Sympathy for the devil? The physiological and psychological effects of being an agent (and target) of dissent during intragroup conflict

• We examined intragroup conflict at the individual level • We tested cardiovascular effects of being an agent and target of dissent • Targets exhibited avoidance responses; Agents exhibited approach responses • Targets experienced threats to all fundamental psychological needs • Agents experienced threats to belonging and self-esteem but not control needs a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o Research has accumulated on the impact of intragroup conflict on group outcomes, but little is known about the effects of dissent on the individuals who provide it. Here, we examined how being the agent and target of dissent impacted physiological responses and psychological needs. Groups of three (a participant and two confederates) completed a marketing task. Participants were assigned to an agent of dissent, target of dissent, or inclusion control role. Agents of dissent exhibited an approach-motivated cardiovascular profile: low vascular resistance and rapid sympathetic recovery. Conversely, targets displayed avoidance responses: vasoconstriction. Role assignment also impacted basic psychological needs. Targets experienced threats to all fundamental needs, but agents only exhibited threats to belonging and self-esteem (not control or meaningful existence) needs. Taken together, agents and targets of dissent responded vastly differently in this group performance context. Implications for health and performance are discussed. Introduction Organizational decisions are rarely unilateral. Important decisions are typically made in groups. During the decision process, groups strive to reach strategic consensus – agreement on strategy-relevant content (see Kellermanns, Walter, Floyd, Lechner & Shaw, 2011, for a review) – which improves coordination after decisions, assists in the implementation of agreed strategies, and attenuates self-interest (Guth & MacMillan, 1986; Kellermanns & Floyd, 2005). Strategic consensus has an overall positive effect on organizational performance, but is not necessarily beneficial for decision outcomes, particularly objective outcomes (Kellermanns et al., 2011). In cohesive social groups, members can be motivated to maintain cohesion. If motivation to conform limits critical scrutiny of options, classic research indicates that the resulting groupthink can impair decision making (Janis, 1972, 1982). Thus, under some circumstances intragroup conflict can benefit group performance. However, little is known about the psychological profiles, and nothing is known about the physiological profiles, of the individuals who are tasked with engaging in dissenting behavior. This is especially important given that basic psychological needs of belonging can be threatened by dissenting from a consensus. For instance, individuals providing rejecting feedback to others …