Cardiovascular reactivity and resistance to opposing viewpoints during intragroup conflict FRANK R. C. de WIT, a DAAN SCHEEPERS, a,b and KAREN A. JEHN c a Institute for Psychological Research, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands b Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden, The Netherlands c Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Abstract This study examined how the outcomes of joint decision making relate to cardiovascular reactions when group members disagree about the decision to be taken. A conflict was experimentally induced during a joint decision-making task, while cardiovascular markers of challenge/threat motivational states were assessed following the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (BPSM; J. Blascovich, 2008). Results show that individuals were less likely to adjust their initially preferred decision alternative the more they exhibited a cardiovascular pattern indicative of threat (i.e., relatively high total peripheral resistance and low cardiac output) compared to challenge. This finding extends the BPSM by showing a link between threat and rigidity, and emphasizes the importance of psychophysiological processes for studying intragroup conflict and decision making. Descriptors: Threat, Conflict, Heart rate, Cardiac output, Anxiety, Total peripheral resistance In situations of joint decision making, people often experience disagreements in which they need to choose between their own standpoint and the standpoint of another group member (e.g., Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995). Jury members, for example, may disagree about whether the accused is guilty or innocent, cabinet members may disagree about the best decision to tackle a crisis, and members of top management teams may disagree about invest- ments that sometimes affect thousands of employees. These disa- greements often become fierce, thereby eliciting physiological reactions such as an elevated heart rate or blood pressure (e.g., Newton & Sanford, 2003). Although it is likely that the type of cardiovascular response is intimately related to how people manage and cope with disagreements, so far psychophysiological processes have received little attention in research on intragroup conflict. To fill this void, the current research examines how the outcomes of joint decision making are affected by physiological reactions during group conflict. Integrating principles from the conflict lit- erature and the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (BPSM; Blascovich, 2008), we propose that the more group members respond to the conflict with a cardiovascular pattern indicative of threat, the more they are likely to act rigidly and stick to their initially preferred opinion. In general, for joint decision making to be effective, it is impor- tant that group members dare to defend their own preferred decision alternative and do not adopt one of the opinions of the other group members too easily (e.g., Janis, 1972). At the same time, group members should be willing to consider other standpoints and, in case of a conflict, refrain from trying to “win” the conflict at all costs (e.g., Fisher & Ury, 1981). Especially the latter seems sometimes difficult: People quickly develop a strong feeling of ownership over their initial standpoint and often in turn perceive criticism on this standpoint as a personal attack (e.g., De Dreu & Van Knippenberg, 2005; Swann, Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004). Group members there- fore tend to respond defensively to criticism; they rigidly hold on to their initial decision alternative and argue for it as a goal in itself, rather than trying to develop an accurate and deeper understanding of the decision at hand (e.g., Brodbeck, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, & Schulz-Hardt, 2007; Greitemeyer & Schulz-Hardt, 2003).This rigidity in holding on to initially preferred decision alternatives is likely to be closely related to a state of threat during the conflict. That is, when individuals are threatened, they tend to become more biased towards information that supports their dominant viewpoint and become more reluctant to make adjustments to initial anchors (e.g., Fischer etal., 2011; Kamphuis, Gaillard, & Vogelaar, 2011; Kassam, Koslov, & Mendes, 2009; Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). Individuals who are relatively threatened by a disagreement may therefore show a relatively strong resistance to opposing stand- points, as well as a tendency to rigidly hold on to initially preferred decision alternatives. To examine whether rigidity and resistance to opposing stand- points during a conflict is indeed linked to threat, in the current research we apply the BPSM (e.g., Blascovich & Mendes, 2010; We thank Thijs Schrama for his technical support and valuable assist- ance with the data analyses and Ursula Hess and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article. Address correspondence to: Frank R. C. de Wit, Leiden University, Institute for Psychological Research, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands. E-mail: FWit@fsw.leidenuniv.nl Psychophysiology, 49 (2012), 1523–1531. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Printed in the USA. Copyright © 2012 Society for Psychophysiological Research DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01456.x 1523