No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Group membership: Who gets to decide?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2016
Abstract
In this commentary, I focus on several problems that the authors' understanding of group identity raises: the legality of avoiding background diversity, the problem of effectively unshareable knowledge, the practical quality of some outcomes arrived at by groups with homogeneous backgrounds, and moral issues about fairness. I note also that much recent research challenges the view that background diversity is more likely to be a detriment than a benefit.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
References
Brownstein, M. & Saul, J. (2015) Introduction. In: Implicit bias and philosophy: Volume I, ed. Brownstein, M. & Saul, J., pp. 1–19. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, D., Ryn, M. v., Dovidio, J. & Saha, S. (2007) Reducing racial bias among health care providers: Lessons from social-cognitive psychology. Journal of General Internal Medicine
22:682–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dovidio, J. F. (2010) The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. SAGE.Google Scholar
Gaertner, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F. (2000) Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Harding, S. G. (2004) The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. Routledge.Google Scholar
Holroyd, J. (2012) Responsibility for implicit bias. Journal of Social Philosophy
43(3):274–306.Google Scholar
Jones, J. M., Dovidio, J. F. & Vietze, D. L. (2014) The psychology of diversity beyond prejudice and racism. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kang, Y., Gray, J. R. & Dovidio, J. F. (2014) The nondiscriminating heart: Lovingkindness meditation training decreases implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
143(3):1306–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratcliffe, S. (2011) Concise Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Oxford University Press,Google Scholar
Schmidt, P. (2015) Campaigns against microaggressions prompt big concerns about free speech. Chronicle of Higher Education
61(41):A8. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Campaigns-Against/231459/.Google Scholar
Target article
Are groups more or less than the sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification
Related commentaries (29)
Beyond old dichotomies: Individual differentiation can occur through group commitment, not despite it
But is it social? How to tell when groups are more than the sum of their members
Considering the role of ecology on individual differentiation
Differentiated selves can surely be good for the group, but let's get clear about why
Differentiated selves help only when identification is strong and tasks are complex
Differentiation of selves: Differentiating a fuzzy concept
Disputing deindividuation: Why negative group behaviours derive from group norms, not group immersion
Group and individual as complementary conceptual categories
Group behavior in the military may provide a unique case
Group effort in resuscitation teams
Group members differ in relative prototypicality: Effects on the individual and the group
Group membership: Who gets to decide?
Groups need selves, but which selves? Dual selves in groups and the downsides of individuation
How group members contribute to group performance: Evidence from agent-based simulations
Humans are not the Borg: Personal and social selves function as components in a unified self-system
Identity matters to individuals: Group assessment cannot be reduced to collective performance
Member differentiation and group tasks: More than meets the eye
Not even wrong: Imprecision perpetuates the illusion of understanding at the cost of actual understanding
Reputational concerns as a general determinant of group functioning
Roles and ranks: The importance of hierarchy for group functioning
Social identification is generally a prerequisite for group success and does not preclude intragroup differentiation
Social, not individual, identification is the key to understanding group phenomena
Solved paradoxes and old hats? The research needed on differentiated selves
Task specificity and the impact on both the individual and group during the formation of groups
The hows and whys of “we” (and “I”) in groups
The subtle effects of incentives and competition on group performance
The unique role of the agent within the romantic group
Vicarious contagion decreases differentiation – and comes with costs
We agree and we disagree, which is exactly what most people do most of the time
Author response
Differentiating selves facilitates group outcomes