Analysis of Fein and Spencers Study and Sutton and Hargadons 1996 - Assignment Example

Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. (Fein & Spencer, 1997; particularly pp. 31-34 what the hypotheses are in Study 1. The hypotheses of Fein and Spencer’s study are based on the effects of ‘self-affirmation’ (31) Those participants who took the test designed to affirm were less likely to judge or negatively view individuals with respect to the groups or stereotypes to which they belong. In contrast, those participants who took the non-affirming test were hypothesised to react with a higher degree of prejudice in an attempt to ‘raise’ themselves up as a self-affirming technique. 2. What were the independent variables in Study 1? Fein and Spencer’s study is hinged on two independent variables. Firstly, the initial task where participants take the affirming or non-affirming test (the ‘manipulation of affirmation’) and secondly, the variation of the interviewee (the ‘manipulation of target’s ethnicity’) (Fein & Spencer, 32-3). Altering the variables of both the test (affirming or non-affirming) and the Jewish/Italian portrayals of the interviewee are the independent factors of the research. 3. How did they measure the dependent variables in Study 1? The dependent variables were measured using scales. Data of both the personality of the candidate and the suitability of the candidate for the job were obtained using seven point scales by which the participants note how strongly they agree with descriptions or specific statements about the job candidate. 4. What inferential statistical method did they use in Study 1? Analysis of variance, otherwise known as ANOVA, was used to test for statistical significance in the study. ANOVA method is useful for determining the variation between two or more means (as suitable for this study) as opposed to commonly used t-tests which only reliably analyses two means. 5. In your own words briefly describe what the main findings were in Study 1. The main findings of the study support the hypotheses. The results for the assessment of the candidate’s personality were not significantly affected by the affirmation test. The results, however, were significant concerning the ‘manipulation of target’s ethnicity’ (Fein & Spencer, 33) and a more negative approach and appraisal was attributed to the candidate when depicted as a Jew. Moreover, the results proved more supportive of the hypothesis by showing that those candidates who were not affirmed reacted more negatively towards the Jewish portrayed candidate than any other participants of the study. Similar patterns were revealed when assessing the candidate’s suitability for the job. The group of participants that weren’t affirmed offered more negative feedback than the affirmed participants, in the face of the candidate’s qualifications. The ethnic manipulation resulted in more positive feedback arising when participants believed the job candidate to be Italian rather than Jewish. The most negative assessments relating to the job candidate’s qualifications and suitability were contributed to the study by those not affirmed participants faced with the Jewish depiction of the interviewee. This is in stark contrast to those affirmed participants who, in the same evaluation of qualifications, did not discriminate between the two portrayals, Jewish and Italian. 6. Can you think of how this study may apply to behaviour in the workplace? Such results of this study throw into question ideas of competency, equal opportunities and discrimination in the workplace. The study is extremely relevant to the context of work and professional occupation where employees are daily faced with challenges and situations that may either affirm or not affirm the self (or their image of the self). The frequency of occurrences where employees are praised or reprimanded in a professional work setting can have implications on the kind of reactions produced with respect to members of stereotyped groups. Organisations with multi-cultural staff and employees are common in today’s world, as are race and gender stereotypes. Such interaction, as indicated by the study, between self affirming or not self affirmed individuals and attitudes and reactions to people falling in to particular stereotypes suggests an imminent problem for the professional world. Fein and Spencer’s study implicates behaviour in professional setting and if employees of a organisation, who are often highly motivated and competitive, strive to increase their feeling of self worth by ‘prejudiced evaluation’ of others (Fein & Spencer, 32), this can have a negative, derogatory effect on other employees. Not only can this lead to unprofessional behaviour but also to more serious implications such as prejudice or racism in the workplace. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996; particularly pp. 685-689) 7. Using your own words, briefly summarise what this paper is all about. Sutton and Hargadon’s 1996 paper is about group brainstorming as part of company strategies to produce ideas. The paper discusses the effects of brainstorming in groups and the effectiveness of such a procedure. 8. Based on the literature review in the paper, explain how the research in this paper differs from previous research in the field of brainstorming research. Brainstorming research has been studied by many researchers in the past. Sutton and Hargadon’s literature review discusses the limitations of previous studies and highlights that the previous papers are concerned with the number of ideas generated in such brainstorming sessions rather than a wider acknowledgement of the uses and results of group brainstorming. In said literature effectiveness of group brainstorming is equated to (and only to) the quantity of ideas, good or otherwise, produced (and more importantly, shared) by each member of the group (Sutton & Hargadon, 687). In their paper, Sutton and Hargadon argue that group brainstorming should be considered in a wider context than previously studied. They suggest that the fundamental questions of ‘effective for what’ and ‘effective for whom’ are omitted from past research (689). Their paper aims to include such valuable perspectives as why companies conduct such practices as group brainstorming and what effect/benefit it can have for the company. 9. Does this article tell us anything about the benefits and shortcomings of quantitative and qualitative research methods? The article suggests that there are flaws in collecting only quantitative data for this study and topic area. The researchers argue that the past studies should have dealt with more than just numbers of ideas (quantitative data) and address ideas of quality and worthiness of ideas (687) as well as issues of why and what effect is produced by such sessions.. 10. To what extent do you think their findings can be generalised to other organisational settings? The six main findings of the group brainstorming study (apart from merely just producing ideas) can be applied to varying extents in other organisational settings. The first major finding, that group brainstorming supports the ‘organisational memory of design solutions’ (Sutton & Hargadon, 695) is somewhat confined to the design solutions market which covers specific information about design over a range of products. Such information retrieval of past products may not be relevant in organisations that don’t deal with products or design solutions. ‘Skill variety’ (Sutton & Hargadon, 695) provided by group brainstorming is good for employee morale and also to allow them to learn different skills and approaches. Group brainstorming for this effect is suitable and effective for any organisational setting as long as the sessions are relevant and remain professionally motivated. For any employees to gain new and often different skills and knowledge through group brainstorming is advantageous. Group brainstorming is described in the paper as supporting an ‘attitude of wisdom’ (Sutton & Hargadon, 695). That is ‘acting with knowledge while doubting what one knows’ (Sutton & Hargadon, 695). Sutton and Hargadon suggest that this attitude helps in the considering of advice, listening to different views and being ‘neither too confident nor too cautious to ask for help’ (703). This attitude is helpful in any organisational setting and the ‘wisdom’ of wanting to learn and challenge while having knowledge and information can only be beneficial for a company. Group brainstorming is active in creating a ‘status auction’ according to the paper (Sutton & Hargadon, 695). This is where employees compete for reputation and status based on their ‘technical ability’ (705) and differs from the hierarchical positioning of company organisation. Many companies work with the employment hierarchy (managers, staff etc.) and rarely are these titles compromised by aspects such as technical skill or design ability. Only in creative settings may this ‘status auction’ be present. Clients are often impressed by the fun nature of group brainstorming. Such practices where employees can be creative in more informal settings are interesting to clients who often enjoy seeing the creative process. This is limited to organisations where employees uses creative brainstorming, and is also only relevant in client facing roles or organisations. Providing income is viewed in the paper as a more minor result of group brainstorming. Often clients are willing to pay only for brainstorming sessions (Sutton & Hargadon, 709) and clients do not begrudge paying for such services (Sutton & Hargadon, 710) It is debatable whether group brainstorming would be effective for providing income in other organisations and companies would first have to work on presenting brainstorming sessions as productive and beneficial to the clients needs. Read More