Mindi D Foster
email: mfoster@wlu.ca]

Richard Ruby

Responding to Discrimination

  L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire

Lisa Sloto and Richard Ruby

West Chester University

We examined whether the model of shattered assumptions [START_REF] Janoff-Bulman | Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma[END_REF]) could be applied to the reactions of victims of discrimination. Consistent with this model, it was hypothesized that those whose positive world assumptions are inconsistent with their negative experiences of discrimination would report more negative responses than those whose world assumptions match their experience. Disadvantaged group (both gender and ethnicity) members' responses to discrimination (self-esteem, collective action, intergroup anxiety) were predicted from their meritocracy beliefs and personal experiences of discrimination. Regression analyses showed a significant interaction between meritocracy beliefs and personal discrimination such that among those who reported personal discrimination, stronger beliefs that the meritocracy exists predicted decreased self-esteem and collective action as well as increased intergroup anxiety. Among those who reported little personal discrimination, stronger beliefs that the meritocracy exists predicted increased self-esteem. Implications for promoting a critical view of the social system is discussed.

keywords gender discrimination, meritocracy, shattered assumptions INCREASING evidence shows that discrimination based on group membership is associated with negative psychological consequences. In particular, being the victim of discrimination is associated with negative mental health symptoms such as decreased self-esteem, increased depression and anxiety [START_REF] Branscombe | Thinking about one's gender group's privileges or disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in women and men[END_REF][START_REF] Foster | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African-Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being[END_REF][START_REF] Dion | Personality-based hardiness as a buffer for discrimination-related stress in members of Toronto's Chinese community[END_REF][START_REF] Dion | The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice[END_REF][START_REF] Foster | Positive and negative responses to personal discrimination: Does coping make a difference[END_REF][START_REF] Klonoff | Sexist discrimination may account for well-known gender differences in psychiatric symptoms[END_REF][START_REF] Landrine | Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender discrimination: An application of the schedule of sexist events[END_REF][START_REF] Pak | Social-psychological correlates of experienced discrimination: Test of the double jeopardy hypothesis[END_REF][START_REF] Schmitt | Perceiving discrimination against one's gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men[END_REF] as well as negative physical symptoms such as headaches [START_REF] Landrine | Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender discrimination: An application of the schedule of sexist events[END_REF] and increased blood pressure [START_REF] Krieger | Racial discrimination and blood pressure: The CARDIA study[END_REF]. Consequently, there is a need to understand the factors that may serve to buffer or diminish negative discrimination-related symptoms.

According to stress and coping models (e.g. [START_REF] Lazarus | Stress, appraisal and coping[END_REF], one factor that appears to affect the ways in which people respond to a stressful event is their assumptions about the world [START_REF] Janoff-Bulman | Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications of the schema construct[END_REF][START_REF] Janoff-Bulman | Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma[END_REF][START_REF] Janoff-Bulman | A theoretical perspective for understanding reactions to victimization[END_REF]. Janoff-Bulman refers to three sets of world assumptions. People believe that they are personally invulnerable to negative events, that the world is meaningful and just (i.e. that people get what they deserve) and that they themselves are worthy, good people. Distress occurs because traumatic events violate these assumptions [START_REF] Janoff-Bulman | Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma[END_REF]. When one experiences violence or disease, a sense of safety is lost and victims fear future traumatic events (e.g. Burgess & Holmstrom, 1974). Thus, the assumption of personal invulnerability is shattered. Victims who believe the world is just and that they are good people struggle to understand what they did to deserve such an experience. When 'bad things happen to good people' [START_REF] Kushner | When bad things happen to good people[END_REF], the assumption that the world is meaningful is shattered. In other words, distress is experienced when a traumatic event creates a mismatch between our beliefs (how we think the world works) and our experiences (how it does work, given the trauma). The process of coping, according to Janoff-Bulman, involves the process of changing one's assumptive world to match the experience. When world assumptions and experiences are more consistent, psychological well-being increases.

An important question is whether we can utilize this model for understanding the types of people, beliefs and conditions under which victims of discrimination will experience decreased well-being. Granted, Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983) themselves have explicitly distinguished trauma victims from victims of discrimination. They define victims of trauma as those who have suffered life changes from events such as crime, disease or natural disasters, namely extreme or out of the ordinary events. They note that while one can certainly be a victim of discrimination, the victims of extreme events may be very different.

However, there are reasons why the model of shattered assumptions may also be very useful for understanding the psychological reactions of victims of discrimination (see also [START_REF] Major | Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances[END_REF]. First, models of group consciousness do indeed refer to a stage at which group members realize their previous assumptions do not meet their current experiences. For example, D. M. Taylor & McKirnan's Five Stage Model (1984) refers to a 'consciousness-raising stage' where disadvantaged group members who have been unable to attain success (experience of discrimination) no longer believe that individual successes are a function of individual ability or effort (i.e. a justice world assumption). Feminist consciousness models further suggest that this can often be an 'a-ha' experience that is shocking and difficult for women to accept (e.g. [START_REF] Bartky | Toward a phenomenology of feminist consciousness[END_REF][START_REF] Bowles | Theories of women's studies[END_REF][START_REF] Downing | From passive acceptance to active commitment: A model of feminist identity development for women[END_REF]. Thus, group consciousness models also make references to the shattering of assumptions and its implications.

Second, the world assumptions of personal invulnerability and the world as a meaningful place are indeed relevant to victims of discrimination. The robust finding that victims of discrimination maintain the belief that they personally experience less discrimination than the rest of their group (e.g. [START_REF] Crosby | The denial of personal discrimination[END_REF][START_REF] Taylor | The personal/group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for discrimination[END_REF] suggests that discrimination victims maintain assumptions of personal invulnerability. At the same time however, this assumption can certainly be violated, as evidenced by disadvantaged Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(3) group members who anticipate experiencing discrimination [START_REF] Swim | Experiencing everyday prejudice and discrimination[END_REF] and those who report that their experiences of discrimination are pervasive across time and contexts [START_REF] Foster | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African-Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being[END_REF]. For these reasons, the model of shattered assumptions may also be relevant for discrimination victims.

Some evidence suggests that maintaining positive world assumptions will help to buffer disadvantaged group members in that such assumptions appear to reduce disadvantaged group members' perceptions of discrimination. For example, high believers in a just world have reported reduced group [START_REF] Birt | Relative deprivation theory and responses to discrimination in a gay male and lesbian sample[END_REF][START_REF] Dalbert | Is inequality unjust? Evaluating women's career chances[END_REF][START_REF] Hafer | Beliefs in a just world, discontent and assertive actions by working women[END_REF] and personal discrimination [START_REF] Lipkus | The belief in a just world and perceptions of discrimination[END_REF]. Ethnic minorities who believe that disadvantaged groups can attain a higher status reported decreased perceptions of personal discrimination (Study 1; [START_REF] Major | Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology[END_REF]. In Study 2, participants were told they would be assigned the role of 'co-manager' (i.e. desirable status) or 'clerk' (i.e. undesirable) by a student already assigned the role of 'manager'. The more Latin American participants believed in individual mobility, the less likely they were to define their rejection by the European-American manager as discrimination. As such, we might expect that holding positive world assumptions may enhance well-being among disadvantaged group members. Indeed, if the perception of the stressor itself is decreased (i.e. experience of discrimination), then well-being increases.

The psychological benefits of positive world assumptions however, may exist because the assumptions being examined are in essence, still unviolated or 'unshattered'. That is, if those who hold a world assumption perceive little discrimination, then these are people for whom their assumptions (that the world is just) still match their experiences (low discrimination). Thus, for those who report little experience with personal discrimination, world as meaningful assumptions may be beneficial. Yet, among those who do experience personal discrimination, positive world assumptions may be more damaging. It is those who experience personal discrimination but hold positive world assumptions who will likely be confronting a mismatch between their experience and their beliefs. As Janoff-Bulman's model (1992) suggests, it is this mismatch that will be associated with decreased well-being. To better understand the consequences of shattered assumptions for disadvantaged group members, the present study therefore examined how positive world assumptions predict responses to discrimination among those who do, and do not personally experience discrimination.

Operational definitions

There are indeed a variety of positive world assumptions ( Janoff-Bulman, 1989), that have also been referred to as 'legitimacy beliefs' [START_REF] Jost | The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice and intergroup relations[END_REF], system-justification beliefs [START_REF] Jost | The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness[END_REF] or hierarchy-enhancing beliefs [START_REF] Sidanius | The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance[END_REF]. We, however, focused on meritocracy beliefs, as a belief that is referred to by several authors as a persistent ideology in North America (e.g. [START_REF] Jost | The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness[END_REF][START_REF] Kleugal | Beliefs about inequality: Americans' views of what is and what ought to be[END_REF][START_REF] Pratto | Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes[END_REF]. Meritocracy beliefs are most commonly defined as a preference for the merit principle, or an endorsement of merit as an appropriate way of distributing goods (Son [START_REF] Hing | Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: Making concessions in the face of discrimination[END_REF], which reflects what people think should happen. In contrast, we examined a belief or disbelief in the existence of the meritocracy [START_REF] Lalonde | Political correctness beliefs, threatened identities, and social attitudes[END_REF], reflecting what people think does happen. We used the latter definition as a world assumption because although individuals may endorse the meritocracy as a positive goal, they may or may not assume that it has not been achieved. As such, belief in the existence of the meritocracy reflects an assumption about how the current system operates.

For the outcome variables, we were interested in responses to discrimination that occur across a variety of levels: individual (selfesteem), group (collective action) and intergroup (intergroup anxiety). First, theories of coping with discrimination often examine the consequences of discrimination for the individual's self-esteem (e.g. [START_REF] Foster | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African-Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being[END_REF]Foster et al. responding to discrimination Crocker & Major, 1989). For example, research has shown that perceptions of chronic and pervasive discrimination are associated with lower self-esteem (e.g. [START_REF] Foster | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African-Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being[END_REF][START_REF] Corning | Self-esteem as a moderator between perceived discrimination and psychological distress among women[END_REF][START_REF] Schmitt | Perceiving discrimination against one's gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men[END_REF]. Thus we were interested in how meritocracy beliefs would moderate this relationship. Second, we were interested in the group-level consequences of discrimination, namely collective action. Collective action can be defined as any behavior directed at enhancing the group status, whether it is taken individually, or with the group (Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990). Given the relationship between stronger perceptions of personal discrimination and increased collective action (e.g. [START_REF] Foster | Double relative deprivation: Combining the personal and political[END_REF][START_REF] Foster | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African-Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being[END_REF][START_REF] Kelly | The social psychology of collective action: Identity, injustice and gender[END_REF], we were interested in how meritocracy beliefs would moderate this relationship. Finally, discrimination can also have implications for how disadvantaged groups respond to other groups. Theories of intergroup relations (e.g. Social identity theory; [START_REF] Tajfel | An integrative theory of intergroup conflict[END_REF]Equity theory;[START_REF] Walster | Equity: Theory and research[END_REF] state that when an identity threat or a perceived inequity such as discrimination exists, group members try to restore their positive identity or sense of equity. Among the possible ways to do so is to assimilate into the advantaged group; by distancing oneself from one's disadvantage, a positive identity or sense of equity can be attained. As such, we were interested in the extent to which disadvantaged group members would distance themselves from disadvantage, in the form of intergroup anxiety [START_REF] Stephan | Intergroup anxiety[END_REF]. Although originally conceptualized as how anxious dominant group members may feel among minority group members, we examined disadvantaged group members' anxiety about being around other disadvantaged group members, as an estimate of how much participants distance themselves from disadvantage in general.

Hypotheses

We expected an interaction between meritocracy beliefs and personal discrimination on responses to discrimination (self-esteem, collective action, intergroup anxiety) (see Figure 1 for hypothesized interaction). As Janoff-Bulman's (1992) model suggests, psychological distress is a function of the mismatch between how one thinks the world works (positive world assumptions) and how it does work (negative experiences). In contrast, the coping process is begun when one's assumptive world changes to match one's experiences. Thus, we expected that among those who have experienced discrimination, those who believe the meritocracy exists (mismatch) will report lower self-esteem and collective action as well as increased intergroup anxiety than those who disbelieve the meritocracy exists.

Similar hypotheses were made about how meritocracy beliefs may affect well-being among those who have not experienced personal discrimination. Those who have not experienced discrimination and believe the meritocracy exists are reporting experiences that are consistent with their beliefs, and likely have unshattered assumptions. In contrast, those who have not experienced personal discrimination but disbelieve the meritocracy exists are reporting a mismatch between their experiences (no Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(3) 404 Figure 1. Hypothesized interaction between perceived personal discrimination and meritocracy beliefs.

Mismatched Experiences and Beliefs

Matched Experiences and Beliefs

Positive Responses

Disbelief Belief

Low personal discrimination

High personal discrimination discrimination) and beliefs (the system does not provide equal opportunities to all groups). Moreover, such negative expectations, despite no negative experience may reflect a pessimistic world view, which often has negative mental health effects (e.g. S. E. [START_REF] Taylor | Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health[END_REF]. Thus, we expected that among those who have not experienced discrimination, believers in the meritocracy would report greater selfesteem, collective action and less intergroup anxiety than disbelievers.

Method

Participants and procedure Participants (N = 138; 117 female, 21 male) at West Chester University were recruited via posters in the psychology department, that requested students who belonged to disadvantaged (either ethnic or gender) groups to sign up to complete a questionnaire on their social and personal opinions. Incentive to participate was a US$150 lottery. Reported ethnicity/gender categories were African American (36%), European American women (48.8%), Asian American (4%), Latin American (1%) and 10.2% described themselves as 'other' or 'minority'. Participants signed informed consent, completed the questionnaire and were given oral and written debriefing.

Materials

For all the scales that followed, participants were instructed which reference group to use when evaluating each item. If they had identified themselves as an ethnic minority, they were asked to compare themselves to society's majority/dominant ethnic group. If they had identified gender as their disadvantaged group, they were asked to compare themselves with men.

Meritocracy beliefs Four items from Lalonde et al.'s (2000) Belief in meritocracy ideology scale were rated using a 7-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Items were: 'Everybody in this country has equal opportunities', 'If you are a member of a "minority group" you can climb the ladder of success only so far', 'Many social barriers prevent "minority groups" from getting ahead', 'Our present social system works to the disadvantage of people from visible minorities'. Items were recoded so that higher scores reflected the belief that the meritocracy exists. The sum of the items was used as the overall score (Cronbach alpha = .71).

Personal discrimination [START_REF] Foster | Double relative deprivation: Combining the personal and political[END_REF] Using a 7-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree), nine items assessed the extent to which participants have personally experienced discrimination based on their group membership. Example items included, 'The majority group have more employment opportunities than I do', and 'I have less power than most majority group members'. The sum of the items was used as the overall score (Cronbach alpha = .80).

State self-esteem scale (SSES; Heatherton & Polivy, 1991)

To assess self-esteem, the performance and social subscales of the SSES were used. Participants were asked to consider what was true of them at that moment and rated 14 items using a scale ranging from 'not at all' (0) to 'extremely' (4). Sample items included 'I feel confident about my abilities'; 'I feel that I have less scholastic ability right now than others'; 'I feel inferior to others at this moment'; and 'I feel concerned about the impression I am making'. An overall self-esteem score was computed using the sum of the items (Cronbach alpha = .87).

Collective actions (Foster & Matheson, 1995)

Using a 7-point scale ('never participate in' to 'always participate in'), participants rated 25 actions aimed at enhancing group status. Actions range from low-risk behaviors (e.g. 'I go out of my way to collect information on minority issues') to higher risk behaviours (e.g. 'I organize events that deal with minority issues'). The sum across all items was used as the overall score (Cronbach alpha = .93).

Intergroup anxiety (Britt

Results

To test how personal discrimination and beliefs about the meritocracy predicted responses to discrimination, several regression analyses were conducted on the combined sample. 1 The predictor variables were centered and entered onto the first step and their product term was entered onto the second step [START_REF] Aiken | Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions[END_REF]. Table 1 shows the intercorrelations among the variables and Table 2 summarizes the regressions. Significant interactions were plotted using the method of [START_REF] Cohen | Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences[END_REF] and the simple slopes were tested as described in [START_REF] Aiken | Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions[END_REF].

Self-esteem

There were no significant main effects (F(2,130) = 0.88, p = .42). There was, however, a significant interaction predicting 8.9% of the variability in self-esteem (F(1,129) = 12.94, p = .0001) (see Figure 2). Both simple effects were significant. Among those who reported high personal discrimination, a stronger belief that the meritocracy exists was associated with lower self-esteem (␤ = -.34; t(131) = -2.77, p = .006). Thus, consistent with expectations, those whose experiences and beliefs were inconsistent reported lower self-esteem than those whose experiences and beliefs were consistent. Among those who reported little personal discrimination, stronger beliefs that the meritocracy exists (i.e. matched experiences and beliefs) was associated with greater self-esteem (␤ = .25; t(131) = 2.057, p = .042).

Collective action

The main effects predicted 20.1% of the variability in collective action (F(2,130) = 16.31, p = .0001) (see Figure 3). Only perceived personal discrimination uniquely predicted collective action such that the more personal discrimination reported, the more collective action was reported (␤ = .40; p = .001). This was qualified by a significant interaction that predicted an additional 6.7% of the variability in collective action. Consistent with expectations, there was a simple effect of meritocracy beliefs among those who have experienced personal discrimination such that a stronger belief in the meritocracy was associated with lower action-taking (␤ = -.33; t(131) = -2.95, p = .004), again suggesting that those with a mismatch between experiences and beliefs took less action. There was no simple effect among those who reported low personal discrimination (␤ = .16; t(131) = 1.45, p = .147).

Intergroup anxiety

Again there were no significant main effects (F(2, 126) = .884, p = .42), yet there was the expected interaction, predicting 7.3% of the variability in intergroup anxiety (F(1,125) = 9.98, p = .002) (see Figure 4). Among those who perceived personal discrimination, stronger beliefs that the meritocracy exists was associated with greater intergroup anxiety, ␤ = .32, t(128) = 2.50, p = .014. Thus, consistent with expectations, those whose negative experiences were inconsistent with their beliefs reported greater discomfort with other disadvantaged groups than those whose experiences and beliefs were consistent. Among those who perceived little personal discrimination, meritocracy beliefs were not associated with intergroup anxiety ␤ = -.19, t(128) = -1.53, p = .128.

Discussion

Across all of the dependent variables, expectations about those who reported personal discrimination were confirmed. Compared to those whose reported experiences and beliefs were consistent, those whose experiences of discrimination did not match their beliefs that the meritocracy exists reported less self-esteem and greater intergroup anxiety, suggesting that they appeared to feel greater discomfort not only with themselves, but with others who also experience discrimination. Consistent with social identity theory [START_REF] Tajfel | An integrative theory of intergroup conflict[END_REF], this may suggest that the experience of discrimination creates a negative social identity, and identifying with others who experience discrimination may increase the threat of discrimination for themselves. As such, disadvantaged group members may choose to dissociate with others experiencing disadvantage. A discomfort with others' disadvantage may also explain this group's decreased participation in collective action; if they are trying to distance themselves from disadvantage participating in actions to reduce disadvantage are unlikely. Importantly, these data are also consistent with Janoff-Bulman's (1992) model of trauma. Those who believe the meritocracy exists but experience discrimination may be a group whose negative experiences are shattering their world assumptions, and such are experiencing greater distress, not only on a psychological level, but a social one.

In contrast, those with discrimination experiences that were consistent with their beliefs that the meritocracy does not exist reported more positive responses to discrimination (increased self-esteem and action, decreased intergroup anxiety). This group of individuals may be, as Janoff-Bulman (1992) suggests, those who have begun the coping process by changing their world assumptions to be more consistent with their own experiences. The shock of shattered assumptions may have passed and as such, psychological and social well-being may ensue. This suggests that encouraging a disbelief in the meritocracy may be a useful educational tool to enhance psychological, social and intergroup benefits for those experiencing discrimination. If victims of discrimination can be encouraged to have a critical view of the system, perhaps the coping process can begin before the consequences become more severe (e.g. depression, [START_REF] Landrine | Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender discrimination: An application of the schedule of sexist events[END_REF]high blood pressure, Krieger & Sidney, 1996).

Also as expected, those who reported little personal discrimination and believe the meritocracy exists, reported greater self esteem than disbelievers. These may be individuals for whom assumptions are unshattered, and as such, increased well-being would be expected. In contrast, the fact that disbelievers reported lower self-esteem suggests that being critical of the meritocracy may not be useful for disadvantaged group members who have not yet experienced discrimination. This may be, as Janoff-Bulman's model would suggest, because this group is reporting a mismatch between experiences and beliefs. They believe that the system is unfair to disadvantaged groups, yet do not have the personal experience that would be expected to facilitate such a belief. Much like the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, this inconsistency [START_REF] Festinger | Cognitive consequences of forced compliance[END_REF]) may be distressing. Alternatively, this may be a group of people who are somewhat pessimistic, namely those who have negative beliefs about the world despite the lack of negative experience. Thus, while a critical view of the system may be helpful for victims, it may only serve to maintain negativity for non-victims.

However, it may be premature to recommend that a critical view of the system is not useful for non-victims. There may be conditions under which being critical of the system is positive for those who have not yet experienced discrimination. Janoff-Bulman (1992) suggests that those for whom world assumptions have already been challenged, coping may be easier once a traumatic event occurs. For example, a woman who had not previously experienced discrimination may cope better upon experiencing an acute situation such as sexual harassment if she is already critical of the social system, than a woman who is not critical. Consistent with this, our recent work [START_REF] Foster | The motivational quality of shattered assumptions when responding to an acute experience of gender discrimination[END_REF] has examined how women who reported no prior experiences with discrimination, and who either believed or disbelieved the meritocracy exists, would respond to an acute laboratory situation of discrimination. Results showed that those with no prior experience, but disbelieved Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(3) the meritocracy exists, showed greater wellbeing upon experiencing acute discrimination than believers. Together, these studies suggest that being critical of the social system may not be helpful for disadvantaged group members until discrimination actually occurs, at which time such beliefs may buffer the negative consequences of discrimination.

One difficulty with applying the model of shattered assumptions ( Janoff-Bulman, 1992) to victims of discrimination is that shattered assumptions may be more difficult to categorize than for victims of an acute trauma. For victims of an extreme experience such as disease or violence, the salience of the event is more apparent and therefore the moment at which assumptions become shattered may also be apparent. In contrast, for victims of discrimination, this distinction may be less obvious. Some victims may experience an extreme form of discrimination such as rape, or harassment, while many others experience more subtle, everyday events such as sexist comments and sexual objectification [START_REF] Swim | Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature and psychological impact from three daily diary studies[END_REF]. The point at which assumptions are shattered may therefore be more difficult to ascertain. Further, Janoff-Bulman's (1992) model, as with most models of coping, is a process model. It is indeed difficult to capture each moment of the process as it occurs using a crosssectional design. Our future research will examine these issues using a methodology (i.e. diary studies) that is more able to capture the dynamic coping process. Despite these limitations however, this study suggests that models of coping with other traumatic events may also be useful for understanding who will experience discrimination-related distress and who may be buffered. Thus, although there will no doubt be differences among victims of different forms of trauma, there also appear to be similarities among victims, whether the trauma is out of the ordinary (e.g. natural disaster) or as common as discrimination. Notes 1. To test for a possible moderating effect of gender and ethnicity, the two, three and four-way interactions between personal discrimination, meritocracy beliefs, sex and ethnicity were conducted. The moderating effects of sex and/or ethnicity were significant in only one case; there was a significant sex by meritocracy beliefs interaction (F(6, 119) = 3.61, p = .003), such that among women, stronger beliefs that the meritocracy exists was associated with decreased collective action (␤ = -.42, p = .001). Among men, there was a marginal relationship between stronger belief that the meritocracy exists and increased collective action (␤ = .42, p = .06). This is consistent with social dominance [START_REF] Sidanius | The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance[END_REF] and system-justification (e.g. [START_REF] Jost | Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans[END_REF] theories which suggest that support for system-justifying beliefs will decrease well-being for low status groups but increase well-being for high status groups. However, we are cautious interpreting this effect given there were only 21 men in the sample. For this reason, and because no other moderating effects were found, subsequent analyses were performed on the combined sample.

Foster et al. responding to discrimination 407 Figure 2 .

 4072 Figure 2. Interaction between perceived personal discrimination and meritocracy beliefs on self-esteem.

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Interaction between perceived personal discrimination and meritocracy beliefs on collective action.

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4. Interaction of perceived personal discrimination and meritocracy beliefs on intergroup anxiety.

Function of Meritocracy Beliefs and Personal Experiences: Testing the Model of Shattered Assumptions Mindi D. Foster

	Responding to	Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2006 Vol 9(3) 401-411	G P I R
	Discrimination as a
	Wilfrid Laurier University

Table 2 .

 2 Summary of hierarchical regressions

	Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(3)

Acknowledgment

These data were collected while the first author was at West Chester University, West Chester, PA.


Katherine W Phillips

Gregory B Northcraft

Margaret A Neale

Phillips & Loyd

Surface-Level Diversity and Decision-Making in Groups: When Does Deep-Level Similarity Help?

Keywords: information sharing task, similarity-attraction, social categorization

We examined how surface-level diversity (based on race) and deep-level similarities influenced three-person decision-making groups on a hidden-profile task. Surface-level homogeneous groups perceived their information to be less unique and spent less time on the task than surface-level diverse groups. When the groups were given the opportunity to learn about their deep-level similarities prior to the task, group members felt more similar to one another and reported greater perceived attraction, but this was more true for surface-level homogeneous than surface-level diverse groups. Surface-level homogeneous groups performed slightly better after discovering deep-level similarities, but discovering deep-level similarities was not helpful for surface-level diverse groups, who otherwise outperformed surface-level homogeneous groups. We discuss the implications of this research for managing diversity in the workplace.

keywords diversity,

known by a single member) as opposed to commonly held (i.e. known to all members) information into group decisions is easier said than done (for reviews see [START_REF] Stasser | The uncertain role of unshared information in collective choice[END_REF][START_REF] Wittenbaum | Management of information in small groups[END_REF]Wittenbaum et al., 2004). One reason why unique information is mentioned and repeated less than commonly held information is because group members generally assume that the information they possess is the same as that possessed by others (unless contrary information is available) [START_REF] Stasser | Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what[END_REF]. The assumption is that there is no unique information, and that unmentioned information is information that other group members have deemed not of sufficient importance to discuss. When unique information does arise in groups, individuals are likely to assume that because the information is not widely held among the group members, it is less important than commonly held information, and therefore may fail to repeat that unique information during discussion. Moreover, people may feel uncomfortable expressing and focusing on unique information, because it is often inconsistent with their perceived expectations that their information should be similar to that of other group members [START_REF] Gruenfeld | Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance[END_REF][START_REF] Phillips | Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties[END_REF]. Sharing unique information also leads to a lack of social validation from others, causing individuals to feel less accepted than when they share commonly held information [START_REF] Wittenbaum | A social validation explanation for mutual enhancement[END_REF].

Despite the information sharing barriers in groups, the discussion of unique information has been shown to increase when group members have greater reason to believe that unique information is going to be present. For instance, when expertise is labeled, or if people are explicitly forewarned that unique information is present, groups are better able to share and integrate the unique information into the discussion [START_REF] Franz | The impact of experts on information sharing during group discussion[END_REF][START_REF] Schittekatte | Effects of partially shared information and awareness of unshared information on information sampling[END_REF][START_REF] Stasser | Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what[END_REF]Stewart & Stasser, 1995). To this end, [START_REF] Postmes | Quality of decision making and group norms[END_REF] have shown that unique information is more likely to be shared when groups have developed a norm Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4) of criticality instead of consensus. In such critical norm groups, the sharing of unique information is consistent with the group norms and the same overvaluing of shared information is less likely to occur. Thus, for groups to use their unique information effectively, the sharing of such information has to be perceived as a legitimate part of the groups' norms and identity [START_REF] Jetten | We're all individuals': Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat[END_REF][START_REF] Postmes | Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation[END_REF][START_REF] Van Knippenberg | Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda[END_REF].

We posit that surface-level diversity may also serve this legitimation purpose in groups by making it more acceptable to discuss and value unique information that must be shared for effective performance. Recent research has distinguished between diversity in surface-level characteristics, which are immediately salient in groups (like race and gender), versus diversity in deep-level characteristics (like attitudes, opinions, information, and values), which become known only over time through verbal and nonverbal communication [START_REF] Harrison | Beyond relational demography: Time and effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion[END_REF][START_REF] Harrison | Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning[END_REF][START_REF] Jackson | Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams[END_REF]. We expect surface-level differences to serve as a signal to group members that unique information may be present, leading them to be more aware of and willing to share unique information with the group. This argument is consistent with recent research on composition beliefs, which has shown that individuals believe diverse groups are likely to outperform homogeneous ones when unique ideas are needed, whereas homogeneous groups are likely to outperform diverse ones when commonality of ideas is needed [START_REF] Van Knippenberg | Realizing the diversity dividend: Exploring the subtle interplay between identity, ideology and reality[END_REF]. Also see the work on the mechanical and organic solidarity discussed by [START_REF] Postmes | Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation[END_REF] supporting the notion that multiple sources of identity simultaneously exist in groups.

Our argument is based on the fact that a primary consequence of categorization processes is that people assume that they hold more similar deep-level perspectives with individuals who share their surface-level characteristics than with people who do not, on topics both relevant and irrelevant to the salient surface-level distinction (e.g. [START_REF] Allen | Categorization, beliefs similarity, and intergroup discrimination[END_REF][START_REF] Allen | Group categorization and attribution of belief similarity[END_REF][START_REF] Phillips | Repulsion or attraction? Group membership and assumed attitude similarity[END_REF][START_REF] Diehl | Social identity and minimal groups: The effects of interpersonal and intergroup attitudinal similarity on intergroup discrimination[END_REF][START_REF] Holtz | Assumed similarity and opinion certainty[END_REF][START_REF] Phillips | The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence[END_REF][START_REF] Phillips | When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members[END_REF][START_REF] Tajfel | Cognitive aspects of prejudice[END_REF][START_REF] Wilder | Predictions of belief homogeneity and similarity following social Phillips et al. diversity and performance categorization[END_REF]. For instance, [START_REF] Allen | Group categorization and attribution of belief similarity[END_REF] divided students into two groups, allegedly on the basis of their preferences for oil paintings, and found greater assumed deep-level similarity between self and similar others than between self and dissimilar others on opinions about art (category relevant) and politics (category irrelevant). Recent research by [START_REF] Phillips | When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members[END_REF] found this same pattern of assumed deep-level similarity in decision-making settings when examining the relationship between salient task-relevant (e.g. functional background) (also see [START_REF] Phillips | The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence[END_REF] and irrelevant (e.g. campus geography) social categories and task opinions.

Especially at the beginning of a group's existence, when surface-level characteristics are most salient [START_REF] Harrison | Beyond relational demography: Time and effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion[END_REF][START_REF] Harrison | Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning[END_REF], individuals are likely to use the presence of these characteristics to predict who shares deep-level perspectives with whom. In surface-level homogeneous groups, group members are likely to assume that they all possess the same information about the task, whereas in surface-level diverse groups members are likely to expect there to be differences in information [START_REF] Antonio | Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students[END_REF][START_REF] Phillips | The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence[END_REF][START_REF] Phillips | When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members[END_REF][START_REF] Phillips | Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties[END_REF]. Thus, surface-level diversity triggers expectations that deep-level diversity will be present in groups, and serves to legitimize the surfacing of unique information. Significantly, this legitimation of unique information may apply not only to those who are (surface-level) 'different' in the group, but also to group members who are similar to most others. [START_REF] Phillips | When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members[END_REF] found that dissenting members of the social majority voiced themselves more persistently and confidently when there was diversity present than when there was not. They concluded that the mere presence of diversity encouraged those dissenting group members to voice their disparate perspective when they might otherwise have remained silent and conformed to the opinion of their in-group (e.g. [START_REF] Abrams | Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization[END_REF][START_REF] Asch | Social psychology[END_REF].

Phillips et al. diversity and performance

For these reasons, surface-level homogeneous groups should be less aware of the unique information they possess. As such, over the course of the group discussion they will be less likely to discuss unique information about the task than will surface-level diverse groups. This will result in the surface-level homogenous groups spending less time discussing the task than their diverse counterparts. Moreover, spending less time discussing the task will further hinder the discovery of unique information [START_REF] Larson | Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams[END_REF][START_REF] Larson | Diagnosing groups: The pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision-making[END_REF] leading to a confirmation of the group members' expectations that they all have the same information. In contrast, in groups where members possess unique information, surface-level diverse groups are more likely to discover and discuss unique information than surface-level homogeneous groups. Surface-level diverse groups assume that unique information is more likely to be there, and the presence of informational differences will be more consistent with their expectations. Likewise, if group members are aware that they might possess unique information, they should be inclined to spend more time discussing the task in an effort to discover and integrate that information. Thus we hypothesize that, Hypothesis 1: Surface-level homogeneous groups will be less aware of their unique information, and will spend less time discussing the task than will surface-level diverse groups.

Highlighting deep-level similarities

Although surface-level diversity may be beneficial to teams or work groups that must share unique information for effective performance, diversity researchers have often found that diversity has a negative impact on communication and cohesion, and promotes high levels of detrimental group conflict [START_REF] Ely | Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes[END_REF][START_REF] Jackson | Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications[END_REF][START_REF] Jehn | Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in work groups[END_REF][START_REF] Pelled | Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance[END_REF] for extensive reviews see also [START_REF] Milliken | Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups[END_REF][START_REF] Williams | Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research[END_REF]. Over the past ten years, diversity researchers have focused on how to minimize the detrimental effects of social categorization on workgroups, with some suggesting that increasing the level of perceived deep-level similarity among group members should help them feel more socially validated and accepted by the other members of the group (e.g. [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation[END_REF]. Some social categorization researchers have advocated this perspective, suggesting that interventions designed to minimize the salience of social categories and instead 'de-categorize' or 're-categorize' group members by highlighting the similarities that exist across seemingly different individuals can be beneficial to group functioning (e.g. [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation[END_REF][START_REF] Northcraft | Double jeopardy: Resistance to affirmative action from potential beneficiaries[END_REF]. For instance, [START_REF] Northcraft | Double jeopardy: Resistance to affirmative action from potential beneficiaries[END_REF] argued that, '. . . the liking, acceptance, and perceived competence of tokens and solos can be enhanced by making salient their similarities to majority group members in background, attitudes, and interests ' (p. 114). Further, in a study of corporate outside directors of Fortune/Forbes 500 companies, [START_REF] Westphal | How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards[END_REF] found that minority board members (categorized on the basis of their functional background, industry background, education, race, or gender) were more influential on their focal boards when they had direct or indirect social ties, often through their common experiences with (focal board) majority members on other corporate boards.

This perspective is built on the wellestablished body of findings that similarity attracts [START_REF] Byrne | The attraction paradigm[END_REF]. Individuals generally are more attracted to and feel more comfortable interacting with others whom they perceive to be similar. For both surface-level homogeneous and surface-level diverse groups, an intervention designed to help group members discover their deep-level similarities should lead to greater feelings of attraction. Learning that one shares deep-level similarities with a fellow group member should also promote recategorization, increasing the likelihood that out-group members (i.e. those who have surface-level dissimilarities from other group members) will actually be seen as part of the in-group (e.g. [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization[END_REF][START_REF] Kramer | Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma[END_REF]. The potential negative effects of social categorization may, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4) subsequently, be reduced. As a result, we suggest that:

Hypothesis 2A: Members of groups who learn about deep-level similarities should perceive greater attraction from other group members than those who do not learn about deep-level similarities.

However, recent research has suggested that increasing this perceived similarity and attraction among the group members may come at a cost to the group's ability to benefit from the surface-level differences we have discussed here [START_REF] Hornsey | The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different[END_REF][START_REF] Jetten | We're all individuals': Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat[END_REF][START_REF] Postmes | Quality of decision making and group norms[END_REF][START_REF] Van Knippenberg | Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda[END_REF]. For instance, [START_REF] Jetten | We're all individuals': Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat[END_REF] found that a focus on agreement and commonalities created norms of consensus that in turn undermined the sharing of unique information in groups. The effectiveness of recategorization or promoting the perception of others as similar to oneself as a means to diminish the detrimental effects of surface-level diversity has also been called into question by researchers of self-verification (e.g. [START_REF] Polzer | Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups[END_REF][START_REF] Swann | Should we create a niche or fall in line? Identity negotiation and small group effectiveness[END_REF]. These researchers argue that promoting the perception (or recategorization) of all group members as similar, may also discourage individuals from thinking and acting in ways associated with their unique category memberships [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization[END_REF]). Yet, it is precisely these unique ways of thinking and acting that constitute the potential positive contribution of a diverse workgroup (Polzer et al., 2002, p. 297). Thus, highlighting deep-level similarities (especially in surface-level diverse groups), while leading to greater feelings of attraction toward the other group members, may undermine the groups' awareness of and willingness to embrace unique information.

In sum, the process of highlighting deeplevel similarities may undermine the signaling effect of surface-level diversity that legitimates expressing and discussing unique information by all group members. In other words, learning about deep-level similarities in surface-level diverse groups may interfere with the legitimation of difference and disagreement that surface-level diversity promotes. For example, if a work group who thinks they are diverse based on the surface-level characteristic of race finds that they all share the same attitudes, feelings, and experiences about the organization, they may be reluctant to disagree with each other going forward with the task. They may feel that they really are not all that different from each other after all. Thus, for surface-level diverse groups, although the realization of deep-level similarities may increase attraction toward the group, it may simultaneously increase pressures to conform to the group and undermine the discussion of unique information [START_REF] Abrams | Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization[END_REF].

For surface-level homogeneous groups highlighting similarities will also increase attraction, and may further interfere with the sharing of unique information since doing so poses a threat to feelings of acceptance and validation [START_REF] Wittenbaum | A social validation explanation for mutual enhancement[END_REF][START_REF] Wittenbaum | Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information[END_REF]. Thus, we believe that for surface-level homogeneous groups there will be somewhat of a 'floor' effect-the lack of surface-level differences will hinder the expectation of informational differences and the discussion of unique information, and then the highlighting of deep-level similarities will further hinder this process. Thus, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2B: Highlighting deep-level similarities will lead to less awareness of unique information and less discussion time.

Hypothesis 2C: The effect of highlighting deep-level similarities on awareness of unique information and discussion time will be more pronounced for surface-level diverse groups than for surface-level homogeneous groups.

In terms of group performance, highlighting deep-level similarities should be detrimental because it undermines the legitimacy of discussing needed unique information. Although attraction may increase in groups as a result of learning about deep-level similarities, these deep-level similarities will be inconsistent with any expectation of unique information being present and thus are likely to hurt group performance, especially for surface-level diverse groups (e.g. [START_REF] Watson | Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups[END_REF]. As such, we would argue that:

Phillips et al. diversity and performance

Hypothesis 3A: Surface-level diverse groups will outperform surface-level homogeneous groups.

Hypothesis 3B: Groups that highlight deep-level similarities will perform worse than groups that do not.

Hypothesis 3C: The performance of surface-level diverse groups that highlight deep-level similarities will be more negatively affected than the performance of surface-level homogeneous groups that highlight deep-level similarities.

To test the hypotheses, groups received an intervention asking them to discover deep-level similarities among group members. Exploring the effects of this intervention should allow for a better understanding of how different groups (i.e. those that are surface-level diverse or homogeneous) are affected by finding that they have deep-level similarities prior to engaging in a task where unique information must be shared.

Method

Participants and overview

A total of 216 undergraduate business students at a midwestern business school participated in this research. The median age of the participants was 21 years, and approximately 42% of the sample was female. The students participated in a class exercise designed to provide insight into group decision-making. Participants were given extra course credit for their participation, and a few of the best performing groups on the prediscussion task were randomly selected and entered into a raffle to receive certificates for free meals at local restaurants.

Participants first made individual assessments about who they believed committed a murder (see [START_REF] Stasser | Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment[END_REF] for materials) based on the investigating detective's reports, and then discussed the case in three-person groups. Groups were either all male (42) or all female (30); the gender composition of the group is included as a covariate in all analyses presented. Eighty-two percent of the participants were white, 14% Asian, and the remainder African American or Hispanic. We used a 2 (surface-level homogeneous vs. surface-level diverse) ϫ 2 (deep-level similarities highlighted vs. control) between-subjects design and all analyses were conducted at the group level. There were a total of 31 surface-level homogeneous (i.e. three Caucasian group members) and 41 surface-level diverse groups (i.e. two Caucasian and one Asian, African American, or Hispanic). Forty groups were in the deep-level similarities condition and 32 were in the control condition. Participants were thoroughly debriefed about the purpose of the study after participation.

Materials

Every participant was given a packet of evidence from an apparent homicide investigation. The evidence consisted of interviews and a variety of supporting materials, including a list of suspects, a map, a personal note, and a newspaper article. All of these materials were adapted from [START_REF] Stasser | Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment[END_REF] study. Within each group, every member received the list of suspects, transcripts of initial interviews with each of the four key suspects, the newspaper article, and maps of the crime scene and surrounding area. The materials contained 42 clues in all, 12 of which were critical for solving the case. All participants received 30 commonly shared clues; 12 critical clues were distributed among the three group members such that each group member held some unique information pertinent to identifying the guilty suspect. These clues were embedded in followup interviews with the key suspects, and interviews with some additional witnesses. In all of the groups, a hidden profile existed because the best solution was more likely to be found if the unique information represented by the 12 unshared critical clues was shared.

Procedure

When participants arrived at the laboratory or in the classroom, they were randomly assigned to three-person groups based on their visible racial characteristics, with the constraint that all three members had to be of the same gender. In some groups the three group members appeared to all be Caucasian (surface-level homogeneous groups), and in other groups two of the members appeared Caucasian and Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4) one was of a different race (Asian, African American, or Hispanic). At the end of participation, group members provided their selfidentified race on the post-task questionnaire, and the experimenters' group assignments were validated against the information provided by the students.

During the study, participants were first given approximately 20 minutes to read and review materials in order to determine which of four suspects committed a murder (materials drawn from [START_REF] Stasser | Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment[END_REF] and also used by [START_REF] Gruenfeld | Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance[END_REF][START_REF] Liljenquist | Exploring the rabbit hole of possibilities by myself or with my group: The benefits and liabilities of activating counterfactual mind-sets for information sharing and group coordination[END_REF][START_REF] Phillips | Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties[END_REF]. Individuals were instructed to take notes on the case while reading the materials, because they would not be allowed to keep the case materials during the group discussion portion of the exercise. Participants made an individual assessment of who they believed was more likely to have committed the murder. They were asked to indicate how confident they were that each of the four suspects did or did not commit the murder. Subjects were also asked to provide a brief, written justification for their decision.

Participants were then gathered into their assigned three-person groups, and were instructed that they had 5 minutes to complete a short exercise before beginning group discussion. Groups were separated so that they could not overhear the deliberations of other groups. Half of the groups were randomly assigned to identify their similarities with the following instructions:

Working together with the other two members of your group, you have 5 minutes to discover as many things as possible that the three of you have in common. You may include anything that you have in common: friends, experiences, hobbies, books or movies that you liked, places to which you have all traveled, places where you all have lived or visitedanything that the three of you have in common. Put as many items on your list as possible.

The control groups were given the following instructions:

Working by yourself, you have 5 minutes to list as many US states and their capitals as you can remember. Put as many states and their capitals on your list as possible.

Control group members did not work together on the state capitals task in order to prevent the inadvertent sharing of similarity information while working together on the task. (A followup data collection revealed that working together to identify similarities increased group members' perceptions of similarity while working together on the state capitals task did not). 1 In both conditions, participants were informed that the group during that session that generated the longest list (of similarities or state capitals) could receive a prize (certificates for free meals at a local restaurant).

After completing the 5-minute task, group members individually completed a 20-item survey titled 'Personal Assessment Inventory', by circling the number that best indicated how much they agreed with each of the statements on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. 54 groups completed the survey. Embedded in the items were questions assessing how similar group members felt to one another and how attracted they thought the group would be to them (adapted from [START_REF] Eagly | Involvement as a determinant of response to favorable and unfavorable information[END_REF].

Once the short exercise and questionnaire were completed, participants were instructed to come to a group decision regarding which suspect they believed was most likely to have committed the murder. They were informed that they would have to report their group decision in exactly the same way that they had reported their individual decisions. Groups were given up to 35 minutes to complete their discussions, which were timed by the experimenter. Finally, upon completion of the group discussion, participants filled out an individual post-task questionnaire where they recorded the group decision in terms of how confident they were that each of the four possible suspects committed the murder. All participants then answered several questions assessing their group's task performance and management of information, as well as reporting their individual demographic characteristics.

Group task performance was operationalized as how confident the group was that the correct (guilty) suspect committed the murder. For instance, groups could report that they were

Phillips et al. diversity and performance

0% to 100% certain that the correct suspect committed the murder. Group members responded individually, and individual responses were aggregated to the group level as in most groups the individual responses were exactly the same (one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for group membership (F(71, 143) = 9.35, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(1)) = .74). To illustrate that our results are indeed a reflection of group accuracy on this task, and not just higher levels of overall confidence in the groups' assessments, we also examined how confident groups were that each of the other three (innocent) suspects committed the murder.

Dependent variables

To measure group members' awareness about whether they possessed unique information, group members were asked to respond to the following item: 'The information in my packet was the same as that in others' packets', with 1 labeled 'not at all the same' and 7 labeled 'exactly the same' [START_REF] Gruenfeld | Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance[END_REF][START_REF] Phillips | Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties[END_REF]. Group discussion time was measured in minutes and seconds with an average of 20.11 minutes (SD = 6.67). Likewise, perceptions of similarity were measured on the post-manipulation questionnaire with the following item 'I feel similar to the other members of my group'. How attracted group members thought others were to them was captured by four items measured on a 7-point Likert scale; 'I think I will like being a member of this group', 'I think the others in the group will like me', 'I am fun to be with', and 'I am easy to like' (␣ = .87). The questions were asked from the perspective of the participant because the internal feelings of the individual, even if others in the group were actually more or less attracted, were thought to be the critical assessment leading to how socially validated group members would feel during the group discussion.

To examine the number and content of the similarities listed by groups, two independent raters who were blind to the hypotheses first counted the number of similarities listed by each group. They then categorized the deep-level similarities listed into two categories: characteristics that were more obvious because of the nature of the groups and participants being used, versus less obvious characteristics that took more discussion and interaction to learn.

Obvious characteristics were things that were clear to all of the group members and potentially similar among many participants in the study, such as 'all members had been in (a major building on campus)', that all students must enter for class registration and other activities. Other similarities characterized as obvious included items such as group members were all wearing shoes; group members all have hair, etc. Less obvious characteristics were described as those that could not be discerned by the group members from simply looking at the group members or knowing that they were students at the university, i.e. similarities that could not have been a matter of common knowledge. These less obvious similarities between group members included personal likes and dislikes (such as all members liked certain foods or certain restaurants), similarities in places that individuals had visited, and similarities in nonobvious demographic characteristics (such as the number of siblings). Thus, group members had to be explicit in divulging nonobvious information about themselves to discover hidden interpersonal similarities.

The two raters were trained together on about 10% of the groups (eight groups). The 162 similarities listed in those eight groups were coded in the same category 93.2% of the time. This gave us confidence to allow the two coders to proceed independently with coding the rest of the groups. One coder independently coded 39 of the 72 groups and the other coder did the 25 remaining groups.

Results

To test our hypotheses regarding the impact of highlighting deep-level similarities in surfacelevel homogeneous and diverse groups, we used a 2 (surface-level homogeneous or surface-level diverse) ϫ 2 (deep-level similarity intervention or control) analysis of covariance Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4) (ANCOVA) approach to analyze the data. Gender composition of the group (male or female) was a covariate in the analyses.

All analyses were conducted at the group level. We tested the validity of aggregating the dependent variables of perceived uniqueness of information, feelings of similarity, and perceived attraction to the group level in two steps (see [START_REF] Bliese | Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implication for data aggregation and analysis[END_REF]. First, we ran a one-way analysis of variance with group membership as the independent variable to ensure that the variance between teams was greater than the variance within teams. In all cases, the ANOVAs were significant (F(71, 143) = 2.15, p < .001; F(53, 108) = 1.50, p < .04; F(53, 108) = 1.57, p < .03). We then calculated ICC(1) values for each of the dependent variables to test how much variability in individual responses was due to group membership [START_REF] Bliese | Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implication for data aggregation and analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Klein | From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research[END_REF]. The ICC(1) values were 0.28, 0.15, and 0.16 respectively, suggesting that there was significant interdependence in individual responses and that group membership accounted for a reasonable proportion of variance in individual responses on these three dependent variables [START_REF] Bliese | Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implication for data aggregation and analysis[END_REF][START_REF] James | Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement[END_REF]. 2

Manipulation checks

The composition of the groups was validated against the self-reported race of each of the participants. This revealed that there were two groups initially categorized by the experimenter as racially homogeneous that self-identified as racially diverse. These groups were moved to the appropriate category before analysis.

To check on the outcomes of the similaritymanipulation, we first examined the number of similarities listed by surface-level homogeneous and diverse groups. We found no significant differences in the number of similarities listed by the two types of groups (M = 18.84, SD = 7.98). Likewise, there were no significant differences in the types of similarities listed by the groups with an average of 59% (SD = 18%) being categorized as nonobvious by the coders. These results suggest that surface-level homogeneous and surface-level diverse groups naturally generated approximately the same number and type of similarities during the similarity intervention.

We also examined how similar group members felt to one another right after completing the manipulation, but before beginning discussion of the task. As expected, group members felt more similar to one another after highlighting deep level similarities (M = 4.71, SD = 0.80) than in the control conditions (M = 4.49, SD = 0.76) (F(1, 49) = 3.92, p = .05). Notably, there was a marginally significant interaction effect (F(1, 49) = 2.86, p = .097), suggesting that deep-level similarities increased feelings of similarity more for surface-level homogeneous groups than for surface-level diverse groups (see Table 2 for means).

Hypotheses tests

In Hypothesis 1, we predicted that surface-level homogeneous groups would report discovering less unique information and would discuss the task less than would surface-level diverse groups. We conducted a multivariate analysis of variance analysis and found support for our hypothesis (F(2, 63) = 3.14, p < .05). The followup univariate tests revealed that surface-level homogeneous groups reported that the information in their packets was more similar (M = 3.31, SD = 1.18) than did surface-level diverse groups (M = 2.78, SD = 0.80) (F(1, 67) = 4.39, p < .05). Likewise, we found that surface-level homogeneous groups (M = 17.90, SD = 7.54) spent less time discussing the task than surfacelevel diverse groups (M = 21.72, SD = 5.52) (F(1, 64) = 5.29, p < .03). Table 1, which includes the correlations among all of the variables reported here, shows that discussion time and awareness of unique information were significantly correlated at r = -.46, p < .01. Controlling for the effects of discussion time on the awareness of unique information, the effect of surface-level group composition on awareness of unique information was no longer significant (F < 1.0, p > .30), suggesting that discussion time mediated the effects of surface-level composition on the discovery of unique information.

Hypothesis 2A predicted that learning about nontask relevant deep-level similarities would increase perceived attraction among the group.

Phillips et al. diversity and performance

Analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect for the similarity manipulation (F(1, 49) = 3.00, p < .10); groups exposed to the similarity intervention reported greater feelings of attraction (M = 5.29, SD = 0.54) than those in the control condition (M = 5.15, SD = 0.54). This main effect was accompanied by a significant and unexpected interaction effect (F(1, 49) = 5.38, p < .03). While surface-level homogeneous groups were more attracted to one another after the deep-level similarity manipulation, this was not the case for surface-level diverse groups (see Table 2 for means). Neither Hypotheses 2B (that there would be a main effect of the deeplevel similarity manipulation on awareness of unique information and discussion time) nor Hypothesis 2C (that the impact of surface-level composition would interact with the similarity intervention to affect awareness of unique information and discussion time) was supported (Fs < 1, ps = ns).

Group performance was analyzed using an ANCOVA analysis with two covariates-gender composition and the average individual confidence about the a priori correct suspect prior to group discussion. Although the means were in the expected direction (M = 65.60, SD = 26.76 and M = 56.77, SD = 31.91 for surfacelevel diverse and homogeneous groups respectively), the main effects for surface-level diversity and the deep-level similarity manipulation were not supported (Fs < 1, ps = ns). Further analysis did reveal a significant inter-action between surface-level diversity and the deep-level similarity intervention (F(1, 66) = 6.29, p < .02). As predicted in Hypothesis 3c, we found that surface-level diverse groups performed worse after being exposed to the deeplevel similarity manipulation (M = 61.00, SD = 28.69) than when they were not (M = 72.79, SD = 22.41) (F(1, 37) = 4.20, p < .05). In contrast and contrary to our expectations, surface-level homogeneous groups seemed to perform better after experiencing the similarity intervention (M = 67.89, SD = 31.68) than when they did not (M = 46.35, SD = 29.33), although this difference did not reach significance (F(1, 27) = 2.34, p = .138). (Both individual decisions and gender composition were controlled for in these follow-up analyses.) Additional analyses on how confident groups were that each of the three incorrect suspects committed the murder revealed no significant effects. This rules out the possibility that some conditions just made groups more confident than others did.

Finally, Table 1 includes correlations of all variables reported in the results. Of note, the correlations show that group composition was related to how long groups discussed the task (r = -.28, p < .02), such that surface-level homogeneous groups discussed the task for a shorter period of time; and group discussion time was positively related to group performance-the group's confidence that the correct suspect committed the murder (r = .26, p < .04 Surface-level composition is coded 1 = homogeneous, 0 = diverse; deep-level similarity intervention is coded 1 = yes, 0 = control; and awareness of unique information is coded 1 = information is not the same (i.e. unique) to 7 = information is the same.

unique information, and group performance were all significantly correlated (r s > .26, ps < .05), meaning that groups performed better when they spent more time in discussion and, in turn, became more aware of the differences in information present among group members.

Discussion

This article reports how different types of diversity-surface-and deep-level-influence group decision-making and performance. Understanding the impact of diversity on decisionmaking groups is often complicated by the different sources of diversity that can exist and the assumed correlation among these sources. In this study, we moved beyond the typical social categorization perspective on diversity by highlighting a by-product of the social categorization process-assumptions of ingroup similarity-which has been overlooked by researchers in this tradition. We argue that surface-level diversity triggers expectations that informational differences may be present in groups, making it more expected and legitimate for group members to raise and discuss unique information that may be critical for group performance. Moreover, by highlighting deep-level similarities in an effort to increase levels of attraction and diminish social categorization effects, managers may undermine the benefits of having surface-level diversity present in groups that must share unique information for effective performance.

While our results revealed a substantial amount of support for this perspective, there were some surprises. First, in support of this perspective we found that surface-level diverse groups perceived their information to be less similar, and spent more time discussing the task than did surface-level homogeneous groups. Moreover, the more time group members spent discussing the task, the more likely they were to perceive the information as different. These results were strong, expected, and independent of whether groups learned about deep-level similarities.

As argued and shown by past research, learning about deep-level similarities had a positive impact on how similar and how attracted group members felt toward one another [START_REF] Byrne | The attraction paradigm[END_REF], but mostly for the surface-level homogeneous groups. The similarity manipulation did not reliably increase perceived attraction for the surface-level diverse groups, even though our manipulation check revealed that the number and type of similarities generated by the two types of groups did not differ. Moreover, we did not find evidence that the deep-level similarities had a differential impact on surface-level homogeneous and diverse groups' awareness of unique information or discussion time. There was only the significant interaction on group performance showing that surface-level diverse groups performed worse after being exposed to the deep-level similarity manipulation. In contrast, surface-level homogeneous groups seemed to be helped by the intervention, although not significantly so. Overall, the general arguments made in this article were supported with some exceptions. A closer look at the deep-level similarity manipulation may lend some insight into future research opportunities. Group members were instructed to spend five minutes discovering as many things as possible that all three of the group members had in common. This meant that in the process of finding these similarities, groups were also likely to discover similarities that bonded only subsets of the members, and differences where none of the group members were similar. Without a measure of these partially shared similarities or the differences that surfaced, it is difficult to determine exactly how they might have affected our results here. However, given that all groups had the same amount of time for the exercise and that there were no differences in the number of similarities discovered, it is likely that there were no systematic differences across the conditions on the number of differences found either. Future research should disentangle the effects of highlighting similarities from the effects of discovering differences, and the implications of doing this in light of a group's surface-level composition.

Sharing unique information is difficult in groups, because sharing the information often means that one has to disagree with the rest of the group about what is important for making the group decision. Providing the context that allows groups to benefit fully from the unique information and perspectives that each group member holds is a difficult task. This research suggests that surface-level diversity might be beneficial for groups because of the legitimacy it lends to sharing unique perspectives. For surface-level homogeneous groups the obvious similarities among group members hindered the recognition of unique information and led them to perform worse. In fact, the surfacelevel homogeneous groups in the control condition performed worse than any others in our sample. For these groups, sharing unique information may be particularly difficult because of the social risks involved (e.g. [START_REF] Gruenfeld | Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance[END_REF][START_REF] Wittenbaum | Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information[END_REF].

Surface-level homogeneous groups, where group members are concerned about being accepted by their fellow in-group members, suffer more from conformity pressures that prevent them from sharing unique information and opinions than do surface-level diverse groups (e.g. [START_REF] Abrams | Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization[END_REF][START_REF] Janis | Victims of groupthink[END_REF][START_REF] Phillips | When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members[END_REF]. [START_REF] Postmes | Quality of decision making and group norms[END_REF] suggest that one way to overcome the reluctance to share unique information is to develop norms of criticality instead of consensus. This may be even more important for surface-level homogeneous than for surface-level diverse groups. Moreover, homogeneity without feelings of attraction and acceptance may be detrimental to groups when sharing unique information is crucial for performance [START_REF] Gruenfeld | Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance[END_REF][START_REF] Jehn | Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediation processes in friendship and acquaintance groups[END_REF]. There is a fine line that surface-level homogeneous groups need to walk. Feeling too similar to one another may undermine the amount of time group members spend on the task, as suggested by the correlation found here between feelings of similarity and discussion time, but not feeling similar enough may lead group members to feel insecure and have concern about sharing unique information at all.

Future research should attempt to disentangle the effects of similarity and familiarity on work teams. For instance, does familiarity have the same effect on surface-level homogeneous as it does on diverse groups? How familiar do people need to be with one another before the potential benefits of familiarity outweigh the potential downsides of similarity/diversity? From the study conducted here, it seems that increasing familiarity (e.g. via 5 minutes of discussing similarities) can only slightly overcome the conformity pressures that come along with surface-level homogeneity. However, it may take considerably longer for surface-level diverse groups to benefit from familiarity [START_REF] Watson | Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups[END_REF]. The amount of diversity present in our groups, and the small group size, may also be limitations that should be considered in future research. Would the diverse groups have performed even better if they had had greater surface-level diversity? Would the results be the same if a different type of surface-level diversity were used?

In conclusion, as organizations attempt to cope with the changing demography of the work force there is a natural tendency to believe that what enhances the performance of surfacelevel homogeneous groups may also enhance Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4) the performance of surface-level diverse groups. The current research suggests that enhancing the performance of workgroups is more complex than that. Our research found that attempting to diminish the salience of potentially disruptive categorical boundaries by asking members of racially diverse groups to focus on their similarities was detrimental for group performance. Diversity can be beneficial for groups, not merely because individuals belonging to different subgroups are likely to have access to differing information, but also because the presence of salient differences may legitimate the introduction and consideration of unique information in the group's decisionmaking process. Both the positive and negative effects of surface-level and deep-level diversity in the workplace are yet to be fully understood. This work is another step toward understanding the effects of diversity on groups where sharing unique information is to performance.

Notes

1. We conducted a follow-up study with 12 three-person racially homogeneous groups that either worked together to identify US states and capitals or worked together to identify similarities. Results revealed that identifying similarities does indeed lead individuals to feel more similar to one another than just working together recalling US states and capitals (F(1, 10) = 10.48, p < .01). Moreover, a comparison of feelings of similarity by the groups that worked together to identify US states and capitals (M = 4.71, SD = .56) and those that worked separately when they identified states and capitals (from the initial study) (M = 4.41, SD = .88) revealed that there was no significant difference between the two types of groups (t(18) = .821, p = .423). Theoretically, we do not believe that just working together (without discussing similarities) could generate our same pattern of data. The highlighting of similarities in surface-level diverse groups causes a particular threat to expectations that just working together would not. For instance, in the work by [START_REF] Gruenfeld | Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance[END_REF] familiarity was found to lead to better performance when unique information needed to be shared. This suggests that both the surface-level homogeneous and diverse groups should have improved their performance after working together to highlight deep-level similarities if simply working together is all that is important. As this was not the case we believe that our current manipulation of highlighting similarities does indeed add a unique contribution to people's experience, beyond just working together. 2. Bliese (2000, p. 361) reports that values between .05 and .30 should be expected in most applied field settings.

Table 1 .

 1 ). Moreover, group discussion time, awareness of Means, standard deviations, and correlations for study variables (N = 72) = 69 for time discussing task and N = 54 for the perceptions of similarity attraction.

	Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4)

Table 2 .

 2 Phillips et al. diversity and performance477 Means (standard deviations) for feelings of similarity and attraction (N = 54 groups) Note: Means sharing subscripts within each row differ from one another significantly at p < .05.

			Surface-level		Surface-level
			homogeneous/		diverse/
		Surface-level	Deep-level		Deep-level
		homogeneous/	similarity	Surface-level	similarity
		Control	intervention	diverse/Control	intervention
	Feelings of similarity	4.41 (0.88) a	5.14 (0.69) ab	4.60 (0.60)	4.44 (0.75) b
	Perceived attraction	5.00 (0.54) a	5.56 (0.49) ab	5.34 (0.51)	5.12 (0.51) b

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to the graduate students who assisted in the data collection efforts. Also, we thank KTAG for financial support and the members of the Social Interactions Lab at Northwestern University for their helpful comments. We thank Elson Huang and Tanya Canak for coding help. In addition, I would like to thank the audiences at several colloquiums who offered their insights on this work.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4)