When (Non)Differences Make a Difference: The Roles of Demographic Diversity and Ideological Homogeneity in Overcoming Ideologically Biased Decision Making

References

• Alpert L, Atkins BM, Ziller RC (1979) Becoming judge: The transition from advocate to arbiter. Judicature 62(7):325–336.Google Scholar
• Althusser L (1994) Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes toward an investigation). Zizek S, ed. Mapping Ideology (Verso, New York), 100–140.Google Scholar
• Amira K, Wright JC, Goya-Tocchetto D (2021) In-group love vs. out-group hate: Which is more important to partisans and when? Political Behav. 43(2):473–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Antonio AL, Chang MJ, Hakuta K, Kenny DA, Levin S, Milem JF (2004) Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psych. Sci. 15(8):507–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Apfelbaum EP, Phillips KW, Richeson JA (2014) Rethinking the baseline in diversity research: Should we be explaining the effects of homogeneity? Perspectives Psych. Sci. 9(3):235–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bai H, Mitchell G, Tetlock PE (2019) Political attitudes, cognitive style, and political persuasion. Yale Day of Data 6. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/dayofdata/2018/posters/6.Google Scholar
• Baker‐Brown G, Ballard EJ, Bluck S, De Vries B, Suedfeld P, Tetlock PE (1992) The conceptual/integrative complexity scoring manual. Smith CP, Atkinson JW, McLelland DC, Veroff J, eds. Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis (Cambridge University Press, New York), 401–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron J, Jost JT (2019) False equivalence: Are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased? Perspectives Psych. Sci. 14(2):292–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baum L (2006) Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Bezrukova K, Jehn KA, Spell CS (2012) Reviewing diversity training: Where we have been and where we should go. Acad. Management Learn. Edu. 11(2):207–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blumer H (1998) Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Hughey MW, ed. New Tribalisms: The Resurgence of Race and Ethnicity (New York University Press, New York), 31–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyd CL, Epstein L, Martin AD (2010) Untangling the causal effect of sex on judging. Amer. J. Political Sci. 54(2):389–411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brewer MB (1979) In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psych. Bull. 86(2):307–324.Google Scholar
• Carlson KD, Wu J (2012) The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organ. Res. Methods 15(3):413–435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Catalyst (2020) Women on corporate boards: Quick take. Accessed July 5, 2021, https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-on-corporate-boards/.Google Scholar
• Chatman JA, Polzer JT, Barsdale SG, Neale MA (1998) Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Admin. Sci. Quart. 43(4):749–780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen FF, Kenrick DT (2002) Repulsion or attraction? Group membership and assumed attitude similarity. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 83(1):111–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chin MK, Semadeni M (2017) CEO political ideologies and pay egalitarianism within top management teams. Strategic Management J. 38(8):1608–1625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chow D, Semadeni M (2022) Why political diversity is important for corporate leadership teams: And what you can do to facilitate this. Working paper, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.Google Scholar
• Cohn MA, Mehl MR, Pennebaker JW (2004) Linguistic markers of psychological change surrounding September 11, 2001. Psych. Sci. 15(10):687–693.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conway LG III, Conway KR, Gornick LJ, Houck SC (2014) Automated integrative complexity. Political Psych. 35(5):603–624.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conway LG III, Gornick LJ, Houck SC, Anderson C, Stockert J, Sessoms D, McCue K (2016) Are conservatives really more simple‐minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking. Political Psych. 37(6):777–798.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cox AB, Miles TJ (2008) Judging the voting rights act. Columbia Law Rev. 108(1):1–54.Google Scholar
• Cox T, Lobel S, McLeod P (1991) Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Acad. Management J. 34(4):827–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cross F, Tiller E (1998) Judicial partisanship and obedience to legal doctrine: Whistleblowing on the federal courts of appeal. Yale Law J. 107:2155–2176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daily CM, Johnson JL, Ellstrand AE, Dalton DR (1998) Compensation committee composition as a determinant of CEO compensation. Acad. Management J. 41(2):209–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• David B, Turner JC (1996) Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion: Is being a member of the out-group an advantage? British J. Soc. Psych. 35(1):179–199.Google Scholar
• Deloitte (2011) Only Skin Deep? Re-Examining the Business Case for Diversity (Deloitte, Australia).Google Scholar
• Ditto PH, Liu BS, Clark CJ, Wojcik SP, Chen EE, Grady RH, Celniker JB, et al. (2019) At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives Psych. Sci. 14(2):273–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edwards HT (2003) The effects of collegiality on judicial decision making. University Pennsylvania Law Rev. 151(5):1639–1690.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epstein L, Knight J (2013) Reconsidering judicial preferences. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 16:11–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epstein L, Landes WM, Posner RA (2011) Why (and when) judges dissent. J. Legal Anal. 3(1):101–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epstein L, Landes WM, Posner RA (2013) The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical & Empirical Study of Rational Choice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Epstein L, Martin AD, Segal JA, Westerland C (2007) The judicial common space. J. Law Econom. Organ. 23(2):303–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Esser JK (1998) Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 73(2):116–141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farhang S, Wawro G (2004) Institutional dynamics on the U.S. courts of appeals: Minority representation under panel decision making. J. Law Econom. Organ. 20(2):299–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Festinger L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaertner SL, Dovidio JF (2000) Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model (Psychology Press, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
• Gaertner SL, Dovidio JF, Anastasio PA, Bachman BA, Rust MC (1993) The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psych. 4(1):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gardikiotis A (2011) Minority influence. Soc. Personality Psych. Compendium 5(9):679–693.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giles MW, Hettinger VA, Peppers T (2001) Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas. Political Res. Quart. 54(3):623–641.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gramzow RH, Gaertner L (2005) Self-esteem and favoritism toward novel in-groups: The self as an evaluative base. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 88(5):801–815.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gramzow RH, Gaertner L, Sedikides S (2001) Memory for in-group and out-group information in a minimal group context: The self as an informational base. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 80(2):188–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green D, Palmquist B, Schickler E (2002) Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Greenberg J (1986) Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. J. Appl. Psych. 71(2):340–342.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gruenfeld DH (1995) Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 68(1):5–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gruenfeld DH, Hollingshead AB (1993) Sociocognition in workgroups: The evolution of group integrative complexity and its relation to task performance. Small Group Res. 24(3):383–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haire SB, Moyer LP (2015) Diversity Matters: Judicial Policy Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals (University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville).Google Scholar
• Hall MEK (2009) Experimental justice: Random judicial assignment and the partisan process of Supreme Court review. Amer. Political Res. 37(2):195–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall MEK (2010) Randomness reconsidered: Modeling random judicial assignment in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. J. Empirical Legal Stud. 7(3):574–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC (2007) Upper echelons theory: An update. Acad. Management Rev. 32(2):334–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP (1998) Beyond relational demography: Time and effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Acad. Management J. 41(1):96–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JA, Florey AT (2002) Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Acad. Management J. 45(5):1029–1045.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harvey OJ, Hunt DE, Schroder HM (1961) Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Hellevik O (2009) Linear vs. logistic regression when the dependent variable is a dichotomy. Qual. Quant. 43(1):59–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herring C (2009) Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74(2):208–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hettinger VA, Lindquist SA, Martinek WL (2006) Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making (University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville).Google Scholar
• Higgins ET, Molden DC, Bodenhausen GV, Lambert AJ, eds. (2003) How strategies for making judgments and decisions affect cognition: Motivated cognition revisited. Foundations of Social Cognition (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ), 211–235.Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ (2015) Board diversity: Beginning to unpeel the onion. Corporate Governance 23(2):104–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hinsz V, Tindale S, Vollrath D (1997) The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psych. Bull. 121(1):43–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoobler JM, Masterson CR, Nkomo SM, Michel EJ (2018) The business case for women leaders: Meta-analysis, research critique, and path forward. J. Management 44(6):2473–2499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Houck SC, Conway LG III (2019) Strategic communication and the integrative complexity-ideology relationship: Meta-analytic findings reveal differences between public politicians and private citizens in their use of simple rhetoric. Political Psych. 40(5):1119–1141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Houck SC, Conway LG III, Gornick LJ (2014) Automated integrative complexity: Current challenges and future directions. Political Psych. 35(5):647–659.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hudson S, Gonsalez-Gomez HV, Claasen C (2019) Legitimacy, particularism and employee commitment and justice. J. Bus. Ethics 157(3):589–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyengar S, Krupenkin M (2018) The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psych. 39(S1):201–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyengar S, Lelkes Y, Levendusky M, Malhotra N, Westwood SJ (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 22:129–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jackson LA, Sullivan LA, Harnish R, Hodge CN (1996) Achieving positive social identity: Social mobility, social creativity, and permeability of group boundaries. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 70(2):241–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janis IL (1972) Victims of Groupthink (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).Google Scholar
• Janis IL (1982) Groupthink, 2nd ed. (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).Google Scholar
• Jost JT (2004) Political Psychology (Routledge, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jost JT (2006) The end of ideology. Amer. Psych. 61(7):651–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jost JT (2021) Left and Right: The Psychological Significant of a Political Distinction (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Jost JT, Federico CM, Napier JL (2009a) Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annu. Rev. Psych. 60:307–337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jost JT, Nosek BA, Gosling SD (2008) Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Personality Psych. Sci. 3(2):126–136.Google Scholar
• Jost JT, Sterling J, Stern C (2017) Getting closure on conservatism, or the politics of epistemic and existential motivation. Kopetz C, Fishbach A, eds. The Motivation-Cognition Interface: From the Laboratory to the Real World: A Festschrift in Honor of Arie W. Kruglanski (Psychology Press, New York), 56–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jost JT, Glaser J, Kruglanski AW, Sulloway F (2003) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psych. Bull. 129(3):339–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jost JT, Krochik M, Gaucher D, Hennes EP (2009b) Can a psychological theory of ideological differences explain contextual variability in the contents of political attitudes? Psych. Inquiry 20:183–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahan DM, Landrum A, Carpenter K, Helft L, Jamieson KH (2017) Science curiosity and political information processing. Adv. Political Psych. 38(1):179–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kastellec JP (2011) Panel composition and voting on the United States courts of appeals over time. Political Res. Quart. 64(2):377–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kastellec JP (2013) Racial diversity and judicial influence on appellate courts. Amer. J. Political Sci. 57(1):167–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim P (1997) Strategic timing in group negotiations: The implications of forced entry and forced exit for negotiators with unequal power. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 71(3):263–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psych. Bull. 108(3):480–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leventhal GS (1980) What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. Greenberg M, Willis R, eds. Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research (Plenum Press, New York), 27–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mannix E, Neale M (2005) What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psych. Public Interest 6(2):31–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marks J, Copland E, Loh E, Sunstein CR, Sharot T (2019) Epistemic spillovers: Learning others’ political views reduces the ability to assess and use their expertise in nonpolitical domains. Cognition 188:74–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Management Rev. 20:709–734.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGuire WJ (1985) Attitudes and attitude change. Aronson G, Aronson E, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2 (Random House, New York), 233–346.Google Scholar
• McSweeney J, McSweeney K, Oliver AG, Park UD (2019) Board diversity: How board values and discretion impact the appointment of female directors. Acad. Management Proc., vol. 1 (Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY), 12992.Google Scholar
• Milkman KL, Chugh D, Bazerman MH (2009) How can decision making be improved? Personality Psych. Sci. 4(4):379–383.Google Scholar
• Miller SL, Maner JK, Becker DV (2010) Self-protective biases in group categorization: Threat cues shape the psychological boundary between “us” and “them.” J. Personality Soc. Psych. 99(1):62–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morgan GS, Mullen E, Skitka LJ (2010) When values and attributions collide: Liberals’ and conservatives’ values motivate attributions for alleged misdeeds. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 36:1241–1254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Napier JL, Jost JT (2008) Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psych. Sci. 19:565–572.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nguyen CT (2020) Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme 17(2):141–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Rourke HP, MacKinnon DP (2018) Reasons for testing mediation in the absence of an intervention effect: A research imperative in prevention and intervention research. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 79(2):171–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pearce JL, Imre B, Bigly GA (2000) Insufficient bureaucracy: Trust and commitment in particularistic organizations. Organ. Sci. 11(2):148–162.Link, Google Scholar
• Pennebaker JW, Boyd RL, Jordan K, Blackburn K (2015) The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015 (University of Texas at Austin, Austin).Google Scholar
• Phillips KW (2003) The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 29(1):3–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips KW (2014) How diversity works. Scientific American (October), https://www.scientificamerican.com/index.cfm/_api/render/file/?method=inline&fileID=9F4FCDB9-A5B3-40AB-A9A525FDC71156AB.Google Scholar
• Phillips KW, Northcraft GB, Neale MA (2006) Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help? Intergroup Relations 9(4):467–482.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips KW, Duguid M, Thomas-Hunt M, Uparna J (2013) Diversity as knowledge exchange: The roles of information processing, expertise, and status. Roberson QM, ed. Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 157–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Redlawsk DP, Civettini AJW, Emmerson KM (2010) The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”? Political Psych. 31(4):563–593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reuters (2021) U.S. markets regulator approves Nasdaq proposal to require corporate board diversity. Accessed May 9, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-markets-regulator-approves-nasdaq-proposal-require-corporate-board-diversity-2021-08-06/.Google Scholar
• Richeson JA, Ambady N (2001) Who’s in charge? Effects of situational roles on automatic gender bias. Sex Roles 44(9–10):493–512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riek BM, Mania EW, Gaertner SL (2006) Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 10(4):336–353.Google Scholar
• Rucker DD, Galinsky AD, Magee JC (2018) The agentic-communal model of advantage and disadvantage: How inequality produces similarities in the psychology of power, social class, gender, and race. Zanna MP, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 58 (Academic Press, New York), 71–125.Google Scholar
• Schroder HM, Driver MJ, Streufert S (1967) Human Information Processing (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York).Google Scholar
• Simons HW, Berkowitz NN, Moyer RJ (1970) Similarity, credibility, and attitude change: A review and a theory. Psych. Bull. 73(1):1–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Solomon BC, Hall MEK, Muir CP (2022) When and why bias suppression is difficult to sustain: The asymmetric effect of intermittent accountability. Acad. Management J. 65(5):1450–1476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sommers SR (2006) On racial diversity and group decision-making: Identifying multiple effects of racial diversity on jury deliberations. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 90(4):597–612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sommers SR, Warp LS, Mahoney CC (2008) Cognitive effects of racial diversity: White individuals’ information processing in heterogeneous groups. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 44(5):1129–1136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spriggs JF, Hansford TG (2000) Measuring legal change: The reliability and validity of Shepard’s citations. Political Res. Quart. 53(2):327–341.Google Scholar
• Suedfeld P (1985) APA presidential addresses: The relation of integrative complexity to historical, professional, and personal factors. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 49(6):1643–1651.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suedfeld P (1992) Cognitive managers and their critics. Political Psych. 13(3):435–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suedfeld P, Tetlock PE (1991) Psychological advice about political decision making: Heuristics, biases, and cognitive defects. Suedfeld P, Tetlock PE, eds. Psychology and Social Policy (Hemisphere, New York), 51–70.Google Scholar
• Suedfeld P, Corteen RS, McCormick C (1986) The role of integrative complexity in military leadership: Robert E. Lee and his opponents. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 16(6):498–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sunstein CR, Schkade D, Ellman LM, Sawicki A (2006) Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary (Brookings, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Swigart KL, Anantharaman A, Williamson JA, Gradey AA (2020) Working while liberal/conservative: A review of political ideology in organizations. J. Management 46(6):1063–1091.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tadmor CT, Tetlock PE (2007) Integrative complexity. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, eds. Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 486.Google Scholar
• Tajfel H (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Austin WG, Worchel S, eds. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Brooks-Cole, Monterey, CA), 33–47.Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner J (1986) The social identity of intergroup behavior. Worchel S, Austin W, eds. Psychology and Intergroup Relations (Nelson-Hall, Chicago), 7–24.Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE (1981) Pre- to post-election shifts presidential rhetoric: Impression management or cognitive adjustment? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 41(2):207–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE (1983) Cognitive style and political ideology. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 45(1):118–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE (1986) A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 50(4):819–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE (1992) The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Zanna MP, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25 (Academic Press, New York), 331–376.Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE, Kim JI (1987) Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 52(4):700–709.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE, Bernzweig J, Gallant JL (1985) Supreme Court decision making: Cognitive style as a predictor of ideological consistency of voting. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 48(5):1227–1239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE, Hannum KA, Micheletti PM (1984) Stability and change in the complexity of senatorial debate: Testing the cognitive vs. rhetorical style hypotheses. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 46(5):979–990.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE, Peterson RS, Berry JM (1993) Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 64(3):500–511.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner JC (1991) Social Influence (Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA).Google Scholar
• Turner ME, Pratkanis AR (1998) Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: Lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 73(2–3):105–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner JC, Oakes PJ, Haslam SA, McGarty CA (1994) Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 20(5):454–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Blackwell, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021) Labor force statistics from the current population survey. Accessed July 5, 2021, https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm.Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg D, Mell JN (2016) Past, present, and potential future of team diversity research: From compositional diversity to emergent diversity. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 136:135–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg D, Schippers M (2007) Work group diversity. Annu. Rev. Psych. 58:515–541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CKW, Homan AC (2004) Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. J. Appl. Psych. 89:1008–1022.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wald PM (1987) Some thoughts on judging as gleaned from one hundred years of the Harvard Law Review and other great books. Harvard Law Rev. 100:887–908.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams K, O’Reilly CA (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Staw BM, Cummings LL, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), 77–140.Google Scholar
• Winter DJ (2007) The role of motivation, responsibility, and integrative complexity in crisis escalation: Comparative studies of war and peace crises. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 92(5):920–937.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Withers MC, Hillman AJ, Cannella AA (2012) A multidisciplinary review of the director selection literature. J. Management 38(1):243–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wittenbaum G, Hubbell A, Zuckerman C (1999) Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 77(5):967–978.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wong EM, Ormiston ME, Tetlock PE (2011) The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Acad. Management J. 54(6):1207–1228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wood W, Lundgren S, Ouellete JA, Busceme S, Blackstone T (1994) Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psych. Bull. 115(3):323–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Waldman D, Han Y, Li X (2015) Paradoxical leader behavior in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Acad. Management J. 58(2):538–566.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhu DH, Shen W, Hillman AJ (2014) Recategorization into the in-group: The appointment of demographically different new directors and their subsequent positions on corporate boards. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(2):240–27.Crossref, Google Scholar