The Impact of Status and Brainstorming in Participation in Small Group Deliberations

Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)


Scenario planning first gained traction within corporations as an energy transition management tool, but recently gained popularity within sustainability. It is a process for exploring potential futures and thinking critically about complex decisions that involve high degrees of uncertainty. It is also effective in shifting mental models and engaging diverse stakeholders, making it ideal for complex sustainability problems. Scenario-planning insights are typically used in strategic planning, further aligning with sustainability’s commitments to action-oriented solutions. However, as a participative process, success hinges on equitable participant engagement that is threatened by power imbalance. The current pilot study uses an experimental design to explore the impact of explicit acknowledgement of status differential and pre-event brainstorming on participation in a small group task. The task was selected based on its parallels to scenario-planning interactions. Twenty-four triads engaged in group deliberation while wearing devices that gather data to measure interactions. Afterward, participants completed a participation perception survey. Despite the popularity of brainstorming, results of the pilot study point to the utility of status concealment over individual-level brainstorming to bolster participation. Ultimately, this work contributes to a more nuanced understanding of participation in service of more robust, pluralistic sustainability decision-making.



Acknowledgements to David Lovis-McMahon and Camille Basilio for their support with the statistical analysis of this data.


  1. Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362–1377. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(4), 495–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: a status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(557–591). doi: 10.2307/3556637.
  4. Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosabianca, A., & Kiesner, J. (2005). Why Do Women Underperform Under Stereotype Threat? Evidence for the Role of Negative Thinking. Psychological Science, 16(7), 572–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caneel, R. (2005). Social Signaling in Decision Making. (M.Sc.), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.Google Scholar
  6. Cashdan, E. (1998). Smiles, speech and body posture: how women and men display sociometric status and power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(4), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2), 159–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., & Schneider, S. K. (1993). On the effectiveness of group brainstorming: Test of one underlying cognitive mechanism. Small Group Research, 24(4), 490–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (2006). Desert survival situation. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, J., Zaner, M., Farnham, S., Marcjan, C., & McCarthy, B. P. (2003). Wireless brainstorming: overcoming status effects in small group decisions. Paper presented at the System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
  11. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
  12. Finn, J. D., Folger, J., & Cox, D. (1991). Measuring participation among elementary grade students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 393–402. doi: 10.1177/0013164491512013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guinote, A. (2007). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(5), 685–697. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halevy, N., Y. Chou, E., & D. Galinsky, A. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1), 32–52. doi: 10.1177/2041386610380991.
  16. Hall, J. A., & Friedman, G. B. (1999). Status, gender, and nonverbal behavior: A study of structured interactions between employees of a company. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), 1082–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898–924. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. New York: Random House. Google Scholar
  19. Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 165–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11(5), 365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kimble, C. E., & Musgrove, J. I. (1988). Dominance in arguing mixed-sex dyads: Visual dominance patterns, talking time, and speech loudness. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kohn, N. W., & Smith, S. M. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371. doi: 10.1002/acp.1699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2000). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3 & 4), 285–294.Google Scholar
  25. Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 11(4), 328–363. doi: 10.1177/1088868307302221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lücken, M., & Simon, B. (2005). Cognitive and affective experiences of minority and majority members: The role of group size, status, and power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(4), 396–413. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2004.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Decision making in organizations. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  28. Mast, M. S. (2002). Dominance as expressed and inferred through speaking time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 420–450.Google Scholar
  29. Mast, M. S., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Who is the boss and who is not? Accuracy of judging status. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(3), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups. Social Forces, 64(2), 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Menz, F., & Al-Roubaie, A. (2008). Interruptions, status and gender in medical interviews: The harder you brake, the longer it takes. Discourse & Society, 19(5), 645–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moore, J. C. (1968). Status and influence in small group interactions. Sociometry, 31(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. BO 1998–2012. Mplus user’s guide, 7.Google Scholar
  35. Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. (2002). Contemporary studies on the concept of creativity: The East and the West. Contemporary Studies, 36(4), 269–288.Google Scholar
  36. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied Imagination; Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-solving. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  37. Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. (1995). Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organizational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1–2), 249–265. doi: 10.1080/01973533.1995.9646143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pentland, A. S. (2010). Honest signals. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  39. Peterson, G. D., Cumming, G. S., & Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Scenario planning: A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 358–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodegher, S. L. (2015). Scenario planning for sustainability: Understanding and enhancing participation in group deliberations. ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY.Google Scholar
  41. Sachdev, I. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 282–292. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stam, D., De Vet, A., Barkema, H. G., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Suspending group debate and developing concepts. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(S1), 48–61. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stewart, T. R. (2000). Uncertainty, judgment, and error in prediction. In D. Sarewitz, R. A. Pielke, & R. Byerly (Eds.), Prediction: Science, decision making, and the future of nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  46. Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Phillips, K. W. (2004). When what you know is not enough: Expertise and gender dynamics in task groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1585–1598. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Webster, M., & Driskell, J. E. (1978). Status generalization: A review and some new data. American Sociological Review, 43(2), 220–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. doi: 10.1126/science.1193147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., & Zijlsrta, G. (2000). Idea production in nominal and virtual groups: Does computer-mediated communication improve group brainstorming? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(2), 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations