Integrative Complexity Theoretical Background

Group interaction, like chemical interaction, has elements that often interact synergistically, making the whole greater than the sum of the parts.  Research in the areas of organizational behavior and group dynamics has generally shown that heterogeneity of members typically yields better decisions than homogeneity of members.  This finding is based on the idea that although homogeneity of group members increases solidarity and cohesiveness, ironically it is these same “positive” effects that lead homogeneous groups to be ultimately less productive.

There are several factors that produce this effect.  First, homogeneity creates group cohesiveness (i.e., group members feel united in a common purpose).  While cohesiveness can fuel increased productivity, it is also the foundation for a phenomenon known as “groupthink”, a very destructive group process that results in poor decision-making.  Among the many symptoms of groupthink are the illusion of invulnerability, belief in inherent morality of the group, collective rationalization, self-censorship, illusion of unanimity, and direct pressure on dissenters. At the core of groupthink is the unanimity of opinion, which is created by the initial homogeneity of membership.  It is not surprising that research has shown that groupthink results in lowered integrative complexity.

Second, most group problem-solving tasks can be viewed as divisible conjunctive tasks.  Tasks of this type can be divided into several subtasks, a feature of most everyday group tasks.  For each subtask, the group’s potential productivity depends upon the level of knowledge of the group’s “expert” member for that particular task (i.e., the member whose background, experiences, and perspective are most relevant and useful to draw upon for successful completion of that specific task segment).  For such division of tasks, it is clear that groups whose members have varying strengths to contribute will be greater suited to higher levels of combined performance.  If all the group members have the same background and competency, the group does not perform at a very high level. Demographic heterogeneity increases the likelihood that there is diversity of backgrounds and competencies.

Third, while homogeneity of groups is not likely to produce minority opinions, heterogeneity of groups increases the likelihood of minority influence.  Minority influence refers to the situation in which a few members of the group hold opinions that are very different from those of the majority.  (Thus, "minority" refers to an opinion minority and not an ethnic minority.)  Current research evidence shows that the presence of opinion minorities in groups leads to increased divergent thinking (i.e., to see one’s own point of view from different perspectives).  Because opinion minorities continue to present alternative views and challenge prevailing opinions in the face of social pressure, the majority opinion holders begin to carefully develop, examine and possibly re-think their own arguments.  In short, experimental studies have found group interaction and the dynamics between the divergent perspectives of majority and minority opinion holders to enhance integrative complexity among group.

Going beyond mere diversity of opinion within a group setting, it is not hard to imagine how racial diversity too could affect group interaction in an American context.  A racially diverse group may also be characterized by a divergence in backgrounds, values, attitudes, and experiences that could affect integrative complexity.  Alternatively, group members may presume variance in the attitudes, experiences, and opinions of students in a group situation upon the mere perception of racial diversity, again affecting integrative complexity.  In our proposed study, each of these variables is manipulated.