How to get the timing right. A computational model of the effects of the timing of contacts on team cohesion in demographically diverse teams

  • Andreas FlacheEmail author
  • Michael Mäs
Open Access


Lau and Murnighan’s faultline theory explains negative effects of demographic diversity on team performance as consequence of strong demographic faultlines. If demographic differences between group members are correlated across various dimensions, the team is likely to show a “subgroup split” that inhibits communication and effective collaboration between team members. Our paper proposes a rigorous formal and computational reconstruction of the theory. Our model integrates four elementary mechanisms of social interaction, homophily, heterophobia, social influence and rejection into a computational representation of the dynamics of both opinions and social relations in the team. Computational experiments demonstrate that the central claims of faultline theory are consistent with the model. We show furthermore that the model highlights a new structural condition that may give managers a handle to temper the negative effects of strong demographic faultlines. We call this condition the timing of contacts. Computational analyses reveal that negative effects of strong faultlines critically depend on who is when brought in contact with whom in the process of social interactions in the team. More specifically, we demonstrate that faultlines have hardly negative effects when teams are initially split into demographically homogeneous subteams that are merged only when a local consensus has developed.


Demographic faultline Computational modeling Teams Demographic diversity Homophily Social influence 


  1. Abelson RP (1964) Mathematical models of the distribution of attitudes under controversy. In: Frederiksen N, Gulliksen H (eds) Contributions to mathematical psychology. Rinehart Winston, New York Google Scholar
  2. Allport GW (1954) The nature of prejudice. Beacon, Boston Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod R (1997) The dissemination of culture—a model with local convergence and global polarization. J Conf Resolut 41:203–226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowers CA, Pharmer JA, Salas E (2000) When member homogeneity is needed in work teams. A meta-analysis. Small Group Res 31:305–327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR, Tsai W (2004) Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Acad Manag J 47:795–817 Google Scholar
  6. Byrne D (1971) The attraction paradigm. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  7. Byrne D, Clore GL, Smeaton G (1986) The attraction hypothesis: do similar attitudes affect anything? J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1167–1170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chatman JA, Polzer JT, Barsade SG, Neale MA (1998) Being different yet feeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work process and outcome. Adm Sci Q 43:749–780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen FF, Kenrick DT (2002) Repulsion or attraction? Group membership and assumed attitude similarity. J Pers Soc Psychol 83:111–125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Early PC, Mosakowski E (2000) Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of transnational team functioning. Acad Manag J 43:26–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Festinger L, Schachter S, Back K (1950) Social pressures in informal groups. Stanford University Press, Stanford Google Scholar
  12. Flache A, Macy MW (2006) Why more contact may increase cultural polarization. In: Session mathematical sociology I at 101st annual meeting of the american sociological association, Montreal, 14 August 2006. Reprint published at
  13. Flache A, Macy MW, Takács K (2006) What sustains stable cultural diversity and what undermines it? Axelrod and beyond. In: Proceedings of the first world congress on social simulation, Kyoto, Japan, vol 2, pp 9–16 Google Scholar
  14. Flache A, Mäs M (2008) A computational model of how strong demographic faultlines undermine team cohesion. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory. doi: 10.1016/j.simpat.2007.11.020
  15. Gibson C, Vermeulen F (2003) A healthy divide: subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Adm Sci Q 48:202–239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson DR (2005) Concurrency and commitment: network scheduling and its consequences for diffusion. J Math Sociol 29:295–323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hegselmann R, Krause U (2002) Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 5 Google Scholar
  18. Homans GC (1951) The human group Harcourt, New York Google Scholar
  19. Isenberg DJ (1986) Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:1141–1151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jager W, Amblard F (2005) Uniformity, bipolarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change. Comput Math Organ Theory 10:295–303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jehn KA, Bezrukova K (2004) A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance. J Organ Behav 25:703–729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA (1999) Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Adm Sci Q 44:741–763 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kameda T, Sugimori S (1995) Procedural influence in two-step group decision making: power of local majorities in consensus formation. J Pers Soc Psychol 69:865–876 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kandel DB (1978) Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. Am J Sociol 84:427–436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kerr NL, Tindale SR (2004) Group performance and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 55:623–655 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kitts J (2006) Social influence and the emergence of norms amid ties of amity and enmity. Simul Model Pract Theory 14:407–422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lau DC, Murnighan JK (1998) Demographic diversity and faultlines: the decompositional dynamics of organizational groups. Acad Manag Rev 23:325–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lau DC, Murnighan JK (2005) Interactions within groups and subgroups: the effects of demographic faultlines. Acad Manag J 48:645–659 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK (1954) Friendship and social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger M, Abel T, Page CH (eds) Freedom and control in modern society. Van Nostrand, New York Google Scholar
  30. Levine ME, Plott CR (1977) Agenda influence and its implications. V Law Rev 63:561–604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. List C (2004) A model of path-dependence in decisions over multiple propositions. Am Political Sci Rev 98:495–513 Google Scholar
  32. Macy MW, Kitts J, Flache A, Benard S (2003) Polarization and dynamic networks. A Hopfield model of emergent structure. In: Breiger R, Carley K, Pattison P (eds) Dynamic social network modeling and analysis: workshop summary and papers. National Academies Press, Washington Google Scholar
  33. Mark NP (2003) Culture and competition: homophily and distancing explanations for cultural niches. Am Sociol Rev 68:319–345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mason CM (2006) Exploring the process underlying within-group homogeneity. Small Group Res 37:233–270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milliken FJ, Martins LL (1996) Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Acad Manag J 21:402–433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Molleman E (2005) Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities and personality traits: do faultlines affect team functioning? Group Decis Negot 14:173–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moody J (2002) The importance of relationship timing for diffusion. Soc Forces 81:25–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pelled LH (1996) Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an intervening process theory. Organization Sci 7:615–631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pettigrew TF (1998) Intergroup contact theory. Annu Rev Psychol 49:65–85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pfeffer J (1985) Organizational demography: implications for management. Calif Manag Rev 28:67–81 Google Scholar
  42. Pilkington NW, Lydon JE (1997) The relative effect of attitude similarity and attitude dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction: investigating the moderating roles of prejudice and group membership. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 23:107–116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Plott CR, Levine ME (1978) A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. Am Econ Rev 68:146–160 Google Scholar
  44. Rainio K (1961a) A stochastic model of social interaction. Munksgaard, Turku Google Scholar
  45. Rainio K (1961b) Stochastic process of social interaction. Scand J Psychol 2:113–128 Google Scholar
  46. Rainio K (1962) A stochastic theory of social contacts. A laboratory study and an application to sociometry. Munksgaard, Turku Google Scholar
  47. Rainio K (1965) Social interaction as a stochastic learning process. Arch Eur Soc 6:68–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reagans R, Zuckerman EW (2001) Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organ Sci 12:502–517 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rogers EM, Bhowmik DK (1970) Homophily-heterophily: relational concepts for communication res. Public Opin Q 34:523–538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenbaum ME (1986a) Comment on a proposed two-stage theory of relationship formation: first, repulsion; then, attraction. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1171–1172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosenbaum ME (1986b) The repulsion hypothesis: on the nondevelopment of relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1156–1166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Salzarulo L (2006) A continuous opinion dynamics model based on the principle of meta-contrast. J Artif Soc Social Simul 9 Google Scholar
  53. Smeaton G, Byrne D, Murnen SK (1989) The repulsion hypothesis revisited: similarity irrelevance or dissimilarity bias? J Pers Soc Psychol 56:54–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stewart GL (2006) A meta-analytic rev of relationships between team design features and team performance. J Manag 32:29–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thatcher SMB, Jehn KA, Zanutto E (2003) Cracks in diversity research: the effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decis Negot 12(3):217–241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tsuji R (2002) Interpersonal influence and attitude change toward conformity in small groups: a social psychological model. J Math Sociol 26:17–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vinokur A, Burnstein E (1978) Depolarization of attitudes in groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 36:872–885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Webber SS, Donahue LM (2001) Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. J Manag 27:141–162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weisbuch G, Deffuant G, Amblard F (2005) Persuasion dynamics. Physica A 353:555–575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williams KY, O’Reilly CA (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations. A review of 40 years of research. Res Organ Behav 20:77–140 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyICS, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations