Work group diversity

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

Work Group DiversityDaan van Knippenbergand Michaela C. SchippersRSM Erasmus University, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam 3000 DR, TheNetherlands; email: [email protected], [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007. 58:515–41

First published online as a Review inAdvance on August 11, 2006

The Annual Review of Psychology is onlineat http://psych.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546

Copyright c© 2007 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0066-4308/07/0110-0515$20.00

Key Words

group composition, group performance, teams, team effectiveness,organizational behavior

AbstractWork group diversity, the degree to which there are differences be-tween group members, may affect group process and performancepositively as well as negatively. Much is still unclear about the effectsof diversity, however. We review the 1997–2005 literature on workgroup diversity to assess the state of the art and to identify key issuesfor future research. This review points to the need for more com-plex conceptualizations of diversity, as well as to the need for moreempirical attention to the processes that are assumed to underlie theeffects of diversity on group process and performance and to thecontingency factors of these processes.

515

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Diversity: acharacteristic ofsocial grouping thatreflects the degree towhich objective orsubjective differencesexist between groupmembers

Contents

WORK GROUP DIVERSITY . . . . . . 516WORK GROUP DIVERSITY: AN

INTRODUCTION IN BROADSTROKES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517

CONCEPTUALIZINGDIVERSITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519Typologies of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . 519Beyond Demographic and

Functional Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . 521Beyond Dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522Faultlines: Interacting Dimensions

of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523PROCESSES UNDERLYING THE

INFLUENCE OF DIVERSITYAND THEIRCONTINGENCIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . 524Social Categorization Processes . . . 525Information/Decision-Making

Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527Social Categorization Processes As

Moderator of Information/Decision-Making Processes . . . . 528

Cooperation andInterdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529

Time/Team Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530Diversity Mind-Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531

CURVILINEARRELATIONSHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 tocome ( Jackson et al. 2003, Triandis et al.1994, Williams & O’Reilly 1998). Organi-zations have become more diverse in termsof demographic differences between people(e.g., in terms of gender, age, and ethnic-ity). Moreover, organizations are increasinglyadopting work group compositions that in-corporate differences in functional or educa-tional background, such as in cross-functionalproject teams; mergers, acquisitions, and joint

ventures also introduce diversity into workgroups. Because work group diversity mayhave positive as well as negative effects ongroup 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 processesunderlie these effects of diversity and how tomanage these processes pose major challengesto research in organizational behavior. In thepresent article, we aim to assess the state ofthe art in this field. In doing so, we strive toanswer the question of what we may concludefrom the extant research as well as to provide aresearch agenda for diversity research in yearsto come.

Although the field is known as “organi-zational diversity,” theory and research fo-cus almost exclusively on the work grouplevel, studying how group composition affectsgroup 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 isa group characteristic, but there is a streamof research on what is called relational de-mography (Chattopadhyay et al. 2004a, Tsui& O’Reilly 1989) that studies the effects ofindividuals’ 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. Becausegreater dissimilarity from the group does notnecessarily imply greater work group diver-sity (e.g., a sole female in an otherwise all-male group is very dissimilar to the group interms of gender, while at the same time thegroup is quite gender-homogeneous), resultsfrom studies on relational demography cannotbe 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

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


characteristic, although we do refer to rela-tional demography studies when they seemrelevant 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 researchcovering more than 80 studies. The Williams& O’Reilly review is an important milestonenot only because it provides a comprehensivereview of the diversity literature at the time,but also because it is somewhat of a watershedin diversity research. The state of the fieldthat emerged from the Williams & O’Reillyreview is one that has yielded largely incon-sistent results, probably in part as a result ofa somewhat too simplified approach to diver-sity. In the years following the review, how-ever, the field moved to more sophisticatedconceptualizations of diversity and its effects,and we hope to capture this development inthe present review. We take the excellent workdone 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 abstractscovering this period and a manual search ofthe 2000–2005 volumes of major journals inapplied psychology and organizational behav-ior. We also sent out a mailing to solicit pa-pers in press. We should note, however, thatour aim is not an exhaustive coverage of theliterature, but rather a more selective reviewthat highlights the developments we judge tobe most relevant and important.

In the following sections, we first intro-duce the research field. Second, we addressthe issue of the conceptualization and opera-tionalization of diversity, arguing in favor ofmore complex conceptualizations of diversitythan typically have been used in diversity re-search. Next, we focus on what we may learnabout the processes underlying the effects ofwork group diversity by reviewing studies ofthe mediators and moderators of the effectsof diversity, and we briefly touch on possiblecurvilinear effects of diversity. We concludeby summarizing what we see as the most im-

Socialcategorizationperspective:differences betweenwork group membersmay engender theclassification ofothers as eitheringroup/similar oroutgroup/dissimilar,categorizations thatmay disrupt groupprocess

Information/decision-makingperspective:diversity mayintroduce differencesin knowledge,expertise, andperspectives thatmay help workgroups reach higherquality and morecreative andinnovative outcomes

portant questions for future research. Thesequestions center around the need to developconceptualizations of diversity that go beyondmere dispersion as well as the need to paygreater attention to the processes mediatingthe effects of diversity and to the contingen-cies of these processes.

WORK GROUP DIVERSITY: ANINTRODUCTION IN BROADSTROKES

Diversity is typically conceptualized as re-ferring to differences between individuals onany 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 dimensionof differentiation, but in practice diversityresearch 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 betweenwork group members affect group process andperformance, as well as group member atti-tudes and subjective well-being. To addressthis question, diversity research has largelybeen guided by two research traditions:the social categorization perspective andthe 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 withsimilar 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 groupmembers form the basis for categorizing selfand others into groups, distinguishing be-tween similar ingroup members and dissimi-lar outgroup members. In diverse groups, thismay mean that people distinguish subgroups

www.annualreviews.org • Work Group Diversity 517

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


within the work group. People tend to fa-vor ingroup members over outgroup mem-bers, to trust ingroup members more, andto 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 groupsfunction more smoothly when they are homo-geneous than when they are more diverse, andthat group members are more satisfied withand attracted to the group when it is homoge-neous and they are similar to the other groupmembers. This analysis is corroborated byfindings 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) inmore homogeneous groups.

The social categorization perspective iscomplemented by the similarity/attractionperspective (Williams & O’Reilly 1998),which does not concern social groups butrather focuses on interpersonal similarity (pri-marily in attitudes and values) as determinantsof interpersonal attraction (Berscheid & Reis1998, Byrne 1971). The similarity/attractionperspective arrives at the same basic predic-tion as the social categorization perspective indiversity research, that people prefer to workwith similar others ( Jackson 1992).

In contrast to the social categoriza-tion (and similarity/attraction) perspective,the information/decision-making perspectiveemphasizes the positive effects of work groupdiversity. The starting point for this perspec-tive is the notion that diverse groups are likelyto possess a broader range of task-relevantknowledge, skills, and abilities, and memberswith different opinions and perspectives. Thisgives diverse groups a larger pool of resourcesthat may be helpful in dealing with nonrou-tine problems. It may also set the stage formore creative and innovative group perfor-mance because the need to integrate diverseinformation 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 findan association of diversity with higher perfor-mance and innovation (e.g., Bantel & Jackson1989).

In their simplest form (a main effect ofdiversity), neither analysis is supported. Ev-idence for the positive effects as well as forthe 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, andhow, the perspectives on the positive andthe negative effects of diversity can bereconciled and integrated. Because theinformation/decision-making perspective fo-cuses on task performance, whereas the socialcategorization perspective seems to put the re-lational aspect more center stage, some schol-ars have concluded that diversity may be goodfor group performance while at the same timeit is bad for interpersonal relations and atti-tudes toward the work group (e.g., Triandiset al. 1994). Given the relationship betweengroup interaction and cohesiveness on the onehand and group performance on the otherhand (De Dreu & Weingart 2003, Mullen& Copper 1994), however, it is difficult tosee how the outcomes described by the socialcategorization 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 respectis that the field has been dominated by stud-ies focusing on “main effects,” testing rela-tionships between dimensions of diversity andoutcomes without taking potentially moder-ating variables into account ( Jackson & Joshi2004, Pelled et al. 1999). Narrative reviewsand meta-analyses alike seem to corroboratethe conclusions that this main effects ap-proach is unable to account for the effectsof diversity adequately (Bowers et al. 2000,Webber & Donahue 2001, Williams &O’Reilly 1998). It seems time to declare thebankruptcy of the main effects approach and


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


to argue for models that are more complexand that consider moderating variables in ex-plaining the effects of diversity. Accordingly,the present review largely disregards studies ofpotential main effects in favor of studies iden-tifying moderators of the effects of diversity.

This focus on moderators is important notonly to identify when diversity may be ex-pected to have positive or negative effects, butalso because it is informative about the pro-cesses underlying the influence of work groupdiversity (i.e., moderator effects observed maycorroborate conclusions about the processesin operation). Attention to these processesis 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 categorizationperspective is argued to predict negative ef-fects of diversity and these are observed, theimplicit 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 occurrenceof information/decision-making processes isconcluded from the observation of positive ef-fects of diversity on group performance with-out evidence regarding the processes takingplace during group interaction. The predictedoutcome is not necessarily evidence of thepredicted process, however, and relying onoutcomes to determine process runs the riskof resulting in misleading conclusions. Thefield may thus benefit from more attention tothe processes translating work group diversityinto outcomes, and the current review empha-sizes studies that shed light on these mediatingprocesses. First, however, we address anotherissue that emerged more recently—the possi-bility that conceptualizations of diversity thatare more complex may yield more insight intothe effects of diversity.

CONCEPTUALIZINGDIVERSITY

Diversity may be seen as a characteristic of asocial grouping (i.e., group, organization, so-

ciety) that reflects the degree to which thereare objective or subjective differences betweenpeople within the group (without presumingthat group members are necessarily aware ofobjective differences or that subjective dif-ferences are strongly related to more objec-tive differences). Such a definition and similardefinitions coined by others (see above) leaveunanswered a couple of important questionsabout how to deal with diversity conceptually,however, and some of these are quite salientin current research in diversity. Our reviewof the field suggests that four issues in thisrespect especially warrant attention: first, thepossibility to better understand the effects ofdiversity by distinguishing between differenttypes of diversity; second, the potential addedvalue of moving beyond the study of demo-graphic and functional diversity; third, the po-tential added value of conceptualizations ofdiversity that move beyond simple dispersion;and fourth, the notion that diversity’s effectsmay be better understood if the influence ofdifferent dimensions of diversity is studied ininteractions rather than as additive effects.

Typologies of Diversity

To introduce some higher-order structure indiversity research, a number of researchershave proposed typologies that may be usedto classify different dimensions of diversity.These typologies include the distinction be-tween readily observable demographic at-tributes (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, age) thatmay be less job related and less easily dis-cernable, and more job-related attributes suchas differences in educational or functionalbackground ( 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 numberof researchers have argued that it is also im-portant to take into account differences thatmay not be readily visible but are not alwaysjob-related either, such as differences in per-sonality, attitudes, and values (Bowers et al.2000, Harrison et al. 1998, Jehn et al. 1999).


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


The question from the current perspective is,Do these typologies help in making sense ofthe effects of diversity?

Some researchers have proposed that de-mographic diversity, as well as diversity inpersonality, values, and attitudes, has negativeeffects on group performance and affective-evaluative responses to the group, whereasdiversity 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 seemto be supported by the data. In support ofthe moderating role of diversity type, Jehnet al. (1999) found that informational diver-sity was positively related to group perfor-mance and commitment, whereas perceivedvalue 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, intentto remain, and commitment. Contrary to pre-dictions, however, demographic diversity wasunrelated to group performance and was pos-itively related to member satisfaction, intentto 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 groupperformance, whereas demographic diversitywould 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 andpresumably more job-related dimensions ofdiversity and, on the other hand, outcomessuch 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. Inaddition, there are also other reports of pos-itive effects of demographic diversity (e.g.,Bantel & Jackson 1989) and negative effectsof informational diversity (e.g., Simons et al.1999) that run against the proposed moder-ating role of diversity type. Together thesefindings suggest that the distinction betweendiversity types is not associated with differ-ential relationships with outcome variables.Most importantly, perhaps, meta-analyses donot support the notion of type of diversity asmoderator of the positive versus the negativeeffects of diversity either—although it shouldbe noted that these meta-analyses only cov-ered a subset of the studies that could poten-tially have been included. In a meta-analysis of13 studies, Bowers et al. (2000) distinguishedgender, personality, attitude, and ability di-versity and found no reliable relationshipbetween 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-relateddiversity and found no reliable relationshipsfor either form of diversity, neither with groupperformance nor with group cohesiveness.

An important conclusion to emerge fromthe current state of the art is that, contrary towhat seems popular belief, the positive versusthe negative effects of diversity are not associ-ated with job-related informational diversityversus less job-related demographic diversity,neither for group performance nor for moreaffective/evaluative responses to the group.Interestingly, this means not only that orga-nizations should be a bit more cautious intheir enthusiasm for functional diversity, butalso that they can be more optimistic aboutthe possibilities to benefit from demographicdiversity.

The inability to reliably link the positiveand negative effects of diversity to types of di-versity has led van Knippenberg et al. (2004)to propose that diversity research abandonattempts to explain the effects of diversitythrough typologies of diversity. In contrast,they propose that all dimensions of diversity


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


may in principle elicit social categorizationprocesses as well as information/decision-making processes, because all dimensions ofdiversity in principle both provide a basis fordifferentiation and may be associated with dif-ferences in task-relevant information and per-spectives. Following this conclusion, and indeviation 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 engenderedby diversity and the contingencies of theseprocesses.

Beyond Demographic and FunctionalDiversity

Perhaps understandably, diversity researchhas 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 receivedless attention, although they may be equallyrelevant to our understanding of group func-tioning. For instance, a growing number ofstudies link diversity in group member per-sonality (mostly conceptualized in terms ofthe five-factor model of personality; Costa& Macrae 1992) to group performance andmore processes-related measures, such asteam social integration (Barrick et al. 1998;Barry & Stewart 1997; Harrison et al. 2002;Mohammed & Angell 2003, 2004; Neumanet 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 relationshipbetween personality diversity and group pro-cess and performance, and further researchaddressing the contingencies of these rela-tionships seems in order.

Others have also pointed to diversity in at-titudes and values as an influence on groupfunctioning (Hoffman & Maier 1961). Here,too, findings are highly inconsistent. Somestudies suggest that diversity in attitudes andvalues 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 beassociated with positive outcomes (e.g., so-cial integration) or may be unrelated to theseoutcomes (Harrison et al. 1998, 2002). Theconclusion seems justified that diversity inattitudes and values, too, is worthy of researchattention, but that we need more complexmodels to capture the potential influence ofthis 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 cognitionshows how individuals’ understanding of theirteam and their task (conceptualized as taskrepresentations, Tindale et al. 1996; mentalmodels, Cannon-Bowers et al. 1993; teamschemas, Rentsch & Hall 1994; or beliefs,Cannon & Edmondson 2001) may be sharedamong group members to a greater or lesserextent [i.e., group members may be more orless similar in their understanding of the teamand the task (Mohammed & Ringseis 2001;also see Colquitt et al. 2002, Klein et al.2001, Schneider et al. 2002)]. Because thelevel of sharedness may affect group perfor-mance (Mathieu et al. 2005), diversity in suchteam- and task-relevant cognitions deservesa place on the agenda of diversity research.In a similar vein, affective states (i.e., moods,emotions) may be shared to a greater orlesser extent (George 1990, Totterdell 2000,Totterdell et al. 1998), and the extent to whichaffect is shared has been shown to be related togroup cooperation and conflict (Barsade et al.2000). Affective diversity thus also warrantsfurther research.

In sum, then, without denying the impor-tance of the study of demographic diversityand diversity in functional and educationalbackground, 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 morebecause an understanding of the effects of


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


demographic diversity seems at least partiallyto 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 toa certain extent treat demographic differencesas proxies for deeper underlying differences(Priem et al. 1999), and investigating this pro-posed link as well as the processes governingthe influence of these underlying differencesmay 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 membersare reflected in indices of the extent to whichgroup members differ from each other, suchas the standard deviation, Euclidian distance(Tsui et al. 1992), Blau (1977), and Teach-man (1980) indices, and the coefficient ofvariation (for a detailed discussion of thesemeasures, 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 towhich they represent different positions ona continuum (e.g., attitudes), different nomi-nal categories (e.g., gender), or different po-sitions that are associated with greater orlesser power or status (e.g., educational level).Differences between group members on dif-ferent dimensions may therefore mean dif-ferent things, and Harrison & Klein urgeresearchers to be more explicit about theirconceptualization of diversity (e.g., whether itassociated with status or power differentials),and to choose operationalizations that arecommensurate with their conceptualization(also see Sørenson 2002, Williams & Mean2004).

Moreover, a couple of considerations sug-gest that there are potential benefits in com-plementing simple dispersion models withmore 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 thanon diversity) shows that being dissimilar tothe work group more negatively affects peo-ple who are typically in majority positions inWestern organizations (i.e., men, Caucasians)than it does people who are more often in theminority position (i.e., women, members ofethnic minorities; Chatman & O’Reilly 2004,Tsui et al. 1992). To the extent that theseoutcomes for dissimilar group members af-fect group functioning and performance (e.g.,through lower satisfaction, lower cohesion,and higher turnover), we might expect groupswith, for instance, a female minority to func-tion better than groups with a male minor-ity. Whether or not this is the case needs tobe tested, but the point is that simple disper-sion models do not capture these more sub-tle effects because they treat a group with amale minority and a group with a compara-ble female minority (e.g., eight men and twowomen versus two men and eight women)as equally diverse (cf. Harrison & Klein2005).

Another consideration is that once a givenbackground or perspective is represented byone or two members (e.g., members witha particular functional background within across-functional team), adding additional rep-resentatives of this background or perspec-tive to the group might add relatively lessto 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 mayalso be contingent on the mean level of thediversity dimension, as illustrated in Barsadeet al.’s (2000) finding that the relationship oftop management team diversity in positive af-fect with group conflict and cooperation was


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


contingent on the mean level of positive affectin the team.

Such complex conceptualizations of diver-sity are acknowledged more in theoreticalanalyses than in empirical research, but theydo seem to have the potential to enrich our un-derstanding of the effects of diversity, and re-search following up on some of these notionsshould be highly worthwhile. In this respect,it is important to note that organizational sur-veys typically do not tap into the whole rangeof potential group compositions (e.g., workgroups dominated by ethnic minorities tendto be rare in most samples), and more sophis-ticated conceptualizations of diversity mightsuggest that this poses a threat to the con-clusions that may be reached on the basis ofstudies relying on more traditional dispersionmodels (Harrison & Klein 2005).

Faultlines: Interacting Dimensions ofDiversity

Traditionally, diversity research has focusedon the effects of different dimensions of di-versity in isolation or in additive models, nottaking into account the possibility that theeffects of a dimension of diversity may becontingent 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, Crispet al. 2002) suggests that the correlation be-tween different dimensions of differentiationinfluences the likelihood that diversity elicitssubcategorization processes. It might there-fore be better to think of work group diversityas an interaction of differences on differentdimensions than to look only at the additiveeffects of dimensions of diversity.

Lau & Murnighan (1998) coined the term“faultlines” to refer to combinations of corre-lated dimensions of diversity that yield a clearbasis for differentiation between subgroups(i.e., implying both between-group differ-ences and within-group similarity; Turneret al. 1987). A group composition in which allthe men are relatively old and all the women

Faultlines: whenpositions ondifferent dimensionsof diversity arecorrelated, thecombination ofdiversity on thesedimensions maysuggest a cleardistinction betweensubgroups

are relatively young, for example, is morelikely to elicit subcategorization than is a com-position in which gender and age are unre-lated. The stronger the diversity faultline, themore likely subcategorizations should be toarise, and the greater the chance of disrup-tions of group functioning.

In support of this proposition, Li &Hambrick (2005) found that a faultline indexwas negatively related to self-rated group per-formance and that this relationship was me-diated by relational conflict and behavioralintegration (cf. social integration). Sawyeret al. (2005) compared informationally diversedecision-making groups that were ethnicallyhomogeneous (all Caucasian) with groups thathad an ethnic minority member present whowas 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 withcrosscutting dimensions of diversity outper-formed homogeneous and faultline groups. Ina similar vein, Homan & van Knippenberg(2003) showed that cross-categorization leadsto a more favorable group process than doesa faultline dividing the group equally (also seePhillips et al. 2004). More-indirect evidenceof the disruptive influence of faultlines wasprovided by Lau & Murnighan (2005), whofound that faultlines are associated with lesspositive relationships of communication be-tween subgroups with learning, psychologicalsafety, group satisfaction, and expected groupperformance.

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 relationalconflict, and higher satisfaction and psycho-logical safety. Sawyer et al. (2005) did notobserve 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 inwhich single-member dissimilarity and infor-mational differences crosscut each other.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


The possibility that faultlines have a curvi-linear relationship with outcomes does not ex-plain the above inconsistencies, but it hintsat the possibility that the effects of fault-lines are less straightforward than initiallyconceived. Both Gibson & Vermeulen (2003)and Thatcher et al. (2003) found curvilin-ear relationships in which moderate faultlineswere associated with outcomes that were morepositive (team learning, morale, performance,and reduced conflict). However, both studiesused faultline measures where moderate fault-lines might also be labeled moderate cross-categorization, and it is unclear to what extentthese findings point to the benefits of mod-erate faultlines (i.e., eliciting subgroup cate-gorization) or of crosscutting dimensions ofdiversity (i.e., diversity without associatedsubgroup salience).

Earley & Mosakowski (2000) showed thatthe faultline notion could also be appliedto a single dimension of diversity when thedimension has multiple nominal categories.They found that teams with members fromtwo different countries showed greater ev-idence of subcategorization and performedmore poorly than did both nationality-homogeneous teams and teams that consistedof members from several different coun-tries (i.e., the two-nationality composition ar-guably represents a stronger faultline).

The faultline and cross-categorizationconcepts have added value in terms of ex-plaining diversity effects, but the relation-ship between faultlines and outcomes is notclear-cut. In part, this may reflect problemswith the operationalization of faultlines. Itmight be worthwhile, for instance, to con-sider the possibility that there are asymme-tries in the effects of faultlines that are notcaptured by current faultline measures. Forexample, along similar lines as discussed in theprevious section, a faultline between a maleCaucasian 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 thecontingencies 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 thecategorization processes implied by faultlinetheory (cf. Earley & Mosakowski 2000) isneeded to explicitly test predictions about theassumed processes.

PROCESSES UNDERLYING THEINFLUENCE OF DIVERSITYAND THEIR CONTINGENCIES

An important issue is that not much clearevidence exists for the processes impliedby the social categorization (and similarity/attraction) and information/decision-makingperspectives identified by Williams &O’Reilly (1998). This is due in part to thefact that many studies did not include processmeasures. A complicating factor in this re-spect is that neither the social categorizationperspective on work group diversity nor theinformation/decision-making perspectiverepresents a clearly articulated theoreticalframework; rather, the perspectives are morelike loosely defined applications of socialcategorization theories and notions aboutgroup information processing and decisionmaking.

In the following sections, we addressthe empirical evidence for the processesunderlying the effects of work group di-versity and the factors that moderate theseprocesses. Most of the evidence in diversityresearch is not easily and unambiguouslyinterpreted in terms of social categorizationand 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 socialcategorization and information/decision-making perspectives without providing directevidence to that effect. In that respect,we identify three (sets of) factors that are


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


receiving increased research attention asmoderators 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 categorizationand intergroup relations in a straightforwardway, predicting that differences between peo-ple may elicit social categorization processes(stereotypic perceptions of dissimilar others,subgroup formation, intergroup biases) thatdisrupt group functioning and lower affec-tive/evaluative responses to the group. In sup-port of this analysis, there is evidence thatdiversity may elicit subcategorization. Ear-ley & Mosakowski (2000) assessed subgroupcategorization and common group identity(although the latter measure arguably re-flects cohesiveness more than social catego-rization) and found that groups with strongerfaultlines had a stronger sense of subgroupsand a weaker common identity. Moreover,they found evidence that common identitymediated the relationship between faultlinesand satisfaction (but not performance). Thesefindings were not replicated in a second study,though.

Research on relational demography alsoyields evidence for social categorization pro-cesses, although this should be treated morecarefully because, as noted above, individualdissimilarity does not necessarily reflect groupdiversity. Chattopadhyay et al. (2004b) foundthat dissimilarity to the work group loweredindividuals’ self-categorization as a memberof the group. Randel (2002) found that groupgender composition affected the salience ofmale group members’ gender identity (cf.Mehra et al. 1998) and that identity saliencemoderated the relationship between gendercomposition 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 wouldseem important for future research to estab-

lish the validity of this basic tenet of the so-cial categorization perspective on work groupdiversity.

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 ingroupthan outgroup others, more trust, more will-ingness to cooperate, and generally smootherinteraction with ingroup than with outgroupothers. In line with this argument, Chatman& Flynn (2001) found that demographic di-versity was associated with lower self-ratedteam cooperativeness. Consistent with theidea that computer-mediated interaction re-moves social categorization cues (Sproull &Kiesler 1986), Bhappu et al. (1997) foundthat computer-mediated communication ingender-diverse groups showed fewer signs ofintergroup bias (operationalized as differen-tial attention to same-gender versus other-gender communication) than did face-to-facecommunication. Chattopadhyay (1999) ob-served in a study of relational demographythat trust in peers mediated the negative rela-tionship between individual dissimilarity andorganizational citizenship behavior (see alsoChattopadhyay & George 2001). None ofthese studies presented direct evidence of so-cial categorization processes, however, so cau-tion is in order in concluding that these studiesprovide evidence of intergroup bias.

Research focusing on social/behavioralintegration and relational conflict similarlyyields evidence that is consistent with a socialcategorization interpretation. Randel’s (2002)findings for the role of identity salience in re-lational conflict probably provide the mostpersuasive evidence of social categorizationdisrupting group process in diverse workgroups. Other studies offer evidence that ismore indirect because they included no di-rect measure of categorization (e.g., the asso-ciation observed between diversity faultlinesand behavioral integration by Li & Hambrick2005). Evidence of negative relationships


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


between diversity and social integration(Harrison et al. 1998, 2002), and positive re-lationships between diversity and relationalconflict (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 linksdiversity to higher social integration andgroup identification (identification reflectsself-categorization), and lower relational con-flict (Polzer et al. 2002; cf. Swann et al. 2003).Building on research by Swann and colleagueson self-verification (being seen by others asone sees oneself; for an overview, see Swannet 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 functionaldiversity. They found that whereas higher di-versity tended to be associated with more neg-ative outcome when congruence was low, itactually tended to be associated with morepositive outcome when congruence was high.For the social categorization perspective toaccount for the effects of diversity adequately,it would thus seem that it should also be able toincorporate positive relationships of diversitywith group identification and group interac-tion (cf. van Knippenberg & Haslam 2003).

A number of studies thus yield results thatare consistent with a social categorizationanalysis 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 doubtsabout the extent to which social categoriza-tion processes are in operation. Moreover,without supporting process evidence, some ofthe negative relationships between diversityand group process may also be interpretedas reflecting the consequences of misunder-

standing and disagreement per se (i.e., a moredysfunctional side of information/decision-making processes) rather than social cate-gorization. Empirical attention to the actualcategorization processes therefore would bewarranted 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 interms of the strength and nature of their ties,and has proven useful in capturing the influ-ence of diversity on the relationships formedby group members (Klein et al. 2004, Reagans& Zuckerman 2001). Network analysis mayhelp to paint a more elaborate picture ofthe social relations within a work group thatmoves beyond the relatively simple notion ofa split in subgroups and thus enable a morefine-grained analysis of social categorizationprocesses. Moreover, it may also prove usefulin capturing the external (i.e., outside of thework group) network of group members as itmay be affected by diversity (Reagans et al.2004).

Models that are more sophisticated andthat focus on the contingencies of sub-categorization and intergroup bias (vanKnippenberg et al. 2004) also seem in or-der. In this respect, research on the salienceof social categorizations (Oakes et al. 1994,Turner et al. 1987) shows that there is moreto social categorization than just differencesbetween people. As reflected in the notionof diversity faultlines, some combinations ofdifferences (i.e., those that result in highbetween-group differences and within-groupsimilarities) 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 lesssalient (cf. Martins et al. 2003; also see Briefet al. 2005, Joshi et al. 2005).

In addition, for diversity to elicit a particu-lar categorization, the categorization also has


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


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 categorizationshould not only capture similarities and dif-ferences between people, but should also bemeaningful to the individual (Turner et al.1987). Moreover, as van Knippenberg et al.(2004) argue, it is intergroup bias (favoringone’s own subgroup) that may disrupt groupprocess and not categorization per se (i.e., theperception of subgroups), and categorizationonly translates into intergroup bias under cer-tain circumstances. Thus, diversity researchmight 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-MakingProcesses

At the core of the information/decision-making perspectives lies the notion that workgroup diversity may be associated with dif-ferences in information, knowledge, and per-spectives, and that this diversity may bene-fit group performance. These informationaldifferences are not limited to what are oftenseen as informational or job-relevant dimen-sions of diversity (Tsui & O’Reilly 1989, vanKnippenberg et al. 2004). As van Knippen-berg et al. (2004) outline, this implies that atthe core of the positive effects of diversity em-phasized in the information/decision-makingperspective lies elaboration of task-relevantinformation—the group-level exchange, pro-cessing, and integration of diverse informa-tion and perspectives (cf. Hinsz et al. 1997). Inline with this analysis, Earley & Mosakowski(2000) found that a measure of team commu-nication that seems to be closely aligned withthis notion of elaboration mediated the rela-tionship of group diversity and performance(although this finding was not replicated in asecond study), and Dahlin et al. (2005) foundthat (moderate) diversity was associated withgreater 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 tothe 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, divergentperspectives on the task that may be associatedwith diversity may invite a team to reflect onits own functioning. In support of this propo-sition, Schippers et al. (2003) found that teamreflexivity 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 bepositively related to team learning behavior(cf. reflexivity), and Van der Vegt & Bunder-son (2005) found that team learning behaviorpartly mediated the relationship between ex-pertise diversity and team performance.

A number of researchers working from arelated perspective have pointed to the roleof task conflict—disagreements about the taskperformed ( Jehn et al. 1999, Lovelace et al.2001, Pelled et al. 1999). Diversity is pro-posed to have the potential to stimulate taskconflict through its associated differences inviewpoints, ideas, and opinions, and task con-flict is argued to engender more careful con-sideration of the task at hand. Consistent withthis notion, Jehn et al. (1999) found that taskconflict mediated the positive relationship be-tween informational diversity and group per-formance. Inconsistent with this reasoning,however, they also found that perceived valuediversity positively correlated with task con-flict (cf. Jehn & Mannix 2001), while per-ceived value diversity was negatively relatedto performance. Pelled et al. (1999) alsofound evidence that functional backgrounddiversity was positively related to task con-flict (as do Lovelace et al. 2001), but foundno relationship between diversity and groupperformance.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Raising further doubts about the proposedrole of task conflict, the notion that taskconflict mediates the positive influence ofdiversity on group performance is at oddswith 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 thusfoster group performance under certain con-ditions (cf. Lovelace et al. 2001), task conflictdoes not necessarily do so, nor is task conflicta prerequisite for elaboration of task-relevantinformation to occur. Accordingly, it may bethe elaboration of task-relevant informationper se and not task conflict that drives the pos-itive effects of diversity, but studies assessingboth task conflict and group-level informationprocessing 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 diversityshould be more likely on tasks with strongerinformation-processing and/or decision-making requirements (van Knippenberget al. 2004). In support of this proposition,Jehn et al. (1999) found that informationaldiversity was more positively related togroup performance on less-routine tasks, andBowers et al.’s (2000) meta-analysis showedthat diversity was positively related to groupperformance on more complex tasks but wasnegatively related on simpler tasks. Althoughthis is no evidence for the actual elaborationof information assumed to underlie thismoderating effect, these findings are consis-tent with the information/decision-makingperspective.

There thus is some evidence for the pro-cesses implied in the information/decision-making perspective, although studies assess-ing these processes are generally somewhatlacking. Moreover, there seems to be somecontroversy about the role of task conflict. Ittherefore seems that diversity research maybenefit from more theoretical as well as em-pirical attention to the information process-

ing and decision-making processes that arepresumed to drive the positive effects of di-versity. In addition, in view of the lack ofsupport for an overall positive effect of diver-sity, theoretical models of the contingenciesof information/decision-making processes arerequired. Research on social information pro-cessing, for instance, suggests that processingmotivation and ability are key determinants ofin-depth processing of information (Chaiken& Trope 1999). Motivation and ability havereceived 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 Knippenberget al. 2004).

Social Categorization Processes AsModerator of Information/Decision-Making Processes

The social categorization perspective andthe information/decision-making perspectivehave largely developed along separate lines,and there are few studies considering the in-teraction between social categorization andinformation/decision-making processes. Yet,because intergroup bias may render indi-viduals less open to communication fromdissimilar others (van Knippenberg 1999), in-tergroup bias engendered by diversity maydisrupt group information processing andthus stand in the way of realizing the potentialbenefits of diversity (van Knippenberg et al.2004).

Consistent with this proposition, Jehnet al. (1999) found that higher perceived valuediversity and demographic diversity were as-sociated with less-positive relationships be-tween informational diversity and indicatorsof group performance. In a similar vein,Phillips et al.’s (2004) finding that groups thatwere split equally along a faultline dealt lesssuccessfully with their informational diver-sity is consistent with this argument (also seeHoman & van Knippenberg 2003). Neitherstudy includes measures of social categoriza-tion processes, though, so some caution is


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


in order in attributing these findings to thedisruptive influence of social categorizationprocesses. Lau & Murnighan’s (2005) obser-vation that faultlines disrupted the positiverelationship between intersubgroup commu-nication (cf. Bhappu et al. 1997) and posi-tive group outcomes is also in line with thisargument. Their finding that faultlines werealso associated with less relational conflictand greater psychological safety and satisfac-tion raises some doubts about a straightfor-ward social categorization interpretation ofthese findings, however. Although the avail-able evidence thus seems reasonably consis-tent with the proposition that diversity maydisrupt group information processing, the ev-idence for the actual operation of social cate-gorization and information/decision-makingprocesses is largely missing.

A possibility that has received less atten-tion is that social categorization processes mayalso stimulate group information processing.A line of research by Phillips and colleagueshints at this possibility, suggesting that in-formationally diverse groups that contain amember who is dissimilar to the other mem-bers of the group are more likely to makeeffective use of their informational diversitythan are more-homogeneous groups, presum-ably because dissimilarity alerts the group topotential associated differences in informa-tion (Phillips 2003; Phillips et al. 2004, 2005;Phillips & Loyd 2005). However, becausemeasures of categorization are missing fromthese studies, it is not clear whether these ef-fects can be attributed to social categorizationprocesses.

Either way, the work by Phillips and col-leagues raises the following questions: Underwhich conditions is greater diversity benefi-cial to a group’s use of distributed information,and under which conditions is diversity morelikely to disrupt group information process-ing? As Phillips et al. (2004) show, whethersocial categorization processes point to a solominority member or to equal-sized subgroupsmay be one factor (but see Sawyer et al. 2005),but a more comprehensive account of the

contingencies of these effects awaits futureresearch.

Cooperation and Interdependence

Group members may depend to a greater orlesser extent on each other for task perfor-mance (i.e., task interdependence; Wageman1995) and for outcomes that may flowfrom task performance (i.e., outcome in-terdependence; Wageman 1995). Moreover,this interdependence may be more coop-erative or competitive in nature (i.e., ownand others’ interests may align or conflict).A number of researchers have proposedthat the degree and nature of interdepen-dence between group members moderatesthe relationship between work group diver-sity and outcomes. Such a moderating roleis consistent with both the social catego-rization and the information/decision-makingperspective. From a social categorizationperspective, higher, more cooperative inter-dependence between group members may fo-cus group members on the common groupidentity and distract from subgroup cate-gorizations (Gaertner & Dovidio 2000). Inaddition, interdependence may also facili-tate intergroup contact and be conducive tomore harmonious relations between differentgroups (Pettigrew 1998). At the same time, theneed to collaborate may also set the stage forgroup information processing because it mayinvite information exchange and discussion.From both perspectives, cooperative interde-pendence would thus be expected to be asso-ciated with effects of diversity that are morepositive.

In support of this notion, Chatman et al.(1998; also see Chatman & Spataro 2005)in a study of relational demography showedthat in groups with collectivistic norms em-phasizing cooperation (versus individualisticnorms 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


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


conflict only when group members were lessconcerned with cooperative relations, and thattime urgency (an individual difference vari-able) diversity was positively related to re-lational conflict when team process was lowrather than high in terms of cooperation, com-munication, and task-oriented leadership. Itshould be noted, however, that they did notobtain similar relationships for ethnic diver-sity and extraversion diversity, and that theyobserved these relationships at time 1 butnot at time 2. Schippers et al. (2003) re-ported that diversity was positively relatedto team reflexivity (i.e., arguably an indicatorof information/decision processes), self-ratedgroup performance, and satisfaction for high-outcome interdependence and negatively forlow-outcome interdependence. Jehn et al.(1999) observed that demographic diversitywas more positively related to satisfaction andcommitment when task interdependence washigher. Van der Vegt & Janssen (2003) foundthat diversity was only positively related toinnovative behavior when both task and out-come interdependence were high, which sug-gests that it may be worthwhile to considertask and outcome interdependence in combi-nation.

Whereas these studies are generally con-sistent with the notion that greater coopera-tive interdependence is associated with morepositive relationships between diversity andoutcomes, 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 wereassociated with more negative relationshipsbetween diversity and performance. Jehn &Bezrukova (2004) observed that work groupcultures 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 negativerelationships for another dimension, whilegroup culture did not affect this relationshipfor yet other dimensions of diversity.

These findings suggest that the role of co-operation and interdependence may be morecomplex than is currently conceived, althoughit is also possible that more mundane expla-nations in terms of differences in measure-ment and specific conceptualizations wouldaccount for some of these observations. Eitherway, it would be valuable if future researchwould focus more on the processes underly-ing the effects of cooperation and interde-pendence and develop more-comprehensiveaccounts of the role of cooperation and inter-dependence vis-a-vis social categorization andinformation/decision-making perspectives onthe effects of work group diversity.

Time/Team Tenure

Harrison and colleagues in particular haveadvanced 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 tenuremay lead group members to find out that ini-tial stereotype-based impressions about fel-low group members were wrong (cf. Pettigrew1998), thus attenuating the effects of socialcategorization 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 teamtenure may thus be associated with less neg-ative as well as more negative effects of di-versity. Harrison et al. (1998) link the firstto surface-level demographic dimensions ofdiversity and the second to deep-level, morehidden dimensions of diversity.

Consistent with Harrison et al.’s (1998)proposition, a number of studies yield evi-dence that associations between demographicdiversity 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 & Mosakowski2000, Sacco & Schmitt 2005), and that the as-sociations between more hidden dimensionsof diversity and outcomes may become morenegative over time (Harrison et al. 1998,


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


2002). However, other studies yield evidenceinconsistent with Harrison et al.’s (1998)proposition. Watson et al. (1998) found thatdemographic diversity was more negativelyrelated to outcomes over time. Schippers et al.(2003) observed that more hidden dimensionsof diversity were more strongly (and posi-tively) related to group process and perfor-mance when team tenure was low rather thanhigh. Mohammed & Angell (2004) found nodifference between the correlates of surface-level and deep-level diversity between twomeasurement points.

Aside from the fact that these inconsistentfindings 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 thatmay moderate the effects of diversity. Modelsthat are more elaborate would help to pre-dict the exact nature of this moderating ef-fect, however. In this respect, future researchmay also take into account the possibility thatgroups need extended tenure to benefit fromdifferences—that is, that the positive effectsof diversity need some time to emerge (vanKnippenberg et al. 2004).

Diversity Mind-Sets

The notion that people prefer to work withsimilar others in homogeneous groups fea-tures prominently in accounts of the effectsof diversity. Perhaps somewhat surprisinglythen, only a limited number of studies haveactually focused on what people think aboutdiversity, and on the possibility that people’sideas about diversity may influence the ef-fects of diversity. This seems to be chang-ing. On the individual level of analysis, someresearchers have examined attitudes towarddiversity and beliefs about the value of di-versity (Hostager & De Meuse 2002, Strausset al. 2003, van Knippenberg & Haslam 2003).On the group and organizational levels ofanalysis, attempts have been made to assessshared cognition about diversity in the formof diversity climates, cultures, or perspec-

tives (Chen & Eastman 1997, Ely & Thomas2001, Kossek & Zonia 1993, Mor Baraket al. 1998). Although some of these studiesmerely focus on evaluations of diversity, oth-ers also try to capture people’s understandingof how to deal with diversity (cf. mental mod-els; Ely & Thomas 2001, van Ginkel & vanKnippenberg 2003). To capture these partlyoverlapping approaches to people’s diversitycognitions, van Knippenberg et al. (2005) pro-posed the label “diversity mind-sets,” whichrefers to people’s understanding of how di-versity may affect their work group or organi-zation, their understanding of the appropriateway to deal with diversity, and their associatedevaluations of diversity.

The general idea driving research on whatmay be summarized as diversity mind-sets isthat the effects of diversity should be morepositive in contexts where individuals, groups,and organizations have more favorable beliefsabout and attitudes toward diversity, are morefocused on harvesting the benefits of diver-sity, and have a better understanding of how torealize these benefits. Diversity mind-sets fa-voring diversity may thus be expected to pre-vent intergroup bias as well as to stimulatethe integration of diverse information, view-points, and perspectives (Chen & Eastman1997, Ely & Thomas 2001, van Knippenberg& Haslam 2003). That is, diversity mind-sets may moderate social categorization aswell as information/decision-making pro-cesses. Rather than testing this moderatingrole, however, research has largely concen-trated on developing measures of aspectsof diversity mind-sets and studying theirantecedents (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 ofdiversity may be associated with effects ofdiversity that are more positive. R.J. Ely &D.A. Thomas (manuscript submitted; also seeEly & Thomas 2001) show that racial diver-sity is more positively related to performance


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


at bank branches that are focused on learn-ing from diversity (cf. Richard et al. 2003).Homan et al. (2004) show that gender-diversedecision-making groups are more likely touse their informational diversity when theybelieve in the value of diversity. van Ginkel& van Knippenberg (2003) find that groupsreach higher-quality decisions when they havea shared understanding of how to deal withtheir 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 inthe value of diversity. Thus, although researchon diversity mind-sets is still at an embryonicstage, it does seem to have promise.

CURVILINEAR RELATIONSHIPS

From notions about the role of group infor-mation processing follows the idea that theeffects of diversity might be curvilinear. Tobenefit from the diversity of information, ex-pertise, and perspectives that may be associ-ated with dimensions of differentiation, groupmembers should be able to understand andintegrate 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 sharea common frame of reference (i.e., “speakthe same language”) that allows in-depth un-derstanding of diverse others’ input. Thus,the potentially positive effects of diversity ongroup performance may only obtain up to acertain level of diversity, beyond which thelack of a common frame of reference may getin the way of fully appreciating all group mem-bers’ contributions (van Knippenberg et al.2004).

In support of this proposition, researchershave reported evidence of curvilinear rela-tionships in which moderate diversity is as-sociated with more positive outcomes than islower as well as higher diversity (Brodbeck2003; Dahlin et al. 2005; V. Gonzalez-Roma,M.A. West, & C. Borrill, manuscript submit-

ted; Richard et al. 2004). Contrary to thisproposition, however, Richard et al. (2004)and Dahlin et al. (2005) also find evidencefor the opposite curvilinear relationship, as doGibson & Vermeulen (2003). Further com-plicating matters, Van der Vegt & Bunderson(2005) found, contingent on level of teamcommitment, both U-shaped (high commit-ment) and inverted U-shaped (low commit-ment) relationships for the association be-tween expertise diversity and team learningand performance.

The evidence for curvilinear effects of di-versity thus is far from straightforward. Yet,echoing similar conclusions in the previoussection, enough indications exist to warrant acloser 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 thenotion of curvilinear relationships also hintsat the possibility that some of the inconsistentfindings in diversity research might be due torestriction of range effects. That is, contin-gent on which part of the range is sampled,a curvilinear relationship in the populationmight yield a positive, a null, or a negativerelationship 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 morecomplex conceptualizations of diversity, to theprocesses mediating the effects of work groupdiversity, and to the contingencies of theseprocesses, our current understanding of theeffects of work group diversity on group pro-cess and performance goes well beyond the1998 state of the art. At the same time, how-ever, much is still unclear about the effects ofdiversity. The increasing attention to the me-diators and moderators of diversity’s effects isexactly what the field needed, but some im-portant steps still need to be made.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


An important issue is that there seems tobe too much ad hoc theorizing and too littledevelopment of theoretical frameworks thatare more widely applied in the study of di-versity. Directly related to this is the lack ofempirical attention to the processes that arepresumed to underlie the effects of diversity.As the current review shows, very few studiesactually capture the range of processes that areimplied by the reasoning underlying hypothe-ses and that should ideally be assessed for aproper test of the implied theoretical model.In combination with the inconsistent evidencefor most propositions, this seriously impairsthe field’s progress. Especially when results donot confirm predictions, it would seem impor-tant to know whether diversity did not elicitthe presumed processes or whether these pro-cesses were not associated with the outcomesas predicted. Also, when different perspectivesmay predict the same outcome through dif-ferent processes, information about processwould seem essential to theory development.Clearer articulation of the theoretical modelsdriving diversity research makes more appar-ent which processes should be assessed to testthese models, and more consistent applica-tion of these models will make clearer to whatextent they provide valid accounts of the ef-fects of diversity. In similar vein, studies of themoderators of the effects of diversity shouldwork from clear links with the processes pre-dicted by these theoretical models and shouldassess whether the proposed moderators in-deed affect these processes.

To establish the causality implied in theo-retical models of diversity, it is also essentialthat survey research is complemented by con-trolled experiments. An additional advantageof controlled experiments is that they typically

allow for superior assessment of group pro-cesses (i.e., by behavioral observation ratherthan by relying on self-reports; Weingart1997).

We have identified a number of avenues forfuture research that we deem to be particularlyimportant. The development of more com-plex conceptualizations of diversity seems animportant 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 categorieswould also seem valuable. The emerging at-tention to diversity faultlines is a promisingstep in this direction, but this would also in-clude research on the role of the extent towhich the categorization makes sense withinthe individuals’ psychological frame of refer-ence and on the role of the wider organiza-tional and societal context in which the groupis embedded (e.g., the diversity of the orga-nization as a whole). In similar vein, a focuson the factors that affect the translation of so-cial categorization into intergroup bias wouldseem important. Diversity research may alsobenefit from greater application of insightsfrom research on social information process-ing and group decision making to developtheoretical models of information/decision-making processes. Finally, exploring possi-ble curvilinear effects of diversity in additionto linear effects may lead to important newinsights and contribute to explaining someof the inconsistencies in diversity research.Given the value of an understanding of di-versity at work for organizations and societiesthat are becoming ever more diverse, it wouldseem important to take on these research chal-lenges and invest in the continued progress ofthis field.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. Typologies of diversity (most commonly differentiating forms of demographic andfunctional diversity) do not explain the differential effects that work group diversitymay have on group process and performance.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


2. Diversity research needs to move beyond conceptualizations and operationalizationsof diversity simply as dispersion on a single dimension of diversity. Rather, it shouldconceptualize 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 socialcategorization and information/decision-making processes presumed to underlie theeffects 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, DaveHarrison, Susan Mohammed, Kathy Phillips, Charles O’Reilly, Bill Swann, and Rolf van Dickfor 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 compositionof 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 ofaffective 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’ intentto remain in the team. Small Group Res. 34:290–321

Berscheid E, Reis HT. 1998. Attraction and close relationships. In The Handbook of SocialPsychology, 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. Theselective perception of managers revisited. Acad. Manage. J. 40:716–37

Bhappu AD, Griffith TL, Northcraft GB. 1997. Media effects and communication bias indiverse groups. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 70:199–205

Blau PM. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free PressBowers CA, Pharmer JA, Salas E. 2000. When member homogeneity is needed in work teams.

a meta-analysis. Small Group Res. 31:305–27Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR, Tsai W. 2004. Taking stock of networks and organizations:

a multilevel perspective. Acad. Manage. J. 47:795–817Brewer MB. 1979. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational

analysis. Psychol. Bull. 86:307–24Brewer 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. DTGilbert, ST Fiske, pp. 554–94. Boston: McGraw-Hill


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


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 atEur. Cong. Work Organ. Psychol., Lisbon

Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KM. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functionaldiversity in management teams: process and performance effects. Acad. Manage. J. 45:875–93

Byrne D. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: AcademicCannon M, Edmondson A. 2001. Confronting failure: antecedents and consequences of shared

beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. J. Organ. Behav. 22:161–77Cannon-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: GuilfordChan D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different

levels of analysis: a typology of composition models. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:234–46Chatman JA, Flynn FJ. 2001. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence

and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Acad. Manage. J. 44:956–74Chatman JA, O’Reilly CA. 2004. Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men

and women. Acad. Manage. J. 47:193–208Chatman JA, Polzer JT, Barsade SG, Neale MA. 1998. Being different yet feeling similar: the

influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes andoutcomes. Admin. Sci. Q. 43:749–80

Chatman JA, Spataro SE. 2005. Using self-categorization theory to understand relationaldemography-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 demographicdissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manage. J. 42:273–87

Chattopadhyay P, George E. 2001. Examining the effects of work externalization through thelens of social identity theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:781–88

Chattopadhyay P, George E, Lawrence SA. 2004b. Why does dissimilarity matter? Exploringself-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 atthe 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 ofprocedural 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 cooperativeand 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


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


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, andteam 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 onwork 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. 75:107–16Gibson C, Vermeulen F. 2003. A healthy divide: subgroups as a stimulus for team learning

behavior. Admin. Sci. Q. 48:202–39Guzzo RA, Dickson MW. 1996. Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and

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

Provides athorough analysisof different ways toconceptualize andoperationalizediversity, andoutlines how theconceptualizationadopted may affectconclusions ofdiversity 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 effectsof 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 ofWorkplace 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 asinformation processors. Psychol. Bull. 121:43–64

Hoffman LR, Maier NRF. 1961. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members ofhomogeneous and heterogeneous groups. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 62:401–7

Homan AC, van Knippenberg D. 2003. The beneficial effects of cross-categorizing informational anddemographical 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 diversitybeliefs 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, JASimpson, pp. 136–80. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Jackson SE, Joshi A. 2004. Diversity in social context: a multi-attribute, multilevel analysis ofteam diversity and sales performance. J. Organ. Behav. 25:675–702


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


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 studyof 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 explorationof 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 theantecedents 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 teamdiversity, 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 employerefforts 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 theconcept of faultlineto diversityresearch in a waythat sparked astill-expandingresearch interest.

Lau DC, Murnighan JK. 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositionaldynamics 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 groupmembers’ 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 qualityof 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 socialidentity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Acad. Manage. J. 41:441–52

Milliken FJ, Martins LL. 1996. Searching for common threads: understanding the multipleeffects of diversity in organizational groups. Acad. Manage. Rev. 21:402–33


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Mohammed S, Angell LC. 2003. Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences makea difference for team performance? Small Group Res. 34:651–77

Mohammed S, Angell LC. 2004. Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examiningthe 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 ofdiversity 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: anintegration. Psychol. Bull. 115:210–27

Murnighan JK, Conlon DE. 1991. The dynamics of intense work groups: a study of Britishstring quartets. Admin. Sci. Q. 36:165–86

Neuman GA, Wagner SH, Christiansen ND. 1999. The relationship between work-teampersonality composition and the job performance of teams. Group Organ. Manage. 24:28–45

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: BlackwellSci.

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

Pettigrew TF. 1998. Intergroup contact theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49:65–85Phillips KW. 2003. The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: the

importance of congruence. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:3–13Phillips KW, Loyd DL. 2006. When surface and deep-level diversity collide: the effects on

dissenting group members. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 99:143–60Phillips KW, Mannix EA, Neale MA, Gruenfeld DH. 2004. Diverse groups and information

sharing: the effects of congruent ties. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:497–510Phillips KW, Northcraft GB, Neale MA. 2006. Surface-level diversity and information sharing:

When does deep-level diversity help? Group Process. Intergroup Relat. In pressPolzer JT, Milton LP, Swann WBJ. 2002. Capitalizing on diversity: interpersonal congruence

in small work groups. Admin. Sci. Q. 47:296–324Priem RL, Lyon DW, Dess GG. 1999. Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top

management team heterogeneity research. J. Manage. 25:935–53Randel AE. 2002. Identity salience: a moderator of the relationship between group gender

composition and work group conflict. J. Organ. Behav. 23:749–66Randel AE, Jaussi KS. 2003. Functional background identity, diversity, and individual perfor-

mance in cross-functional teams. Acad. Manage. J. 46:763–74Reagans R, Zuckerman EW. 2001. Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of

corporate R&D teams. Organ. Sci. 12:502–17Reagans R, Zuckerman EW, McEvily B. 2004. How to make the team: Social networks versus

demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Admin. Sci. Q. 49:101–33Rentsch 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 WorkTeams, ed. MM Beyerlein, DA Johnson, pp. 223–61. Stamford, CT: JAI


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Richard O, McMillan A, Chadwick K, Dwyer S. 2003. Employing an innovation strategy inradically diverse workforce. Group Organ. Manage. 28:107–26

Richard OC, Barnett T, Dwyer S, Chadwick K. 2004. Cultural diversity in management, firmperformance, 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 ofgroup composition and trainee experience. J. Organ. Behav. 22:871–85

Sacco JM, Schmitt N. 2005. A dynamic multilevel model of demographic diversity and misfiteffects. 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 andcorrelates. 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 mediatingeffect of reflexivity. J. Organ. Behav. 24:779–802

Schneider B, Salvaggio AN, Subirats M. 2002. Climate strength: a new direction for climateresearch. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:220–29

Schneider B, Smith DB, Taylor S, Fleenor J. 1998. Personality and organizations: a test of thehomogeneity 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 decisioncomprehensiveness 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 organizationalcommunication. Manage. Sci. 32:1492–512

Strauss JP, Connerley ML, Ammermann PA. 2003. The “threat hypothesis,” personality, andattitudes toward diversity. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 39:32–52

Swann WB, Polzer JT, Seyle DC, Ko SJ. 2004. Finding value in diversity: verification ofpersonal 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 andcreativity 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 ofIntergroup Relations, ed. S Worchel, W Austin, pp. 7–24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall

Teachman JD. 1980. Analysis of population diversity. Sociol. Meth. Res. 8:341–62Thatcher SMB, Jehn KA, Zanutto E. 2003. Cracks in diversity research: the effects of diversity

faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decis. Negot. 12:217–41Tindale RS, Smith CM, Thomas LS, Filkins J, Sheffey S. 1996. Shared representations and

asymmetric social influence in small groups. In Understanding Group Behavior: ConsensualAction 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 performancein professional sport teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:848–59

Totterdell P, Kellett S, Teuchmann K, Briner RB. 1998. Evidence of mood linkage in workgroups. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74:1504–15


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


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 relationaldemography 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 SocialGroup: 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 oninnovation. J. Manage. 29:29–51

van Ginkel WP, van Knippenberg D. 2003. The role of shared mental models for informationaldiversity in group decision-making. Presented at Eur. Assoc. Exp. Soc. Psychol. Small GroupMeet. on Small Group Decision Making: Motiv. Cogn., Amsterdam

van Knippenberg D. 1999. Social identity and persuasion: reconsidering the role of groupmembership. In Social Identity and Social Cognition, ed. D Abrams, MA Hogg, pp. 315–31.Oxford, UK: Blackwell Sci.

Provides anintegrative modelbridging andextending thesocialcategorizationperspective and theinformation/decision-makingperspective, thetwo main traditionsin diversityresearch.

van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CKW, Homan AC. 2004. Work group diversity and groupperformance: an integrative model and research agenda. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:1008–22

van Knippenberg D, Haslam SA. 2003. Realizing the diversity dividend: exploring the subtleinterplay between identity, ideology, and reality. In Social Identity at Work: Developing Theoryfor 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 mindsets: 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. 40:140–80Wagner GW, Pfeffer J, O’Reilly CA. 1984. Organizational demography and turnover. Admin.

Sci. Q. 29:74–92Watson 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 processand 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 groupcohesion 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


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


West MA. 1996. Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: a conceptual integration. In Handbookof 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 andinnovation implementation in work groups. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 51:355–87

Williams HM, Mean LJ. 2004. Measuring gender composition in work groups: a comparisonof existing models. Organ. Res. Methods 7:456–74

Reviews diversityresearch up to1998.Complements thecurrent article for afull overview of thefield.

Williams KY, O’Reilly CA. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: a reviewof 40 years of research. Res. Organ. Behav. 20:77–140


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Contents ARI 8 November 2006 21:2

Annual Review ofPsychology

Volume 58, 2007

Contents

Prefatory

Research on Attention Networks as a Model for the Integration ofPsychological ScienceMichael I. Posner and Mary K. Rothbart � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Cognitive Neuroscience

The Representation of Object Concepts in the BrainAlex Martin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 25

Depth, Space, and Motion

Perception of Human MotionRandolph Blake and Maggie Shiffrar � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 47

Form Perception (Scene Perception) or Object Recognition

Visual Object Recognition: Do We Know More Now Than We Did 20Years Ago?Jessie J. Peissig and Michael J. Tarr � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 75

Animal Cognition

Causal Cognition in Human and Nonhuman Animals: A Comparative,Critical ReviewDerek C. Penn and Daniel J. Povinelli � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 97

Emotional, Social, and Personality Development

The Development of CopingEllen A. Skinner and Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 119

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Biological and Genetic Processes in Development

The Neurobiology of Stress and DevelopmentMegan Gunnar and Karina Quevedo � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 145

Development in Societal Context

An Interactionist Perspective on the Socioeconomic Context ofHuman DevelopmentRand D. Conger and M. Brent Donnellan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 175

Culture and Mental Health

Race, Race-Based Discrimination, and Health Outcomes AmongAfrican AmericansVickie M. Mays, Susan D. Cochran, and Namdi W. Barnes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 201

Personality Disorders

Assessment and Diagnosis of Personality Disorder: Perennial Issuesand an Emerging ReconceptualizationLee Anna Clark � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 227

Social Psychology of Attention, Control, and Automaticity

Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core ProcessesMatthew D. Lieberman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 259

Inference, Person Perception, Attribution

Partitioning the Domain of Social Inference: Dual Mode and SystemsModels and Their AlternativesArie W. Kruglanski and Edward Orehek � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 291

Self and Identity

Motivational and Emotional Aspects of the SelfMark R. Leary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 317

Social Development, Social Personality, Social Motivation,Social Emotion

Moral Emotions and Moral BehaviorJune Price Tangney, Jeff Stuewig, and Debra J. Mashek � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 345

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


The Experience of EmotionLisa Feldman Barrett, Batja Mesquita, Kevin N. Ochsner,

and James J. Gross � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 373

Attraction and Close Relationships

The Close Relationships of Lesbian and Gay MenLetitia Anne Peplau and Adam W. Fingerhut � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 405

Small Groups

OstracismKipling D. Williams � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 425

Personality Processes

The Elaboration of Personal Construct PsychologyBeverly M. Walker and David A. Winter � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 453

Cross-Country or Regional Comparisons

Cross-Cultural Organizational BehaviorMichele J. Gelfand, Miriam Erez, and Zeynep Aycan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 479

Organizational Groups and Teams

Work Group DiversityDaan van Knippenberg and Michaéla C. Schippers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 515

Career Development and Counseling

Work and Vocational Psychology: Theory, Research,and ApplicationsNadya A. Fouad � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 543

Adjustment to Chronic Diseases and Terminal Illness

Health Psychology: Psychological Adjustmentto Chronic DiseaseAnnette L. Stanton, Tracey A. Revenson, and Howard Tennen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 565

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Research Methodology

Mediation AnalysisDavid P. MacKinnon, Amanda J. Fairchild, and Matthew S. Fritz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 593

Analysis of Nonlinear Patterns of Change with Random CoefficientModelsRobert Cudeck and Jeffrey R. Harring � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 615

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 48–58 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 48–58 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 644

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology chapters (if any, 1997 to thepresent) may be found at http://psych.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

x Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:5

15-5

41. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by E

RA

SMU

S U

NIV

ER

SIT

EIT

on

03/2

6/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Work group diversity

Documents

Transcript of Work group diversity