Angela T Maitner
email: maitner@psych.ucsb.edu

Diane M Mackie

Eliot R Barbara

Smith

Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction and Guilt Following Ingroup Aggression

Keywords: guilt, identifi cation, intergroup emotion, satisfaction

Three studies investigated the role of intergroup satisfaction in intergroup confl ict. After reading about real acts of aggression committed by an ingroup, participants reported how those actions made them feel and how much they would support similar aggression in the future. In all three studies, experiencing intergroup satisfaction increased support for similar aggression, whereas experiencing intergroup guilt decreased support for similar aggression. Study 2 showed that ingroup identifi cation increased justifi cation appraisals, which increased satisfaction and decreased guilt, and thus increased support for future aggression. Study 3 provided an experimental test of the model: when justifi cation appraisals were manipulated, emotion and support for further aggression changed accordingly. These fi ndings demonstrate conditions under which intergroup satisfaction can facilitate and sustain intergroup confl ict.

In 1973, the United States covertly supported a military led coup against the democratically elected socialist government of President Salvador Allende in Chile. The coup was a bloody one, but CIA backing allowed General Augusto Pinochet to begin a 17-year dictatorship that left more than 3000 Chileans dead or missing. Some commentators have suggested that despite the brutal repression that kept Pinochet in power, satisfaction with the outcome of the event at the time encouraged US intrusion throughout Central and South America for the next two decades [START_REF] Bancroft-Hinchley | Allende and Berlusconi[END_REF]. In this article, we explore how such satisfaction with ingroup aggression can foster support for continued confl ict.

The roots of intergroup confl ict are complex, residing in competition both for material and psychological gain and embedded in patterns of confl ict and entrenched mutual views of antagonists as evil and untrustworthy [START_REF] Brewer | Intergroup relations[END_REF][START_REF] Sherif | Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup confl ict[END_REF][START_REF] Tajfel | The social identity theory of intergroup confl ict[END_REF]. We are concerned with the role that emotions might play in exacerbating intergroup confl ict once an aggressive act has been committed.

Although emotion and its regulatory role on behavior have long been considered individually based phenomena, recent theories have claimed emotion as also a group level phenomenon, with implications for intergroup behavior [START_REF] Alexander | Images and affect: A functional analysis of out-group stereotypes[END_REF][START_REF] Fiske | A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition[END_REF][START_REF] Mackie | Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context[END_REF][START_REF] Neuberg | Intergroup emotions: A biocultural approach[END_REF]. Intergroup Emotions Theory (IET; [START_REF] Mackie | Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context[END_REF][START_REF] Mackie | Intergroup relations: Insights from a theoretically integrative approach[END_REF][START_REF] Smith | Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice[END_REF], for example, postulates that when people identify with a group, they experience emotion in response to events that either help or harm group goals, regardless of whether those events are performed by or targeted at them personally. Specifi cally, individuals will make group-level appraisals which incite group-level emotions and group-level action tendencies. Thus the experience of these group emotions is fundamental to intergroup relations because they translate interpretations of what is good or bad for the ingroup into group-based action tendencies. Evidence now suggests that identification with a group is key in the experience of group-based emotions [START_REF] Mackie | Intergroup emotion: Emotion as an intergroup phenomenon[END_REF], that people experience emotions in response to group outcomes even when those outcomes are not personally relevant [START_REF] Mackie | Intergroup emotions and the social self: Prejudice reconceptualized as differentiated reactions to outgroups[END_REF], and that group members' experience of intergroup emotion mediates their desires to confront or avoid the outgroup (Dumont, Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003;[START_REF] Mackie | Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context[END_REF][START_REF] Silver | The nature of intergroup emotions[END_REF]Yzerbyt, Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003).

Research is increasingly demonstrating a role for emotion in intergroup action tendencies. Collective guilt, for example, has been attributed a role not just in promoting more positive intergroup attitudes [START_REF] Powell | Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes[END_REF] but in actually inhibiting the desire for aggressive intergroup behavior (Branscombe & Doosje, 2004;[START_REF] Branscombe | Antecedents and consequences of collective guilt[END_REF]. Specifi cally, collective guilt is related to a desire to make apologies or reparations to the offended group [START_REF] Doosje | Guilty by association: When one's group has a negative history[END_REF][START_REF] Iyer | White guilt and racial compensation: The benefi ts and limits of self-focus[END_REF][START_REF] Mallett | Collective guilt in the United States: Predicting support for social policies that alleviate social injustice[END_REF][START_REF] Schmitt | Gender inequality and the intensity of men's collective guilt[END_REF][START_REF] Swim | White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affi rmative action[END_REF]; see also [START_REF] Schmitt | Gender, ethnicity, and education as privileges: Exploring the generalizability of the existential guilt reaction[END_REF]. There is even evidence that the more collective guilt individuals feel for their ingroups' wrongdoings, the more likely they are to forgive the outgroup its own indiscretions [START_REF] Hewstone | Intergroup forgiveness and guilt in Northern Ireland: Social psychological dimensions of 'the troubles[END_REF]. This research demonstrates the importance of collective guilt in regulating intergroup attitudes and behavior (but see also Iyer et al., 2003, for limitations). With its tendency to correct inappropriate behavior, collective guilt clearly plays a pivotal role in alleviating group confl ict.

Because of its role in inhibiting intergroup aggression, researchers have investigated the conditions under which individuals will experience collective guilt. Although personal responsibility for an immoral behavior has been found to be central to the experience of guilt on an interpersonal level [START_REF] Weiner | Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct[END_REF], research has now shown that people can experience intergroup guilt even when the individual has no direct responsibility for the group's action (e.g. [START_REF] Branscombe | Antecedents and consequences of collective guilt[END_REF]. For example, Australians feel collective guilt for the harsh treatment of Aborigines, Dutch feel collective guilt for the colonization of Indonesia, and white Americans feel collective guilt for the historically harsh treatment of African Americans [START_REF] Branscombe | Antecedents and consequences of collective guilt[END_REF][START_REF] Iyer | White guilt and racial compensation: The benefi ts and limits of self-focus[END_REF][START_REF] Powell | Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes[END_REF][START_REF] Swim | White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affi rmative action[END_REF]. However, both self-categorization in terms of a group membership and an acknowledgement of ingroup responsibility are necessary precursors to collective guilt [START_REF] Branscombe | Antecedents and consequences of collective guilt[END_REF]. Apparently these conditions are not always easily met. As Branscombe and Miron conclude, 'collective guilt appears to be a fragile emotional response that can be rather easily disrupted ' (2004, p. 331).

What happens when groups do not feel badly about acts of intergroup aggression? Especially when aggression is goal directed, when the ingroup is helped in some intended way, group members may instead feel intergroup satisfaction following intergroup aggression. At the interpersonal level, satisfaction is defi ned as a positive emotional response to obtaining some desired goal or event [START_REF] Ortony | The cognitive structure of emotions[END_REF]. Given that aggression is often goal-directed, perceived advancement of those goals through such behavior elicits satisfaction, and such satisfaction increases the likelihood of further aggression [START_REF] Berkowitz | On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitiveneoassociationistic analysis[END_REF]. We assume satisfaction has a similar function at the intergroup level. Identifi cation with a group translates appraisals from concerns about how events impact the self personally to concerns about whether events promote or hurt the group. Thus intergroup aggression-aggression carried out by the group or in the name of the group-may produce intergroup satisfaction if it is seen as advancing the group's position. Such satisfaction in turn may increase the desire for further similar behavior. Elsewhere we have shown that successfully executing a desired intergroup behavior leads to satisfaction, accompanied by a strengthened desire to engage in similar behavior in the future [START_REF] Maitner | Evidence for the regulatory function of intergroup emotion: Emotional consequences of implemented or impeded intergroup action tendencies[END_REF]. Taking a regulatory perspective on intergroup emotion thus suggests that intergroup satisfaction might act as an emotional reinforcer of aggressive intergroup behavior, thereby promoting support for continued confl ict. Accordingly, we hypothesized that any satisfaction group members felt in response to ingroup aggression would predict their support for future aggression. As collective guilt is related to a desire to apologize or make reparations, we expected intergroup guilt to predict reduced support for continued aggressive action. We tested these hypotheses in three studies.

Study 1

Our fi rst study was designed to demonstrate a relation between any satisfaction and guilt experienced following ingroup aggression and the extent to which group members supported further aggression. Paralleling the interpersonal literature, we expected satisfaction and guilt to be conceptually independent [START_REF] Ortony | The cognitive structure of emotions[END_REF]. Depending on how they appraised the events, we expected group members to react with feelings of satisfaction and/or guilt after learning or being reminded of negative ingroup behavior. Confi rming previous research, we expected these emotions to be elicited even if individual group members were not personally responsible for the group's action, as long as they recognized the aggressing group as an ingroup. We further expected that satisfaction for group actions would relate to support for similar aggression in the future, whereas feeling guilty for group actions would undermine support for similar action in the future. To test these ideas, we had participants read short descriptions of ingroup aggression and report their emotional reactions and support for future group-level actions.

Method

Participants Participants were 33 students at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). Only students who identifi ed themselves as American in pretesting were invited to participate. Students received course credit for their participation. They participated up to six at a time, individually responding to questionnaires in cubicle spaces.

Procedure

Description of ingroup aggression Written instructions informed participants that the study was concerned with people's reactions to group action. Participants then read one of two minimal, historically accurate, specifi c, descriptions of aggressive actions taken by the United States against another non-specifi ed nation. Participants read either: 'The United States used missiles to destroy a factory in an African country; many people died'; or 'The United States supported a coup in a South American country that resulted in many deaths'. 1 Dependent variables Participants were then asked to indicate how the action made them feel. Participants used 7-point scales (1 = not at all to 7 = very) to indicate how much they were feeling each of six emotion terms. Terms were intended to assess feelings of satisfaction (satisfi ed, pleased, content; α = .86) or guilt (guilty, regretful, sorry; α = .81).

Participants next reported their support for future aggression by responding to the two questions: 'In the future, do you think the United States should engage in similar action?' and 'In the future, do you think the United States should avoid similar action?' Participants again used 7-point scales (1 = defi nitely not; 7 = defi nitely yes) to indicate their support. These two items correlated at r = -.76 (p < .001) and were combined to refl ect how much the participant supported similar ingroup aggression in the future. When participants completed these items, they were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results and discussion

No signifi cant differences in responses were found between the two descriptions of ingroup aggression. All further analyses are collapsed across stimulus replication.

Intergroup emotions and support for intergroup action Overall, participants reported feeling minimal satisfaction (M = 1.81, SD = 0.96) and moderate guilt (M = 4.43, SD = 1.46) in response to the aggressive ingroup action. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) confi rmed that participants felt more guilt than satisfaction for the negative ingroup action (F(1, 32) = 69.18, p < .001). The fact that they played no part in this historical action, yet experienced guilt and satisfaction in response to it, confi rmed our assumption that participants who identifi ed themselves as Americans considered the United States an ingroup. As expected, the experience of satisfaction and guilt were uncorrelated (r = -.085, ns). Overall, our participants reported being moderately opposed to similar aggression in the future (M = 3.00, SD = 1.49).

Relation between intergroup emotion and support for intergroup action

Our hypotheses focused primarily on the relations between intergroup emotions and support for future aggression. We predicted that exposure to information about negative ingroup behavior would result in feelings of satisfaction and/or guilt, and that these emotions would in turn affect group members' behavioral intentions. We correlated participants' emotion scores with their support for intergroup action. Both satisfaction and guilt predicted behavioral intentions as expected. Although participants experienced only minimal satisfaction, the satisfaction they did experience was strongly and signifi cantly related to support for future aggression (r = .62, p < .001). 2 Guilt, on the other hand, was related to reduced support for similar aggressive action (r = -.36, p = .040).

When satisfaction and guilt were simultaneously entered into a regression equation predicting desire for similar intergroup aggression, they predicted nearly 48% of the variance in support for future aggression (F (2, 30) = 13.58, p < .001). Satisfaction uniquely accounted for 35% of this variance while guilt uniquely accounted for 10%. 3 Although participants reported very little satisfaction for their groups' aggressive action, the satisfaction they did report signifi cantly predicted support for future aggression. Although group members reported more guilt at the ingroup's action overall, this guilt was less strongly predictive of support for future intergroup aggression.

Study 2

Study 1 showed that the satisfaction people experienced following intergroup aggression was predictive of increased support for further aggression, whereas the guilt they felt was predictive of decreased support. Given the important role satisfaction plays in facilitating and guilt in inhibiting intergroup aggression, we turned to the question of how each of these emotions might arise. According to IET, distinctive intergroup appraisals give rise to distinct emotions. In this regard, appraisals of justifi ability seem most relevant to the intergroup emotions of concern. First, perceptions of justifi ability clearly minimize the experience of intergroup guilt. For instance, several researchers have shown that perceptions of unfairness, illegitimacy, or injustice evoke collective guilt [START_REF] Branscombe | Interpreting the ingroup's negative actions toward another group: Emotional reactions to appraised harm[END_REF][START_REF] Mallett | Collective guilt in the United States: Predicting support for social policies that alleviate social injustice[END_REF], whereas thoughts about exonerating conditions minimize collective guilt (Roccas, Klar, & Liviatan, 2004). Second, distributive outcomes that are perceived as just or fair lead to relatively high levels of satisfaction [START_REF] Adams | Inequity is social exchange[END_REF][START_REF] Crosby | A model of egoistical relative deprivation[END_REF][START_REF] Walster | Equity: Theory and research[END_REF]. Thus people appear to experience collective guilt to the extent that they perceive behavior as unjustifi ed and satisfaction to the extent that they view behavior as justifi ed. We thus assessed appraisals of justification of intergroup aggression as precursors of intergroup satisfaction and guilt. These emotions were expected in turn to infl uence support for ingroup action, with satisfaction promoting support for further intergroup aggression and guilt depressing it, as found in Study 1.

Given the important role that identifi cation with a group has been shown to play in the experience of intergroup emotion in general [START_REF] Silver | The nature of intergroup emotions[END_REF], and in the experience of intergroup guilt specifi cally [START_REF] Doosje | Guilty by association: When one's group has a negative history[END_REF], Study 2 also investigated how identifi cation with the aggressive ingroup might infl uence the relations between emotion and support for ingroup aggression found in Study 1. IET predicts that identification with the group infl uences the appraisals people make in intergroup contexts. These appraisals should in turn infl uence intergroup emotions [START_REF] Mackie | Intergroup emotion: Emotion as an intergroup phenomenon[END_REF][START_REF] Silver | The nature of intergroup emotions[END_REF][START_REF] Yzerbyt | I feel for us: The impact of categorization and identifi cation on emotions and action tendencies[END_REF]. In this study, we expected identifi cation to infl uence appraisals of the justifi ability of ingroup aggression, which would in turn infl uence intergroup satisfaction and guilt and thus support for future aggression.

We expected identifi cation to increase perceptions of the justifi ability of ingroup aggression because when identity is based on group membership, the desire for a positive self-view results in group-serving explanations for ingroup actions (Branscombe & Doosje, 2004;[START_REF] Branscombe | Interpreting the ingroup's negative actions toward another group: Emotional reactions to appraised harm[END_REF][START_REF] Doosje | Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group[END_REF][START_REF] Mummendey | Socio-structural characteristics of intergroup relations and identity management strategies: Results from a fi eld study in East Germany[END_REF]. Highly identifi ed individuals are least likely to accept threatening information about the group's past [START_REF] Doosje | Guilty by association: When one's group has a negative history[END_REF], are most able to minimize perception of harm done by the ingroup, and are most able to focus on outgroup behaviors or qualities that justify the aggression [START_REF] Branscombe | A social psychological process perspective on collective guilt[END_REF][START_REF] Branscombe | Interpreting the ingroup's negative actions toward another group: Emotional reactions to appraised harm[END_REF]. Thus, high identifi ers appear more likely to spontaneously justify their ingroup's aggressive behavior.

This pattern of responses creates conditions that allow us to predict a positive relation between group identifi cation and support for future aggression (since identifi cation leads to justifi cation which leads to satisfaction which leads to support for further aggression). Such a prediction is consistent with other evidence that highly identifi ed group members are often those most likely to show ingroup bias [START_REF] Castano | I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identifi cation, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias[END_REF][START_REF] Verkuyten | Ingroup bias: The effect of self-stereotyping, identifi cation and group threat[END_REF], especially under conditions of social identity threat [START_REF] Branscombe | Self and group protection concerns infl uence attributions but they are not determinants of counterfactual mutation focus[END_REF][START_REF] Branscombe | Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial[END_REF]. We expected this relation between identifi cation and support for future aggression to be mediated by intergroup appraisals and intergroup emotions.

Thus, in Study 2, we hypothesized that: (1) identifi cation would infl uence support for continued ingroup aggression via intergroup justifi cation appraisals, and (2) justifi cation appraisals would infl uence support for intergroup action via increasing satisfaction and decreasing guilt.

Method

Participants and design Participants were 68 American students at UCSB. Students were either paid or received course credit for their participation. Participants responded to the dependent variables in individual cubicle spaces after completing an unrelated computer task.

Procedure

Identifi cation assessment American identifi cation was assessed four to eight weeks prior to data collection using the identity subscale of Luhtanen and Crocker's (1992) Collective Self-Esteem Scale. This scale was modifi ed so that the four items referred to the group Americans, rather than to social groups in general (i.e. The American group is an important refl ection of who I am). Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Description of ingroup aggression

Participants read one of the three historically accurate descriptions of negative American actions. The new description read, 'The United States conducted air raids on an Asian country, many people died'. This item was pretested at the same time as the others and was rated as similarly negative (M = 5.47, SD = 1.07).

Dependent variables Participants responded to the item, '

To what extent do you think the United States' action was justifi ed?' on a 7-point scale from 1 (very unjustifi ed) to 7 (very justifi ed).

Participants next responded in the same way to the same emotion terms, and support for future behavior questions as in Study 1. As in Study 1, the satisfaction items were internally consistent (α = .90). Despite their consistency in Study 1, internal consistency for the guilt items was much lower (α = .66). Given their conceptual derivation, their high reliability in Study 1, and the fact that the means produced in this study were similar to those in Study 1, we maintained the same composite score. After completing these measures, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results and discussion

Identifi cation and justifi cation Reported identifi cation as Americans yielded a symmetric distribution of scores with average identifi cation at the midpoint of the scale (M = 3.92, SD = 1.37). No systematic differences were found across stimulus replication (F (2, 65) = .83, ns), indicating no failures of randomization.

Participants reported that the US actions were moderately justifi ed (M = 3.84, SD = 1.22). Neither stimulus replication nor its interaction effects (with American identifi cation) exerted any impact on justifi cation scores.

Intergroup emotions and support for intergroup action Satisfaction and guilt were again uncorrelated; (r = -.16, ns). A repeated measures ANOVA revealed that participants reported feeling more guilt (M = 3.86, SD = 1.29) than satisfaction (M = 2.13, SD = 1.32), (F (1, 65) = 49.46, p < .001). Overall, participants reported being moderately unsupportive of similar aggression in the future (M = 3.29, SD = 1.49).

Relations among identifi cation, justifi cation, emotion, and support for intergroup action

We tested our hypotheses using [START_REF] Baron | The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations[END_REF] mediated regression procedure. We predicted that (1) identifi cation would infl uence support for intergroup action via justifi cation, and (2) justifi cation would infl uence support for intergroup action via satisfaction and guilt.

First we examined justifi cation as a mediator of the relation between identifi cation and support for intergroup action. We found the hypothesized direct relation between identifi cation and support for similar aggression. As expected, the more participants identifi ed with the group, the more likely they were to support similar aggression in the future (β = .31, p = .011). Second, we found that identifi cation predicted justification as expected. The more strongly participants identifi ed with the group, the more they spontaneously justified their groups' aggression (β = .28, p = .022). Finally, when identifi cation and justifi cation were simultaneously entered into a regression analysis, identifi cation no longer predicted support for future aggression (β = .16, ns; the reduction in the β value was signifi cant, z = 2.14, p = .033). However, justifi cation still strongly predicted support for future aggression (β = .53, p < .001). Thus, the relation between identifi cation and support for future aggression was fully mediated by justifi cation (see Figure 1a).

Next we investigated whether intergroup emotions mediated the relation between justifi cation and support for intergroup action, fi rst investigating satisfaction as a mediator. Consistent with the previous analysis, justifi cation strongly predicted support for future aggression. The more participants saw intergroup aggression as justifi ed, the more they supported repeating it (β = .58, p < .001). Justifi cation was also strongly related to intergroup satisfaction. The more participants appraised acts of intergroup aggression as justifi ed, the more satisfi ed they were (β = .39, p = .001). When both justifi cation and satisfaction were entered into a simultaneous equation predicting support for future aggression, the relation between justifi cation and support for future aggression was signifi cantly reduced, although not completely eliminated (β = .39, p < .001, the reduction in the β value was signifi cant, z = 2.83, p = .005). Satisfaction also strongly predicted support for future aggression (β = .47, p < .001). Thus intergroup satisfaction signifi cantly, but not completely, mediated the relation between the appraisal of the aggression as justifi ed and support for future aggression (see Figure 1b).

Justifi cation was only marginally related to intergroup guilt. The more participants perceived acts of intergroup aggression as justifi ed, the less intergroup guilt they experienced (β = -.22, p = .068). The inclusion of guilt in a regression equation predicting support for future aggression failed to signifi cantly reduce the relation between justifi cation and support for future aggression (β = .54, p < .001, the reduction in the β value was nonsignifi cant, z = 1.32, p = .186). However, guilt was marginally related to reduced support for future aggression (β = -.19, p = .062). Because our measure of guilt was less reliable than our measure of satisfaction, we do not know whether our failure to fi nd mediation is a consequence of poor reliability, or because of true lack of relation. However, since Study 1 also found satisfaction to be more closely related to support for future aggression than guilt, it is possible that guilt is simply less related to support for future aggression than is satisfaction.

Although correlational, our results support our hypothesized model: justifi cation was important in increasing satisfaction and marginally decreasing guilt, which, in turn, were predictive of support for future aggression. Also, identifi cation with the group infl uenced the extent to which participants justifi ed ingroup aggression.

Study 3

Study 2 provided further correlational support for our model of the way in which intergroup satisfaction and guilt can facilitate and inhibit support for intergroup aggression. The extent to which individuals justifi ed ingroup aggression infl uenced their emotions, which predicted support for future aggression. Study 3 was designed to provide an experimental test of the causal relation among intergroup appraisals, emotion, and support for future ingroup action. We manipulated the appraisal context of ingroup aggression with the intent of changing participants' emotions and subsequent support for future aggression. [START_REF] Branscombe | Interpreting the ingroup's negative actions toward another group: Emotional reactions to appraised harm[END_REF] point out that individuals can legitimize their ingroup's immoral behavior in multiple, sometimes simultaneous, ways. As our concern in this experiment was to accomplish a strong manipulation of justifi cation (one that might overcome any natural proclivities among those differentially identifi ed with the group), we used a multifaceted manipulation that described the ingroup aggression as either carefully considered, reached by consensus with allies, and successful or as carelessly executed, reached without consultation with other countries, and unsuccessful. We then measured participants' justifi cations, emotions, and support for future aggression. We expected aggressive actions that were described as carefully thought out, consensual, and successful would be perceived as more justifi ed than aggressive actions described as carelessly executed, unilateral, and unsuccessful. We expected justifi ed acts would provoke more satisfaction and less guilt than unjustifi ed actions. In turn, satisfaction was expected to increase support, and guilt to decrease support, for similar aggression in the future.

Method

Participants and design Participants were 60 students at UCSB run under identical conditions to those reported in the previous two studies. Only American students were invited to participate. Participants were randomly assigned to the cells of a 2 (scenario replication) × 2 (justifi cation condition) between-subjects design. Justifi cation manipulation Participants in the justifi ed condition were told: 'The United States took this action after careful consideration of alternatives and consultation with allies. This action succeeded in achieving the United States' objectives'. Participants in the unjustifi ed condition were told: 'The United States took this action without considering all possible alternatives, and having failed to consult with allies. This action failed to achieve the United States' objectives'. This manipulation included multiple types of information-any one of which might have been crucial to the effects obtained-in an attempt to ensure participants' appraisals were infl uenced.

Dependent variables Participants next responded to the same justifi cation, emotion, and support for future behavior questions as in Study 2. Internal consistency was suffi cient for the two emotion scales (satisfaction, α = .93; guilt, α = .74). After completing these measures, participants were fully debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.

Results and discussion

Intergroup appraisals We subjected participants' justifi cation scores to a 2 (justifi cation condition) × 2 (stimulus replication) ANOVA. Analysis revealed a signifi cant effect of justification condition (F (1, 56) = 8.83, p = .004). As expected participants in the justifi ed condition perceived ingroup aggression as signifi cantly more justifi ed (M = 4.10, SD = 1.21) than participants in the unjustifi ed condition (M = 3.20, SD = 1.13). These results indicate that we successfully infl uenced participants' justifi cation appraisals as intended.

Intergroup emotions Perhaps because in this study the experimental manipulation created justifi cation differences, guilt and satisfaction were negatively correlated (r = -.27, p = .040).

A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that again, more guilt (M = 4.51, SD = 1.23) than satisfaction (M = 2.32, SD = 1.22) was experienced overall (F(1, 57) = 98.73, p < .001). However, we also found the predicted emotion by appraisal condition interaction (F(1, 56) = 23.42, p < .001). Participants reported signifi cantly more satisfaction (M = 2.97) in the justifi ed condition than in the unjustifi ed condition (M = 1.65, p < .05), and less guilt (M = 4.12) in the justifi ed condition than in the unjustifi ed condition (M = 4.89, p < .05) indicating that the manipulation infl uenced emotions as intended.

Support for intergroup action Analysis revealed a signifi cant effect of justifi cation condition on support for future aggression (F(1, 56) = 16.10, p < .001). Participants in the justifi ed condition were signifi cantly more (although not highly) likely to want to engage in similar aggression in the future (M = 3.62) than participants in the unjustifi ed condition (M = 2.40).

Relations among condition, emotion, and support for intergroup action

To assess the relations among the key variables we conducted mediational analyses. We expected condition (dummy coded; unjustifi ed condition = 0, justifi ed condition = 1) to infl uence emotions, which, in turn would infl uence support for future aggression. Even though participants reported low amounts of satisfaction, we expected that satisfaction would account for the relation between justifi cation and support for future aggression as in Study 2.

We fi rst investigated satisfaction as a mediator. We found the hypothesized direct relation between justifi cation condition and support for similar aggression. Specifi cally, participants in the justifi cation condition more strongly supported repeating similar aggression in the future (β = .46, p < .001). Second, we found that justifi cation condition predicted satisfaction. Participants in the justifi cation condition were more satisfied than participants in the unjustifi ed condition (β = .53, p < .001). Finally, when experienced satisfaction was included as a mediator, justifi cation condition no longer predicted the desire to engage in similar action in the future (β = .19, ns; the reduction in the β value was signifi cant, z = 3.38, p < .001). However, satisfaction still strongly predicted support for future aggression (β = .55, p < .001). Thus, the relation between justifi cation condition and support for future aggression was completely mediated by satisfaction. The justification condition increased support for similar behavior, and this was because such aggression was more satisfying (see Figure 2a).

Next we investigated guilt as a mediator. Again, we found that justifi cation condition predicted guilt (β = -.31, p = .015). However, when both justifi cation condition and guilt were entered into a regression equation both justifi cation condition (β = .38, p = .002) and guilt (β = -.26, p = .030) remained signifi cant predictors of support for future aggression. A Sobel test indicated there was no signifi cant reduction in the predictive power of the justifi cation condition (z = -1.67, ns). Thus, guilt did not mediate the relation between justifi cation condition and a desire for future aggression, but remained a signifi cant independent predictor (see Figure 2b). 4 A regression model including justifi cation condition, guilt, and satisfaction accounted for 48% of the variance in action tendencies (F(3, 56) = 18.62 p < .001). With all three predictors included in the model, satisfaction uniquely accounted for 19% of the variance while guilt accounted for 5%. Thus, not only was satisfaction the only mediator between justifi cation condition and support for future aggression, but satisfaction also uniquely accounted for more variance in the desire for future aggression than did guilt.

General discussion

The data from these three studies provide support for our claim that intergroup satisfaction is an emotion that can play an exacerbating role in intergroup confl ict. Using correlational data, Studies 1 and 2 showed that the intergroup satisfaction people felt following ingroup aggression predicted their support for further intergroup aggression. Collective guilt played a consistent, although weaker, role in discouraging future aggression. Study 2 showed that justifi cations for intergroup aggression were associated with increased satisfaction and increased support for continued aggression, and that those who identifi ed highly with their group were more likely to justify its aggression. Using experimental data, Study 3 confi rmed the role that justifi cation played in increasing intergroup satisfaction and decreasing intergroup guilt, and the role that satisfaction played in increasing support for continued aggression. While generally confi rming the role that intergroup guilt can play in inhibiting intergroup aggression, these three studies provide evidence that intergroup satisfaction can facilitate support for future aggression.

Although very little satisfaction was experienced by our participants overall, any experience of this emotion was strongly related to the desire to engage in similar aggression in the future (even though this too was quite minimal). We did not succeed in eliciting more than marginal satisfaction about intergroup aggression, nor more than minimal desire to continue intergroup aggression. What we did fi nd, however, is that any satisfaction that is evoked by intergroup aggression will have a powerful effect on the desire to aggress again. This suggests, perhaps discouragingly, that any aspect of intergroup aggression that increases satisfaction will have a dramatic impact on support for continued ingroup aggression, a response likely to exacerbate cycles of intergroup violence. In this regard we were able to show that justifi cation is one crucial precursor to the experience of satisfaction. In addition, we demonstrated that those highly identifi ed with a group may be more likely to support ingroup aggression because they are (as earlier research suggested) more willing or able to justify such action and thus experience more satisfaction about it.

Further research is clearly required to systematically assess conditions that increase justifi cation, as well as alternative mechanisms that might evoke intergroup satisfaction. Our multifaceted approach to obtaining a strong manipulation of justification included information about the antecedents and the consequences of the ingroup's aggressive action. Although successful, further research might usefully tease apart the effects of consideration, consensus, and success of the aggressive actions, as well as explore some of the the other conditions previously noted as producing justifi cation for immoral ingroup action (e.g. [START_REF] Branscombe | Interpreting the ingroup's negative actions toward another group: Emotional reactions to appraised harm[END_REF]. More importantly, just as researchers have begun to delineate the preconditions of experiencing collective guilt, more needs to be known about other precursors of satisfaction. Results from Studies 2 and 3 indicate that justifi cation can make acts of ingroup aggression more satisfying. However, in Study 3, although satisfaction fully mediated the relation between justifi cation condition and support for future aggression, justifi cation appraisals did not fully mediate the relation between our manipulation and participants' reported intergroup satisfaction. Just as there are many ways to escape collective guilt, there may be many ways to experience intergroup satisfaction. For example, perceiving an aggressive act as attaining a desired outcome (either in terms of material resources or improvements in group status) may alone make acts of aggression more satisfying, in addition to or despite other appraisals made about the behavior. Our manipulation may have tapped into some of these other possibilities in addition to creating justifi cation.

The exact mechanism that links satisfaction to support for future aggression is also currently unknown. In this study, we used satisfaction to refer to a cluster of emotions including pleasure and contentment. Satisfaction is not typically regarded as a basic emotion closely linked to a distinctive action tendency [START_REF] Ekman | Basic emotions[END_REF].

Nevertheless, satisfaction and gratitude have been used to label emotional reactions to hoped for events [START_REF] Ortony | The cognitive structure of emotions[END_REF]. Thus defi ned, satisfaction should be related to, but empirically distinguishable from, measures of desire for, support of, or intention to commit emotionrelated behaviors. Our data suggest that this is the case. Although strongly predictive of the support measure, reported satisfaction was distinct from both general attitudes about US policies (see Note 3) and support for continued aggression. In Studies 1 and 2, significant variance in the support measure is independent of satisfaction, as shown by the fact that guilt negatively predicts support but is completely independent of satisfaction. In Study 2, the relation between justifi cation appraisals and the support measure was only partially mediated by satisfaction, suggesting again that satisfaction and support are empirically distinguishable. As measured, satisfaction may act as a reward for succeeding and thus increase the likelihood of those behaviors being performed again ('if it feels good, do it again'). Alternatively, satisfaction may reinforce the notion that the ingroup has enough strength and status to aggress, which, in turn, may increase the likelihood of future aggression. [START_REF] Sachdev | Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations[END_REF] reported that members of high status and powerful groups were more discriminatory than subordinate low status group members. Thus such reinforcement of the group's position may make aggression more likely. Finally, much evidence suggests that people in positive states engage in heuristic processing of social information [START_REF] Forgas | Affect and information processing strategies: An interactive relationship[END_REF]. Satisfi ed participants may engage in heuristic decision making, using their positive affect as a cue to their support for similar action in the future. Understanding the mechanism through which satisfaction leads to a desire for future aggression may suggest new ways to undermine its relation with support for continued aggression.

To date, most empirical research investigating collective guilt about negative ingroup behavior has focused participants on past action or long standing inequality. [START_REF] Branscombe | A social psychological process perspective on collective guilt[END_REF] asks 'whether perceived responsibility for correcting or solving existing inequality also has potential to evoke guilt ' (p. 330). Our data certainly suggest that group members can feel guilt for more recent ingroup actions, although we did not assess perceived responsibility. Confirming earlier research, our data show collective guilt to be infl uenced by group identifi cation and perceptions of action justifi ability. Across studies, however, guilt had a weaker effect on dampening support for future aggression than satisfaction had on increasing it. Thus there may be differences in how people react to guilt elicited by past ingroup aggression and more current ingroup aggression, but this remains an empirical question.

Our fi ndings confi rm the benefi t of approaches to emotion that maintain the independence of distinct emotions. As the appraisal conditions that are thought to elicit guilt and satisfaction are quite different, we had theoretical reasons to treat the two emotions as independent. This assumption received empirical support in Studies 1 and 2, where we had no control over the spontaneous appraisals that participants made. In Study 3, however, in which we attempted to experimentally manipulate appraisals, we apparently succeeded in creating conditions that were relevant to both emotions. Nevertheless, even when appraisal conditions increased satisfaction and decreased guilt, the value of retaining these emotions as distinct can be seen in the very different relations they had with other assessed variables. The justifi cation appraisals that were made in Study 3 apparently affected satisfaction and guilt to a different extent as well as in opposite directions. Moreover, self-reported justifi cation appraisals completely mediated the relation between our manipulation and guilt but only partially mediated that with satisfaction. Thus the manipulation seems to have affected guilt fully through its impact on justifi cation, whereas it likely affected satisfaction by affecting both justifi cation and other appraisals. Similarly guilt and satisfaction were differentially related to support for future aggression and differentially mediated the impact of justifi cation on such support, all fi ndings that speak to the value of considering them conceptually distinct.

In the quest to understand intergroup confl ict, our results are limited by the fact that we assessed only self-reported support for ingroup action, rather than actual support for such aggression. Whereas the links between emotional experiences and the readiness to engage in certain types of action are fairly well established, the link between emotions and actual behaviors is more tenuous [START_REF] Roseman | Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions[END_REF]. One reason for this is that actual behaviors are more constrained by situational factors than are impulses or intentions. Although group members may feel like confronting or aggressing against the outgroup, acting in line with these desires requires appropriate resources, no other pressing concerns, and so forth. On the other hand, affective responses have been shown to predict intergroup behaviors better than do some more cognitive assessments [START_REF] Fiske | Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination[END_REF] and normative pressures can sometimes facilitate rather than inhibit intergroup aggression [START_REF] Insko | Long-term outcome maximization and the reduction of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity[END_REF]. All else being equal though, the activation of a specifi c emotion and the action tendency or intention associated with it makes the execution of relevant behavior more likely.

Unfortunately, instances of ingroup bias and outgroup derogation are common in the literature [START_REF] Tajfel | The social identity theory of intergroup confl ict[END_REF][START_REF] Turner | Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism[END_REF]. If aggression against an outgroup is normal, then the ingroup may rarely be deemed morally responsible (a necessary precursor to guilt). Thus, it may be the case that guilt is rarely experienced in intergroup confl ict situations without specifi c instructions to focus on the ingroup's lack of justifi cation for its actions. Satisfaction, on the other hand, may be rife, especially if the goal-directedness of intergroup confl ict is enough to elicit it. If undermining potential justifi cations for negative group behavior can inhibit this satisfaction, which in turn prevents future aggression, then preventing people from feeling good about the ingroup's action may be helpful in quelling confl ict before it spirals out of control.

Notes

1. One-hundred and eighteen pretest students read several descriptions of intergroup aggression and made appraisals of the negativity of and of attributions of responsibility for the behavior (using 7-point scales), in addition to reporting whether or not they recognized the events. Participants rated these two events as highly negative (M = 5.39, SD = .96, M = 5.72, SD = .96 for the South American and African action, respectively). No participants correctly recognized either event, and fewer than 10% of participants reported recognizing the event incorrectly. 2. Because our measure of satisfaction was moderately positively skewed (sk = 1.24) which may distort the magnitude of the relation between satisfaction and support for future aggression, we analyzed our data in several different ways. First, we looked at the correlation between satisfaction and support for future aggression when participants who reported no satisfaction (satisfaction = 1.0) were removed from analyses (increases the relation to r = .70, p < .001). Second, when satisfaction was dichotomized into a variable differentiating participants who felt some level of satisfaction (satisfaction > 1) from those who were at fl oor (satisfaction = 1.0), the correlation was r = .40, p = .022. Regardless of skew, participants' level of satisfaction strongly predicted support for continued aggression. Satisfaction was similarly skewed in Study 2, but similar analyses yielded similar results. 3. To ensure that participants' reported satisfaction was not a simple proxy for their general attitude toward an aggressive foreign policy, we conducted an independent pilot study (n = 76) investigating the relation between a general attitude toward an aggressive foreign policy, satisfaction with specifi c instances of aggression, and support for specifi c similar aggression in the future. Results indicated that although general attitude predicted support for specifi c similar aggression in the future, satisfaction uniquely predicted an additional amount of variance in support for future aggression. Thus satisfaction and general attitude exerted independent effects on support for similar aggression and cannot be considered simple proxies for one another. 4. Because our manipulation of justifi cation was multifaceted, we wanted to ensure that it was infl uencing emotion via justifi cation appraisals as intended. Thus, we examined participants' self-reported justifi cation scores as a mediator of the relation between condition and intergroup emotion. We fi rst examined satisfaction as a dependent variable. Appraisal condition was signifi cantly related to reported intergroup satisfaction. Participants in the justifi ed condition were more satisfi ed than participants in the unjustifi ed condition (β = .53, p < .001). Additionally, participants in the justifi ed condition believed the action was more justifi ed than participants in the unjustifi ed condition (β = .36, p = .004). Finally, when satisfaction was regressed on both condition and justifi cation ratings, the strength of the relation between condition and satisfaction was signifi cantly reduced, although not completely eliminated (β = .38, p = .001, the reduction in the β value was signifi cant, z = 2.35, p = .019). Additionally, the more participants appraised the ingroup's action as justifi ed, the more satisfi ed they were with it (β = .41, p < .001). Thus justifi cation appraisals signifi cantly mediated the relation between appraisal condition and intergroup satisfaction as intended. There remained, however, a signifi cant independent link from condition to satisfaction, indicating that appraisals other than justifi cation may have been affected by our multifaceted manipulation that independently infl uenced reported satisfaction. We next examined guilt as a dependent variable. Again, appraisal condition was signifi cantly related to reported intergroup guilt. Participants in the justifi ed condition felt less guilt than participants in the unjustifi ed condition (β = -.31, p = .015). When guilt was regressed on both appraisal condition and justifi cation ratings, the strength of the relation between condition and guilt was virtually eliminated (β = .15, p = .221, the reduction in the β value was signifi cant, z = 2.32, p = .020). Additionally, the more justifi ed participants appraised the ingroup's action, the less guilty they felt about it (β = -.45, p < .001). Thus the relation between justifi cation condition and intergroup guilt was completely determined by justifi cation appraisals.

Biographical notes

angela t. maitner is a doctoral candidate in social psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her research investigates the cognitive and affective consequences of selfcategorization and social identifi cation.

diane m. mackie is professor of psychology and communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She received her PhD from Princeton University. Her research interests include the affective antecedents and consequences of intergroup relations, as well as social infl uence and persuasion.

eliot r. smith is professor in the department of psychological and brain sciences at Indiana University, Bloomington, and he also holds a Special Chair at the Free University, Amsterdam. His PhD is from Harvard University. His work centers on the role of emotions in prejudice and intergroup behavior, and socially situated cognition.

Figure 1

 1 Figure 1(a). Model showing the relation between identification and support for future aggression, mediated by justification. (b) Model showing the relation between justifi cation and support for future aggression, mediated by satisfaction.

Figure 2

 2 Figure 2(a). Model showing the relation between justifi cation condition and support for future aggression, mediated by satisfaction. (b) Model showing the relation between justifi cation condition and support for future aggression, mediated by guilt.

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this article was partly funded by PHS grant MH 63762 to Diane M. Mackie and Eliot R. Smith. Angela Maitner was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. We would like to thank Victoria Springer, Shay Levy, and Nicole Jorenson for helping with the collection of data.


Erich H Witte
email: witte_e_h@uni-hamburg.de]

Toward a Group Facilitation Technique for Project Teams

Keywords: facilitation techniques for groups, group decision making, group performance, project teams, theory construction

. The group decision quality is determined by relating to conclusions reached by an independent expert. Results indicate that the observed teams performed best when the PROMOD procedure was applied.

For about the last 50 years, scientists have been aware of the diffi culties which arise when groups make decisions [START_REF] Davis | Small group research and the Steiner questions: The once and future thing[END_REF][START_REF] Hinsz | The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors[END_REF][START_REF] Kerr | Group performance and decision making[END_REF]. The popular assumption that groups nearly always show greater aptitude for problem solving tasks than individuals has been refuted by a vast amount of intensive research. Only very few exceptions to those results have been published [START_REF] Laughlin | Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Informative equations and effective strategies[END_REF].

The time has come to shift the emphasis of social psychology research to the question of how to enable groups to achieve greater quality in problem solving. In addition to pointing out the effects of process losses, research should focus on the development of group facilitation techniques which produce process gains and synergetic effects when people make decisions in committees or project teams [START_REF] Messé | Knowledge of partner's ability as a moderator of group motivation gains: An exploration of the Koehler discrepancy effect[END_REF].

Today, the use of project teams comprised of experts in various fi elds of knowledge has been established on a world-wide scale. The cooperation of such experts aims at fi nding the optimal solutions possible for complex problems in an increasingly complex world. This procedure is closely connected to the idea that teams are able to successfully integrate various pertinent viewpoints, thereby improving the quality of solutions and decisions. Instead, process losses in groups cause considerable productivity losses concerning all areas of society. Supposing we were able to support project teams in improving the quality of their decisions and solutions when dealing with complex problems by developing effi cient group techniques, then small group research could again occupy a central position in social psychology.

Although primarily a fi eld of applied research, it seems to be important to simultaneously develop theoretical baseline-models which serve as supporting stimulation for applied approaches in this fi eld. These models could provide a basis for the development of techniques, a framework for the integration of various data, as well as an instrument to disclose and explain the inconsistencies occurring in results. Mutual inspiration is needed. Up till now there has been a lack of theoretical background which could serve as a guide for empirical procedures [START_REF] Katzenstein | The debate on structured debate: Toward a unifi ed theory[END_REF]. The well-known brainstorming technique was introduced without any theoretical baseline and no fundamental research. Endeavors to fi nd theoretical explanations as to why brainstorming does not lead to the expected effects began long after its implementation (see [START_REF] Nijstad | Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes[END_REF][START_REF] Stroebe | The illusion of group effectivity[END_REF].

Starting points

The following facts are intended to provide a basis for further consideration: a. Increasing complexity of all societal systems requires the cooperation of various experts to solve highly complex problems and to take decisions for future societal developments. b. In general, team members believe in the high quality of group decisions per se. c. In contrast, research on small group performance shows process losses which lower the quality of group decisions and increase the probability of inadequate solutions. d. Group techniques like -Group facilitation techniques (i.e., the Delphi method); -Discourse techniques (i.e., brainstorming); and -Group development techniques (i.e., encounter groups).

do not lead to sophisticated group decisions [START_REF] Dalkey | An experimental application of delphi method to the use of experts[END_REF][START_REF] Innami | The quality of group decisions, group verbal behavior and intervention[END_REF][START_REF] Katzenstein | The debate on structured debate: Toward a unifi ed theory[END_REF][START_REF] Moore | Group techniques for idea building (2nd printing)[END_REF][START_REF] Osborn | Applied imagination[END_REF][START_REF] Rogelberg | The stepladder technique: An alternative group structure facilitating effective group decision making[END_REF][START_REF] Rogers | On encounter groups[END_REF][START_REF] Schweiger | Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy and consensus[END_REF].

Group performance: Facilitative and inhibitory conditions

A substantial criterion for group techniques is their capacity to enforce facilitative elements of group processes and to reduce inhibitory processes. Therefore the analysis of facilitative and inhibitory conditions for group performances is fundamental. Several of those conditions are already well known. On the one hand we can distinguish effects on individual and group levels and, on the other hand, cognitive, emotional and behavioral processes on both levels. Attempts to improve group performance by structuring the discussion process have not proved suffi ciently successful, as group dynamic phenomena still have a negative infl uence on group productivity ('majority wins'-the correct solution needs a majority to be accepted; social loafi ng-reducing the individual effort in group conditions; shared view effect also known as common knowledge effect-discussing the shared information between group members and ignoring the unique information of each member when solving a hidden profi le; choice shift-becoming more extreme after group discussion; and group think-making poor decisions following a discussion among highly recommended experts [START_REF] Kerr | Group performance and decision making[END_REF]Witte & Davis, 1996a[START_REF]Understanding group behaviour: Vol. II. Small group processes and interpersonal relations[END_REF]). Thus, group interaction has to be reduced to a minimum, individual positions have to be strengthened and individual motivation has to be supported.

Widespread assumptions that 'emotional' group cohesion per se leads to better group decisions have been disproved [START_REF] Mullen | The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration[END_REF].

Against the background of the abovementioned phenomena of group dynamic infl uences on group decision quality [START_REF] Kerr | Group performance and decision making[END_REF], the following postulates are considered fundamental to improving group performance results:

1. The higher the quality of individual input regarding the subject matter at the beginning of the group interaction, the higher the quality of the group performance [START_REF] Grofman | Judgemental competence of individuals and groups in a dichotomous choice situation: Is a majority of heads better than one[END_REF][START_REF] Lorge | Two models of group behavior in the solution of Heureka-type problems[END_REF][START_REF] Sorkin | Signal-detection analysis of group decision making[END_REF]. 2. The more individual inputs are independent of one another at the beginning of the group interaction, the higher the quality of the group performance [START_REF] Sorkin | Signal-detection analysis of group decision making[END_REF]. 3. The more the group increases individual independent inputs, the higher the quality of the group performance [START_REF] Hinsz | The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors[END_REF]. 4. The more comprehensible the individual input is for each group member, the higher the quality of the group performance [START_REF] Libby | Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group performance[END_REF]. 5. The more high quality individual input infl uences the fi nal group decision, the higher the quality of the group performance [START_REF] Littlepage | An input process-output analysis of infl uence and performance in problem-solving groups[END_REF].

Normative infl uences on group performance processes can manipulate and distort the informational integration of individual input [START_REF] Hinsz | The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors[END_REF] and should therefore be reduced to a minimum. The general maxim for a group facilitation technique for project teams has to be read as follows:

• maximize the informational infl uence on the group performance process; • minimize the normative infl uence on the group performance process; and • optimize the infl uence of individual input on the fi nal group decision (see Formula 3). This general maxim is also related to Steiner's classical ideas on group productivity (1972) in which he differentiates between three classes of variables: task demands, resources and process.

The potential productivity of the group in the sense of Steiner depends on the task demands, the individual resources of the members and the 'utilization pattern' (p. 7) by which these resources are combined into a group product. The general task I have in mind is a complex problem solving task which demands a combination of information. Thus, in general, the maxim is the description of how to organize the process under a condition in which the input of restricted individual resources is optimized to the highest possible degree.

Project teams often comprise experts from various subject areas. Each of those experts has specialized knowledge which other group members do not have (unshared knowledge). In addition, the group's resource includes knowledge which is at the disposal of all group members (shared knowledge). Conformity processes, as part of normative pressure in groups, result in primarily shared knowledge entering into a consensual group decision, and specialized knowledge remaining unnoticed (the shared view effect). Thus, the unique resources of single group members have to be explicitly extracted and communicated to the group [START_REF] Hoffman | Eliciting knowledge from experts: A methodological analysis[END_REF]. The importance of each contribution of knowledge with respect to the group decision should then be evaluated by the group. Therefore all comments, arguments and individual positions must be presented to the group in a clear and comprehensible way, as they cannot be taken for granted per se, especially as specialists in a certain fi eld often tend to underestimate the complicated nature of their expertise. To sum up: the quality of group performance regarding non-heureka tasks considerably depends on the addition of shared and unshared knowledge in groups and its evaluation (weight). This postulate was formalized by [START_REF] Shifl | Toward a general model of small group productivity[END_REF].

General model of group productivity

P X C Y D i i i = ⋅ + ⋅ = = ∑ ∑ i n i n 1 1
(1) P: group performance X i : weight refl ecting the importance of unshared knowledge contributions C i : unshared knowledge contributions of individual i Y i : weight refl ecting the importance of shared knowledge contributions D: shared knowledge contribution

The quality of group performance not only depends on the cross-section of shared and unshared knowledge but also on the extent of relating the knowledge to the task; in other words, putting the knowledge to use in the task-handling [START_REF] Greitemeyer | Preference-consistent-evaluation of information in the hidden profi le paradigm: Beyond grouplevel explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions[END_REF]. This understanding leads to further postulates:

6. The more the individual knowledge of all group members is linked to the requirements of task performance, the higher the potential of the group performance. 7. The more the items of individual knowledge of group members are independent of each other, the more the potential performance of the group is reached.

These postulates can be formalized as follows:

PP T (C T) (C T) (C T)... i i + 1 i + 2 = ⎛ ⎝ ⎜ ⎜ ⎞ ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ = = C i i n 1 ∪ ∩ ∩ ∩ ∩ µ µ
(2)

PP: potential performance of the group UC i : the logical union of all members' independent resources C i : unique resources of each group member ∩ : logical cross-section T: all (nearly infi nite) elements of the task µ: logical union of single elements In some cases the sum knowledge of a group is not suffi cient to solve a problem in a high quality manner. If the selection of group members for a certain task is unsatisfactory, this, of course, cannot be compensated by any group facilitation technique.

The combination of the two arithmetic mean (a.m.) formulas shows that X i (weight refl ecting the importance of unshared knowledge contributions) should be a function of (C i ∩ T), which is of vital importance for reaching a group performance (P) which comes near to the potential performance (PP) of a group:

X f(C T) i i = ∩ (3)
Shared knowledge contribution (Y i ) has to be seen as a function to initiate, control and steer a normatively organized group dynamic process, as group members like to discuss shared knowledge, which increases the willingness to tackle the task. Nevertheless, it has to be emphasized that such normative processes distract from important unshared knowledge exchange and as a consequence hinder an optimal group performance (PP). The maxim of an effi cient group facilitation technique is to reduce the shared knowledge contribution to a minimum (Y i → 0) and to maximize informational infl uence of unshared knowledge.

Combining the postulates from basic research to find a group facilitation technique as a complex application leads to the following postulate:

8. The more a group facilitation technique enables the realization of the above quoted conditions in a group setting (postulates 1 to 5), the higher the quality of the group performance and the more the performance comes closer to the potential performance (PP).

Without any group facilitation technique free interacting groups are seldom able to follow the conditions necessary for effi cient group performance [START_REF] Davis | Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research, and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: Selected examples, 1950-1990[END_REF][START_REF] Kerr | Group performance and decision making[END_REF].

The development of a group facilitation technique for project teams

The above-mentioned postulates require adequate pragmatic implementation when developing a group facilitation technique for project teams. The group facilitation technique PROMOD (Procedural Moderation) has been designed in accordance with the considerations stated below [START_REF] Lecher | FORMOD und PROMOD: Zwei Moderationstechniken zur Verbesserung von Entscheidungen in Gruppen [FORMOD and PROMOD: Two facilitation techniques to improve the decisions in groups[END_REF][START_REF] Witte | Die Entwicklung der Gruppenmoderation PROMOD zur Lösung komplexer Probleme in Projektteams [The development of the group technique PROMOD for solving complex problems in project teams[END_REF].

Derivations from Postulate 1

In order to increase the individual member's quality of performance, the specialized knowledge has to be elicited by a structured and individualoriented technique which also aims to prevent social loafi ng and free-riding effects [START_REF] Hoffman | Eliciting knowledge from experts: A methodological analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Scheele | Dialog-Konsens-Methoden zur Rekonstruktion Subjektiver Theorien: die Heidelberger Struktur-Lege-Technik [Dialogueconsensus-methods to reconstruct subjective theories: The Heidelberger structure-laytechnique[END_REF].

Derivations from Postulate 2

In order to support subjective points of view independent of other subjects' opinions and under no infl uence of conformity pressure, group members fi rst develop their own arguments and problem solving strategies without any personal contact with other group members. A facilitator for each group member gives social-emotional feedback and motivational support and provides a common structure for eliciting the knowledge of each expert.

Derivations from Postulate 3

In order to consider all individual information, this should be exchanged among the group members in a condition which excludes any normative infl uence. Consequently all information will be passed on anonymously.

Derivations from Postulate 4

In order to achieve a high general comprehension of each specialized analysis of the topic, the facilitator must be able to pass on thoughts and opinions both lucidly and logically without, of course, interfering in terms of content.

Derivations from Postulate 5

In order to integrate all high quality information into the fi nal group decision, the facilitator tries to minimize any irrelevant infl uences, e.g., extraversion of the author, talkativeness or other social characteristics [START_REF] Littlepage | An input process-output analysis of infl uence and performance in problem-solving groups[END_REF]. The anonymous procedure of exchanging information facilitates an objective evaluation of this information. Furthermore, the integration rule for the fi nal group product should be defi ned from outside by consensus or majority vote.

General assumptions A group facilitation technique which adheres to the above-mentioned derivations from the postulates should:

• maximize the informational infl uence on the group performance process;

• minimize the normative infl uence on the group performance process; and • optimize the infl uence of individual input on the fi nal group decision, in keeping with the three prerequisites of our general maxim for an effi cient group facilitation technique.

The group facilitation technique PROMOD

The group facilitation technique PROMOD (Procedural Moderation) has been developed on the basis of thorough analysis of group interaction processes and their signifi cance for the cognitive performance productivity of a team; it aims to prevent process losses in project teams and generate process gains and synergy effects.

PROMOD is a group facilitation technique for project teams, i.e., for groups which work on a special task for a limited period of time.

Individual production procedure

All group members work physically separated from each other guided by a facilitator, who rigidly structures the individual performance process according to a general scheme comprising several steps on how to tackle the task. This is a fundamental characteristic of the PROMOD technique. Another characteristic of PROMOD is that each group member writes down his or her own argument pro or con various decision alternatives, thereby eliminating oral communication.

Production process

First the status quo is analyzed in detail. Then various alternative targets are formulated in order to improve the status quo and in order to tackle existing problems. Arguments pro and con different targets clarify which decision has to be taken. Then reasons are given for suggested measures and steps on how to arrive at the targets. The written documents serve as external memories during the decision making process and therefore simplify a complex cognitive procedure.

Means of communication

At a fi xed time the facilitators exchange all individual drafts among all group members. The group members remain anonymous throughout. Thus a social assessment of the information based on the group members' hierarchical position, eloquence, sympathy or antipathy, etc. is eliminated.

All group members give a commentary on the other drafts with a view to the quality of the argument. After the written comments and the propositions of the other members are noted individual fi nal drafts are worked out, which will then be integrated into a common decision. This integration is the result of a consensus, a majority vote if there are qualitative decisions or as a last resort a mathematically oriented aggregation strategy, like the mean, median or mode of the individual decisions after the exchange process. (The group members are told this at the beginning of the process.)

Task demands

Different tasks require different structures, i.e. the written scheme has to be adapted to the type of task being focussed on (decision making, problem solving, brainstorming, rule induction, technology evaluation, jury decision making, confl ict resolution, etc.). A logical structuring of the decision process is mostly missing in real group discussions [START_REF] Hackman | Group tasks, group interaction processes, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration[END_REF].

The facilitators' duties

The facilitators' job consists in leading the group members through the task structure and supporting them by asking specifi c questions, such as 'Are these all measures you can imagine?' or 'Please explain more precisely the reason for your decision'. At no time do the facilitators intervene with regard to the content of arguments. The presence of a facilitator should furthermore compensate for the missing socio-emotional aspect of face-to-face interaction and provide social support.

About The Desert Survival Problem

Method 1

Participants and design The subjects of the group setting comprised 270 people: students of the University of Hamburg belonging to various faculties: Social Sciences, Economics and Law; students of the 'Bundeswehr' (German armed forces); policemen in further education; and adults attending various schools of further education. The group composition was identical with regard to subjects of different courses of study. The average age of the sample was 24. The subjects received a remuneration of 10 Euros.

The communication modality varied depending on whether groups of three members worked under PROMOD instructions or under no-PROMOD instructions (the control group).

Furthermore, 'synthetic groups' were built: the results of three subjects working individually on solving the tasks were combined at random. The arithmetic mean of the individual results served as the group performance result. The communication modality varied depending on whether the subjects working individually had no guidance by the PROMOD technique or whether they worked under PROMOD conditions as described above (2 × 2 experimental design) (Table 1).

Experimental task

To test the effectiveness of the PROMOD technique we conducted the following experiment introducing a ranking task [START_REF] Lafferty | Desert survival situation[END_REF]. As the effi ciency of PROMOD, among other effects, essentially results from a stringent structure for eliciting expert knowledge, it was our intention to verify if an additional increase of group decision quality can still be achieved by applying the PROMOD group facilitation technique when working with this highly structured task.

The Desert Survival Problem is a well investigated non-heureka problem solving task. The correctness or incorrectness of a decision cannot be clearly identifi ed. Several given objects have to be ranked with regard to their usefulness in order to survive in a precarious situation. The quality of the results is expressed by the deviation from an expert conclusion about the rank order.

Measures and procedure

The main group performance measure is expressed in the absolute difference between the group ranking and an expert rank order. The maximal amount of deviation points (errors) is 112. In order to get a 'synthetic' group, the arithmetic mean of the individual points is used as the group performance measures.

Group performance =

'error points' = 1 15 ∑ (group rating-expert rating)

In the PROMOD condition all subjects individually worked on the task for 30 minutes. Each of them was assigned to his/her facilitator. During that time they had to write an individual draft containing a preliminary decision on how to rank the given objects. Then all given objects were judged by arguments pro and con their usefulness in order to overcome problems and threats in the relevant situation. Furthermore, all objects considered useless or dangerous were written down. Then the participants had to rank the objects. After this preliminary rank order the drafts were circulated by the facilitators. All subjects then studied the drafts of the other group members, and were requested to give written comments on each draft within 8 minutes (2 × 8 minutes). Finally, each subject was given back his/her own annotated edition. After 4 more minutes they had to come to a fi nal individual decision (fi nal ranking). The time schedule for the subjects working individually (synthetic groups) was identical. They also worked out a preliminary result within 30 minutes accompanied by a facilitator. After 20 more minutes they had to present a revised and fi nal version. All participants (PROMOD groups, synthetic groups as well as control groups) worked for 50 minutes on the task at maximum (see appendix). The three female facilitators were informed about the experts' conclusions before starting the experiments in order to avoid an effect resulting from an increase of knowledge during their intervention. Each facilitator was randomly allocated the same number of groups in each cell of the 2 × 2 design.

Results

Data analyses reported here were carried out by means of analysis of variance ANOVA (see Tables 2 and3). Post hoc comparison (using the Duncan test) reveals that PROMOD-facilitated, interacting groups are the best in toto and signifi cantly better than the PROMOD-facilitated, synthetic groups and groups which were not guided by this facilitation technique.

In general, the quality of performance when groups work on highly structured tasks is lower than the best individual performance and results are often similar to the level of the second best member of a 'natural' group concerning the quality of performance [START_REF] Hollingshead | The rank-order effect in group decision making[END_REF][START_REF] Littlepage | An input process-output analysis of infl uence and performance in problem-solving groups[END_REF]. Therefore the fi nal group result was also compared to the second best individual result before drafts were exchanged among group members, as a baseline of the quality improvement under PROMOD.

The results of the PROMOD facilitated groups show minus 5.15 error points in comparison with the second best individual decision and differ signifi cantly from all other groups. As expected, the results of the real interacting groups correspond to the second best individual result (plus 0.07 error points). The statistical means of the nominal groups under the PROMOD condition differ from the second best individual group member by minus 2.15 error points, the statistical means of the nominal groups without PROMOD facilitation differ from the second best individual result by plus 0.17 error points-which of course has no meaning in terms of content as there was neither written nor oral communication among group members throughout. Dismaying but not unexpected is the fact that the results of self-guided groups hardly differ from those of synthetic groups under the condition where no facilitation technique is applied. In contrast, under the PROMOD-condition group members not only show better individual performance but also profi t from the knowledge of their colleagues. This was demonstrated by comparing those results with the results of synthetic groups under the PROMOD condition.

Discussion

The theoretical development of the group facilitation technique PROMOD has been presented. The empirical study demonstrated its effi ciency and effectiveness in improving group performance quality and enhancing group decisions. PROMOD stems from theoretical postulates that regard project teams as aimoriented information processors. Clarifying theoretical concepts fi rst and then following this by verifying empirical research is a necessary precondition in order to further applied psychological research in the fi eld of group facilitation techniques. This study aims to give an answer to the following question: Is a theoretical framework a potential guideline for developing an effi cient social facilitation technique for project teams? The results of the experiment presented show that this question can be answered in the affi rmative. We know that today's problems are so complex that we need the cooperation and interaction of experts. We also know that the performance of project groups is not as good as it could be when considering the specialized knowledge available in those groups. This expertise is not suffi ciently used, thus, group results have so far been unsatisfactory. A diametrical strategy of theory testing and practical application of theory allows for the prediction of effects, and therefore enables the induction of positive effects and the prevention of negative effects on group interaction. Looking at empirical results, it becomes clear that a lot of techniques are not very convincing, e.g., group brainstorming [START_REF] Stroebe | Why groups are less effective than their members: On productivity losses in idea-generating groups[END_REF][START_REF] Nijstad | Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes[END_REF]. What are the postulates behind those techniques which would enable the prediction of effects? Of course, there are more factors than the postulates presented here that could be regarded as principal candidates for the enhancement of group productivity. There is an increase in individual performance (Formula 3), and the latter groups additionally show an increase with regard to the quality of group performance in general (Formulas 1 and 2). Obviously, this is due to a highly structured reception of other persons' knowledge and thereby to the increased ability to adapt this knowledge to enhance the quality of their own decision process. This second step of quality improvement when taking decisions in groups-beyond a pure enhancement of individual per formance quality-can be induced by the structured and controlled exchange of information implemented in the group facilitation technique PROMOD. Both steps induce an improvement of group performances.

Let's have a look at a new study showing that groups are able to perform better than the best individual of the group-without any facilitation technique [START_REF] Laughlin | Groups perform better than the best individuals on letter-on-numbers problems[END_REF]. This study shows that a good group discussion result depends on the transparency of right solutions and ideas. The task involved was divided into several subtasks which were tackled by the group. The question is how to increase the demonstrability of arguments, suggestions and ideas and how to divide problem solving tasks in a practicable and appropriate way in general, so that subtasks can be tackled or solved individually. The crux of an efficient group facilitation technique is to make an appropriate structure available to the group members discussing a certain subject.

Input and output of information in groups are variables which determine group effi ciency. In future the throughput of group decision processes will have to be focused on in a more suitable way. Throughput processes can be supported by facilitation techniques, which have to be developed by first formulating theoretical postulates summarizing the results of empirical research and then transforming these postulates into techniques which have to be tested, at best, on the basis of experimental studies.

Table 1 .

 1 Experimental design About The Desert Survival Problem

		Real interacting groups:
		Face-to-face or written communication	Nominal groups
	No PROMOD technique applied
	Means of communication	Face-to-face interaction	No interaction, individual work
	Information exchange	Oral discussion	No information exchange
	Determination of result	Reaching a consensus by oral discussion,	Statistical means of individual
		majority vote or as a last resort by	results
		statistical aggregation of individual
		decisions after discussion
	Number of groups	27 groups	18 groups
	PROMOD technique applied
	Means of communication	In writing	No interaction, individual work
	Information exchange based	Anonymous, writing	No exchange, writing
	on a problem structure
	Determination of result	Reaching a consensus, majority vote	Statistical means of individual
		by written information exchange or	results
		as a last resort by statistical aggregation
		of individual decisions after exchange
	Number of groups	27 groups

Table 2 .

 2 Mean and, standard deviation for quality of group performance ('error points')

		Interacting groups		Nominal groups
		Means of			Means of
	'error points'	SD		'error points'	SD
	No PROMOD technique applied	61.93	9.56		62.83	6.62
	PROMOD technique applied	51.59	11.24		58.56	9.36
	Note: Analysis made on N = 99 groups.
	Table 3. ANOVA results (2 × 2 factor design without repeated measure) deviation for quality of group
	performance ('error points')
				F	df	p	eta²
	Real/nominal groups			4.066	1	.05	.041
	PROMOD facilitated/not PROMOD facilitated			14.013	1	.00	.129
	Real/nominal groups × PROMOD facilitated/not PROMOD facilitated	2.407	1	.12	.025

Note: Analysis made on N = 99 groups.

Note

1. This material is based on work supported by the 'Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft' (Wi557/12-4).

Appendix

PROMOD technique

General introduction • Reading of the cover story