Integrative Complexity, Participation, and Agreement in Group Discussions

This study tested status-contingency theory and conversion theory on a task in which members made ordered judgments instead of dichotomous judgments. In groups, participants discussed whether “under God” should be in the pledge of allegiance and reached consensus on an ordered scale. Members’ contributions were scored for integrative complexity. In groups with more dispersion of opinion, members with opinions less discrepant from other group members did not have higher integrative complexity than members with more discrepancy of opinion, failing to support status-contingency theory for nondichotomous decisions. In support of conversion theory, members with more discrepant opinions were more influential when they had higher integrative complexity in their arguments. Replicating past research, groups with longer discussions had higher integrative complexity.