversity to

a certain extent treat demographic differences

as proxies for deeper underlying differences

(Priem et al. 1999), and investigating this pro-

posed link as well as the processes governing

the inﬂuence of these underlying differences

may increase our understanding of the inﬂu-

ence of demographic diversity.

Beyond Dispersion

Diversity research has typically operational-

ized diversity as the dispersion of group mem-

bers’ positions on a given dimension of di-

versity. Differences between group members

are reﬂected in indices of the extent to which

group members differ from each other, such

as the standard deviation, Euclidian distance

(Tsui et al. 1992), Blau (1977), and Teach-

man (1980) indices, and the coefﬁcient of

variation (for a detailed discussion of these

measures, see Harrison & Klein 2005, Har-

rison & Sin 2005), or simply by distinguish-

ing groups with high versus low dispersion.

Harrison & Klein (2005) note that dimen-

sions of diversity may differ in the extent to

which they represent different positions on

a continuum (e.g., attitudes), different nomi-

nal categories (e.g., gender), or different po-

sitions that are associated with greater or

lesser power or status (e.g., educational level).

Differences between group members on dif-

ferent dimensions may therefore mean dif-

ferent things, and Harrison & Klein urge

researchers to be more explicit about their

conceptualization of diversity (e.g., whether it

associated with status or power differentials),

and to choose operationalizations that are

commensurate with their conceptualization

(also see Sørenson 2002, Williams & Me

2004).

Moreover, a couple of considerations sug-

gest that there are potential beneﬁts in com-

plementing simple dispersion models with

more complex conceptualizations and oper-

ationalizations of diversity (cf. Chan 1998,

Kozlowski & Bell 2003; also see the discus-

sion of faultlines below). Research on rela-

tional demography (i.e., focusing on individ-

ual dissimilarity to the work group rather than

on diversity) shows that being dissimilar to

the work group more negatively affects peo-

ple who are typically in majority positions in

Western organizations (i.e., men, Caucasians)

than it does people who are more often in the

minority position (i.e., women, members of

ethnic minorities; Chatman & O’Reilly 2004,

Tsui et al. 1992). To the extent that these

outcomes for dissimilar group members af-

fect group functioning and performance (e.g.,

through lower satisfaction, lower cohesion,

and higher turnover), we might expect groups

with, for instance, a female minority to func-

tion better than groups with a male minor-

ity. Whether or not this is the case needs to

be tested, but the point is that simple disper-

sion models do not capture these more sub-

tle effects because they treat a group with a

male minority and a group with a compara-

ble female minority (e.g., eight men and two

women versus two men and eight women)

as equally diverse (cf. Harrison & Klein

2005).

Another consideration is that once a given

background or perspective is represented by

one or two members (e.g., members with

a particular functional background within a

cross-functional team), adding additional rep-

resentatives of this background or perspec-

tive to the group might add relatively less

to the group’s potential to perform well—

i.e., sometimes diversity may be more a di-

chotomy (present versus absent) than a mat-

ter of degree. The effects of diversity may

also be contingent on the mean level of the

diversity dimension, as illustrated in Barsade

et al.’s (2000) ﬁnding that the relationship of

top management team diversity in positive af-

fect with group conﬂict and cooperation was

522 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

contingent on the mean level of positive affect

in the team.

Such complex conceptualizations of diver-

sity are acknowledged more in theoretical

analyses than in empirical research, but they

do seem to have the potential to enrich our un-

derstanding of the effects of diversity, and re-

search following up on some of these notions

should be highly worthwhile. In this respect,

it is important to note that organizational sur-

veys typically do not tap into the whole range

of potential group compositions (e.g., work

groups dominated by ethnic minorities tend

to be rare in most samples), and more sophis-

ticated conceptualizations of diversity might

suggest that this poses a threat to the con-

clusions that may be reached on the basis of

studies relying on more traditional dispersion

models (Harrison & Klein 2005).

Faultlines: Interacting Dimensions of

Diversity

Traditionally, diversity research has focused

on the effects of different dimensions of di-

versity in isolation or in additive models, not

taking into account the possibility that the

effects of a dimension of diversity may be

contingent on diversity on other dimensions.

Research on the salience of social categoriza-

tions (Oakes et al. 1994, Turner et al. 1987)

and cross-categorization (Brewer 1995, Crisp

et al. 2002) suggests that the correlation be-

tween different dimensions of differentiation

inﬂuences the likelihood that diversity elicits

subcategorization processes. It might there-

fore be better to think of work group diversity

as an interaction of differences on different

dimensions than to look only at the additive

effects of dimensions of diversity.

Lau & Murnighan (1998) coined the term

“faultlines” to refer to combinations of corre-

lated dimensions of diversity that yield a clear

basis for differentiation between subgroups

(i.e., implying both between-group differ-

ences and within-group similarity; Turner

et al. 1987). A group composition in which all

the men are relatively old and all the women

Faultlines: when

positions on

different dimensions

of diversity are

correlated, the

combination of

diversity on these

dimensions may

suggest a clear

distinction between

subgroups

are relatively young, for example, is more

likely to elicit subcategorization than is a com-

position in which gender and age are unre-

lated. The stronger the diversity faultline, the

more likely subcategorizations should be to

arise, and the greater the chance of disrup-

tions of group functioning.

In support of this proposition, Li &

Hambrick (2005) found that a faultline index

was negatively related to self-rated group per-

formance and that this relationship was me-

diated by relational conﬂict and behavioral

integration (cf. social integration). Sawyer

et al. (2005) compared informationally diverse

decision-making groups that were ethnically

homogeneous (all Caucasian) with groups that

had an ethnic minority member present who

was either also in the informational minority

(i.e., a faultline) or in the informational major-

ity (i.e., crosscutting informational and eth-

nic diversity), and reported that groups with

crosscutting dimensions of diversity outper-

formed homogeneous and faultline groups. In

a similar vein, Homan & van Knippenberg

(2003) showed that cross-categorization leads

to a more favorable group process than does

a faultline dividing the group equally (also see

Phillips et al. 2004). More-indirect evidence

of the disruptive inﬂuence of faultlines was

provided by Lau & Murnighan (2005), who

found that faultlines are associated with less

positive relationships of communication be-

tween subgroups with learning, psychological

safety, group satisfaction, and expected group

performance.

The evidence is less consistent, how-

ever, than one would like it to be. Lau &

Murnighan (2005) also observed that fault-

lines were associated with lower relational

conﬂict, and higher satisfaction and psycho-

logical safety. Sawyer et al. (2005) did not

observe differences between faultline and ho-

mogeneous groups, and Phillips et al. (2004)

found that a faultline involving a single dis-

similar member resulted in better decision-

making performance than did a situation in

which single-member dissimilarity and infor-

mational differences crosscut each other.

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 523

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

The possibility that faultlines have a curvi-

linear relationship with outcomes does not ex-

plain the above inconsistencies, but it hints

at the possibility that the effects of fault-

lines are less straightforward than initially

conceived. Both Gibson & Vermeulen (2003)

and Thatcher et al. (2003) found curvilin-

ear relationships in which moderate faultlines

were associated with outcomes that were more

positive (team learning, morale, performance,

and reduced conﬂict). However, both studies

used faultline measures where moderate fault-

lines might also be labeled moderate cross-

categorization, and it is unclear to what extent

these ﬁndings point to the beneﬁts of mod-

erate faultlines (i.e., eliciting subgroup cate-

gorization) or of crosscutting dimensions of

diversity (i.e., diversity without associated

subgroup salience).

Earley & Mosakowski (2000) showed that

the faultline notion could also be applied

to a single dimension of diversity when the

dimension has multiple nominal categories.

They found that teams with members from

two different countries showed greater ev-

idence of subcategorization and performed

more poorly than did both nationality-

homogeneous teams and teams that consisted

of members from several different coun-

tries (i.e., the two-nationality composition ar-

guably represents a stronger faultline).

The faultline and cross-categorization

concepts have added value in terms of ex-

plaining diversity effects, but the relation-

ship between faultlines and outcomes is not

clear-cut. In part, this may reﬂect problems

with the operationalization of faultlines. It

might be worthwhile, for instance, to con-

sider the possibility that there are asymme-

tries in the effects of faultlines that are not

captured by current faultline measures. For

example, along similar lines as discussed in the

previous section, a faultline between a male

Caucasian minority and a female Asian ma-

jority might affect group functioning differ-

ently than a faultline between a male Cau-

casian majority and a female Asian minority.

In part, the observed inconsistency in ﬁnd-

ings may also reﬂect a need to focus on the

contingencies of the effects of faultlines (cf.

Gibson & Vermeulen 2003) because, for in-

stance, salient categorizations only under cer-

tain circumstances translate into disruptive in-

tergroup biases (van Knippenberg et al. 2004).

And clearly, research actually assessing the

categorization processes implied by faultline

theory (cf. Earley & Mosakowski 2000) is

needed to explicitly test predictions about the

assumed processes.

PROCESSES UNDERLYING THE

INFLUENCE OF DIVERSITY

AND THEIR CONTINGENCIES

An important issue is that not much clear

evidence exists for the processes implied

by the social categorization (and similarity/

attraction) and information/decision-making

perspectives identiﬁed by Williams &

O’Reilly (1998). This is due in part to the

fact that many studies did not include process

measures. A complicating factor in this re-

spect is that neither the social categorization

perspective on work group diversity nor the

information/decision-making perspective

represents a clearly articulated theoretical

framework; rather, the perspectives are more

like loosely deﬁned applications of social

categorization theories and notions about

group information processing and decision

making.

In the following sections, we address

the empirical evidence for the processes

underlying the effects of work group di-

versity and the factors that moderate these

processes. Most of the evidence in diversity

research is not easily and unambiguously

interpreted in terms of social categorization

and information/decision-making processes,

however, and a substantial part of our discus-

sion concerns studies that may be consistent

(to a greater or lesser extent) with the social

categorization and information/decision-

making perspectives without providing direct

evidence to that effect. In that respect,

we identify three (sets of) factors that are

524 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

receiving increased research attention as

moderators of the effects of diversity: inter-

dependence, time, and diversity mind-sets.

Social Categorization Processes

Diversity research has typically applied in-

sights from research in social categorization

and intergroup relations in a straightforward

way, predicting that differences between peo-

ple may elicit social categorization processes

(stereotypic perceptions of dissimilar others,

subgroup formation, intergroup biases) that

disrupt group functioning and lower affec-

tive/evaluative responses to the group. In sup-

port of this analysis, there is evidence that

diversity may elicit subcategorization. Ear-

ley & Mosakowski (2000) assessed subgroup

categorization and common group identity

(although the latter measure arguably re-

ﬂects cohesiveness more than social catego-

rization) and found that groups with stronger

faultlines had a stronger sense of subgroups

and a weaker common identity. Moreover,

they found evidence that common identity

mediated the relationship between faultlines

and satisfaction (but not performance). These

ﬁndings were not replicated in a second study,

though.

Research on relational demography also

yields evidence for social categorization pro-

cesses, although this should be treated more

carefully because, as noted above, individual

dissimilarity does not necessarily reﬂect group

diversity. Chattopadhyay et al. (2004b) found

that dissimilarity to the work group lowered

individuals’ self-categorization as a member

of the group. Randel (2002) found that group

gender composition affected the salience of

male group members’ gender identity (cf.

Mehra et al. 1998) and that identity salience

moderated the relationship between gender

composition and relational conﬂict (i.e., sug-

gesting a translation of categorization into in-

tergroup bias; also see Randel & Jaussi 2003).

Evidence that diversity affects social catego-

rization thus is quite modest, and it would

seem important for future research to estab-

lish the validity of this basic tenet of the so-

cial categorization perspective on work group

diversity.

A second question is whether there is ev-

idence of an association of work group di-

versity with intergroup bias in perceptions,

evaluations, and social interaction. Social cat-

egorization processes are presumed to engen-

der more favorable attitudes toward ingroup

than outgroup others, more trust, more will-

ingness to cooperate, and generally smoother

interaction with ingroup than with outgroup

others. In line with this argument, Chatman

& Flynn (2001) found that demographic di-

versity was associated with lower self-rated

team cooperativeness. Consistent with the

idea that computer-mediated interaction re-

moves social categorization cues (Sproull &

Kiesler 1986), Bhappu et al. (1997) found

that computer-mediated communication in

gender-diverse groups showed fewer signs of

intergroup bias (operationalized as differen-

tial attention to same-gender versus other-

gender communication) than did face-to-face

communication. Chattopadhyay (1999) ob-

served in a study of relational demography

that trust in peers mediated the negative rela-

tionship between individual dissimilarity and

organizational citizenship behavior (see also

Chattopadhyay & George 2001). None of

these studies presented direct evidence of so-

cial categorization processes, however, so cau-

tion is in order in concluding that these studies

provide evidence of intergroup bias.

Research focusing on social/behavioral

integration and relational conﬂict similarly

yields evidence that is consistent with a social

categorization interpretation. Randel’s (2002)

ﬁndings for the role of identity salience in re-

lational conﬂict probably provide the most

persuasive evidence of social categorization

disrupting group process in diverse work

groups. Other studies offer evidence that is

more indirect because they included no di-

rect measure of categorization (e.g., the asso-

ciation observed between diversity faultlines

and behavioral integration by Li & Hambrick

2005). Evidence of negative relationships

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 525

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

between diversity and social integration

(Harrison et al. 1998, 2002), and positive re-

lationships between diversity and relational

conﬂict (Pelled et al. 1999) that also medi-

ated the relationship with outcomes (Bayazit

& Mannix 2003, Jehn et al. 1999, Knight et al.

1999, Mohammed & Angell 2004), is consis-

tent with the social categorization prediction.

However, it does not prove that these relation-

ships follow from social categorization pro-

cesses rather than from other factors associ-

ated with diversity.

Complicating matters, evidence also links

diversity to higher social integration and

group identiﬁcation (identiﬁcation reﬂects

self-categorization), and lower relational con-

ﬂict (Polzer et al. 2002; cf. Swann et al. 2003).

Building on research by Swann and colleagues

on self-veriﬁcation (being seen by others as

one sees oneself; for an overview, see Swann

et al. 2004), Polzer et al. (2002) tested interac-

tions between congruence of group members’

self-views and the views other group mem-

bers have of them (arguably a proxy for self-

veriﬁcation) and demographic and functional

diversity. They found that whereas higher di-

versity tended to be associated with more neg-

ative outcome when congruence was low, it

actually tended to be associated with more

positive outcome when congruence was high.

For the social categorization perspective to

account for the effects of diversity adequately,

it would thus seem that it should also be able to

incorporate positive relationships of diversity

with group identiﬁcation and group interac-

tion (cf. van Knippenberg & Haslam 2003).

A number of studies thus yield results that

are consistent with a social categorization

analysis of the effects of work group diversity.

Surprisingly few studies, however, directly as-

sessed social categorization processes, and re-

sults are inconsistent enough to raise doubts

about the extent to which social categoriza-

tion processes are in operation. Moreover,

without supporting process evidence, some of

the negative relationships between diversity

and group process may also be interpreted

as reﬂecting the consequences of misunder-

standing and disagreement per se (i.e., a more

dysfunctional side of information/decision-

making processes) rather than social cate-

gorization. Empirical attention to the actual

categorization processes therefore would be

warranted to substantiate the social catego-

rization analysis of work group diversity.

It might also be useful to extend social cat-

egorization (and similarity/attraction) analy-

ses with insights from the study of social net-

works in organizations (Brass et al. 2004).

Social network analysis has attempted to cap-

ture relationships between group members in

terms of the strength and nature of their ties,

and has proven useful in capturing the inﬂu-

ence of diversity on the relationships formed

by group members (Klein et al. 2004, Reagans

& Zuckerman 2001). Network analysis may

help to paint a more elaborate picture of

the social relations within a work group that

moves beyond the relatively simple notion of

a split in subgroups and thus enable a more

ﬁne-grained analysis of social categorization

processes. Moreover, it may also prove useful

in capturing the external (i.e., outside of the

work group) network of group members as it

may be affected by diversity (Reagans et al.

2004).

Models that are more sophisticated and

that focus on the contingencies of sub-

categorization and intergroup bias (van

Knippenberg et al. 2004) also seem in or-

der. In this respect, research on the salience

of social categorizations (Oakes et al. 1994,

Turner et al. 1987) shows that there is more

to social categorization than just differences

between people. As reﬂected in the notion

of diversity faultlines, some combinations of

differences (i.e., those that result in high

between-group differences and within-group

similarities) are more likely to elicit subcate-

gorizations than are others. In this sense, di-

versity is also context: In more-diverse orga-

nizations, work group diversity may be less

salient (cf. Martins et al. 2003; also see Brief

et al. 2005, Joshi et al. 2005).

In addition, for diversity to elicit a particu-

lar categorization, the categorization also has

526 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

to make sense within individuals’ psycholog-

ical frame of reference (an issue that diver-

sity research so far has hardly touched upon):

In order to become salient, a categorization

should not only capture similarities and dif-

ferences between people, but should also be

meaningful to the individual (Turner et al.

1987). Moreover, as van Knippenberg et al.

(2004) argue, it is intergroup bias (favoring

one’s own subgroup) that may disrupt group

process and not categorization per se (i.e., the

perception of subgroups), and categorization

only translates into intergroup bias under cer-

tain circumstances. Thus, diversity research

might beneﬁt from a more ﬁne-grained anal-

ysis of the factors that elicit social categoriza-

tion as well as of the factors that translate so-

cial categorization into intergroup bias.

Information/Decision-Making

Processes

At the core of the information/decision-

making perspectives lies the notion that work

group diversity may be associated with dif-

ferences in information, knowledge, and per-

spectives, and that this diversity may bene-

ﬁt group performance. These informational

differences are not limited to what are often

seen as informational or job-relevant dimen-

sions of diversity (Tsui & O’Reilly 1989, van

Knippenberg et al. 2004). As van Knippen-

berg et al. (2004) outline, this implies that at

the core of the positive effects of diversity em-

phasized in the information/decision-making

perspective lies elaboration of task-relevant

information—the group-level exchange, pro-

cessing, and integration of diverse informa-

tion and perspectives (cf. Hinsz et al. 1997). In

line with this analysis, Earley & Mosakowski

(2000) found that a measure of team commu-

nication that seems to be closely aligned with

this notion of elaboration mediated the rela-

tionship of group diversity and performance

(although this ﬁnding was not replicated in a

second study), and Dahlin et al. (2005) found

that (moderate) diversity was associated with

greater information use.

Related to the proposed role of elabora-

tion of task-relevant information is the no-

tion that divergent viewpoints may stimu-

late team reﬂexivity. Team reﬂexivity refers to

the team’s careful consideration and discus-

sion of its functioning and is proposed to re-

sult in team learning and improved team per-

formance (Schippers et al. 2005; West 1996,

2002). Just as diversity may stimulate elabo-

ration of task-relevant information, divergent

perspectives on the task that may be associated

with diversity may invite a team to reﬂect on

its own functioning. In support of this propo-

sition, Schippers et al. (2003) found that team

reﬂexivity mediated the (moderated) relation-

ship between diversity and team performance,

commitment, and satisfaction. Providing fur-

ther support for this perspective, Gibson &

Vermeulen (2003) found that diversity may be

positively related to team learning behavior

(cf. reﬂexivity), and Van der Vegt & Bunder-

son (2005) found that team learning behavior

partly mediated the relationship between ex-

pertise diversity and team performance.

A number of researchers working from a

related perspective have pointed to the role

of task conﬂict—disagreements about the task

performed ( Jehn et al. 1999, Lovelace et al.

2001, Pelled et al. 1999). Diversity is pro-

posed to have the potential to stimulate task

conﬂict through its associated differences in

viewpoints, ideas, and opinions, and task con-

ﬂict is argued to engender more careful con-

sideration of the task at hand. Consistent with

this notion, Jehn et al. (1999) found that task

conﬂict mediated the positive relationship be-

tween informational diversity and group per-

formance. Inconsistent with this reasoning,

however, they also found that perceived value

diversity positively correlated with task con-

ﬂict (cf. Jehn & Mannix 2001), while per-

ceived value diversity was negatively related

to performance. Pelled et al. (1999) also

found evidence that functional background

diversity was positively related to task con-

ﬂict (as do Lovelace et al. 2001), but found

no relationship between diversity and group

performance.

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 527

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

Raising further doubts about the proposed

role of task conﬂict, the notion that task

conﬂict mediates the positive inﬂuence of

diversity on group performance is at odds

with the meta-analytic ﬁnding that task con-

ﬂict is negatively related to group perfor-

mance (De Dreu & Weingart 2003). Indeed,

as van Knippenberg et al. (2004) argue, al-

though task conﬂict might engender elabo-

ration of task-relevant information and thus

foster group performance under certain con-

ditions (cf. Lovelace et al. 2001), task conﬂict

does not necessarily do so, nor is task conﬂict

a prerequisite for elaboration of task-relevant

information to occur. Accordingly, it may be

the elaboration of task-relevant information

per se and not task conﬂict that drives the pos-

itive effects of diversity, but studies assessing

both task conﬂict and group-level information

processing are required to address this issue.

If positive effects of diversity on perfor-

mance ﬂow from group information pro-

cessing, then the positive effects of diversity

should be more likely on tasks with stronger

information-processing and/or decision-

making requirements (van Knippenberg

et al. 2004). In support of this proposition,

Jehn et al. (1999) found that informational

diversity was more positively related to

group performance on less-routine tasks, and

Bowers et al.’s (2000) meta-analysis showed

that diversity was positively related to group

performance on more complex tasks but was

negatively related on simpler tasks. Although

this is no evidence for the actual elaboration

of information assumed to underlie this

moderating effect, these ﬁndings are consis-

tent with the information/decision-making

perspective.

There thus is some evidence for the pro-

cesses implied in the information/decision-

making perspective, although studies assess-

ing these processes are generally somewhat

lacking. Moreover, there seems to be some

controversy about the role of task conﬂict. It

therefore seems that diversity research may

beneﬁt from more theoretical as well as em-

pirical attention to the information process-

ing and decision-making processes that are

presumed to drive the positive effects of di-

versity. In addition, in view of the lack of

support for an overall positive effect of diver-

sity, theoretical models of the contingencies

of information/decision-making processes are

required. Research on social information pro-

cessing, for instance, suggests that processing

motivation and ability are key determinants of

in-depth processing of information (Chaiken

& Trope 1999). Motivation and ability have

received little attention in diversity research,

yet they potentially also are important deter-

minants of groups’ use of their diversity of in-

formation and perspectives (van Knippenberg

et al. 2004).

Social Categorization Processes As

Moderator of Information/

Decision-Making Processes

The social categorization perspective and

the information/decision-making perspective

have largely developed along separate lines,

and there are few studies considering the in-

teraction between social categorization and

information/decision-making processes. Yet,

because intergroup bias may render indi-

viduals less open to communication from

dissimilar others (van Knippenberg 1999), in-

tergroup bias engendered by diversity may

disrupt group information processing and

thus stand in the way of realizing the potential

beneﬁts of diversity (van Knippenberg et al.

2004).

Consistent with this proposition, Jehn

et al. (1999) found that higher perceived value

diversity and demographic diversity were as-

sociated with less-positive relationships be-

tween informational diversity and indicators

of group performance. In a similar vein,

Phillips et al.’s (2004) ﬁnding that groups that

were split equally along a faultline dealt less

successfully with their informational diver-

sity is consistent with this argument (also see

Homan & van Knippenberg 2003). Neither

study includes measures of social categoriza-

tion processes, though, so some caution is

528 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

in order in attributing these ﬁndings to the

disruptive inﬂuence of social categorization

processes. Lau & Murnighan’s (2005) obser-

vation that faultlines disrupted the positive

relationship between intersubgroup commu-

nication (cf. Bhappu et al. 1997) and posi-

tive group outcomes is also in line with this

argument. Their ﬁnding that faultlines were

also associated with less relational conﬂict

and greater psychological safety and satisfac-

tion raises some doubts about a straightfor-

ward social categorization interpretation of

these ﬁndings, however. Although the avail-

able evidence thus seems reasonably consis-

tent with the proposition that diversity may

disrupt group information processing, the ev-

idence for the actual operation of social cate-

gorization and information/decision-making

processes is largely missing.

A possibility that has received less atten-

tion is that social categorization processes may

also stimulate group information processing.

A line of research by Phillips and colleagues

hints at this possibility, suggesting that in-

formationally diverse groups that contain a

member who is dissimilar to the other mem-

bers of the group are more likely to make

effective use of their informational diversity

than are more-homogeneous groups, presum-

ably because dissimilarity alerts the group to

potential associated differences in informa-

tion (Phillips 2003; Phillips et al. 2004, 2005;

Phillips & Loyd 2005). However, because

measures of categorization are missing from

these studies, it is not clear whether these ef-

fects can be attributed to social categorization

processes.

Either way, the work by Phillips and col-

leagues raises the following questions: Under

which conditions is greater diversity beneﬁ-

cial to a group’s use of distributed information,

and under which conditions is diversity more

likely to disrupt group information process-

ing? As Phillips et al. (2004) show, whether

social categorization processes point to a solo

minority member or to equal-sized subgroups

may be one factor (but see Sawyer et al. 2005),

but a more comprehensive account of the

contingencies of these effects awaits future

research.

Cooperation and Interdependence

Group members may depend to a greater or

lesser extent on each other for task perfor-

mance (i.e., task interdependence; Wageman

1995) and for outcomes that may ﬂow

from task performance (i.e., outcome in-

terdependence; Wageman 1995). Moreover,

this interdependence may be more coop-

erative or competitive in nature (i.e., own

and others’ interests may align or conﬂict).

A number of researchers have proposed

that the degree and nature of interdepen-

dence between group members moderates

the relationship between work group diver-

sity and outcomes. Such a moderating role

is consistent with both the social catego-

rization and the information/decision-making

perspective. From a social categorization

perspective, higher, more cooperative inter-

dependence between group members may fo-

cus group members on the common group

identity and distract from subgroup cate-

gorizations (Gaertner & Dovidio 2000). In

addition, interdependence may also facili-

tate intergroup contact and be conducive to

more harmonious relations between different

groups (Pettigrew 1998). At the same time, the

need to collaborate may also set the stage for

group information processing because it may

invite information exchange and discussion.

From both perspectives, cooperative interde-

pendence would thus be expected to be asso-

ciated with effects of diversity that are more

positive.

In support of this notion, Chatman et al.

(1998; also see Chatman & Spataro 2005)

in a study of relational demography showed

that in groups with collectivistic norms em-

phasizing cooperation (versus individualistic

norms emphasizing competition and indepen-

dence), dissimilarity is more positively asso-

ciated with group process and performance.

Mohammed & Angell (2004) found that gen-

der diversity was associated with relational

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 529

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

conﬂict only when group members were less

concerned with cooperative relations, and that

time urgency (an individual difference vari-

able) diversity was positively related to re-

lational conﬂict when team process was low

rather than high in terms of cooperation, com-

munication, and task-oriented leadership. It

should be noted, however, that they did not

obtain similar relationships for ethnic diver-

sity and extraversion diversity, and that they

observed these relationships at time 1 but

not at time 2. Schippers et al. (2003) re-

ported that diversity was positively related

to team reﬂexivity (i.e., arguably an indicator

of information/decision processes), self-rated

group performance, and satisfaction for high-

outcome interdependence and negatively for

low-outcome interdependence. Jehn et al.

(1999) observed that demographic diversity

was more positively related to satisfaction and

commitment when task interdependence was

higher. Van der Vegt & Janssen (2003) found

that diversity was only positively related to

innovative behavior when both task and out-

come interdependence were high, which sug-

gests that it may be worthwhile to consider

task and outcome interdependence in combi-

nation.

Whereas these studies are generally con-

sistent with the notion that greater coopera-

tive interdependence is associated with more

positive relationships between diversity and

outcomes, two studies suggest that the is-

sue may be more complex and that interde-

pendence may be a double-edged sword. Ely

(2004) found that tenure and age diversity in-

teracted with a team process measure includ-

ing cooperation, such that higher scores were

associated with more negative relationships

between diversity and performance. Jehn &

Bezrukova (2004) observed that work group

cultures that were more cooperative were as-

sociated with more positive relationships be-

tween diversity and performance for some di-

mensions of diversity but with more negative

relationships for another dimension, while

group culture did not affect this relationship

for yet other dimensions of diversity.

These ﬁndings suggest that the role of co-

operation and interdependence may be more

complex than is currently conceived, although

it is also possible that more mundane expla-

nations in terms of differences in measure-

ment and speciﬁc conceptualizations would

account for some of these observations. Either

way, it would be valuable if future research

would focus more on the processes underly-

ing the effects of cooperation and interde-

pendence and develop more-comprehensive

accounts of the role of cooperation and inter-

dependence vis-

a-vis social categorization and

information/decision-making perspectives on

the effects of work group diversity.

Time/Team Tenure

Harrison and colleagues in particular have

advanced the idea that the effects of diver-

sity may change over time as groups gain ex-

tended experience working with each other

(Harrison et al. 1998, 2002). Extended tenure

may lead group members to ﬁnd out that ini-

tial stereotype-based impressions about fel-

low group members were wrong (cf. Pettigrew

1998), thus attenuating the effects of social

categorization processes. At the same time,

extended tenure may also bring to the sur-

face more hidden differences that may neg-

atively affect group process. Extended team

tenure may thus be associated with less neg-

ative as well as more negative effects of di-

versity. Harrison et al. (1998) link the ﬁrst

to surface-level demographic dimensions of

diversity and the second to deep-level, more

hidden dimensions of diversity.

Consistent with Harrison et al.’s (1998)

proposition, a number of studies yield evi-

dence that associations between demographic

diversity and outcomes may become less neg-

ative over time (Chatman & Flynn 2001;

Harrison et al. 1998, 2002; Pelled et al. 1999;

Watson et al. 1993; cf. Earley & Mosakowski

2000, Sacco & Schmitt 2005), and that the as-

sociations between more hidden dimensions

of diversity and outcomes may become more

negative over time (Harrison et al. 1998,

530 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

2002). However, other studies yield evidence

inconsistent with Harrison et al.’s (1998)

proposition. Watson et al. (1998) found that

demographic diversity was more negatively

related to outcomes over time. Schippers et al.

(2003) observed that more hidden dimensions

of diversity were more strongly (and posi-

tively) related to group process and perfor-

mance when team tenure was low rather than

high. Mohammed & Angell (2004) found no

difference between the correlates of surface-

level and deep-level diversity between two

measurement points.

Aside from the fact that these inconsistent

ﬁndings corroborate our earlier claim that ty-

pologies of diversity do not explain the differ-

ential effects of diversity, these ﬁndings un-

derscore that time/team tenure is a factor that

may moderate the effects of diversity. Models

that are more elaborate would help to pre-

dict the exact nature of this moderating ef-

fect, however. In this respect, future research

may also take into account the possibility that

groups need extended tenure to beneﬁt from

differences—that is, that the positive effects

of diversity need some time to emerge (van

Knippenberg et al. 2004).

Diversity Mind-Sets

The notion that people prefer to work with

similar others in homogeneous groups fea-

tures prominently in accounts of the effects

of diversity. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly

then, only a limited number of studies have

actually focused on what people think about

diversity, and on the possibility that people’s

ideas about diversity may inﬂuence the ef-

fects of diversity. This seems to be chang-

ing. On the individual level of analysis, some

researchers have examined attitudes toward

diversity and beliefs about the value of di-

versity (Hostager & De Meuse 2002, Strauss

et al. 2003, van Knippenberg & Haslam 2003).

On the group and organizational levels of

analysis, attempts have been made to assess

shared cognition about diversity in the form

of diversity climates, cultures, or perspec-

tives (Chen & Eastman 1997, Ely & Thomas

2001, Kossek & Zonia 1993, Mor Barak

et al. 1998). Although some of these studies

merely focus on evaluations of diversity, oth-

ers also try to capture people’s understanding

of how to deal with diversity (cf. mental mod-

els; Ely & Thomas 2001, van Ginkel & van

Knippenberg 2003). To capture these partly

overlapping approaches to people’s diversity

cognitions, van Knippenberg et al. (2005) pro-

posed the label “diversity mind-sets,” which

refers to people’s understanding of how di-

versity may affect their work group or organi-

zation, their understanding of the appropriate

way to deal with diversity, and their associated

evaluations of diversity.

The general idea driving research on what

may be summarized as diversity mind-sets is

that the effects of diversity should be more

positive in contexts where individuals, groups,

and organizations have more favorable beliefs

about and attitudes toward diversity, are more

focused on harvesting the beneﬁts of diver-

sity, and have a better understanding of how to

realize these beneﬁts. Diversity mind-sets fa-

voring diversity may thus be expected to pre-

vent intergroup bias as well as to stimulate

the integration of diverse information, view-

points, and perspectives (Chen & Eastman

1997, Ely & Thomas 2001, van Knippenberg

& Haslam 2003). That is, diversity mind-

sets may moderate social categorization as

well as information/decision-making pro-

cesses. Rather than testing this moderating

role, however, research has largely concen-

trated on developing measures of aspects

of diversity mind-sets and studying their

antecedents (Hostager & De Meuse 2002,

Kossek & Zonia 1993, Mor Barak et al. 1998,

Roberson et al. 2001, Strauss et al. 2003).

Even so, there is some evidence that di-

versity mind-sets favoring diversity and de-

scribing ways of realizing the beneﬁts of

diversity may be associated with effects of

diversity that are more positive. R.J. Ely &

D.A. Thomas (manuscript submitted; also see

Ely & Thomas 2001) show that racial diver-

sity is more positively related to performance

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 531

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

at bank branches that are focused on learn-

ing from diversity (cf. Richard et al. 2003).

Homan et al. (2004) show that gender-diverse

decision-making groups are more likely to

use their informational diversity when they

believe in the value of diversity. van Ginkel

& van Knippenberg (2003) ﬁnd that groups

reach higher-quality decisions when they have

a shared understanding of how to deal with

their informational diversity, and van Knip-

penberg et al. (2003) report more positive re-

lationships between diversity and identiﬁca-

tion for group members who believe more in

the value of diversity. Thus, although research

on diversity mind-sets is still at an embryonic

stage, it does seem to have promise.

CURVILINEAR RELATIONSHIPS

From notions about the role of group infor-

mation processing follows the idea that the

effects of diversity might be curvilinear. To

beneﬁt from the diversity of information, ex-

pertise, and perspectives that may be associ-

ated with dimensions of differentiation, group

members should be able to understand and

integrate the contributions of dissimilar oth-

ers. As group members differ more in back-

ground, experience, and expertise, however,

it becomes more likely that they do not share

a common frame of reference (i.e., “speak

the same language”) that allows in-depth un-

derstanding of diverse others’ input. Thus,

the potentially positive effects of diversity on

group performance may only obtain up to a

certain level of diversity, beyond which the

lack of a common frame of reference may get

in the way of fully appreciating all group mem-

bers’ contributions (van Knippenberg et al.

2004).

In support of this proposition, researchers

have reported evidence of curvilinear rela-

tionships in which moderate diversity is as-

sociated with more positive outcomes than is

lower as well as higher diversity (Brodbeck

2003; Dahlin et al. 2005; V. Gonzalez-Roma,

M.A. West, & C. Borrill, manuscript submit-

ted; Richard et al. 2004). Contrary to this

proposition, however, Richard et al. (2004)

and Dahlin et al. (2005) also ﬁnd evidence

for the opposite curvilinear relationship, as do

Gibson & Vermeulen (2003). Further com-

plicating matters, Van der Vegt & Bunderson

(2005) found, contingent on level of team

commitment, both U-shaped (high commit-

ment) and inverted U-shaped (low commit-

ment) relationships for the association be-

tween expertise diversity and team learning

and performance.

The evidence for curvilinear effects of di-

versity thus is far from straightforward. Yet,

echoing similar conclusions in the previous

section, enough indications exist to warrant a

closer look at curvilinear relationships in addi-

tion to linear relationships (also see the curvi-

linear effects observed for diversity faultlines).

This seems especially important because the

notion of curvilinear relationships also hints

at the possibility that some of the inconsistent

ﬁndings in diversity research might be due to

restriction of range effects. That is, contin-

gent on which part of the range is sampled,

a curvilinear relationship in the population

might yield a positive, a null, or a negative

relationship between diversity and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

How much progress has research in orga-

nizational diversity made since Williams &

O’Reilly (1998) assessed the state of the art?

Clearly, with the increased attention to more

complex conceptualizations of diversity, to the

processes mediating the effects of work group

diversity, and to the contingencies of these

processes, our current understanding of the

effects of work group diversity on group pro-

cess and performance goes well beyond the

1998 state of the art. At the same time, how-

ever, much is still unclear about the effects of

diversity. The increasing attention to the me-

diators and moderators of diversity’s effects is

exactly what the ﬁeld needed, but some im-

portant steps still need to be made.

532 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

An important issue is that there seems to

be too much ad hoc theorizing and too little

development of theoretical frameworks that

are more widely applied in the study of di-

versity. Directly related to this is the lack of

empirical attention to the processes that are

presumed to underlie the effects of diversity.

As the current review shows, very few studies

actually capture the range of processes that are

implied by the reasoning underlying hypothe-

ses and that should ideally be assessed for a

proper test of the implied theoretical model.

In combination with the inconsistent evidence

for most propositions, this seriously impairs

the ﬁeld’s progress. Especially when results do

not conﬁrm predictions, it would seem impor-

tant to know whether diversity did not elicit

the presumed processes or whether these pro-

cesses were not associated with the outcomes

as predicted. Also, when different perspectives

may predict the same outcome through dif-

ferent processes, information about process

would seem essential to theory development.

Clearer articulation of the theoretical models

driving diversity research makes more appar-

ent which processes should be assessed to test

these models, and more consistent applica-

tion of these models will make clearer to what

extent they provide valid accounts of the ef-

fects of diversity. In similar vein, studies of the

moderators of the effects of diversity should

work from clear links with the processes pre-

dicted by these theoretical models and should

assess whether the proposed moderators in-

deed affect these processes.

To establish the causality implied in theo-

retical models of diversity, it is also essential

that survey research is complemented by con-

trolled experiments. An additional advantage

of controlled experiments is that they typically

allow for superior assessment of group pro-

cesses (i.e., by behavioral observation rather

than by relying on self-reports; Weingart

1997).

We have identiﬁed a number of avenues for

future research that we deem to be particularly

important. The development of more com-

plex conceptualizations of diversity seems an

important step in advancing our understand-

ing of work group diversity. Further applica-

tion of insights from social categorization re-

search about the salience of social categories

would also seem valuable. The emerging at-

tention to diversity faultlines is a promising

step in this direction, but this would also in-

clude research on the role of the extent to

which the categorization makes sense within

the individuals’ psychological frame of refer-

ence and on the role of the wider organiza-

tional and societal context in which the group

is embedded (e.g., the diversity of the orga-

nization as a whole). In similar vein, a focus

on the factors that affect the translation of so-

cial categorization into intergroup bias would

seem important. Diversity research may also

beneﬁt from greater application of insights

from research on social information process-

ing and group decision making to develop

theoretical models of information/decision-

making processes. Finally, exploring possi-

ble curvilinear effects of diversity in addition

to linear effects may lead to important new

insights and contribute to explaining some

of the inconsistencies in diversity research.

Given the value of an understanding of di-

versity at work for organizations and societies

that are becoming ever more diverse, it would

seem important to take on these research chal-

lenges and invest in the continued progress of

this ﬁeld.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. Typologies of diversity (most commonly differentiating forms of demographic and

functional diversity) do not explain the differential effects that work group diversity

may have on group process and performance.

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 533

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

2. Diversity research needs to move beyond conceptualizations and operationalizations

of diversity simply as dispersion on a single dimension of diversity. Rather, it should

conceptualize diversity as a combination of different dimensions of differentiation,

take asymmetries into account, and be open to nonlinear effects.

3. Diversity research should pay more theoretical and empirical attention to the social

categorization and information/decision-making processes presumed to underlie the

effects of diversity on work group performance.

4. Diversity research should pay more attention to the moderators of social categoriza-

tion, intergroup bias, and information/decision-making processes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Susan Fiske for her guidance and advice and to Jeremy Dawson, Dave

Harrison, Susan Mohammed, Kathy Phillips, Charles O’Reilly, Bill Swann, and Rolf van Dick

for their valuable comments on a previous draft of this article.

LITERATURE CITED

Bantel K, Jackson S. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition

of the team make a difference? Strateg. Manage. J. 10:107–24

Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ, Mount MK. 1998. Relating member ability and per-

sonality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:377–91

Barry B, Stewart GL. 1997. Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups:

the role of personality. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:62–78

Barsade SG, Ward AJ, Turner JDF, Sonnenfeld JA. 2000. To your heart’s content: a model of

affective diversity in top management teams. Admin. Sci. Q. 45:802–36

Bayazit M, Mannix EA. 2003. Should I stay or should I go? Predicting team members’ intent

to remain in the team. Small Group Res. 34:290–321

Berscheid E, Reis HT. 1998. Attraction and close relationships. In The Handbook of Social

Psychology, ed. DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey, pp. 193–281. New York: McGraw-Hill

Beyer JM, Chattopadhyay P, George E, Glick WH, Ogilvie DT, Pugliese D. 1997. The

selective perception of managers revisited. Acad. Manage. J. 40:716–37

Bhappu AD, Grifﬁth TL, Northcraft GB. 1997. Media effects and communication bias in

diverse groups. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 70:199–205

Blau PM. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press

Bowers CA, Pharmer JA, Salas E. 2000. When member homogeneity is needed in work teams.

a meta-analysis. Small Group Res. 31:305–27

Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR, Tsai W. 2004. Taking stock of networks and organizations:

a multilevel perspective. Acad. Manage. J. 47:795–817

Brewer MB. 1979. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational

analysis. Psychol. Bull. 86:307–24

Brewer MB. 1995. Managing diversity: the role of social identities. In Diversity in Work Teams:

Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace, ed. S Jackson, MN Ruderman, pp. 47–68.

Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.

Brewer MB, Brown RJ. 1998. Intergroup relations. In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. DT

Gilbert, ST Fiske, pp. 554–94. Boston: McGraw-Hill

534 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

Brief AP, Umphress EE, Dietz J, Butz RM, Burrows J, Scholten L. 2005. Community matters:

realistic group conﬂict theory and the impact of diversity. Acad. Manage. J. 48:830–44

Brodbeck F. 2003. Contradiction as an inhibitor and facilitator of group performance. Presented at

Eur. Cong. Work Organ. Psychol., Lisbon

Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KM. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional

diversity in management teams: process and performance effects. Acad. Manage. J. 45:875–

Byrne D. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic

Cannon M, Edmondson A. 2001. Confronting failure: antecedents and consequences of shared

beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. J. Organ. Behav. 22:161–77

Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse S. 1993. Shared mental models in expert team decision

making. In Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Directions, ed. NJ Castellan, pp.

221–46. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Chaiken S, Trope Y. 1999. Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford

Chan D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different

levels of analysis: a typology of composition models. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:234–46

Chatman JA, Flynn FJ. 2001. The inﬂuence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence

and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Acad. Manage. J. 44:956–74

Chatman JA, O’Reilly CA. 2004. Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men

and women. Acad. Manage. J. 47:193–208

Chatman JA, Polzer JT, Barsade SG, Neale MA. 1998. Being different yet feeling similar: the

inﬂuence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and

outcomes. Admin. Sci. Q. 43:749–80

Chatman JA, Spataro SE. 2005. Using self-categorization theory to understand relational

demography-based variations in people’s responsiveness to organizational culture. Acad.

Manage. J. 48:321–31

Chattopadhyay P. 1999. Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: the inﬂuence of demographic

dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manage. J. 42:273–87

Chattopadhyay P, George E. 2001. Examining the effects of work externalization through the

lens of social identity theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:781–88

Chattopadhyay P, George E, Lawrence SA. 2004b. Why does dissimilarity matter? Exploring

self-categorization, self-enhancement, and uncertainty reduction. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:892–

900

Chattopadhyay P, Glick WH, Miller CC, Huber GP. 1999. Determinants of executive beliefs:

comparing functional conditioning and social inﬂuence. Strateg. Manage. J. 20:763–89

Chattopadhyay P, Tluchowska M, George E. 2004a. Identifying the ingroup: a closer look at

the inﬂuence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Acad. Manage. Rev.

29:180–202

Chen CC, Eastman W. 1997. Toward a civic culture for multicultural organizations. J. Appl.

Behav. Sci. 33:454–70

Colquitt JA, Noe RA, Jackson CL. 2002. Justice in teams: antecedents and consequences of

procedural justice climate. Pers. Psychol. 55:83–109

Costa PTJ, McCrae RR. 1992. The NEO-PI-R: Revised Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R).

Odessa, FL: Assess. Resourc.

Cox T, Lobel S, McLeod P. 1991. Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative

and competitive behavior on a group task. Acad. Manage. J. 34:827–47

Crisp RJ, Ensari N, Hewstone M, Miller NW. 2002. A dual-route model of crossed cate-

gorization effects. In European Review of Social Psychology, ed. W Stroebe, M Hewstone,

pp. 35–74. Hove, UK/Philadelphia, PA: Psychol. Press

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 535

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

Dahlin KB, Weingart LR, Hinds PJ. 2005. Team diversity and information use. Acad. Manage.

J. 48:1107–23

De Dreu CKW, Weingart LR. 2003. Task and relationship conﬂict, team performance, and

team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:741–49

Earley PC, Mosakowski E. 2000. Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of transna-

tional team functioning. Acad. Manage. J. 43:26–49

Ely RJ. 2004. A ﬁeld study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs,

and performance. J. Organ. Behav. 25:755–80

Ely RJ, Thomas DA. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on

work group processes and outcomes. Admin. Sci. Q. 46:229–73

Epitropaki O, Martin R. 1999. The impact of relational demography on the quality of leader-

member exchanges and employees’ work attitudes and well-being. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol.

72:237–40

Gaertner SL, Dovidio JF. 2000. Reducing Intergroup Bias. The Common Ingroup Identity Model.

Philadelphia, PA: Psychol. Press

George JM. 1990. Personality, affect and behavior in groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 75:107–16

Gibson C, Vermeulen F. 2003. A healthy divide: subgroups as a stimulus for team learning

behavior. Admin. Sci. Q. 48:202–39

Guzzo RA, Dickson MW. 1996. Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and

effectiveness. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 47:307–38

Provides a

thorough analysis

of different ways to

conceptualize and

operationalize

diversity, and

outlines how the

conceptualization

adopted may affect

conclusions of

diversity research.

Harrison DA, Klein KJ. 2006. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation,

variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad. Manage. Rev. In press

Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP. 1998. Beyond relational demography: time and the effects

of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Acad. Manage. J. 41:96–107

Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, Florey AT. 2002. Time, teams, and task performance:

changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Acad. Manage.

J. 45:1029–45

Harrison DA, Sin HS. 2005. What is diversity and how should it be measured? In Handbook of

Workplace Diversity, ed. AM Konrad, P Prasad, JK Pringle, pp. 191–216. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage

Hinsz VB, Tindale RS, Vollrath DA. 1997. The emerging conceptualization of groups as

information processors. Psychol. Bull. 121:43–64

Hoffman LR, Maier NRF. 1961. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of

homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 62:401–7

Homan AC, van Knippenberg D. 2003. The beneﬁcial effects of cross-categorizing informational and

demographical diversity in groups. Presented at Eur. Cong. Work Organ. Psychol., Lisbon

Homan AC, van Knippenberg D, Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW. 2004. Managing group diversity

beliefs to increase performance in diverse teams: Promoting diversity helps! Presented at Annu.

Meet. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol., Chicago, IL

Hostager TJ, De Meuse KP. 2002. Assessing the complexity of diversity perceptions: breadth,

depth, and balance. J. Bus. Psychol. 17:189–206

Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D. 2005. Teams in organizations: from input-

process-output models to IMOI models. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:517–43

Jackson SE. 1992. Team composition in organizational settings: issues in managing an increas-

ingly diverse work force. In Group Process and Productivity, ed. S Worchel, W Wood, JA

Simpson, pp. 136–80. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Jackson SE, Joshi A. 2004. Diversity in social context: a multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of

team diversity and sales performance. J. Organ. Behav. 25:675–702

536 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

Jackson SE, Joshi A, Erhardt NL. 2003. Recent research on team and organizational diversity:

SWOT analysis and implications. J. Manage. 29:801–30

Jehn KA, Bezrukova K. 2004. A ﬁeld study of group diversity, workgroup context, and perfor-

mance. J. Organ. Behav. 25:703–29

Jehn KA, Chadwick C, Thatcher S. 1997. To agree or not to agree: the effects of value con-

gruence, member diversity, and conﬂict on workgroup outcomes. Int. J. Conﬂ. Manage.

8:287–305

Jehn KA, Mannix EA. 2001. The dynamic structure of conﬂict: a longitudinal study of intra-

group conﬂict and group performance. Acad. Manage. J. 44:238–51

Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA. 1999. Why differences make a difference: a ﬁeld study

of diversity, conﬂict, and performance in workgroups. Admin. Sci. Q. 44:741–63

Joshi A, Liao H, Jackson SE. 2005. Cross-level effects of workplace diversity on sales perfor-

mance and pay. Acad. Manage. J. In press

Keller RT. 2001. Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development:

diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Acad. Manage. J. 44:547–59

Kerr NL, Tindale RS. 2004. Group performance and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol.

55:623–55

Klein KJ, Conn AB, Smith DB, Sorra JS. 2001. Is everyone in agreement? An exploration

of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. J. Appl.

Psychol. 86:3–16

Klein KJ, Lim BC, Saltz JL, Mayer DM. 2004. How do they get there? An examination of the

antecedents of centrality in team networks. Acad. Manage. J. 47:952–63

Knight D, Pearce CL, Smith KG, Olian JD, Sims HP, et al. 1999. Top management team

diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strateg. Manage. J. 20:445–65

Kossek EE, Zonia SC. 1993. Assessing diversity climate: a ﬁeld study of reactions to employer

efforts to promote diversity. J. Organ. Behav. 14:61–81

Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In Handbook of Psy-

chology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. WC Borman, DR Ilgen, RJ Klimoski,

pp. 333–75. London: Wiley

Introduced the

concept of faultline

to diversity

research in a way

that sparked a

still-expanding

research interest.

Lau DC, Murnighan JK. 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional

dynamics of organizational groups. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23:325–40

Lau DC, Murnighan JK. 2005. Interactions within groups and subgroups: the effects of demo-

graphic faultlines. Acad. Manage. J. 48:645–59

Li J, Hambrick DC. 2005. Factional groups: a new vantage on demographic faultlines, conﬂict,

and disintegration in work teams. Acad. Manage. J. 48:794–813

Lovelace K, Shapiro DL, Weingart LR. 2001. Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’

innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conﬂict communications perspective. Acad.

Manage. J. 44:779–93

Martins LL, Milliken FJ, Wiesenfeld BM, Salgado SR. 2003. Racioethnic diversity and group

members’ experiences: the role of the racioethnic diversity of the organizational context.

Group Organ. Manage. 28:75–106

Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E. 2005. Scaling the quality

of teammates’ mental models: equiﬁnality and normative comparisons. J. Organ. Behav.

26:37–56

Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass DJ. 1998. At the margins: a distinctiveness approach to the social

identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Acad. Manage. J. 41:441–52

Milliken FJ, Martins LL. 1996. Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple

effects of diversity in organizational groups. Acad. Manage. Rev. 21:402–33

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 537

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

Mohammed S, Angell LC. 2003. Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make

a difference for team performance? Small Group Res. 34:651–77

Mohammed S, Angell LC. 2004. Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examining

the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conﬂict. J.

Organ. Behav. 25:1015–39

Mohammed S, Ringseis E. 2001. Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making:

the role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 85:310–35

Mor Barak ME, Cherin DA, Berkman S. 1998. Organizational and personal dimensions of

diversity climate: ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. J. Appl. Behav.

Sci. 31:82–104

Mullen B, Copper C. 1994. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: an

integration. Psychol. Bull. 115:210–27

Murnighan JK, Conlon DE. 1991. The dynamics of intense work groups: a study of British

string quartets. Admin. Sci. Q. 36:165–86

Neuman GA, Wagner SH, Christiansen ND. 1999. The relationship between work-team

personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group Organ. Manage. 24:28–

Neuman GA, Wright J. 1999. Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability. J. Appl.

Psychol. 84:376–89

Oakes PJ, Haslam SA, Turner JC. 1994. Stereotyping and Social Reality. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Sci.

O’Reilly CA, Caldwell DF, Barnett WP. 1989. Work group demography, social integration,

and turnover. Admin. Sci. Q. 34:21–37

Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM, Xin KR. 1999. Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group

diversity, conﬂict, and performance. Admin. Sci. Q. 44:1–28

Pettigrew TF. 1998. Intergroup contact theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49:65–85

Phillips KW. 2003. The effects of categorically based expectations on minority inﬂuence: the

importance of congruence. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:3–13

Phillips KW, Loyd DL. 2006. When surface and deep-level diversity collide: the effects on

dissenting group members. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 99:143–60

Phillips KW, Mannix EA, Neale MA, Gruenfeld DH. 2004. Diverse groups and information

sharing: the effects of congruent ties. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:497–510

Phillips KW, Northcraft GB, Neale MA. 2006. Surface-level diversity and information sharing:

When does deep-level diversity help? Group Process. Intergroup Relat. In press

Polzer JT, Milton LP, Swann WBJ. 2002. Capitalizing on diversity: interpersonal congruence

in small work groups. Admin. Sci. Q. 47:296–324

Priem RL, Lyon DW, Dess GG. 1999. Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top

management team heterogeneity research. J. Manage. 25:935–53

Randel AE. 2002. Identity salience: a moderator of the relationship between group gender

composition and work group conﬂict. J. Organ. Behav. 23:749–66

Randel AE, Jaussi KS. 2003. Functional background identity, diversity, and individual perfor-

mance in cross-functional teams. Acad. Manage. J. 46:763–74

Reagans R, Zuckerman EW. 2001. Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of

corporate R&D teams. Organ. Sci. 12:502–17

Reagans R, Zuckerman EW, McEvily B. 2004. How to make the team: Social networks versus

demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Admin. Sci. Q. 49:101–33

Rentsch JR, Hall RJ. 1994. Members of great teams think alike: a model of team effectiveness

and schema similarity among team members. In Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work

Teams, ed. MM Beyerlein, DA Johnson, pp. 223–61. Stamford, CT: JAI

538 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

Richard O, McMillan A, Chadwick K, Dwyer S. 2003. Employing an innovation strategy in

radically diverse workforce. Group Organ. Manage. 28:107–26

Richard OC, Barnett T, Dwyer S, Chadwick K. 2004. Cultural diversity in management, ﬁrm

performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions. Acad.

Manage. J. 47:255–66

Roberson L, Kulik CT, Pepper MB. 2001. Designing effective diversity training: Inﬂuence of

group composition and trainee experience. J. Organ. Behav. 22:871–85

Sacco JM, Schmitt N. 2005. A dynamic multilevel model of demographic diversity and misﬁt

effects. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:203–31

Sawyer JE, Houlette MA, Yeagley EL. 2006. Decision performance and diversity structure:

comparing faultlines in convergent, crosscut, and racially homogeneous groups. Organ.

Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 99:1–15

Schippers MC, Den Hartog DN, Koopman P. 2006. Reﬂexivity in teams: a measure and

correlates. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. In press

Schippers MC, Den Hartog DN, Koopman PL, Wienk JA. 2003. Diversity and team outcomes:

the moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating

effect of reﬂexivity. J. Organ. Behav. 24:779–802

Schneider B, Salvaggio AN, Subirats M. 2002. Climate strength: a new direction for climate

research. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:220–29

Schneider B, Smith DB, Taylor S, Fleenor J. 1998. Personality and organizations: a test of the

homogeneity of personality hypothesis. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:462–70

Schneider SK, Northcraft GB. 1999. Three social dilemmas of workforce diversity in organi-

zations: a social identity perspective. Hum. Relat. 52:1445–67

Simons T, Pelled LH, Smith KA. 1999. Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and decision

comprehensiveness in top management teams. Acad. Manage. J. 42:662–73

Sørenson JB. 2002. The use and misuse of the coefﬁcient of variation in organizational demog-

raphy research. Sociol. Meth. Res. 30:475–91

Sproull L, Kiesler S. 1986. Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational

communication. Manage. Sci. 32:1492–512

Strauss JP, Connerley ML, Ammermann PA. 2003. The “threat hypothesis,” personality, and

attitudes toward diversity. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 39:32–52

Swann WB, Polzer JT, Seyle DC, Ko SJ. 2004. Finding value in diversity: veriﬁcation of

personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Acad. Manage. Rev. 29:9–27

Swann WBJ, Kwan VSY, Polzer JT, Milton LP. 2003. Fostering group identiﬁcation and

creativity in diverse groups: the role of individuation and self-veriﬁcation. Personal. Soc.

Psychol. Bull. 29:1396–406

Tajfel H, Turner JC. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Psychology of

Intergroup Relations, ed. S Worchel, W Austin, pp. 7–24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall

Teachman JD. 1980. Analysis of population diversity. Sociol. Meth. Res. 8:341–62

Thatcher SMB, Jehn KA, Zanutto E. 2003. Cracks in diversity research: the effects of diversity

faultlines on conﬂict and performance. Group Decis. Negot. 12:217–41

Tindale RS, Smith CM, Thomas LS, Filkins J, Sheffey S. 1996. Shared representations and

asymmetric social inﬂuence in small groups. In Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual

Action by Small Groups, ed. E Witte, JH Davis, pp. 81–83. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Totterdell P. 2000. Catching moods and hitting runs: mood linkage and subjective performance

in professional sport teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:848–59

Totterdell P, Kellett S, Teuchmann K, Briner RB. 1998. Evidence of mood linkage in work

groups. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74:1504–15

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 539

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

Triandis HC, Kurowski LL, Gelfand MJ. 1994. Workplace diversity. In Handbook of Indus-

trial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4, ed. HC Triandis, MD Dunnette, LM Hough,

pp. 769–827. Palo Alto, CA: Consult. Psychol. Press. 2nd ed.

Tsui AS, Egan TD, O’Reilly CA. 1992. Being different: relational demography and organiza-

tional attachment. Admin. Sci. Q. 37:549–79

Tsui AS, O’Reilly CA. 1989. Beyond simple demographic effects: the importance of relational

demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Acad. Manage. J. 32:402–23

Tsui AS, Porter LW, Egan TD. 2002. When both similarities and dissimilarities matter: ex-

tending the concept of relational demography. Hum. Relat. 55:899–929

Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS. 1987. Rediscovering the Social

Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Van der Vegt GS, Bunderson JS. 2005. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams:

the importance of collective team identiﬁcation. Acad. Manage. J. 48:532–47

Van der Vegt GS, Janssen O. 2003. Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on

innovation. J. Manage. 29:29–51

van Ginkel WP, van Knippenberg D. 2003. The role of shared mental models for informational

diversity in group decision-making. Presented at Eur. Assoc. Exp. Soc. Psychol. Small Group

Meet. on Small Group Decision Making: Motiv. Cogn., Amsterdam

van Knippenberg D. 1999. Social identity and persuasion: reconsidering the role of group

membership. In Social Identity and Social Cognition, ed. D Abrams, MA Hogg, pp. 315–31.

Oxford, UK: Blackwell Sci.

Provides an

integrative model

bridging and

extending the

social

categorization

perspective and the

information/decision-

making

perspective, the

two main traditions

in diversity

research.

van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CKW, Homan AC. 2004. Work group diversity and group

performance: an integrative model and research agenda. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:1008–

van Knippenberg D, Haslam SA. 2003. Realizing the diversity dividend: exploring the subtle

interplay between identity, ideology, and reality. In Social Identity at Work: Developing Theor y

for Organizational Practice, ed. SA Haslam, D van Knippenberg, MJ Platow, N Ellemers,

pp. 61–77. New York/Hove: Psychol. Press

van Knippenberg D, Haslam SA, Platow MJ. 2003. Work group diversity and work group identi-

ﬁcation: diversity as an aspect of group identity. Presented at 11th Eur. Congr. Work Organ.

Psychol., Lisbon

van Knippenberg D, van Ginkel WP, Homan AC, Kooij-de Bode HJM. 2005. Diversity mind

sets: a new focus in diversity research. Presented at 12th Eur. Congr. Work Organ. Psychol.,

Istanbul

Van Vianen AEM, De Dreu CKW. 2001. Personality in teams: its relationship to social cohe-

sion, task cohesion, and team performance. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 10:97–120

Wageman R. 1995. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Admin. Sci. Q. 40:140–80

Wagner GW, Pfeffer J, O’Reilly CA. 1984. Organizational demography and turnover. Admin.

Sci. Q. 29:74–92

Watson W, Johnson L, Merritt D. 1998. Team orientation, self-orientation, and diversity

in task groups: their connection to team performance over time. Group Organ. Manage.

23:161–88

Watson W, Kumar K, Michaelson L. 1993. Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process

and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Acad. Manage. J.

36:590–602

Webber SS, Donahue LM. 2001. Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group

cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. J. Manage. 27:141–62

Weingart L. 1997. How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group process. Res.

Organ. Behav. 19:189–39

540 van Knippenberg

Schippers

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

ANRV296-PS58-20 ARI 17 November 2006 1:33

West MA. 1996. Reﬂexivity and work group effectiveness: a conceptual integration. In Handbook

of Work Group Psychology, ed. MA West, pp. 555–79. Chichester, UK: Wiley

West MA. 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of creativity and

innovation implementation in work groups. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 51:355–87

Williams HM, Me

an LJ. 2004. Measuring gender composition in work groups: a comparison

of existing models. Organ. Res. Methods 7:456–74

Reviews diversity

research up to

1998.

Complements the

current article for a

full overview of the

ﬁeld.

Williams KY, O’Reilly CA. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: a review

of 40 years of research. Res. Organ. Behav. 20:77–140

www.annualreviews.org

•

Work Group Diversity 541

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

Contents ARI 8 November 2006 21:2

Annual Review of

Psychology

Volume 58, 2007

Contents

Prefatory

Research on Attention Networks as a Model for the Integration of

Psychological Science

Michael I. Posner and Mary K. Rothbart ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp1

Cognitive Neuroscience

The Representation of Object Concepts in the Brain

Alex Martin pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 25

Depth, Space, and Motion

Perception of Human Motion

Randolph Blake and Maggie Shiffrar ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 47

Form Perception (Scene Perception) or Object Recognition

Visual Object Recognition: Do We Know More Now Than We Did 20

Years Ago?

Jessie J. Peissig and Michael J. Tarr pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 75

Animal Cognition

Causal Cognition in Human and Nonhuman Animals: A Comparative,

Critical Review

Derek C. Penn and Daniel J. Povinelli ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 97

Emotional, Social, and Personality Development

The Development of Coping

Ellen A. Skinner and Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp119

vii

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

Contents ARI 8 November 2006 21:2

Biological and Genetic Processes in Development

The Neurobiology of Stress and Development

Megan Gunnar and Karina Quevedo pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp145

Development in Societal Context

An Interactionist Perspective on the Socioeconomic Context of

Human Development

Rand D. Conger and M. Brent Donnellan ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp175

Culture and Mental Health

Race, Race-Based Discrimination, and Health Outcomes Among

African Americans

Vickie M. Mays, Susan D. Cochran, and Namdi W. Barnes ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp201

Personality Disorders

Assessment and Diagnosis of Personality Disorder: Perennial Issues

and an Emerging Reconceptualization

Lee Anna Clark pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp227

Social Psychology of Attention, Control, and Automaticity

Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core Processes

Matthew D. Lieberman ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp259

Inference, Person Perception, Attribution

Partitioning the Domain of Social Inference: Dual Mode and Systems

Models and Their Alternatives

Arie W. Kruglanski and Edward Orehek pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp291

Self and Identity

Motivational and Emotional Aspects of the Self

Mark R. Leary ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp317

Social Development, Social Personality, Social Motivation,

Social Emotion

Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior

June Price Tangney, Jeff Stuewig, and Debra J. Mashek ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp345

viii Contents

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

Contents ARI 8 November 2006 21:2

The Experience of Emotion

Lisa Feldman Barrett, Batja Mesquita, Kevin N. Ochsner,

and James J. Gross ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp373

Attraction and Close Relationships

The Close Relationships of Lesbian and Gay Men

Letitia Anne Peplau and Adam W. Fingerhut ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp405

Small Groups

Ostracism

Kipling D. Williams ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

425

Personality Processes

The Elaboration of Personal Construct Psychology

Beverly M. Walker and David A. Winter ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp453

Cross-Country or Regional Comparisons

Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior

Michele J. Gelfand, Miriam Erez, and Zeynep Aycan pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp479

Organizational Groups and Teams

Work Group Diversity

Daan van Knippenberg and Michaéla C. Schippers ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp515

Career Development and Counseling

Work and Vocational Psychology: Theory, Research,

and Applications

Nadya A. Fouad ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp543

Adjustment to Chronic Diseases and Terminal Illness

Health Psychology: Psychological Adjustment

to Chronic Disease

Annette L. Stanton, Tracey A. Revenson, and Howard Tennen ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp565

Contents ix

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

Contents ARI 8 November 2006 21:2

Research Methodology

Mediation Analysis

David P. MacKinnon, Amanda J. Fairchild, and Matthew S. Fritz ppppppppppppppppppppp593

Analysis of Nonlinear Patterns of Change with Random Coefﬁcient

Models

Robert Cudeck and Jeffrey R. Harring ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp615

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 48–58 ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp639

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 48–58 pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp644

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology chapters (if any, 1997 to the

present) may be found at http://psych.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

x Contents

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007.58:515-541. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by ERASMUS UNIVERSITEIT on 03/26/08. For personal use only.

Diversity and Inclusion and Team Performance of Oil and Gas Firms in Rivers State, Nigeria

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

The study investigates the relationship between diversity and inclusion and team performance of the oil and gas firms in Rivers State. A survey study was carried out in this study. The population comprised 4520 employees of the oil and gas firms in Rivers State and the samples were 317 employees of the oil and gas firms. The Taro Yamane 1967 formula was used to derive the sample size. The spearman rank order correlation coefficient was used in analysing the stated hypotheses. The findings revealed a positive correlation between the dimensions of diversity and inclusion (diversity training and inclusivity of voices and perspectives) and team performance. The study concludes that diversity and inclusion relate with the team performance of the oil and gas firms. The study recommends enhancing diversity training and inclusivity of voices and perspectives for improved team performance.

Talent Acquisition Strategies: A Comprehensive Examination of Recruitment Policies for Organizational Success

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

This research aims to investigate talent acquisition strategies employed by organizations across diverse industries and sectors, focusing on their alignment with organizational objectives, legal requirements, and diversity initiatives. The study employs a qualitative research approach, utilizing a comprehensive review of existing literature and case studies to analyze various talent acquisition strategies and their implications. Findings reveal a spectrum of proactive and reactive strategies, including talent pipelining, employer branding, succession planning, job postings, referrals, and engagement with recruitment agencies. Moreover, the integration of technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI) and data analytics, has revolutionized talent acquisition practices, offering opportunities for efficiency and candidate engagement. However, the adoption of technology-driven solutions also presents challenges related to data privacy, algorithmic bias, and transparency. Ethical considerations surrounding the responsible and equitable use of technology in recruitment are discussed, emphasizing the importance of proactive measures to mitigate biases and ensure fairness. Overall, this research underscores the strategic importance of aligning talent acquisition strategies with organizational objectives and diversity initiatives to drive organizational success and competitiveness.

Career challenges of international female faculty in US universities: from a linguistic profiling perspective

Article

Jun 2024
Career Dev Int

Purpose The purpose of this study is to review how international female faculty experience linguistic challenges and bias in their US university careers. Design/methodology/approach By reviewing related literature, the authors explore the career challenges of international female faculty including hiring, promotion and tenure and leadership opportunities from a linguistic profiling perspective. Findings International female faculty have relatively few hiring opportunities, specifically when institutions and fields openly accept linguistic profiling and bias and are less likely to hire non-native English-speaking international faculty. In the promotion and tenure process, international female faculty have struggled with standard academic English criteria and poor teaching evaluations from students because of the faculty’s different English usage such as word choice, grammar and pragmatics. In terms of leadership opportunities, international female professors have faced linguistic bias that non-native English faculty members are not competent, credible, intelligent or skilled because they speak accented English. Originality/value This study can help researchers and career development practitioners by adding linguistic profiling specific diversity and inclusion perspectives to existing literature. The findings expand the perspectives and practices related to the career challenges of international female faculty due to linguistic profiling.

Boosting Firm Environmental Performance: The Roles of Top Management Team Functional Diversity, Environmental Disclosures, and Government Subsidy

Article

Jun 2024

Contemporary organizations are actively striving to achieve a higher level of environmental performance (the extent to which the organization reduces and minimizes its negative impact on the natural environment). This pursuit is not only driven by the need to comply with governmental climate change regulations but also by the desire to gain a competitive advantage. While a limited number of studies have acknowledged the importance of top executives’ strategy-making on firms’ environmental performance, questions still persist regarding how the role structure of the top management team (TMT) promotes the disclosure of environmental policies, and subsequently enhances firm environmental performance. Based on the attention-based view and resource-dependency perspective, this study aims to examine how TMT functional diversity is beneficial for formulating better environmental disclosures, which in turn, is expected to increase environmental performance. Additionally, we explore the extent to which external resources (i.e., government subsidies) can strengthen this relationship. We employed an archival dataset from 406 Chinese manufacturing firms over a ten-year period (2010–2019) and tested a moderated mediation model. Our findings suggest that greater functional diversity within TMTs positively influences firm environmental performance through the improved environmental disclosures, and this indirect effect is amplified when firms receive higher levels of government subsidies. Our study contributes to the existing literature on environmental governance by demonstrating that (1) functional diversity within the TMT can predict more favorable environmental performance metrics; and (2) government financial support can particularly be a booster for the relationship between TMT environmental disclosures and firm environmental performance.

Navigating Uncertainty: Women's Leadership Styles in the Era of Organisational Transformation

Chapter

Jun 2024

The industry and government leadership are changing, requiring creative and flexible strategies to overcome uncertainty in the face of internal and external transformations. This chapter examines the positions of women in the face of organisational instability, emphasising their growing representation in leadership positions. The work explores the role of women's leadership styles in effectively managing uncertainty, with a focus on their influence on decision-making and innovation, especially in dynamic situations. The chapter highlights the interconnectedness of gender, race, and ethnicity, providing practical examples and concrete recommendations for scholars, researchers, and professionals. Advocating for gender-inclusive leadership approaches encourages the use of varied leadership styles to succeed in unpredictable circumstances. In the end, it helps to promote gender equality and achieve corporate success in uncertain circumstances.

The effects of gender diversity and cognitive diversity on team performance in Japanese R&D teams including the effect of shared leadership as a moderator

Article

Jun 2024

Jun Ishikawa

Diversity and Gender Issues in Hotel Management

Chapter

Jun 2024

The hospitality and tourism industry constantly evolves, with fast-paced changes, multidimensional challenges, fierce competition, generational and cultural differences, and crises. This volatile environment requires hotel leaders to be resilient and able to adapt. (Giousmpasoglou et al., 2021). Moreover, one of the key challenges for hoteliers globally is the high labour turnover, which costs the industry £274 million per annum (People 1st, 2017), as well as skills shortages (McKinsey & Company, 2020). As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many hotels closed down and had difficulty reopening. In addition to causing cultural diversity and inclusion challenges, the post COVID-19 crisis negatively affected the gender wage gap, negatively affecting women disproportionately in the workplace (Madera et al., 2023).

Age–rank correlations and firm‐level outcomes: The moderating role of environmental dynamism

Article

May 2024

Traditionally, older employees have held higher positions in the organizational hierarchy. However, today, there is significant variation among firms in the extent to which age is correlated with rank. In this study, we integrate the career timetable and social exchange theory to propose that age–rank correlation is related to organizational performance, serially mediated by the perceived age discrimination climate and organizational innovation. We further suggest that the direction of this indirect relationship depends on firms' environmental dynamism. We find support for our moderated serial mediation framework using multisource data from 12,829 employees, 68 top HR representatives, and 229 top managers in 68 firms. Under lower levels of environmental dynamism, age–rank correlation was negatively related to perceived age discrimination climate and had a positive indirect relationship with organizational performance. Under higher levels of environmental dynamism, age–rank correlation was positively related to perceived age discrimination climate and had a negative indirect relationship with organizational performance. Our study provides a more nuanced view of the fading link between age and rank, which has typically been viewed negatively and from an individual perspective only. Additionally, our results have important practical implications for organizations navigating a shifting workforce demographic in increasingly dynamic environments.

Knowledge sharing between self-initiated expatriates and host country nationals: a dyadic investigation

Article

May 2024

Motivating People to Work: The Value Behind Diverse Assumptions

Article

May 2024

Hannes Leroy

Agency theory and self‐determination theory have contrasting assumptions about what motivates human beings and, accordingly, suggest differing methods of motivating others – from extrinsic rewards aimed at controlling agency to facilitating human agentic behaviour. These different assumptions are consequential – organizations and societies would look wildly different with the adoption of the one or other perspectives, with important implications for human welfare and wellbeing. The introduction to this Point and Counterpoint (PCP) calls on prominent scholars in both perspectives to clarify as well as question their assumptions about human motivation. An invitation to take a step back and clarify one's beliefs with precision, elucidating both the ideas and the data they are based on. At the same time, this PCP constitutes an invitation to explore how one's own personal preferences or values might be guiding their own (selection of) research and argumentation. We hope such internal reflection and external dialogue moves the conversation from us‐versus‐them to shared passion, from contradictory to paradoxical, and from stalemates to practical solutions that are sufficiently integrative to address today's complex societal challenges.

Evidence of Mood Linkage in Work Groups

Article

Full-text available

Jun 1998

Two studies investigated whether people's moods are influenced by the collective mood of their work teammates over time. In the first study, 65 community nurses in 13 teams recorded their moods and hassles daily for 3 weeks. A pooled time-series analysis showed a significant association between the nurses’ moods and the collective mood of their teammates, which did not depend on shared hassles. The association was greater for nurses who were older, were more committed to their team, perceived a better team climate, or experienced fewer hassles with teammates. In Study 2, a team of 9 accountants rated their own moods and the moods of their teammates 3 times a day for 4 weeks using pocket computers. The accountants’ moods and their judgments of their teammates’ moods were significantly associated with the collective mood of their teammates. The findings suggest that people's mood at work can become linked to the mood of their teammates.

Is Everyone in Agreement? An Exploration of Within-Group Agreement in Employee Perceptions of the Work Environment

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2001

Multilevel researchers often gather individual-level data to measure group-level constructs. Within-group agreement is a key consideration in the measurement of such constructs, yet antecedents of within-group agreement have been little studied. The authors found that group member social interaction and work interdependence were significantly positively related to within-group agreement regarding perceptions of the work environment. Demographic heterogeneity was not significantly related to within-group agreement. Survey wording showed a complex relationship to agreement. Both evaluative items and socially undesirable items generated high within-group agreement. The use of a group rather than individual referent increased within-group agreement in response to descriptive items but decreased within-group agreement in response to evaluative items. Items with a group referent showed greater between-group variability than items with an individual referent.

Managing diversity: The role of social identities.

Chapter

Jan 1995

Marilynn B. Brewer

Beyond Direct and Symmetrical Effects: The Influence of Demographic Dissimilarity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Article

Jun 1999

Prithviraj Chattopadhyay

Beyond Simple Demographic Effects: The Importance of Relational Demography in Superior-Subordinate Dyads

Article

Jun 1989

The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work Teams

Article

Oct 2001

Comparing Alternative Conceptualizations of Functional Diversity in Management Teams: Process and Performance Effects

Article

Oct 2002

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/35444/2/b2034748.0001.001.pdf http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/35444/1/b2034748.0001.001.txt

Maximizing Cross-Functional New Product Teams' Innovativeness and Constraint Adherence: A Conflict Communications Perspective

Article