When Instructions Based on Constructive Controversy Boost Synergy in Online Groups

References

• Almaatouq, A., Alsobay, M., Yin, M., & Watts, D. J. (2021). Task complexity moderates group synergy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(36), e2101062118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101062118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Sharafi, M. A., Al-Emran, M., Arpaci, I., Marques, G., Namoun, A., & Iahad, N. A. (2022). Examining the impact of psychological, social, and quality factors on the continuous intention to use virtual meeting platforms during and beyond COVID-19 pandemic: A hybrid SEM-ANN approach. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2022, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2084036
   Google Scholar
• Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 156–179. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2961
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819814001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration and cognitive outcomes. Theory Into Practice, 43(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4301_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2005). A framework for conducting multi-level construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Multi-level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Processes (Vol. 3, pp. 273–303). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(04)03013-9
   Google Scholar
• Crott, H. W., & Hansmann, R. (2003). Informative intervention to improve normative functioning and output of groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62(3), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.62.3.177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curşeu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. (2012). Normative interventions, emergent cognition and decision rationality in ad hoc and established groups. Management Decision, 50(6), 1062–1075. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211238337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curşeu, P. L., Jansen, R. J. G., & Chappin, M. M. H. (2013). Decision rules and group rationality: Cognitive gain or standstill? PLoS One, 8(2), e56454. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056454
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curşeu, P. L., Meslec, N., Pluut, H., & Lucas, G. (2015). Cognitive synergy in groups and group-to-individual transfer of decision-making competencies. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1375. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01375
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S. M., Pannuzzo, N., & Butera, F. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.766
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erffmeyer, R. C., & Lane, I. M. (1984). Quality and acceptance of an evaluative task: The effects of four group decision-making formats. Group & Organization Studies, 9(4), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960118400900408
   Google Scholar
• Foster, M. K., Abbey, A., Callow, M. A., Zu, X., & Wilbon, A. D. (2015). Rethinking virtuality and its impact on teams. Small Group Research, 46(3), 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415573795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41. https://doi.org/10.5465/256496
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gersick, C. J. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 274–309. https://doi.org/10.5465/256363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gijlers, H., Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). Interaction between tool and talk: How instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative inquiry-learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 252–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00302.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the science of collaborative problem solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, J., & Watson, W. H. (1970). The effects of a normative intervention on group decision-making performance. Human Relations, 23(4), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677002300404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamada, D., Nakayama, M., & Saiki, J. (2020). Wisdom of crowds and collective decision-making in a survival situation with complex information integration. Cognitive Research, 5(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00248-z
   Google Scholar
• Holtz, K., Orengo Castella, V., Zornoza Abad, A., & González-Anta, B. (2020). Virtual team functioning: Modeling the affective and cognitive effects of an emotional management intervention. Group Dynamics, 24(3), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2013). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (11th edition). Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2007). Creative constructive controversy: Intellectual challenge in the classroom (4th ed.). Interaction Book Company.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08330540
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Tjosvold, D. (2006). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus, The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 69–91). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Klonek, F., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Designing SMART teamwork: How work design can boost performance in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 50(1), 100841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K., Creary, S. J., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F. J., Gelfand, M. J., Greer, L. L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P. G., Lee, S. Y., … Vugt, M. v (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. The American Psychologist, 76(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Larson, J. R. (2007). Deep diversity and strong synergy: Modeling the impact of variability in members’ problem-solving strategies on group problem-solving performance. Small Group Research, 38(3), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson, J. R. (2009). In search of synergy in small group performance. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203848784
   Google Scholar
• Larson, J. R., Tindale, R. S., & Yoon, Y.-J. (2020). Advice taking by groups: The effects of consensus seeking and member opinion differences. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(7), 921–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219871349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, J.-F., Tjosvold, D., & Shi, K. (2010). Team training in China: Testing and applying the theory of cooperation and competition. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(1), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00565.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311417243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez-Moreno, E., Zornoza, A., Orengo, V., & Thompson, L. F. (2015). The effects of team self-guided training on conflict management in virtual teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 24(5), 905–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9421-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meslec, N., & Curşeu, P. L. (2013). Too close or too far hurts: Cognitive distance and group cognitive synergy. Small Group Research, 44(5), 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413491988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meslec, N., Curşeu, P. L., Meeus, M. T., & Iederan Fodor, O. C. (2014). When none of us perform better than all of us together: The role of analogical decision rules in groups. PLoS One, 9(1), e85232. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2008). Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behavior over time. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1540–1557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2009). Advantages and pitfalls of social interactions in the digital age: Practical recommendations for improving virtual group functioning. In A. T. Heatherton & V. A. Walcott (Eds.), Handbook of social Interactions in the 21st Century (pp. 83–96). Nova Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Miner, F. C. (1984). Group versus individual decision making: An investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(1), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90014-X
   Google Scholar
• Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. P. (1991). Group decision fiascoes continue: Space shuttle Challenger and a revised groupthink framework. Human Relations, 44(6), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679104400601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420080204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012). Motivated information processing in organizational teams: Progress, puzzles, and prospects. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. (2013). Examining the “pros” and “cons” of team conflict: A team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Human Performance, 26(3), 236–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.795573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill, T. A., Hancock, S., McLarnon, M. J. W., & Holland, T. (2020). When the SUIT fits: Constructive controversy training in face‐to‐face and virtual teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 13(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill, T. A., Hoffart, G. C., McLarnon, M. M. J. W., Woodley, H. J., Eggermont, M., Rosehart, W., & Brennan, R. (2017). Constructive controversy and reflexivity training promotes effective conflict profiles and team functioning in student learning teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogelberg, S. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Lowe, C. A. (1992). The stepladder technique: An alternative group structure facilitating effective group decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 730–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.5.730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogelberg, S. G., & O’Connor, M. S. (1998). Extending the stepladder technique: An examination of self-paced stepladder groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(2), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.2.2.82
   Google Scholar
• Schultze, T., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2019). Why dyads heed advice less than individuals do. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(3), 349–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz-Hardt, S., & Mojzisch, A. (2012). How to achieve synergy in group decision making: Lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 305–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2012.744440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skopp, N. A., Workman, D. E., Adler, J. L., & Gahm, G. A. (2015). Analysis of distance collaboration modalities: Alternatives to meeting face-to-face. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(12), 901–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1072786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sniezek, J. A. (1990). A comparison of techniques for judgmental forecasting by groups with common information. Group & Organization Studies, 15(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960119001500102
   Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1467–1478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swaab, R. I., Galinsky, A. D., Medvec, V., & Diermeier, D. A. (2012). The communication orientation model: Explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound, and synchronicity on negotiation and group decision-making outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311417186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Jamovi Project (2.2.3.0). (2021). [Computer software]. https://www.jamovi.org
   Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D. (1985). Implications of controversy research for management. Journal of Management, 11(3), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638501100303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology, 47(3), 285–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1998.tb00025.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D. (2008). Constructive controversy for management education: Developing committed, open-minded researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2008.31413864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W. C., & Field, R. H. G. (1986). Constructive controversy, the Vroom-Yetton model, and managerial decision-making. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030070205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tjosvold, D., Wong, A., Nibler, R., & Pounder, J. S. (2002). Teamwork and controversy in undergraduate management courses in Hong Kong—Can the method reinforce the message? Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1024//1421-0185.61.3.131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toma, C., & Butera, F. (2015). Cooperation versus competition effects on information sharing and use in group decision-making. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(9), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Ven, A., & Delbecq, A. L. (1971). Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 14(2), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/255307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 605–621. https://doi.org/10.5465/255641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte, E. H. (2007). Toward a group facilitation technique for project teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(3), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207078694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar