ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES Vol. 70, No. 3, June, pp. 199–205, 1997 ARTICLE NO. OB972704 Media Effects and Communication Bias in Diverse Groups Anita D. Bhappu Department of Management and Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 Terri L. Griffith Olin School of Business, Washington University, Campus Box 1133, One Brookings Dr., St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899 and Gregory B. Northcraft Department of Business Administration, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois 61820 There is a clear need to understand how these three This paper extends research on factors influencing trends converge. In this paper, the problems and dy- effective communication in diverse groups. The effects namics of communication in diverse groups are exam- of social group membership on attention and influence ined with a focus on the effects of different communica- were examined using 17 groups of three men and three tion media (specifically face-to-face discussions versus women. Each group discussed a controversial topic two forms of discussion using electronic group support). face-to-face or using either an anonymous or an identi- Groups are not simply organizational arrangements fied group support system environment. Social group for doing work. Groups are also social configurations membership biased both attention and influence; these through which individuals make sense of their social effects were eliminated when discussions were con- ducted electronically—even when social group mem- environment (Tajfel, 1978). In diverse organizations, bership of participants was identifiable in the group membership occurs at many different levels, in- electronic media.  1997 Academic Press cluding social characteristics (e.g., gender, race, reli- gion, marital status) and organizational structure (e.g., taskforce, team, workgroup, department). Affiliation The growing diversity of the American workforce— with or membership in a group—at any level—can con- specifically, growing proportions of women and ethnic tribute to an individual’s social identity, “that part of minorities (Workforce 2000, 1987)—highlights the im- an individual’s self-concept which derives from his portance of effective social and cultural integration knowledge of his membership in a social group (or within organizations. At the same time, many corpora- groups) together with the value and emotional signifi- tions are emphasizing the use of groups and teams to cance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1978, p. execute projects and make decisions, often in order to 63). Social identity leads individuals to act in concert exploit the potential information sharing, mutual influ- with, as representatives of, or in support of their group. ence, and cross-fertilization of ideas offered in group Social identity exerts pressure on individuals to con- settings (e.g., Lawler et al., 1992; Northcraft et al., form to the norms and values of their group (i.e., the 1995). These changes in organizations and the ways in-group) in order to affirm their membership. Further, that organizations do business heightens the impor- the salience of an in-group should tend to increase an tance of communication skills and communication me- individual’s motivation to expend effort to try to estab- dia in the workplace (Poole et al., 1993). Meanwhile lish group worth in a situation that poses a potential the expanding horizons of information technology are threat to ability to view the group positively (James & continually providing new technologies (e.g., group sup- Greenberg, 1989, p. 605). These two desires, (1) to con- port systems, E-mail, fax, video conferencing) to help tinually reaffirm group membership and (2) to establish mediate and enhance organizational communication. and maintain positive group identity when compared to an opposing group (i.e., the out-group), lead to in- Address reprint requests and correspondence to Professor Gregory group bias—competition and discrimination against B. Northcraft, Department of Business Administration, 1206 S. Sixth Street, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL 61820. out-groups and favoritism toward the in-group (Mugny 199 0749-5978/97 $25.00 Copyright  1997 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.