Shall we take the risk? Preference diversity,
group regulatory focus and group indecision
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January 15, 2015 FRANCESCA VINK S1779621 Oosterstraat 19A-1 9711 NN Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6 48650449 E-mail: f.vink@student.rug.nl
2
ABSTRACT
Much research has examined group decision making, but only few studies have investigated groups that do not reach a decision, although this happens often in real life. Based on Corbin’s (1980) theoretical framework of group indecision and Higgins’ (1997) regulatory focus
model, this study analysed the moderating effect of a group’s regulatory focus (promotion focus or prevention focus) on the relationship between preference diversity and group
indecision (delay or refusal). In a field study, team members and team leaders of 68 different teams filled out questionnaires to test the hypotheses that preference diversity has a positive relationship with group indecision, and that promotion focus weakens the effect of preference diversity on group indecision, whereas prevention focus strengthens this effect. The
hypotheses were rejected. However, prevention focus was found to be positively related to group indecision. Besides, in exploratory research it was found that prevention focus mediates the effect of preference diversity on group indecision, and that group indecision mediates the effect of prevention focus on decision quality.
3
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays many decisions in organizations are being made in groups. Group decision making has two important advantages: more knowledge is often available to the group as a whole than to individual group members, and it is assumed that decisions will create greater acceptance among group members (Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012; Stasser & Titus, 1985). Nevertheless, groups do not always reach a decision. Conflicts may arise about which alternative to choose since group members might have preferences for different alternatives, and as a result decisions might be deferred or not made at all. Although a lot of research has examined group decision making, the area of decisions that do not get made (postponing or even refusing to make a decision) is hardly explored, while in real life this actually happens often. Think about, for example, a meeting in which a team has to make a decision about which alternative to choose, but in which the team members do not agree and have different preferences. Then, there is a possibility that the decision will be rescheduled to the next meeting; no decision about the topic has been made. Hence, in this research I examine the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision. Does preference diversity cause group indecision, and under which conditions is this the case? This question is highly relevant, since understanding why decisions are not being made can help teams reach decisions more often and thereby improve team performance.
Corbin (1980) introduced a framework of indecision as three stages: inattention, delay, and refusal. “Inattention” occurs when a decision making opportunity is not recognized as such, but delay and refusal are of most importance for this thesis. “Delay”, also often called decision deferral, means that a decision maker chooses not to choose for the time being, but instead looks for more information about the available alternatives before making a decision (Anderson, 2003; Corbin, 1980; Dhar, 1997; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012; Tversky & Shafir, 1992). “Refusal” occurs when decision makers do not choose among the available options, but instead reject all currently available alternatives and decide to look for other alternatives (Corbin, 1980; Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012).
Although many positive effects of preference diversity on group decision making have been found, such as more and less biased information sharing, and higher quality decisions (Nijstad & Kaps, 2008; Schulz-Hardt, Frey, Lüthgens & Moscovici, 2000; Schulz-Hardt, Brodbeck, Mojzisch, Kerschreiter & Frey, 2006; Stasser & Titus, 1985), several researchers have found that preference diversity is a factor that determines whether groups reach a
4 based on negative opinions, group indecision is more likely to be the result, while Nijstad (2008) argues that when group members enter a discussion with a negative view on all
available options, the group is likely to refuse making a decision. Further, Kerr and MacCoun (1985) found that when preference diversity was more likely and when members were less likely to abandon their initial preference, indecision occurred more often (Kerr & MacCoun, 1985; Nijstad & Kaps, 2008; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012). Therefore, I propose that preference diversity has a positive effect on group indecision.
When there is preference diversity in a group, decision making becomes more difficult, since the group members do not agree about which alternative to choose. Having preference diversity rather than preference homogeneity tends to reduce group members’ confidence in their initial preferences, because other group members came to a different conclusion (Nijstad & Kaps, 2008; Schulz-Hardt et al., 2000). This may potentially lead to group indecision, but this is not necessarily the case. Indeed, in a situation of uncertainty, groups may either take the risk of choosing an option anyway (despite not feeling confident about the decision), or delay choice in order to avoid making a bad decision. In this research I propose that this may depend on the group’s regulatory focus.
Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) distinguishes between two self-regulatory foci that people may have when they pursue their goals. Promotion focus is concerned with advancement, aspirations and accomplishments, and people with such a focus are not afraid to take risks in order to achieve gains. Prevention focus is concerned with security, safety and responsibility, and people with such a focus will try to avoid making mistakes (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997). Although regulatory focus was originally developed as a theory of individual self-regulation, recent evidence suggests that groups may also differ in regulatory focus. For example, Levine, Higgins and Choi (2000) found that the behavioural preferences of group members who work together on the same task can converge over time to reflect a common focus. Further, Faddegon, Ellemers and Scheepers (2008, 2009) found that groups can have a collective regulatory focus, and that individuals are likely to adapt their own behaviour to match this collective regulatory focus.
5 found that especially when a task becomes difficult, regulatory focus might have an influence on the outcome. Therefore, I predict that promotion focused groups are more likely to end up with making a decision than prevention focused groups, particularly when there is preference diversity. In sum, I expect to find a positive relationship between preference diversity and group indecision. Furthermore, I assume prevention focus to strengthen this relationship, and promotion focus to weaken it. These hypotheses were tested in a field study among team members and team leaders of 68 teams. Participants filled out questionnaires in which
preference diversity, group indecision, promotion focus and prevention focus were measured.
THEORY
Group indecision
6 more likely to defer the decision than when the choice was easy and one alternative was
evidentlythe best alternative. This is supported by the study of Dhar (1997), who found that decision makers often defer decisions when alternatives are similar in attractiveness. The last stage or Corbin’s (1980) framework is “refusal”, which occurs when the decision makers reject all available alternatives because they believe that no alternative is good enough. Instead, they will invest more resources to look for other alternatives (Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012). This study looks at stage two and three of Corbin’s (1980) framework, when the opportunity of making a decision is acknowledged, but the decision makers are insecure about which alternative to choose or whether alternatives are good enough.
In some cases it might be a good idea to look for more information or alternatives, for example when none of the available alternatives are good enough. But, at some point the costs of looking for more information or other alternatives might exceed the benefits of finding a better alternative. Therefore, the costs and benefits of decision delay and decision refusal need to be taken into account by the decision makers (Nijstad & Kaps, 2008; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012; Tversky & Shafir, 1992). Besides, some researchers have found that decision makers might even refuse good alternatives when there is a conflict about the different alternatives (Dhar, 1997; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012; Tversky & Shafir, 1992), so delaying or refusing the decision is not always a good thing to do.
Preference diversity
When group members have to make a joint decision, some group members might have different opinions and ideas than others, for example about the available alternatives. When this is the case, we can say that there is preference diversity within the group. Several researchers (e.g. Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Mannix, 2001) depict preference diversity as task conflict or cognitive conflict, which occurs when group members disagree about the content of the tasks they have to carry out. Conflicts might include
differences in opinions, ideas, and perspectives (Jehn, 1995). However, in this study I will refer to these differences as preference diversity.
7 negative. This makes the information seeking process less biased compared to the information seeking process of groups with preference homogeneity (Nijstad & Kaps, 2008; Schulz-Hardt et al., 2000). Further, homogeneous groups mostly discuss shared information which is available to all group members, instead of unshared information; information that is available to only one of the group members. This might lead to suboptimal decisions (Nijstad & Kaps, 2008; Stasser & Titus, 1985). According to Schulz-Hardt et al. (2006), groups with preference diversity discuss more information than groups with preference homogeneity and more often make the correct decision. They argue that preference diversity leads to higher quality decisions than preference homogeneity. This is supported by Jehn (1995) and Jehn and Mannix (2001), who found that the quality of a decision increases when teams have preference diversity about ideas and about the work they have to do, and by Amason and Sapienza (1997), who argue that preference diversity could eventually improve decision making, decision quality, and shared understanding due to the fact that more information is exchanged among the team members and team members are forced to take other perspectives and preferences into account as well in order to reach a decision.
Nevertheless, preference diversity does not necessarily have a positive influence on group decision making. Although not much research has been done on what exactly causes group indecision, it has been found that one factor that determines whether groups are able to reach a decision is preference diversity (Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012). When group members have different preferences, they have to negotiate which alternative to choose if they want to reach a decision. When the group members are unable to reach an agreement about which alternative they should choose, group indecision may eventually be the result (Nijstad & Kaps, 2008; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012). Shulz-Hardt et al. (2000) found that when groups have preference homogeneity, group members will feel more confident about their choice and are more committed to the decision than groups with preference diversity, because others independently came to the same conclusions. Contrary, one might assume that group members of groups with preference diversity are more insecure about their choice, since others came to a different conclusion. Hence, group members’ confidence in their initial preferences will decrease (Nijstad & Kaps, 2008).
8 preference diversity, some group members have to give in if they want to reach a decision. Nijstad and Kaps (2008) found that group members are less likely to give in when there is preference diversity based on aversions, since people do not like to revise a negative opinion. They argue that “group members are more likely to accept that their preferred alternative is not chosen than that an alternative that they initially did not like is chosen”. Consequently, when preference diversity is based on negative opinions, group indecision is more likely to be the result.This is supported by the study of Nijstad (2008), in which it was found that when group members enter a discussion with a negative view on all available alternatives the group is likely not to reach a decision, since group members were not willing to change their initial negative views. In this case, preference diversity leads to decision refusal. Further, Kerr and MacCoun (1985) studied the effect of jury size and polling method (public showing of hands versus private balloting) on the juries’ verdict. They found that when differences of
preferences were more likely (with larger juries and close cases), and when members were less likely to abandon their initial opinion (with public polling), indecision occurred more often (Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012). For example, public polling increases the commitment of jury members to their original verdict since the public already saw their initial opinion. This makes it harder for jury members to change their original opinion (Kerr & MacCoun, 1985; Nijstad & Kaps, 2008). Concluding, preference diversity is not necessarily a good thing, it can be a factor that causes group indecision. This leads to the first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between preference diversity and group indecision.
Regulatory focus
9 People with such a focus are “vigilant” to assure safety and non-losses and to avoid mistakes and losses. Hence, they do not like to take risks (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997).
Research on regulatory focus has mostly been performed at the individual level, but recently some researchers (e.g. Faddegon et al. 2008, 2009; Levine et al., 2000; Shah, Brazy & Higgins, 2002) studied the effect of regulatory focus at the group level. Shah et al. (2002) refer to group regulatory focus as “collective regulatory focus”. They argue that this collective regulatory focus consists of “promotion or prevention-related goals and strategies that have become part of a group’s identity, and direct individual group members towards promotion- or prevention-oriented behaviour” (Faddegon et al., 2008). Stating it differently; their behaviour will match the group identity. According to Faddegon et al. (2009), collective regulatory focus can have important implications for the performance of groups. Think about, for example, a group that needs to be creative and take risks. Then, a promotion focus would be most appropriate. However, when a group has to be accurate the group has to avoid taking risks and thus a prevention focus would be more suitable. Hence, when group members will shift to either a promotion or a prevention focus that matches the focus the group needs in order to accomplish the tasks they have to carry out, collective regulatory focus can be an important tool to increase group performance (Faddegon et al., 2009).
In their research, Levine et al. (2000) found that the behavioural preferences of group members who work together on the same task can converge over time to reflect a common focus, either a promotion or a prevention focus (Faddegon et al., 2008). This is especially the case when the outcomes of the joint task are framed as gains and non-gains (promotion focus) or as losses and non-losses (prevention focus).Besides,Faddegon et al. (2008) found that groups can have a collective regulatory focus, and that group members are likely to adapt their own behaviour in order to match the collective regulatory focus when this focus is part of a group’s identity. For instance, when the group adopts a promotion focus, individual group members are likely to pursue this focus as well.According to Faddegon et al. (2008), when people feel like they belong to a certain group, they see the group’s strategy as a part of who they are, and they are more likely to adopt this strategy across different situations. Stating it differently, Faddegon et al. (2008) argue that collective regulatory focus influences group members in general, not just in specific situations.
10 might also be the case with decision making: you may decide to take a decision even though you are not sure about your choice, or you may decide not to take the risk of making a decision. According to signal detection theory, there are four different outcomes. First, when the decision maker decides to choose and it turns out that the alternative chosen is indeed a good choice, there is a “hit”. However, when the alternative chosen is actually a bad choice, there is a “false alarm”. When the decision maker decides not to choose and the alternative indeed turns out to be a bad choice, there is a “correct rejection”, while it would have been a “miss” if the alternative would have been a good choice (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). People with a promotion focus are likely to be eager to accomplish hits and avoid misses; they do not want to miss out any chances. People with a prevention focus want to attain correct rejections and avoid false alarms, since they do not want to make any mistakes. Consequently, people with a promotion focus tend to take more risks in order to reach accomplishments, while prevention focused people are more likely to avoid risks because they do not want to make mistakes. This is supported by the study of Crowe and Higgins (1997), who found that when a task becomes difficult, regulatory focus has an influence on the outcomes. Promotion focused people want to find “hits” and insure against missing out any possible hits, while people with prevention focus are careful not to make any mistakes.
When there is preference homogeneity within a group, decision making is not very difficult, since group members all agree on which alternative is best. Decision makers in such groups are confident about their choice and there is no need to negotiate with each other on the different alternatives. However, when groups have preference diversity, uncertainty about which alternative to choose increases and group members have to negotiate whether a choice is being made, even if they are not confident about the choice, or whether they will delay or refuse the decision. Therefore, it becomes more difficult to make a decision. The regulatory focus of a group might moderate this relationship. Decision makers with a promotion focus are more eager to reach a decision, since they are more likely to take risks to attain an accomplishment, in this case making a decision, while decision makers with a prevention focus would rather choose to delay or refuse to make a decision since they are insecure about whether it is the right decision or not, and they want to avoid making a mistake. This leads to the following two hypotheses (see Figure 1):
11 Hypothesis 3: Prevention focus strengthens the effect of preference diversity on group
indecision.
FIGURE 1
Conceptual model
METHOD
Participants and design
For this research, a field study was conducted among 69 teams within organizations and student associations in the Netherlands. These teams consisted of at least two team members and one team leader, but most teams (64 teams) contained three team members or more.
A response rate of 100% for the team leaders and 94% for the team members yielded a sample of 383 participants who voluntarily completed the questionnaire; 70 team leaders (there was one team with two team leaders) and 313 team members. However, the team with two team leaders was removed from the dataset due to inconsistent answers of both team leaders. Besides, two team members were not taken into account due to incomplete data. Eventually, 68 team leaders and 306 team members remained. Of the 68 team leaders, 37 were male and 31 were female, and the average age was 39.54 (SD = 12.76). 89.7% of them had a higher education level (47.1% university, 42.6% higher professional education). The mean team tenure in months was 49.99 (SD = 56.85). Regarding the 306 team members, 145 were male and 161 were female, and the average age was 36.48 (SD = 11.37). Here, only 57.6% had a higher education level (25.6% university, 31.8% higher professional education), and the mean team tenure of the team members was 48.62 months (SD = 62.53).The
participants did not receive any compensation for their participation.
There were no teams active in the primary sector, but 20.6% was active in the
secondary sector, 36.8% in the tertiary sector, and 42.6% in the quaternary sector. Regarding Promotion focus Prevention focus
Preference
diversity + Group indecision
12 the type of teams, most of them (47.1%) were production teams. The other teams were: advice teams (13.2%), project teams (8.8%), and action teams (4.4%). The remaining 25.6% of the team leaders answered that their team was a ‘different type of team’. Answers included for example teams that were active in the healthcare sector or the educational sector, research teams, and boards of student associations.
This research has a cross-sectional multi-source design in which the variables of interest were divided into two separate questionnaires in order to prevent common source bias. Preference diversity, promotion focus, and prevention focus were measured among the team members, whereas only the team leaders answered questions about group indecision.
Procedure
First, potential respondents were contacted either face to face, through e-mail, or by telephone in order to ask whether they were willing to participate in this research. The people contacted were either team leaders or team members. When the potential respondents were team leaders, they were asked whether they were willing to participate in this research and ask their team members to participate as well. Potential respondents that were team members were asked to contact their team leader about the research and ask whether their team could participate. Eventually, the team leaders sent me the e-mail addresses of all participating team members. All participants (team leaders and team members) then received an e-mail with a personal link to the electronic questionnaire and they were asked to fill out this questionnaire. The
participants had approximately one month to complete the questionnaire.
There were two different questionnaires, one for team members and one for team leaders. The purpose of the research was clearly stated in the introduction of both
13
Measures
Since there were two online questionnaires, one for team members and one for team leaders, the measures for this research were divided among both questionnaires.
Team members
The questionnaire for team members contained three measures: preference diversity (independent variable), promotion focus (moderator), and prevention focus (moderator). Besides, two control variables were included: team tenure and task interdependence.
Preference diversity. Jehn’s (1995) questionnaire about task conflict was used to measure preference diversity on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “none”, 5 = “a lot”). This scale included four items. Participants were asked (1) how often group members in the team
disagree about opinions regarding the work being done, (2) how frequently there are conflicts about ideas in the team, (3) how much conflict there is about the work the person does in the team, and (4) to what extent there are differences of opinion in the team. After scaling these items into one variable, Cronbach’s α was .79.
Regulatory focus. Based on Faddegon et al. (2009), ten items of Lockwood, Jordan and Kunda (2002) were used to measure the team’s regulatory focus on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “not true”, 5 = “very true”). Five items were used to measure promotion focus: (1) In our team, we frequently imagine how we will achieve our hopes and aspirations, (2) In our team, we typically focus on the success we hope to achieve in the future, (3) In our team, we see ourselves as persons who are primarily striving to reach our “ideal selves” - to fulfil our hopes, wishes, and aspirations, (4) In general, our team is focused on achieving positive outcomes in our lives, and (5) Overall, in our team we are more oriented toward achieving success than preventing failure. Besides, five items were used to measure prevention focus: (1) In general, in our team we are focused on preventing negative events in our lives, (2) Our team is anxious that we will fall short of our responsibilities and obligations, (3) In our team, we often worry that we will fail to accomplish our goals, (4) In our team, we are more
14 Control variables. The questionnaire for team members contained two control
variables; team tenure and task interdependence. First, team tenure was measured by asking team members for how many months they had been part of this team. Team tenure might have an influence on preference diversity, since team members that are working together for a long time might become more similar in their preferences and ideas than team members that are working together only for a short time. Second, based on van der Vegt, Emans and van de Vliert (2000), task interdependence was measured among team members by using five items on a 5-point Likert scale (1= “totally disagree”, 5 = “totally agree”). Team members were asked for example (1) whether they have to obtain information and advice from their colleagues in order to complete their work, (2) whether they depend on their colleagues for the completion of their work, and (3) whether they have a one-person job and rarely have to check or work with others (reversed scored). Cronbach’s α was .74.
Team leaders
The questionnaire for team leaders contained the measure of group indecision (dependent variable). Besides, three control variables were included, and for exploratory purpose a measure of decision quality was added.
Dependent variable: Group indecision. A four-item scale was constructed for this study to measure group indecision among team leaders on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “totally disagree”, 7 = “totally agree”). Team leaders were asked (1) whether decisions are often delayed within the team, (2) whether the team has difficulties making decisions, (3) whether the team tries to avoid making decisions, and (4) whether it takes long before decisions are being made within the team. Cronbach’s α for the group indecision scale was .78.
15 own working pace, and (3) whether their team is allowed to (co)determine issues regarding the tasks of the team. Cronbach’s α was .68.
Additional variable: Decision quality. Based on Dooley and Fryxell (1999), decision quality was measured with eight items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “totally disagree”, 7 = “totally agree”). Team leaders were asked for example (1) whether the decisions of the team were good, (2) whether people outside the team thought the decisions were good, and (3) whether decisions of the team were based on available information. Cronbach’s α was .78.
Data aggregation
It is important to note that the data is collected from two separate online questionnaires; from the team leaders’ questionnaire, which was at the team level, and from the team members’ questionnaire, which was at the individual level. Since group indecision, the dependent variable, is a team level variable, all relevant variables need to be at the team level in order to perform a correct data analysis. Therefore, the scores of the team members needed to be aggregated. This means that the scores of all team members of each team on a specific variable were transformed into one mean score. One of the prerequisites to aggregate data is that there needs to be consensus among the team members regarding the questions they have to answer. Hence, an intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis was computed to calculate the reliability of the scores by comparing the variance between teams relative to the total variance. All ICCs were significant (see Table 1), which means that there is a reasonable degree of consensus between the team members. Consequently, the data could be aggregated.
TABLE 1
Intraclass correlations (ICC)
Variable ICC Preference diversity .286*** Promotion focus .134*** Prevention focus .094*** Task interdependence .176*** Note: *** p = <.001 Data analysis
16 the variables of interest (preference diversity, promotion focus, prevention focus and group indecision) , the control variables (size of the team, team tenure of team members, team tenure of team leaders, decision making authority and task interdependence), and the additional variable (decision quality) were performed. Thirdly, a regression analysis was performed via the PROCESS macro for SPSS developed by Andrew F. Hayes to test the three hypotheses. The effect of preference diversity on group indecision was tested, while at the same time the moderation effects of promotion focus and prevention focus on the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision were examined. Group indecision was included as dependent variable, preference diversity as the independent variable, and promotion focus and prevention focus as the two moderators. Besides, all control variables (size of the team, team tenure of team members, team tenure of team leaders, decision making authority and task interdependence) were taken into account as covariates.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and correlations of all variables used in this study. Most of the expected relations described in the theory section are in the expected direction, although not always significant. For example, preference diversity is positively correlated with group indecision (r = .16, p = .19), while promotion focus is negatively correlated with group indecision (r = -.07, p = .57). However, these correlations are not significant. The most remarkable effect that was found is the high correlation between prevention focus and group indecision (r = .44, p < .001). Another noticeable correlation is the one between preference diversity and prevention focus (r = .28, p < .05). Besides, some significant correlations concerning the control variables were found. For example, task interdependence is positively correlated with promotion focus (r = .28, p < .05), and
17
TABLE 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1: Group indecision 2.70 1.07 (.78) 2: Promotion focus 3.37 0.44 -.07 (.78) 3: Prevention focus 2.73 0.36 .44 *** -.05 (.58) 4: Preference diversity 2.55 0.51 .16 -.01 .28* (.79) 5: Task interdependence 3.30 0.48 .05 .28* .06 .10 (.74)
6: Decision making authority 2.85 0.43 -.06 -.10 -.14 .22 .08 (.68)
7: Team tenure team members 50.98 57.78 -.01 -.19 .11 -.22 -.05 -.25*
8: Team tenure team leaders 49.99 56.85 -.06 -.16 .02 -.19 -.24* -.20 .43***
9: Size of the team 12.75 15.13 .10 -.06 .21 .01 .17 -.31* .18 -.01
10. Decision quality 5.28 0.68 -.39*** .07 -.36** -.19 -.10 .13 -.16 .16 -.25* (.78)
18
Hypotheses testing
To examine the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision, and the moderating effects of promotion focus and prevention focus on this relationship, a regression analysis was performed through the PROCESS macro function of SPSS developed by
Andrew F. Hayes. Hypothesis 1 predicted that there is a positive relationship between
preference diversity and group indecision. No effect was found (B = -.01, p = .97). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is rejected. There were two hypotheses regarding the moderating effect of a group’s regulatory focus on the relationship between preference diversity and group
indecision; one concerning promotion focus and one concerning prevention focus. Hypothesis 2 predicted that promotion focus weakens the effect of preference diversity on group
indecision, whereas Hypothesis 3 predicted that prevention focus strengthens the effect of preference diversity on group indecision. The results show a significant effect of prevention focus on group indecision (B = 1.26, p < .01), thus prevention focus is a good predictor of group indecision. However, no moderation effects of promotion focus (B = .30, p = .61) or prevention focus (B = .60, p = .53) on the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision were found. Hence, both Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 are rejected. Neither promotion focus nor prevention focus is a moderator of the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision. Besides, none of the control variables were found to be significantly related to group indecision. The results can be found in Table 3. Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 were also separately tested in two linear regression analyses, with
promotion focus and the interaction effect of preference diversity and promotion focus on the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision in one analysis, and
19
TABLE 3
Results of hypotheses testing
Group indecision
Predictor B SE t p
Promotion focus (PRO) -.21 .40 -.52 .60
Preference diversity (PD) -.01 .30 -.03 .97
Interaction 1 (PD * PRO) .30 .59 .51 .61
Prevention focus (PREV) 1.26 .45 2.81 .01
Interaction 2 (PD * PREV) .60 .95 .63 .53
Size of the team .00 .02 .06 .95
Team tenure team members -.00 .00 -.19 .85
Team tenure team leaders -.00 .00 -.42 .68
Decision making authority -.06 .41 -.15 .88
Task interdependence .11 .34 .33 .74
Note: N = 68.
Additional results
Since previous research did find a relationship between preference diversity and group indecision (e.g. Kerr & MacCoun, 1985; Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad & Kaps, 2008; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012; Schulz-Hardt et al., 2002; Schulz-Hardt et al., 2006; Stasser & Titus, 1985), and because of the fact that I only found evidence for the relationship between prevention focus and group indecision, I decided to check for any additional outcomes in an exploratory analysis. However, it must be noted that these effects were not hypothesized.
20 as the independent variable, and prevention focus as the mediator. Besides, all control
variables (size of the team, team tenure for team members, team tenure for team leaders, decision making authority and task interdependence) were taken into account as covariates. A positive relation between preference diversity and prevention focus was found (B = .24, p < .05). Further, prevention focus was found to be positively related to group indecision (B = 1.31, p < .01). No direct effect of preference diversity on group indecision was found (B = .05, p = .88). When looking at the indirect effect of preference diversity on group indecision with prevention focus as mediator, there is a positive effect (B = .32), and the confidence interval did not include zero. This means that there is a significant mediation effect: preference diversity is not directly related to group indecision, but it is indirectly related to group indecision through prevention focus (see Table 4).
TABLE 4
Results of regression analysis
Dependent variable
Prevention focus Group indecision
Predictor B SE t p B SE t p
Constant 2.30 .53 4.34 .00 -.77 1.85 -.42 .68
Preference diversity .24 .11 2.21 .03 .05 .29 .15 .88
Prevention focus - - - - 1.31 .45 2.93 .01
Size of the team .00 .00 1.40 .17 .00 .02 .01 .99
Team tenure team members .00 .00 .88 .39 -.00 .00 -.25 .80
Team tenure team leaders .00 .00 .05 .96 -.00 .00 -.34 .73
Decision making authority -.12 .13 -.94 .35 -.07 .37 -.18 .86
Task interdependence .02 .12 .16 .88 .02 .29 .08 .94
Indirect effect B SE CI
Prevention focus .32 .19 [.04 , .82]
Note: N = 68.
21 mistakes and this may cause group indecision. Since group indecision is negatively correlated with decision quality, it might be interesting to find out whether this means that when groups with a prevention focus delay or refuse decisions, the results will be of a lower quality.To examine this, a regression analysis was performed through the PROCESS macro function of SPSS developed by Andrew F. Hayes. Decision quality was included as dependent variable, prevention focus as the independent variable, and group indecision as the mediator. Besides, all control variables (size of the team, team tenure for team members, team tenure for team leaders, decision making authority and task interdependence) were taken into account as covariates. A positive relationship between prevention focus and group indecision was found (B = 1.33, p < .001). No effect of prevention focus on decision quality was found (B = -.36, p = .27), as well as there was no evidence for a relationship between group indecision and decision quality (B = -.18, p = .08). However, the indirect effect of prevention focus on decision quality with group indecision as a mediator was computed, and the effect was found to be negative (B = -.23). Since the confidence interval did not include zero, there is a
mediation effect of group indecision on the relationship between prevention focus and
decision quality; prevention focus is not directly related to decision quality, but it is indirectly related to decision quality when group indecision is used as a mediator (see Table 5).
TABLE 5
Results of regression analysis
Dependent variable
Group indecision Decision quality
Predictor B SE t p B SE t p
Constant -.75 1.81 -.41 .68 6.62 1.41 4.69 .00
Group indecision - - - - -.18 .10 -1.80 .08
Prevention focus 1.33 .43 3.10 .00 -.36 .32 -1.12 .27
Size of the team .00 .02 .01 .99 -.01 .01 -.87 .39
Team tenure team members -.00 .00 -.28 .78 -.00 .00 -1.00 .32 Team tenure team leaders -.00 .00 -.36 .72 .00 .00 1.67 .10 Decision making authority -.06 .36 -.16 .88 .08 .25 .31 .75
Task interdependence .02 .29 .08 .93 -.02 .16 -.12 .91
Indirect effect B SE CI
Group indecision -.23 .13 [-.62 , -.05]
22
DISCUSSION
Summary of the results
Much research has been done on group decision making, since many organizational decisions are made in groups. However, not many studies have been performed on group indecision. The aim of this research was to investigate whether there is a relationship between preference diversity and group indecision, and whether a group’s regulatory focus moderates this
relationship. Three hypotheses were proposed. I expected that preference diversity would be positively related to group indecision (Hypothesis 1). Besides, I argued that promotion focus would weaken the effect of preference diversity on group indecision (Hypothesis 2), whereas prevention focus would strengthen this effect (Hypothesis 3). These hypotheses were tested in a field study in which team members and team leaders of 68 different teams filled out online questionnaires. Participants were members and leaders of teams in organizations and student associations in the Netherlands. Unlike was expected, no relationship between preference diversity and group indecision was found. Besides, no moderating effects of promotion focus or prevention focus were found on the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision. However, this research did find a positive relationship between prevention focus and group indecision. In addition, exploratory research found that prevention focus has a mediating effect on the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision, and that group indecision has a mediating effect on the relationship between prevention focus and decision quality.
23 present as participants had to choose between certain alternatives. They had initial preferences for one alternative and negative views on the other alternatives, whereas other participants had different preferences (e.g. Nijstad, 2008). However, in the present study questions were asked about preference diversity and group indecision in the team in general. Since preference diversity was relatively low in the participating teams, this might indicate that that you will only find a relationship between preference diversity and group indecision when preference diversity is higher or at least present in the team.
Moreover, it was expected that promotion focus would weaken the effect of preference diversity on group indecision, whereas prevention focus would strengthen this effect. No evidence was found for a moderating effect of neither promotion focus nor prevention focus. This could be explained by the fact that previous research on group regulatory focus is based on experimental studies. Since Crowe and Higgins (1997) argued that when a task becomes difficult regulatory focus has an influence on the outcome, this might suggest that you need to confront participants with a difficult choice in order to measure whether a group’s regulatory focus has an influence on group indecision. Nevertheless, a positive relationship was found between prevention focus and group indecision. Therefore, the lack of evidence for the moderating effects of promotion focus and prevention focus might imply that a group’s regulatory focus is not dependent on preference diversity, but merely on the difficulty of decisions. Decisions can be difficult without preference diversity, for example when people have a negative view on the alternatives. The fact that a relationship was found between prevention focus and group indecision might indicate that when people do not like to take risks, as is the case with people who have a prevention focus, they will be more likely to delay or refuse decision making, even when there is no preference diversity.
Furthermore, two exploratory analyses were performed in order to test additional outcomes of prevention focus. The first exploratory analysis found that prevention focus mediates the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision. Since previous researchers (e.g. Kerr & MacCoun, 1985; Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad & Kaps, 2008; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012; Schulz-Hardt et al., 2002; Schulz-Hardt et al., 2006; Stasser & Titus, 1985) often found a relationship between preference diversity and group indecision, and because prevention focus was found to be positively related to group indecision, this was the expected outcome. Apparently, preference diversity has positive implications, such as more
24 In addition, the second exploratory analysis found that the relationship between
prevention focus and decision quality is mediated by group indecision. This was not the result I expected to find. People with a prevention focus are very careful when making decisions and do not like to take risks. This might cause group indecision, since decision makers with a prevention focus want to be sure that their choice is the right one and they may want to look for more information about the available alternatives or look for other alternatives. One might assume that when decision makers will search for more information or for a better alternative, the quality of the decisions will improve. According to the findings of this research, this is not the case. However, it must be noted that group indecision and decision quality were both measured in the team leaders’ questionnaire, so there might be an overestimation of this relation because of common source and method bias. For example, when a team leader is negative about his or her own team, he or she will fill out the questionnaire in a negative way, leading to answers that show a high score on the group indecision scale and a low score on the decision quality scale.
Implications
This research makes several contributions to the existing literature about preference diversity and group indecision since it is the first study (as far as I know) to test the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision in a field study; previous research focused on experimental studies. Besides, group indecision is still a topic that is not much examined. Several researchers found a positive relationship between preference diversity and group indecision (e.g. Kerr & MacCoun, 1985; Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad & Kaps, 2008; Nijstad & Oltmanns, 2012; Schulz-Hardt et al., 2002; Schulz-Hardt et al., 2006; Stasser & Titus, 1985). However, the results of this research did not provide support for this relationship, which suggests that the effects of preference diversity on group indecision are less generally applicable than assumed and are only to be found in specific situations.
25 moderating effect of a group’s regulatory focus on the relationship between preference
diversity and group indecision.
In addition, exploratory research found that prevention focus has a mediating effect on the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision. This shows that
preference diversity does not only have advantages, in some situations it can cause a prevention focus and eventually lead to group indecision. Besides, it was found that group indecision has a mediating effect on the relationship between prevention focus and decision quality. This effect was never studied before and should be examined more in future research in order to add something to the existing literature.
Next to theoretical implications, this study also has some practical implications for team leaders and mangers, especially since many decisions nowadays are made in groups. For example, the results of this study have shown that prevention focus is positively related to group indecision and negatively related to decision quality. Hence, team leaders should be aware of the fact that a prevention focus might not be the right focus for their team, especially not if they want to reach decisions, attain achievements, and achieve high quality decisions. It is therefore important for team leaders and managers to make sure that their team’s prevention focus is as low as possible. A way to do this is to state the team’s objectives in a positive way, for example in gains. Besides, it should be made clear to team members that it is okay to make mistakes. When team members are afraid to make mistakes, they will be more likely to adapt a prevention focus.
Limitations and future research
In spite of the strengths of the current research, such as the relatively large sample size, the diversity of the type of teams and sectors, and the use of questionnaires that were based on existing scales, there are also some limitations. Hence, future research is needed to extend this research in important ways.
26 to measure, but this is not certain. Therefore, future researchers should improve the
prevention focus scale and do the same tests again to examine whether the relationships that were found in this research still hold when a more reliable scale is used.
In addition, when searching for possible respondents, it was found that teams that were operating under difficult conditions, such as teams in organizations that were facing
reorganisations, and in which you would expect more preference diversity to occur, did not want to participate. Only team leaders and team members with some free time left and without problems and conflicts within their team were willing to participate. This makes the sample biased towards teams without or with a low amount of preference diversity, especially since preference diversity in this research was tested using a task conflict measure. Future researchers could focus more on teams that encounter difficulties and preference diversity during their daily tasks to find out whether the same results will be found.
Moreover, this was (as far as I know) the first time that the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision, and the effect of promotion focus and prevention focus on this relationship, was tested in a field study. All other studies that investigated (some of) these variables were experimental studies. In the present study, data was gathered using a cross-sectional design, which means that data was only collected at one point in time. This limits the ability to discover causal relationships among the variables, since I was unable to investigate whether the measured relationships would develop over time. In order to discover causal relationships, future researchers should perform an experimental or a longitudinal study, which measures the variables of interest in this research at several points in time.
Further, some interesting results were found during the exploratory research, such as the mediating effect of prevention focus on the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision, and the mediating effect of group indecision on the relationship between prevention focus and decision quality. Besides, it was found that preference diversity relates positively to prevention focus. Since these effects were not hypothesized, more research is needed to test whether these relationships truly hold. Future researchers could for example look whether there is support for the negative relationship between prevention focus and decision quality, and for more support for the relationship between preference diversity and prevention focus.
27 of team effectiveness. Hence, it might be interesting for future researchers to look at the relationship between team effectiveness and group indecision, and between team effectiveness and decision quality. Further, prevention focus could be studied even more in depth at a group level, preferably with a new scale, since interesting results with this variable were found in this research. For example, future researchers could investigate the relationship between prevention focus and the atmosphere in the team, or between prevention focus and decision quality.
Conclusion
Overall, the results of this study do not show any support for the proposed hypotheses. No relationship between preference diversity and group indecision was found, as well as there was no evidence for the moderating effect of both promotion focus and prevention focus on this relationship. However, prevention focus was found to be positively related to group indecision. Moreover, exploratory research found that prevention focus has a mediating effect on the relationship between preference diversity and group indecision, and that the
28
REFERENCES
Amason, A.C. & Sapienza, H.J. 1997. The Effects of Top Management Team Size and Interaction Norms on Cognitive and Affective Conflict. Journal of Management. Vol. 23: 496-516
Anderson, C.J. 2003. The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 129 (1): 139-167
Corbin, R.M. 1980. Decisions that might not get made. In T.S. Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior. 47-67. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crowe, E. & Higgins, E.T. 1997. Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 69 (2): 117-132
Dhar, R. 1997. Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 24: 215–231
Dooley, R.S. & Fryxell, G.E. 1999. Attaining Decision Quality and Commitment from Dissent: The Moderating Effects of Loyalty and Competence in Strategic Decision-Making Teams. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 42 (4): 389-402
Faddegon, F., Scheepers, D. & Ellemers, N. 2008. If we have the will, there will be a way: Regulatory focus as a group identity. European Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 38: 880-895
Faddegon, F., Ellemers, N. & Scheepers, D. 2009. Eager to be the Best, or Vigilant Not to Be the Worst: The Emergence of Regulatory Focus in Disjunctive and Conjunctive Group Tasks. Group Process & Intergroup Relations. Vol. 12 (5): 653-671
Higgins, E.T. 1997. Beyond Pleasure and Pain. American Psychologist. Vol. 52 (12): 1280-1300
Jehn, K.A. 1995. A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 40 (2): 256-282
Jehn, K.A. & Mannix, E.A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 44 (2): 238-251
Kerr, N.L. & MacCoun, R.J. 1985. The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 48: 349–363
29 Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H., & Kunda, Z. 2002. Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 83: 854-864
Messchendorp, H.J., Blok, A.J., Koopman, M.I., Wansink, O., & van Vliet, M. 2004. Werk in beeld brancherapport 2004: Tweede meting medewerkersraadpleging verpleeg- en
verzorgingshuizen. Utrecht: Prismant/ATOS.
Nijstad, B.A. 2008. Choosing None of the Above: Persistence of Negativity after Group Discussion and Group Decision Refusal. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Vol. 11 (4): 525-538
Nijstad, B.A. & Kaps, S.C. 2008 Taking the Easy Way Out: Preference Diversity, Decision Strategies, and Decision Refusal in Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 94 (5): 860-870
Nijstad, B.A. & Oltmanns, J. 2012. Motivated information processing and group decision refusal. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Vol. 15 (5): 637-651
Shah, J. Y., Brazy, P. C., & Higgins, E. T. 2002. Promotion and prevention forms of ingroup bias. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups. 31-48. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F.C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. 2006. Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 91: 1080-1093
Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Lüthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. 2000. Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 78: 655-669 Stasser, G. & Titus, W. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 48: 1467-1478
Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. 1992. Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science. Vol. 3: 358–361
