The intragroup attitudes of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community are examined. A general overview of heterosexuals’ views about LGBT persons is considered before reviewing past research on intragroup attitudes that may exist within the LGBT community. Since little work has been done in this area, to fill gaps in the literature a study of 533 self-identified LGBT individuals was conducted to assess attitudes towards each specific subgroup (lesbian, gay male, bisexual male, bisexual female, male-to-female transgender, and female-to-male transgender) of the LGBT community. Several variables, including group identification, perceived stigma, outness, and contact, were examined as predictors intragroup attitudes. Results indicated that predictors of attitudes differed by subgroup. Implications of the results are discussed, including limitations and directions for future work.

How does the status of a group influence the behavior of individuals within the group? This dissertation aims to answer this question by investigating the psychological and behavioral implications of membership in high- versus low-status groups, with a primary focus on the impact of membership in a high-status group. I propose that membership in high-status groups leads to self-oriented intragroup behavior, behavior that best suits members’ own interests regardless of the impact on group outcomes. In five studies, I test this idea and examine the psychological mechanism underlying this effect. The first three studies find that membership in a high-status group (a) decreases the resources allocated for the group as members attempt to ensure personal gain; (b) lowers the preference for a competent newcomer who may enhance group outcome but who may jeopardize personal gains; and (c) reduces the amount of voluntary information sharing during group negotiations, hindering group outcomes. The findings also reveal that reducing the conflict between group and personal interests via cooperative incentives encourages group-oriented behavior in high-status groups. The next two studies conceptually replicate these findings focusing on members’ information withholding – self-oriented behavior designed to prevent other in-group members from outperforming them. Specifically, results reveal that high-status group-membership increases intentional withholding of information, which in turn impairs group outcomes. However, this damaging pattern of intragroup behavior triggered by membership in a high-status group is alleviated when group members are led to believe that their group status is at stake. Taken together, this dissertation provides converging evidence that membership in high-status groups increases emphasis on personal interests within the group and that these concerns manifest in intragroup behavior that is distinct from that triggered by membership in low-status groups. The findings illuminate how the status of a group might shape the ways that members interact with other in-group members, as well as document the potential micro- and meso-level mechanisms through which status differences among social groups persist and change.

To date, procedural justice research has paid little attention to how people react to procedural discrimination (favoring self vs. favoring other), that is, how people react when they and the others are treated with different procedures. To fill this gap in the procedural justice literature and advance our understanding in this area, the current thesis presents an analysis of how reactions to procedural discrimination are qualified by the group membership and intragroup position (ingroup prototypicality and intragroup status) of the parties involved in intragroup and intergroup contexts. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that in an intergroup context, as group members perceive ingroup bias as legitimate, they react more positively when they are favored over an outgroup member than when an outgroup member is favored over them. In particular, because group members perceive the ingroup authority to be more related to them, their reactions to favoring self as opposed to favoring other procedures are stronger when the authority is an ingroup member than when the authority is an outgroup member. Studies 3 to 5 showed that in an intragroup context, peripheral members, who are highly concerned about group acceptance, perceive a high level of illegitimacy and react particularly negatively when a prototypical member is favored over them. On the other hand, prototypical members paired with a prototypical or peripheral member, and peripheral members paired with another peripheral member react similarly to procedural discrimination whether it favors them or the other group member. Studies 6 and 7 also focused on the intragroup context. These studies revealed that when high status group members are favored over a low status member, if they perceive the status difference as legitimate, they perceive relatively high levels of procedural legitimacy and procedural fairness, and report a relatively low level of negative affect. On the other hand, when low status group members are discriminated against in favor of a high status counterpart, they report a relatively high level of negative affect even if they perceive the status difference as legitimate and think that the favoring other procedure is relatively legitimate and fair. Taken together, the current program of studies reveals that depending on group membership or intragroup position, group members may react differently to favoring self as opposed to favoring other procedures. Furthermore, affective reactions to the procedures may not be consistent with cognitive judgments of the procedures. The research also reveals that the influence of group membership and intragroup position on reactions to procedural discrimination can be conceptualized in terms of sensitivity to procedural information (Proposition 1) and perceived procedural legitimacy (Proposition 2), suggesting that the group-value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988) and the social identity perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1985; Turner et al., 1987; for a review, see Hogg, 2005, 2006) can help explain reactions to procedural discrimination. In conclusion, the current thesis makes significant contribution to the procedural justice literature.

The thesis aims to explore the effect of team dynamics on team and organisational outcomes. Dynamics is a broad term that encompasses all the processes and attitudes that exist between team members and influence the direction of team's performance. Trust, conflict and behavioural integration comprise psychological facets of teamwork and are amongst the most common dynamics of a team. The current study aims to shed light on the perceptions of board members about the level of conflict, trust and behavioural integration during board meetings, which comprise the most critical forum of the group. Trust, conflict and behavioural integration are the primary attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions that arise within the board and encompass the core aspects of teamwork. There is a gap in the literature for examining the role of social-psychological processes and interactions between the board members because access to the boardroom is difficult and the researchers are forced to turn their attention on secondary data and proxies for board behaviors. Although that board of directors is an upper echelons group of executives who can ensure the long-term survival of the organisations, there is scarce of research in studying boards from a team perspective. Until today, we have limited knowledge of team processes, such as conflict, both inside the boardrooms and in the context of strategy implementation. The literature review in this thesis is drawn from multiple disciplines, including management, psychology and sociology, which enable us to gain a deep understanding of team's dynamics. The methodology has been based on a positivist approach since the focus is centered around the data collection process and the statistical interpretation of the findings. Primary data was collected from board members in Nordic countries, namely Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland and Norway. The data was collected with the use of survey method and the findings are based on 186 usable responses. The Nordic corporate governance model remains still the less known outside the Nordic region (Thomsen, 2016) but this thesis postulates that valuable lessons can emanate from its study. The study of the Nordic model could give us useful lessons for the roles of the board and the structure of their organisations. The statistical analysis of the model involved: Descriptive Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factory Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The results of this thesis provide theoretical and managerial recommendations for achieving superior board performance. The importance of the role of the Behavioural Integration inside the boardroom is underlined as a significant finding of this study. Moreover, the role of Trust in the board context raises some important questions about its priority since there may be other processes or dynamics which present more clear-cut results on board effectiveness. Furthermore, the deleterious effects of conflict have been underlined. It is also underlined that in this competitive era boards should go beyond fiduciary responsibilities to a more strategic role on a broader range of matters With the exception of a few studies, researchers still to move inside the "black box" of the upper echelons processes and understand how the executives in the board interact. Building a strong board of directors requires a focus beyond demographic characteristics to board interactions. The most effective boards have the strongest board dynamics and are characterized by openness, teamness and collaborative behaviour. The power of the board comes from the ability of the directors to effectively work together and hopefully the current study contributes substantially to the corporate governance field and the way that team processes affect team outcomes.

Cross-functional teams are becoming increasingly common in organisations. However, a large proportion of these teams fail to meet their full potential as social and productive units. The present research was conducted under the assumption that a cross-functional team involves simultaneous intragroup and intergroup contact. The failure of cross-functional teams often involves the neglect of normal social psychological processes that occur in intergroup contexts that may potentially be employed to increase the likelihood of success with cross-functional teams. The social identity theory approach to intergroup relations was used to formulate two identity management strategies intended to improve the functioning of a cross-functional team. One strategy involved social interaction within an intragroup social frame. The intragroup aspect was apparent in that there was no outgroup present, with participants operating at the intergroup level of psychological processing after exposure to (successful) pre-task manipulations intended to facilitate acceptance of the task group social identity. The intragroup identity management process required increasing pre-task salience of the task group social identity, absence of any outgroup, wearing a team uniform, and performance of an intellectually challenging problem solving as a group. A second identity management process was based in an intergroup social frame. The intergroup procedure involved pre-task manipulation of social identity, wearing of a team uniform, and performance of a physically and intellectually involving problem solving task in a competitive intergroup social frame. Two separate studies were performed. In Study one, 110 university students were randomly assigned to 'mono-functional' teams (teams with no obvious basis for internal intergroup differentiation). The relative efficacy of either of the two identity management processes was assessed with regards to changes in social identity, subjective uncertainty, conceptualisation of the aggregate, similarity, heterogeneity, effort, and trust. Pre-post within groups differences were analysed Improving functioning of cross-functional teams by repeated measures ANOVA. Between groups differences were analysed with ANCOVA. The results indicated both identity management strategies resulted in improved team functioning. In general, neither strategy was notably superior to the other, however there was less subjective uncertainty reported by participants from the intragroup condition than those from the intergroup condition due to the effect of losing the competition. Participants from losing teams also became more aware of 'subgroups within the single group' than those from the intragroup condition. Participants from the intergroup condition were less likely to think of themselves as separate individuals than participants from the intragroup condition. The social identity theory approach to intergroup relations was useful for interpreting the results as well as developing the two strategies which suggests SIT/SCT provide a potentially useful conceptual base from which to develop team building processes in mono-functional teams. In study 2, 110 university students were assigned to cross-functional teams (composite task groups containing three academic subgroups). The identity management processes used in Study one were extended by drawing participant attention to the presence of subgroups within the cross-functional teams. The intragroup process involved pre-task manipulation of social identity, wearing uniforms which denoted both task group and subgroup membership, and performance of an intellectually challenging problem solving task which was performed with out an outgroup present. The intergroup identity management strategy involved pre-task manipulation of social identity, performance of a physically and intellectually involving problem solving task requiring integration of subgroup knowledge and inter-functional cooperation within a competitive intergroup context. As in the intragroup condition, participants were made aware of the social complexity of the task group through their uniforms. Participants responded differently to the two identity management processes, with the intergroup strategy proving more beneficial than the intragroup strategy. The intragroup process was marked by non-significant pre-post differences, indicating neither Improving functioning of cross-functional teams a marked improvement nor decline in group functioning. In contrast, participants from the intergroup condition reported results indicating increased post-task self-definition with the cross-functional team, increased trust, and higher effort. Losing the competition did not impact on post-task levels of any dependent variable with the exception of subjective uncertainty, where 'winners' reported less uncertainty than 'losers'. The intergroup condition gave rise to the most potential perceived 'distinctiveness threat'; however there was no sign of any threat across the array of dependent variables. Therefore it can be suggested that the intergroup identity management strategy provided some protection to the cross-functional team from the negative impact of inter-functional distinctiveness threat. All results could be explained with recourse to the concepts of SIT/SCT which suggests social identity theory has utility for interpreting results as well as developing team building processes in cross-functional teams. Future research in cross-functional team settings would benefit from the development of comprehensive measures of uncertainty, status, and heterogeneity with item content drawn from social identity and self-categorisation theories.

To better understand the impact of task conflict in work teams, an incremental, multi-level model is developed, which distinguishes individual-level perceptions of conflict from more overt group-level manifestations of conflict. Task conflict is conceptualized as being detrimental for teams only to the extent that it positively predicts relationship conflict. The positive relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict is referred to as conflict spillover. The composition of team members’ underlying beliefs concerning the functional value of task conflict (referred to as conflict values) is examined as a moderator of conflict spillover. It is proposed that perceptual conflict spillover is smaller among team members who hold positive conflict values, and that manifest conflict spillover is smaller among teams composed primarily of members who hold positive conflict values. Hypotheses were tested in a longitudinal study of 59 student teams (294 individuals). At the team level, the diversity of team members’ conflict values was found to moderate manifest conflict spillover, such that the association between task and relationship conflict was significantly positive for teams composed of members who held more diverse conflict values. For teams composed of members who had less diverse conflict values, there was no significant association between manifest task conflict and manifest relationship conflict. As a result of these significant differences in conflict spillover, manifest task conflict indirectly and negatively predicted the task performance and viability of teams containing more diverse conflict values, but did not significantly impact the effectiveness of teams with less diverse conflict values. At the individual level, the significant positive association between perceived task conflict and perceived relationship conflict was not moderated by individual conflict values. However, because of this perceptual conflict spillover, task conflict perceptions also indirectly and negatively predicted team members’ personal willingness to continue working in the team. Results of this dissertation highlight important differences in the ways that conflict operates at the individual and group levels. Having identified the diversity of conflict values as a moderator of manifest conflict spillover, this dissertation outlines areas for further academic and practical knowledge development concerning the prevention of dysfunctional team dynamics.

To better understand the impact of task conflict in work teams, an incremental, multi-level model is developed, which distinguishes individual-level perceptions of conflict from more overt group-level manifestations of conflict. Task conflict is conceptualized as being detrimental for teams only to the extent that it positively predicts relationship conflict. The positive relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict is referred to as conflict spillover. The composition of team members’ underlying beliefs concerning the functional value of task conflict (referred to as conflict values) is examined as a moderator of conflict spillover. It is proposed that perceptual conflict spillover is smaller among team members who hold positive conflict values, and that manifest conflict spillover is smaller among teams composed primarily of members who hold positive conflict values. Hypotheses were tested in a longitudinal study of 59 student teams (294 individuals). At the team level, the diversity of team members’ conflict values was found to moderate manifest conflict spillover, such that the association between task and relationship conflict was significantly positive for teams composed of members who held more diverse conflict values. For teams composed of members who had less diverse conflict values, there was no significant association between manifest task conflict and manifest relationship conflict. As a result of these significant differences in conflict spillover, manifest task conflict indirectly and negatively predicted the task performance and viability of teams containing more diverse conflict values, but did not significantly impact the effectiveness of teams with less diverse conflict values. At the individual level, the significant positive association between perceived task conflict and perceived relationship conflict was not moderated by individual conflict values. However, because of this perceptual conflict spillover, task conflict perceptions also indirectly and negatively predicted team members’ personal willingness to continue working in the team. Results of this dissertation highlight important differences in the ways that conflict operates at the individual and group levels. Having identified the diversity of conflict values as a moderator of manifest conflict spillover, this dissertation outlines areas for further academic and practical knowledge development concerning the prevention of dysfunctional team dynamics.

College is a time marked by a significant level of stress, especially for Latina students. One of the changes that often occurs during an individual's time in college involves one's gender role beliefs, shifting from traditional gender role beliefs to more liberal beliefs. Though a great deal of research has been done to show that college attendance plays an important role in the liberalization of gender role beliefs, little is known about this relationship for Latina students. This is particularly problematic as Latina students face unique challenges on the college campus, including issues relating to acculturation. Because the Latino cultural norms often dictate women to be dependent on their family, a move towards nontraditionalism can create family conflict and intragroup marginalization, both of which can contribute to psychosocial distress in ethnic minority groups. As Latina students face unique educational challenges, and may develop family conflicts, a supportive academic environment may serve to buffer some negative effects. This study conceptualizes this supportive environment as "academic families" which foster family like relationships in the college setting. This study examined the relationships between gender role beliefs, family conflict, family intragroup marginalization, academic family support, and psychosocial distress among a sample of 170 Latina college students to get a clearer picture of how changing gender roles impact this population. A statistically significant relationship was found between gender role beliefs and family intragroup marginalization, as well as between gender role beliefs and family conflict, though different from initially hypothesized. A statistically significant relationship was also found between family conflict and psychosocial distress, though academic family support was not shown to moderate this relationship. Implications for researchers and educators are also discussed.

none

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(経済学) / 甲第22717号 / 経博第620号 / 新制||経||294(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院経済学研究科経済学専攻 / (主査)教授 関口 倫紀, 教授 若林 直樹, 教授 椙山 泰生 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Economics / Kyoto University / DGAM