Group Processes

Rowan, John

doi:10.1080/03060497.1997.11085736

Cited by 16 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This research focuses on the finding from several studies that groups make more extreme choices than do individuals (Myers and Lamm 1976;Brauer and Judd 1996). More than the sum of their parts, groups tend to engage in excessively cautious or risky behavior (Brown 2000). 13 Polarization means ''the average postgroup response will tend to be more extreme in the same direction as the average of the pregroup response'' (Myers and Lamm 1976:603).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Psychologists and political scientists who have utilized this research to look at policymaking groups have offered several explanations behind group polarization, including diffusion of responsibility, persuasion by leaders or by a minority within the group, and information-sharing practices (for reviews, see Vertzberger 1997;Brown 2000). This research has rarely looked at institutional characteristics that might enhance group polarization (Janis's (1972) is one exception).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taking It to the Extreme: The Effect of Coalition Cabinets on Foreign Policy

Kaarbo

Beasley

2008

Foreign Policy Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutional constraints have been offered by some scholars as an explanation for why multiparty coalitions should be more peaceful than single-party cabinets. Yet others see the same institutional setting as a prescription for more aggressive behavior. Recent research has investigated these conflicting expectations, but with mixed results. We examine the theoretical bases for these alternative expectations about the effects of coalition politics on foreign policy. We find that previous research is limited theoretically by confounding institutional effects with policy positions, and empirically by analyzing only international conflict data. We address these limitations by examining cases of foreign policy behavior using the World Event ⁄ Interaction Survey (WEIS) dataset. Consistent with our observation that institutional constraints have been confounded with policy positions, we find that coalitions are neither more aggressive nor more peaceful, but do engage in more extreme foreign policy behaviors. These findings are discussed with regard to various perspectives on the role of institutions in shaping foreign policy behavior.Research on how political institutions affect foreign policy typically focuses on the pacifying consequences of democratic institutions. Political systems that include more voices and interests in the policymaking process purportedly require more time to mobilize domestic players, and input from domestic constituencies presumably constrains leaders who might otherwise take their country to war. This idea is at the heart of the institutional, or structural explanation of the democratic peace, but it has been used by others comparing different types of democratic institutions as well. Some have argued, for example, that democratic political systems with powerful legislatures, compared to systems with weak legislative bodies, will more likely render an executive reluctant to use force (Auerswald 1999;Reiter and Tillman 2002).The notion that institutional constraints translate into more peaceful international behavior has also been used in propositions regarding the effects of coalition politics on the foreign policy of multiparty cabinets. Yet an alternative

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking It to the Extreme: The Effect of Coalition Cabinets on Foreign Policy

Kaarbo

Beasley

2008

Foreign Policy Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This in-group favoritism has proved to be a robust phenomenon in experimental studies and natural contexts. In-group favoritism was reflected in biased judgment and discriminatory behavior, and occurred even when (in absolute terms) the in-group was worse off (Brown, 2000). Findings have indicated that in-group members tend to discriminate against out-group members in allocating resources (points or money j, evaluating performance, attributing success and failure, and memory of good and bad actions (e.g., Brewer & Kramer, 1985;Brown, 2000;Howard & Rothbart, 1980;Mackie & Ahn, 1998;Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992;Stephan & Stephan, 1996;Tajfel et al.…”

Section: Personal Self and Social Selfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Membership, Status, and Social Power Preference1

Schwarzwald

Koslowsky

Allouf

2005

J Appl Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The power literature supports the notion that power‐base preferences can serve as a means for gaining advantage over others, thereby satisfying the personal self. Here, we inquired whether the use of power bases also serves as a means for gaining in‐group advantage, thereby satisfying the social self. A 2 × 3 × 2 design, including group membership (in‐group/out‐group), influencing agent's status (low, same, high), and gender as independent variables was employed. After reading scenarios describing work‐situation conflicts that differed by the relative status of the influencing agent and group membership of the target person, students and workers completed the Interpersonal Power Inventory for assessing power usage. In general, participants attributed greater use of harsh bases toward the out‐group. Status effects were obtained for in‐group targets and were less clear for out‐group targets. The discussion addresses theoretical implications for both the power interaction model and social identity theory, as well as practical ones for intergroup relations in organizations.

show abstract

“…This emerged strongly through open-ended comments and was reinforced in responses to the scale relating to professional identity. The scale, drawing on social identity theory (Brown, 2000;Hogg & Abrams, 2001), encompasses cognitive (awareness of social identity in this context) and affective (implying the emotional significance of the in-group label) aspects. The average (mean) ratings showed that Forum users did have a tendency to identify with professional SEN concerns as a key aspect of individuals' social identities.…”

Section: How Does Forum Use Relate To Professional Identities?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Support, knowledge and identity: reported gains from involvement in a special email group – the SENCo–Forum

Lewis¹,

Ogilvie

2003

British J Special Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ‘Points from the SENCo–Forum’ page, compiled by Klaus Wedell, is a regular feature in BJSE. These accounts reveal the lively and relevant nature of the discussions within the Forum itself. In this paper, Professor Ann Lewis and Martin Ogilvie, both from the School of Education at the University of Birmingham, summarise the findings of a project, funded by BECTA and the DfES, to look at the impact of the Forum on current users and to indicate opportunities for further development. It is clear that the SENCo–Forum has been a great success. It provides a highly valued service for its users and, suggest Ann Lewis and Martin Ogilvie, the model has real potential for application in other contexts with other groups of professionals.

show abstract

Group Processes

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Taking It to the Extreme: The Effect of Coalition Cabinets on Foreign Policy

Taking It to the Extreme: The Effect of Coalition Cabinets on Foreign Policy

Group Membership, Status, and Social Power Preference1

Support, knowledge and identity: reported gains from involvement in a special email group – the SENCo–Forum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About