Journal of Applied Psychology

Fuse or Fracture? Threat as a Moderator of the Effects of

Diversity Faultlines in Teams
Trevor M. Spoelma and Aleksander P. J. Ellis
Online First Publication, April 27, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000231

CITATION
Spoelma, T. M., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2017, April 27). Fuse or Fracture? Threat as a Moderator of the
Effects of Diversity Faultlines in Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online
publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000231
 Journal of Applied Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 0, No. 999, 000 0021-9010/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000231

Fuse or Fracture? Threat as a Moderator of the Effects of Diversity

Faultlines in Teams
Trevor M. Spoelma and Aleksander P. J. Ellis
University of Arizona

While faultlines theory has received quite a bit of attention in the literature, there has been some
inconsistency in findings regarding identity and information faultlines. Namely, identity faultlines do not
always result in harmful social categorizations and information faultlines do not always increase
information-processing capabilities. However, according to the categorization-elaboration model (CEM;
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004), any category of diversity can result in categorization
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

processes and intergroup bias. One key to understanding faultlines, therefore, lies in context-specific
predictions. Building on this idea, we apply the CEM as an explanatory framework and examine threat
as a contextual moderator of identity and information faultlines. We propose that threat mitigates the
negative effects of activated identity faultlines on team creativity: an effect mediated by team psycho-
logical safety. In contrast, we propose that threat aggravates the negative effects of information faultlines
on team decision-making: an effect mediated by status conflict. We test our hypotheses with 2
experiments and 184 teams, finding support for our predictions regarding identity faultlines and partial
support for our predictions regarding information faultlines. Taken together, this study demonstrates the
utility of the CEM for faultlines research, identifies an important boundary condition of the effects of
identity and information faultlines, and challenges the notion that threat is always “bad” for teams.

Keywords: faultlines, threat, creativity, decision-making

Due to the increased prevalence of groups and teams in orga-
nizations, researchers and practitioners have focused on factors
that have the potential to promote or detract from team effective-
ness (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008; Tannenbaum,
Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012). Given that teams represent a
collection of individuals with different backgrounds, diversity has
been one factor of primary interest in the literature (Mathieu et al.,
2008). Unfortunately, traditional perspectives of diversity in
teams—which tend to focus on the number of team members that
are different from one another on a given characteristic— have not
seemed to capture much variance in predicting team performance
(Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011). As a result,
scholars have sought to develop alternative conceptualizations of
diversity in teams.
One perspective is based on the concept of faultlines, or “hy-
pothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups
based on one or more attributes” (Lau & Murnighan, 1998, p. 328).
While researchers have found that faultlines are generally detri-
mental, results have varied between studies, indicating the pres-
Trevor M. Spoelma and Aleksander P. J. Ellis, Department of Manage-
ment and Organizations, Eller College of Management, University of
Arizona.
An earlier version of Study 1 was presented at the 76th Annual Meeting
of the Academy of Management in Anaheim, CA.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Trevor
M. Spoelma, Department of Management and Organizations, Eller College
of Management, University of Arizona, 1130 East Helen Street, Tucson,
AZ 85721. E-mail: tspoelma@email.arizona.edu
ence of moderators (Thatcher & Patel, 2012). One moderator that
has been identified is faultline type, and researchers have sug-
gested that effects depend on whether the faultline is based on
information or identity characteristics. Following research tradi-
tions based in information-processing and social categorization
processes, information faultlines formed by differences in educa-
tion, functional background, or tenure are typically thought to
benefit team performance, while identity faultlines formed by
differences in age, gender, or race are thought to disrupt team
performance (e.g., Chung et al., 2015).
While this line of reasoning has received support in some cases
(e.g., Carton & Cummings, 2013; Hutzschenreuter & Horstkotte,
2013), results have varied between studies, with some finding
nonsignificant or opposite effects (e.g., Cooper, Patel, & Thatcher,
2014; Ren, Gray, & Harrison, 2015). However, according to the
CEM, informational diversity can be guided by social catego-
rization processes, while identity diversity can be guided by
information/decision-making processes (van Knippenberg et al.,
2004). Therefore, the key to understanding the effects of different
types of faultlines is not in main effect propositions about “posi-
tive” and “negative” categories, but rather in understanding when
and why certain task contexts elicit categorization processes and
intergroup bias. Applying the CEM to research on identity and
information faultlines, our goal in the present article is to under-
stand how one contextual moderator, threat, affects categorization
processes in teams with faultlines.
Threat, defined as “an event that has impending negative or
harmful consequences for the entity” (Staw, Sandelands, & Dut-
ton, 1981, p. 502), is typically viewed in a negative light. In the
organizational literature, research indicates that threat negatively
affects team members’ ability to discuss and integrate information,

1
 2 SPOELMA AND ELLIS
communicate and coordinate actions, utilize diverse knowledge,
and collaborate (Baer, Leenders, Oldham, & Vadera, 2010; Ellis,
2006; Gladstein & Reilly, 1985; Kamphuis, Gaillard, & Vogelaar,
2011; Weick, 1993). At the same time, however, research in social
psychology has found that there are benefits to the introduction of
threat, as it tends to reduce prejudice and increase cohesion in
groups with social identity diversity (Burnstein & McRae, 1962;
Dovidio et al., 2004; Lott & Lott, 1965). We believe that both
perspectives are viable and can help increase our understanding of
how different types of faultlines operate in teams.
More specifically, we suggest that threat can create a context in
which identity faultlines are not always harmful, and information
faultlines are not always beneficial, for teams. In other words, for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
certain types of faultlines threat can be a blessing, while for others
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
it can be a curse. We believe our results have the potential to
significantly add to both faultlines and threat research within the
groups and teams literature. Regarding faultlines, we demonstrate
the utility of the CEM (van Knippenberg et al., 2004) and identify
a contextual boundary condition to better understand when and
why information and identity faultlines exert effects in teams.
Regarding threat, we challenge the general assumption within the
management literature that threat is always harmful to teams.
We test these general propositions in two experiments. In Study
1, we test whether threat mitigates the negative effect of intergroup
bias across activated identity faultlines on team creativity; an
interactive effect that we argue occurs due to differences in psy-
chological safety, or “a shared belief that the team is safe for
interpersonal risk taking” (Edmondson, 1999, p. 354). In Study 2,
we test whether threat triggers the negative effects of (activated)
information faultlines on team decision-making performance; an
interactive effect that we argue occurs due to heightened ingroup
favoritism and differences in status conflict, or “disputes over
people’s relative status positions in their group’s social hierarchy”
(Bendersky & Hays, 2012, p. 323). Our general hypothesized
model is depicted in Figure 1.
The CEM
The CEM was developed to integrate social categorization and
information/decision-making perspectives of diversity (van Knip-
penberg et al., 2004). The CEM proposes that there are two
potential paths leading from workgroup diversity to performance
on tasks that require creativity and decision-making. The first path
suggests that diversity will benefit performance by increasing
Team Psychological
Identity Faultlines
Safety
Threat
Information
Status Conflict
Faultlines
Figure 1. The general hypothesized model of Study 1 and 2. The solid lines link variables examined in Study
1; the dashed lines link variables examined in Study 2.
information elaboration, defined as “the exchange of information
and perspectives, individual-level processing of information and
perspectives, the process of feeding back the results of this
individual-level processing into the group, and discussion and
integration of its implications” (van Knippenberg et al., 2004, p.
1011). The second path suggests that diversity may harm perfor-
mance if it leads to social categorization, where members differ-
entiate ingroups and outgroups based on similarities and differ-
ences. Which path is operational is determined by the level of
comparative and normative fit and cognitive accessibility. Com-
parative fit refers to categorizations that reflect high within-
category similarity and high between-category differences, which,
when relevant and meaningful to the situation, are also high in
normative fit. Finally, cognitively accessibility refers to the degree
to which categorizations come to mind easily through the experi-
ences of team members or the presence of contextual primes
(Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher,
& Wetherell, 1987; van Knippenberg et al., 2004;).
In both studies, we examine activated faultlines in terms of
gender and performance-relevant information. Gender faultlines
create high within-category similarity and high between-category
differences. Activation then gives meaning to differences in gender
and primes the accessibility of the categorization. Information
faultlines likewise create high within-category similarity and high
between-category differences. Because the faultlines are based on
performance-relevant information, team members will likely see
the differences as meaningful to the task context and will likely be
highly cognitively accessible during the completion of the task. In
sum, our study examines faultlines that are high in comparative fit,
normative fit, and cognitive accessibility, which should lead to
social categorization.
According to the CEM, any type of salient social categorization
has the potential to influence affective and evaluative reactions by,
for example, increasing status conflict and decreasing psycholog-
ical safety, which then detracts from performance on tasks involv-
ing creativity and decision-making. The link between social cate-
gorization and affective and cognitive reactions, however, depends
on the extent to which the value of the identities created by the
social categorizations is threatened or challenged. Namely, when
subgroup identities are threatened, ingroup favoritism and inter-
group bias increase negative affective and evaluative member
reactions. We hope to add to the CEM by identifying what we
believe is another important moderator: external threats to the team
Team Creativity
Team Decision-
Making
 THREAT AND DIVERSITY FAULTLINES
as a whole. Unlike identity threat, we argue that such threats can
elicit both positive and negative effects on affective and cognitive
reactions depending on whether the social categorization was
created based on identity or information-based faultlines.
Study 1: Identity Faultlines, Threat, and
Team Creativity
As group creativity is a function of members mindfully attend-
ing to and building upon the divergent ideas of others (Ellis, Mai,
& Christian, 2013; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006), perspective-taking
(Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, & Barkema, 2012), and
elaborating task relevant information (van Knippenberg et al.,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2004), the presence of bias between identity subgroups has been
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
shown to negatively affect group creative performance. When the
value of identity subgroups is challenged, individuals are more
motivated to engage constructively with others in their ingroup
than those in their outgroup (Haslam, Adarves-Yorno, Postmes, &
Jans, 2013). People are also more likely to only view innovative
ideas posited by ingroup members as truly creative and worth
building upon (Haslam et al., 2013) and integrating into practice
(Kane, Argote, & Levine, 2005). Supporting this notion, Pearsall,
Ellis, and Evans (2008) found that teams split by activated gender
faultlines generated fewer and less creative ideas than nonfaultline
groups or groups with dormant gender faultlines.
While activated identity faultline groups may struggle with key
creative processes, the CEM suggests that task contexts which
create more inclusive superordinate representations of the group
can reduce intergroup bias and mitigate these negative effects.
Integrating this idea with research on the effects of threat in groups
and teams, we argue that threat reduces intergroup bias by (a)
restricting members’ attention to common, task-related identities,
and subsequently, (b) recategorizing members’ perceptions of in-
groups and outgroups.
First, under performance-related threats, concepts directly ap-
plicable to task performance, like knowledge, training, or method,
should more easily come to mind than peripheral characteristics (in
this case, identity differences; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). As noted
by Karau and Kelly (1992) in a study of how one kind of threat—
time pressure—affects team performance:
. . . a focus on task completion might lead groups to attend more
readily to a restricted range of features of the environment that seem
most central to moving the task forward to resolution. Under condi-
tions of time abundance, it is likely that greater variability will be
found in which features are salient and that the salience of features
will fluctuate over time within the interaction. (p. 545)
In teams that share a task identity, it stands to reason that
external threats relevant to group task performance will highlight
superordinate team categorizations.
Second, restricting focus to a common fate should change in-
tergroup relations by giving new meaning to subgroup distinctions.
More formally, recategorization is the process by which group
members are prompted to think of themselves as a single group
rather than separate subgroups (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio,
Bachman, & Rust, 1993). This causes group members change their
conceptual representation of different subgroups from an “us ver-
sus them” to an inclusive “we,” which reduces bias and attitudes
3
toward former outgroup members become more positive (Dovidio
& Gaertner, 2010; Gaertner et al., 1999).
Utilizing the concept of recategorization, social psychologists
have shown how common, external threats affect categorizations
to reduce prejudice and bias in groups with identity subgroups. For
example, Burnstein and McRae (1962) found that under conditions
of shared threat, the prejudice of White group members toward
Black confederates decreased. The classic Robber’s Cave study
also demonstrated how boys split into originally hostile competing
subgroups displayed cooperation and teamwork when experienc-
ing a common crises and holding superordinate goals (Sherif,
1966). More recently, Dovidio and colleagues (2004) found that
White American participants’ prejudice toward Black Americans
decreased significantly after reading an article about an impending
terrorist threat toward all Americans.
In sum, we argue that external threat is an event that focuses
members’ attention toward their common, task-related identity and
spurs recategorization of activated identity faultlines; an argument
in line with the origins of faultline theory. More specifically, Lau
and Murnighan (1998) suggested that external forces are likely to
“draw members’ attention back to the group as a whole” (p. 338).
In doing so, threat has the potential to reduce the negative effects
of activated identity faultlines on outcomes in teams. Therefore,
while we expect activated identity faultlines to negatively affect
creativity when compared with dormant identity faultlines in line
with past research (Pearsall et al., 2008), this effect will disappear
in the presence of threat, leading to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The effects of activated identity faultlines on
team creativity will be moderated by threat such that effects
will be more negative when threat is not present than when
threat is present.
The Role of Team Psychological Safety
Team psychological safety is defined as “a shared belief that the
team is safe for interpersonal risk taking” (Edmondson, 1999, p.
354). Teams with climates of high psychological safety are char-
acterized by mutual trust and respect, and collective confidence
that members will not deliberately undermine or embarrass each
other (Edmondson, 1999). Recent meta-analytic evidence indicates
that psychological safety is essential for complex tasks requiring
creativity (Sanner & Bunderson, 2015). Individuals in groups are
often apprehensive about offering creative ideas out of fear of
evaluation (West, 2002) and to avoid being a victim of free-riding
attempts from others (Kerr & Bruun, 1983). Because of this, teams
that are safe for interpersonal risk taking are able to better collab-
orate and draw on the benefits of diverse perspectives, knowledge,
and skills for creative task performance (Baer & Frese, 2003;
Gong, Kim, Lee, & Zhu, 2013).
When cognitive boundaries of ingroups are shifted, attitudes
toward the team—including perceptions of trust-related beliefs
like psychological safety—also shift (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000;
Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). Intergroup relations research
suggests that a team with all ingroup members is perceived to be
a more trustworthy environment for risk-taking than one with
outgroup members (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson,
2002). Voci (2006) found, for instance, that study participants
were particularly distrusting of outgroup members because they
 4 SPOELMA AND ELLIS
perceived their value and distinctiveness to be undermined, as is
the case when faultlines are active. However, recategorization
under a superordinate identity reduces intergroup fear and in-
creases positive outgroup attitudes (Riek, Mania, Gaertner, Mc-
Donald, & Lamoreaux, 2010), which effectively restores mem-
bers’ beliefs about the acceptability of risk taking.
In sum, the above arguments suggest that (a) threat will mod-
erate the effects of identity faultlines on psychological safety, and
(b) psychological safety influences team creativity, leading to the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The interactive effects of activated identity
faultlines and threat on team creativity will be partially me-
diated by team psychological safety.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Method
Sample and experimental design. Study participants in-
cluded 376 undergraduate students at a large public university in
the Southwestern United States. Participants were organized into
94 four-person teams. Participation in this study was voluntary and
those that participated received course extra credit. Their mean age
was 20.6 (SD ⫽ 3.19), 50% were men, and participants were
mostly Caucasian (58.5%), Asian (17.0%), and Hispanic/Latino
(14.0%).1
We used a 2 (identity faultline status: activated vs. nonacti-
vated) ⫻ 2 (threat: present vs. not present) between-team factorial
design. Participants were randomly assigned to teams, which were
randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions.
Each team was composed of two men and two women in order to
create an objective, dormant gender faultline (see Pearsall et al.,
2008).
Overview of procedure and tasks. Following past research
(e.g., Pearsall et al., 2008), teams first engaged in an idea gener-
ation task, where the activation manipulation was introduced.
Teams were assigned the task of generating new product designs
for either a purse for women or a student backpack (more detail
below). Teams were instructed to write down their ideas and to
ensure each idea was truly creative and ready to be developed by
the fictional company. In addition, teams were instructed to mark
each idea with a number in order to distinguish between ideas.
Teams were given 15 min for this task, after which individual
surveys were distributed to assess the effectiveness of the activa-
tion manipulation.
Following the first task, the threat manipulation was introduced
and then participants completed a gender-neutral idea generation
task where team creativity was assessed. Following Baer and
colleagues (2010), teams generated ideas for improving the tran-
sition from high school to college for entering students; ideas that
should be suitable for implementation by the University. Teams
were again instructed to write down and number their ideas. After
the allotted 15 min for this task, the threat manipulation check and
psychological safety were measured. Team creativity was mea-
sured using the output from the second task. Upon completion,
participants were debriefed and thanked for their time. This pro-
tocol was approved by the University of Arizona Institutional
Review Board (IRB) and classified as exempt, Category 2.
Manipulations.
Identity faultline activation. Because faultlines are not acti-
vated until individuals become aware of differences that divide the
team into subgroups (Lau & Murnighan, 1998), the purpose of the
first task was to make gender differences salient. To activate this
type of faultline, elements of the task needed to highlight differ-
ences associated with each gender subgroup. This ensured that the
meaning of within-unit demographic diversity was tied to the task
and goals of the team (Harrison & Klein, 2007). In the activation
conditions, teams were instructed to generate new product designs
for a purse that was to be purchased and used by women and that
appealed to the female market. In contrast, in the nonactivation
conditions, teams were instructed to generate new product designs
for a student backpack to be used by both male and female
students. Making the purse task gender-specific activated the dor-
mant gender faultline, as task completion cued recognition of
knowledge and orientations based on shared social categories,
which form the basis for people’s ingroup and outgroup categori-
zations (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In the nonactivation conditions,
the dormant gender faultlines were not activated by elements of the
task, as the backpack was supposed to be designed as gender-
neutral.
Threat. Threat is a stimulus with impending negative conse-
quences for the entity (Staw et al., 1981). Threat has been manip-
ulated in the laboratory through several inductions that make
participants conscious of negative consequences that depend on
performance. For instance, threat has been operationalized by
videotaping teams and making participants aware of possible con-
sequences for low performance (Ellis, 2006), such as reduced
compensation (Argote, Turner, & Fichman, 1989). As a result,
after introducing the second task, the experimenter told partici-
pants the following:
This task represents a high stakes creative task. Because of this, your
team will be given a firm deadline of 15 minutes for this task. Also,
I will be videotaping teams throughout this study, and will show the
videos of the teams that perform in the bottom 10th percentile in
Professor X’s Groups and Teams seminar as examples of ineffective
teams. In addition, if your team’s creative performance is in the
bottom 10th percentile, your team will need to stay longer and
complete an additional task in order to receive credit for participating.
After reading this statement and before exiting the room, the
experimenter set up a video camera and began “recording” the
team. All participants were released after completing the second
task, regardless of performance.
Measures. All variables were assessed using 7-point scales
that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) unless
otherwise described.
Identity faultline activation manipulation check. To check
the effectiveness of the identity faultline activation manipulation,
we assessed individuals’ perceptions of gender subgroups using an
item adapted from Jehn and Bezrukova (2010): “During the task
our team split into subgroups based on gender.”
Threat manipulation check. To check the effectiveness of the
threat manipulation, we assessed individuals’ level of stress during
the task as an indicator of threat (Staw et al., 1981) with an item
adapted from Gladstein and Reilly (1985): “I was working under a
great deal of stress during this task.”
1
One participant did not provide race information.
 THREAT AND DIVERSITY FAULTLINES 5

Team psychological safety. We measured psychological Table 1

safety using Edmondson’s (1999) seven-item scale. Sample Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study 1
items include: “Members of this team are able to bring up Variables and Experimental Conditions
problems and tough issues,” “People on this team sometimes
reject others for being different,” and “It is safe to take a risk on Variable 1 2 3 4 5
this team.” Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .74. As ratings 1. Identity faultline activation
reflected perceptions of group-level phenomena, we created a 2. Threat .02
team-level variable from the mean of team members’ responses 3. Team creativity (Task 1) ⫺.22ⴱ ⫺.08
(Chan, 1998). To demonstrate interrater reliability and agree- 4. Team creativity (Task 2) ⫺.10 .11 .41ⴱⴱ
5. Team psychological safety ⫺.04 .10 .06 .27ⴱⴱ
ment among team members, we calculated two types of intra-
class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and rwg(j). ICC(1) repre- Descriptive statistics totals
sents an effect size estimate of how much the team members’ M 10.85 4.72
ratings were a factor of their team membership, while ICC(2) SD 5.67 .41
Activated identity faultline/threat condition
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

provides a reliability estimate of the team’s group means within M 12.08 5.79
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the sample (Bliese, 2000). Within-group agreement is further SD 4.56 .31

demonstrated by rwg(j), an index comparing the observed vari- Activated identity faultline/no threat condition
ance among team members in their responses to the variance M 8.52 5.50
expected from a null distribution with no agreement (James, SD 4.40 .51
Nonactivated identity faultline/threat condition
Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). To demonstrate agreement, we cal- M 10.65 5.63
culated ICC(1), ICC(2), and rwg(j). Supporting aggregation, we SD 4.48 .46
found ICC(1), ICC(2), and mean rwg(j) values of .10, F(93, Nonactivated identity faultline/no threat condition
564) ⫽ 1.67, p ⬍ .001; .44; and .89, respectively. M 12.04 5.74
SD 4.81 .33
Team creativity. Creativity refers to the production of novel
and useful ideas or problem solutions (Amabile, Barsade, Mu- Note. N ⫽ 94 teams. Identity faultline activation was coded as 0 ⫽
eller, & Staw, 2005). To operationalize team creativity, we nonactivated identity faultlines, 1 ⫽ activated identity faultlines. Threat
was coded as 0 ⫽ no threat, 1 ⫽ threat. The mean value for team creativity
followed previous work and used the number of unique creative is the number of unique ideas that the team produced. The means and
ideas that the team produced (i.e., fluency; e.g., Paulus & Yang, standard deviations in columns 4 and 5 refer to team creativity and team
2000). psychological safety, respectively.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

Results
Manipulation checks. faultlines, 1 ⫽ activated identity faultlines; 0 ⫽ no threat, 1 ⫽
Identity faultline activation. We created team-level activation threat). In all analyses, we controlled for the number of ideas that
manipulation checks by aggregating members’ responses; ICC(1) the team generated on the first task. H1 proposed that the effects of
was .32, F(93, 282) ⫽ 2.92, p ⬍ .001; ICC(2) was .66. Teams in activated identity faultlines on team creativity would be moderated
the activated identity faultline conditions (M ⫽ 2.88, SD ⫽ 1.21) by threat such that effects would be more negative when threat is
indicated a significantly greater level of agreement with the state- not present than when threat is present. To test H1, we used
ment that their team split into subgroups based on gender during hierarchical linear regression at the team level of analysis. As
the task than did participants in the nonactivated conditions (M ⫽ shown in Table 2, in Step 1, we entered both manipulations and the
1.65, SD ⫽ 0.59), F(1, 90) ⫽ 37.54, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .29. This
manipulation check was neither influenced by threat, F(1,
90) ⫽ 0.04, p ⬎ .05, ␩2 ⫽ .00, nor by the interaction between
Table 2
identity faultline activation and threat, F(1, 90) ⫽ 0.07, p ⬎ .05, Study 1 Results of Regression Analysis Predicting
␩2 ⫽ .00. Team Creativity
Threat. Additionally, we created team-level threat manipula-
tion checks by aggregating members’ responses; ICC(1) was .11, Team creativity
F(93, 282) ⫽ 1.50, p ⬍ .001; ICC(2) was .33. Teams in the threat
Step 1 Step 2
conditions (M ⫽ 2.19, SD ⫽ 0.72) indicated a significantly greater
level of agreement with the statement that they were working Variable B SE B SE
under a great deal of stress during the task than did participants in Team creativity (Task 1) .42 ⴱⴱ
.10 .41 ⴱⴱ
.10
the no threat conditions (M ⫽ 1.87, SD ⫽ 0.64), F(1, 90) ⫽ 5.25, Identity faultline activation ⫺.19 .92 ⫺2.60ⴱ 1.24
p ⬍ .05, ␩2 ⫽ .05. The threat manipulation check was not influ- Threat 1.40 .90 ⫺1.01 1.22
enced by either the identity faultline activation, F(1, 90) ⫽ 0.78, Identity faultline activation ⫻ Threat 4.80ⴱⴱ 1.72
R2 .19 .25
p ⬎ .05, ␩2 ⫽ .01, or the identity faultline activation and threat Adjusted R2 .16 .22
interaction, F(1, 90) ⫽ 0.48, p ⬎ .05, ␩2 ⫽ .00. ⌬ R2 .07ⴱ
Tests of hypotheses. Table 1 presents means, standard devi-
Note. N ⫽ 94 teams. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Identity
ations, and correlations for the study variables and experimental faultline activation was coded as 0 ⫽ nonactivated identity faultlines, 1 ⫽
conditions at the team level. Identity faultline activation and threat activated identity faultlines. Threat was coded as 0 ⫽ no threat, 1 ⫽ threat.
were coded using dummy variables (0 ⫽ nonactivated identity ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 6 SPOELMA AND ELLIS
Task 1 performance control variable as independent variables
predicting creativity, followed by the interaction term in Step 2.
Task 1 performance was a significant predictor of Task 2 perfor-
mance (B ⫽ 0.42, SE ⫽ 0.10, p ⬍ .001), but there were no direct
effects of the activation or threat manipulations on creativity
(B ⫽ ⫺0.19, SE ⫽ 0.92, p ⬎ .05; B ⫽ 1.40, SE ⫽ 0.90, p ⬎ .05).
However, the interaction significantly affected the number of ideas
produced by the team (B ⫽ 4.80, SE ⫽ 1.72, p ⬍ .01). Adding the
interaction term explained an additional 7% of the variance in
creativity.
Tests of specific differences in experimental conditions re-
vealed that teams with nonactivated identity faultlines were not
influenced by the presence of threat, t(45) ⫽ 1.02, p ⬎ .05, d ⫽
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
0.25 but teams with activated identity faultlines performing
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
under no threat produced fewer ideas than teams with activated
identity faultlines performing under threat, t(45) ⫽ 2.71, p ⬍
.01, d ⫽ 0.81. In addition, teams with activated identity fault-
lines under threat performed similar to teams with nonactivated
identity faultlines both in the presence of threat, t(45) ⫽ 1.08,
p ⬎ .05, d ⫽ 0.32, and in the absence of threat, t(46) ⫽ 0.03,
p ⬎ .05, d ⫽ 0.01. Figure 2 displays these condition means.
Overall, these results support H1.
To test H2, which proposed that the interactive effects of acti-
vation and threat on team creativity would be partially mediated by
team psychological safety, we used SPSS PROCESS Model 8
(Hayes, 2013). This model tested the conditional indirect effects of
activated identity faultlines on team creativity at different levels of
threat. We adopted Preacher and Hayes’ (2004, 2008) bootstrap-
ping application with 10,000 resamples as recommended by
MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams (2004). The results revealed
a significant conditional indirect effect of activated identity fault-
lines on creativity via team psychological safety; the indirect effect
was nonsignificant for threat, indirect effect ⫽ 0.36, SE ⫽ 0.33,
95% CI [⫺0.05, 1.28], and significant for no threat, indirect
effect ⫽ ⫺0.49, SE ⫽ 0.35, 95% CI [⫺1.50, ⫺0.01]. These
indirect effects were significantly different from each other, 95%
CI [0.07, 2.32]. In sum, these results support H2.
Discussion
Identity faultlines, particularly when activated, negatively affect
team functioning (Chung et al., 2015; Pearsall et al., 2008). This is
thought to occur because of social categorization processes and
intergroup bias— groups split themselves into ingroups and out-
groups based on identifiable characteristics, and ingroup favorit-
ism disrupts key team processes, like information sharing, collab-
oration, and trust (Lau & Murnighan, 2005).
In Study 1, we provide a boundary condition to this effect. We
show that activated identity faultlines do not have negative effects
in every context, but rather when teams are under threat, these
negative effects can be mitigated. We argued that threat narrows
the attentional focus of group members toward threat-relevant
collective identities at the neglect of peripheral subgroup identities,
effectively recategorizing perceptions of ingroups and outgroups
(Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Providing support for our hypotheses,
we found that threat alleviated the negative effects of activated
identity faultlines on team creativity, and that team psychological
safety mediated this effect.
However, Study 1 is limited in that we only examined one type
of faultline. As we argue below, threat does not reduce bias in
teams with any type of faultline. Information faultlines are distin-
guishable from identity faultlines in that they are composed of
differences regarding task knowledge, skills, and abilities (e.g.,
education, functional background; Bezrukova, Jehn, Zanutto, &
Thatcher, 2009). Given that the effects of information faultlines
are explained by a unique set of theoretical mechanisms (Carton &
Cummings, 2012; van Knippenberg et al., 2004), we expect threat
to interact differently with information faultlines; an idea that we
test more formally in Study 2.
Study 2: Information Faultlines, Threat, and Team
Decision-Making
Study 1, which focused on identity faultlines, compared the
effects of activated and dormant faultlines on team performance. In
Study 2, which focuses on information faultlines, we examine
slightly different comparison groups. As mentioned earlier, results
regarding the potential benefits of information faultlines have been
equivocal (e.g., Bezrukova, Thatcher, Jehn, & Spell, 2012; Gibson
& Vermeulen, 2003). However, in field studies of faultlines, it is
difficult to ascertain what “low information faultlines” represents;
that is, it could mean that team members have (a) fully shared, or
(b) fully distributed information sets. As we know from research
by Stasser, Titus, and their colleagues, teams with high levels of
distributed knowledge and expertise often have the most difficulty
integrating knowledge to make effective decisions (e.g., Stasser &
Titus, 1985). Therefore, it stands to reason that teams with fault-
lines and teams with fully shared information will outperform fully
distributed teams on decision-making tasks given the increase in
information overlap. The more interesting comparison, and the
focus of Study 2, is between shared and faultline teams. While
teams with fully shared information will experience benefits asso-
ciated with completely overlapping information sets, there is rea-
son to believe that teams with (activated) information faultlines
will not necessarily suffer from the creation of subgroup informa-
tion silos.
In line with the information/decision-making perspective, teams
with information faultlines will benefit from a broader range of
decision-relevant knowledge and expertise because subgroups will
13
12
Team Creativity
11
10 Threat
No Threat
9
8
7
Non-Activated Identity Activated Identity Faultline
Faultline
Figure 2. Team creativity as a function of identity faultline activation and
threat in Study 1.
 THREAT AND DIVERSITY FAULTLINES
hold different opinions as to the “correct” decision. This “may
force the group to more thoroughly process task-relevant informa-
tion and may prevent the group from opting too easily for a course
of action on which there seems to be consensus” (van Knippenberg
et al., 2004, p. 1009). This idea is supported by the literature on
collective induction and truth-supported wins, which suggests that
teams will attend to and absorb information collectively as long as
two team members share the same information set (Ellis et al.,
2003; Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997). Information subgroups
provide members with a sense of social validation that their
contributions are important and can influence the group’s decision
(Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003; Wittenbaum, Hubbell, & Zucker-
man, 1999). As suggested by research on the cohort effect, people
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
are not only more likely to express opinions when they are shared
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
with at least one other person in the group (Asch, 1955), but others
are more likely to take these diverging perspectives into account
when they are held by multiple people (Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna,
1989).
Given that there are advantages to creating groups with fully
shared information and groups with information faultlines, we do
not predict a significant advantage of one over the other in terms
of decision-making accuracy. However, we expect threat to sig-
nificantly alter this relationship. More specifically, we expect
threat to restrict information processing and induce ingroup favor-
itism when teams are split into information faultlines. As discussed
in Study 1, threat restricts attention to task-related concepts. In
contrast to Study 1, threat does not recategorize team members’
perceptions of ingroups and outgroups because in teams with
information faultlines, these concepts are useful for responding to
the threat (Turner & Virick, 2008). For instance, members of a
product development team composed of people from engineering
and marketing departments are likely to be highly aware of in-
group/outgroup divisions formed by differences in perspective
when working under extreme time pressure to complete a project.
In addition, threat makes it more difficult for team members to
entertain divergent, unfamiliar perspectives put forth by their in-
formation outgroups. Under threat, team members narrow their
attention to well-learned and familiar cognitive orientations, which
subsequently affects group processes and performance (Staw et al.,
1981). For example, Driskell, Salas, and Johnston (1999) found
that when stressed with noise, time pressure, and an increased task
load, subjects became more attentive to individual responsibilities
and less attentive to team representations of the task. Additionally,
Ellis (2006) found that individuals’ knowledge of team interaction
patterns and others’ roles and responsibilities was disrupted when
faced with time pressure and the threat of evaluation. Kamphuis
and colleagues (2011) recently discovered a similar effect, finding
that physical threat negatively affected team members’ ability to
attend to peripheral information and maintain an overview of the
task.
For decision-making teams with information faultlines, threat’s
impact is twofold: it increases people’s reliance on problem-
solving approaches that they are familiar with and can easily
defend and justify (Kruglanski & Webster, 1991; Kruglanski,
Webster, & Klem, 1993) and decreases the ability for adaptive and
expansive thinking (Amabile, 1979; De Dreu, Nijstad, & van
Knippenberg, 2008; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Taken together,
we argue this increases intergroup bias in teams, as each subgroup
is likely to perceive the information put forth by outgroup mem-
7
bers as a challenge to the value of their perspective (van Knippen-
berg et al., 2004). In this way, threat effectively cripples a team’s
ability to integrate unique expertise beneficial for performance
(Gardner, 2012). Overall, important decision-making processes in
teams composed of subgroups with separate task-related “thought
worlds” of knowledge, routines, and approaches to sensemaking
(cf., Dougherty, 1992) should be particularly disrupted by threat,
leading to poor decision-making performance. As a result, we
hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3: The effects of information faultlines on team
decision-making performance will be moderated by threat
such that effects will be more negative when threat is present
than when threat is not present.
The Role of Status Conflict
Status conflict, or “disputes over people’s relative status posi-
tions in their group’s social hierarchy” (Bendersky & Hays, 2012,
p. 323), stimulates more competitive behaviors among group
members than other forms of conflict (e.g., task, relationship)
because it involves the whole team network and has longer-term
distributive outcomes (Bendersky & Hays, 2012). In group
decision-making contexts, status conflict arises when members
compete for influence through tactics such as forming coalitions
and discounting information put forth by others (Chun & Choi,
2014).
As a result, status conflicts are likely to emerge when teams with
information faultlines are under threat. Research by Kruglanski
and colleagues has found that groups under threat experience
greater need for closure—the desire for a definite answer as
opposed to confusion and ambiguity (Kruglanski, 1989)–than
groups without threat (see also, De Dreu et al., 2008). Threat-
induced need for closure should harm decision-making groups by
increasing status conflict for at least two reasons. First, people
should be driven to form coalitions and take sides during a conflict
as a way to engage in mutual enhancement. Kruglanski et al.
(1993) found that people induced with high need for closure
displayed a greater preference for agreement with their similar
dyadic partners, as a way to create a shared social reality and
validate the information that they hold; a finding also supported by
social comparison research (e.g., Gump & Kulik, 1997). Second,
people should be more likely to discount the value of information
put forth by those that hold perspectives they are not familiar
with—in this case, information outgroups. Individuals in groups
under threat become particularly intolerant of those that offer
deviating opinions (De Dreu et al., 2008; Schacter, Ellertson,
McBride, & Gregory, 1951; Staw et al., 1981). Evident of this,
compared with conformists, opinion deviants in groups under
threat are more likely to be characterized as less intelligent and
friendly, and receive lower ratings regarding the usefulness of their
contributions (Kruglanski & Webster, 1991; Lauderdale, 1976).
Those status conflicts then likely affect team decision-making
performance. Groups perform better when people agree about how
expertise is recognized and aligned with influence (Bunderson,
2003). This is partly because these teams avoid the costs of status
conflict. Conflict itself decreases motivation and cognitive pro-
cesses available for engaging in team performance by increasing
cognitive load and impairing the amount of resources available for
 8 SPOELMA AND ELLIS
complex thought (Carnevale & Probst, 1998; De Dreu & Weingart,
2003). Conflicts over influence redirect effort toward resolving
status disagreements and away from coordination and group pro-
ductivity (Bendersky & Hays, 2012). Research on the too-much-
talent effect suggests that status conflict is the reason the relation-
ship between talent and team performance is curvilinear and is
negative when talent is at high levels (Swaab, Schaerer, Anicich,
Ronay, & Galinsky, 2014). Further supporting this notion, Bend-
ersky and Hays (2012) found that status conflicts hindered group
information sharing more than other types of conflict, leading to a
negative effect on group performance.
In sum, the above arguments suggest that (a) threat will mod-
erate the effects of information faultlines on status conflict, and (b)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
status conflict detracts from team decision-making performance,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
leading to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: The interactive effects of information faultlines
and threat on team decision-making performance will be par-
tially mediated by status conflict.
Method
Sample and experimental design. Study participants in-
cluded 360 undergraduates at a large public university in the
Southwestern United States. Participation in this study was volun-
tary and those that participated received course extra credit. Their
mean age was 21.42 (SD ⫽ 3.38) and 49.4% were men. Partici-
pants were primarily Caucasian (53.6%), Asian (21.1%), or His-
panic/Latino (16.9%).2
Participants were arrayed into 90 four-person teams, using a 2
(information faultline vs. no information faultline) ⫻ 2 (threat:
present vs. not present) between-teams factorial design. Partici-
pants were randomly assigned to teams and teams were randomly
assigned to experimental conditions.
Overview of procedure and tasks. For this study, we used
the Endowed Chair exercise (Thompson, 1999); a distributed in-
formation group decision-making task. In this task, team members
are given information sets describing the qualifications of three
university professors and are responsible for discussing and select-
ing the most qualified candidate for an endowed chair position.
Information sets that the participants receive describe pieces of
information relevant to a selection decision in this context (e.g.,
each professor’s biography, letters of recommendation, research
profile, teaching sample, and industry contacts). For each of the
three candidates, information in these respective categories has an
objective rating between 1 (negative) and 5 (superior). When all
the information is put together, one of the professors emerges as
the most qualified for the position (having the highest objective
summed score). We used this task because the use of selection
exercises with distributed information is a robust experimental
paradigm within the group decision-making literature (e.g.,
Stasser, Stewart, & Wittenbaum, 1995; Stasser, Vaughan, & Stew-
art, 2000; Wittenbaum et al., 1999).
On arrival, participants were provided with randomly assigned
information packets consisting of the task instructions and each
candidate’s profile. Consistent with standard practice in group
decision-making studies (e.g., Stasser et al., 1995), each informa-
tion packet was crafted to appear identical. After receiving the
packet, individuals were seated separately in private study rooms,
where they read the task instructions and each candidate’s profile.
The task instructions consisted of a description of the task, what
the participants were supposed to do, and the criteria they were to
use to compare the candidate profiles (select the best candidate
regardless of their particular area of specialization). Participants
were informed that they would not be allowed to bring anything
with them to the group decision part of the study, and it was
suggested that they memorize information about the candidates
that they thought would be important. The candidate profiles each
participant received consisted of information that was either shared
among all the team members or distributed in a way to create an
information faultline (see below).
After 30 min, the team members joined together in a conference
room to discuss the candidates and select who they thought was the
most qualified for the position. The threat manipulation was in-
troduced during this part of the study. Teams were given 15 min to
make a decision, after which individual surveys were distributed to
assess the effectiveness of the manipulations and perceptions of
status conflict in the team. Participants were then debriefed and
dismissed. This protocol was approved by the University of Ari-
zona IRB and classified as exempt, Category 2.
Manipulations.
Information faultline. Faultlines based on informational attri-
butes are typically formed by differences in task-relevant knowl-
edge, education, functional background, or experience (Bezrukova
et al., 2009; Bezrukova et al., 2012). These attributes influence and
reinforce the different perspectives members have regarding task
work (Bezrukova et al., 2009; Carton & Cummings, 2012). In this
study, we created information faultlines by manipulating the in-
formation participants had about the job candidates: Chris Pepper,
Pat Stone, and Lorey Weiss.
In the conditions without a faultline (shared information condi-
tions), all four group members were given packets with the same
30 information cues. In the faultline conditions, however, two
unique information packets were randomly distributed; two mem-
bers received one packet of information and the other two received
another. We created three sets of information to divide between the
packets (cf., Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu,
2007; Rico, Sánchez-Manzanares, Antino, & Lau, 2012). Set 1
consisted of 12 pieces of information about the candidates (4 per
candidate) of nearly equal favorability. Set 2 had nine pieces of
information about the candidates (3 per candidate), which had
more less-favorable information about Chris Pepper. Set 3 also had
nine pieces of information about the candidates (3 per candidate),
but this set had more less-favorable information about Pat Stone.
To create an objective faultline, one subgroup (A) had informa-
tion Sets 1 and 2, while the other subgroup (B) had Sets 1 and 3.
In effect, each team member had seven pieces of information about
every candidate, with four being shared with all group members,
and three being shared with only one other person to create an
information subgroup. We considered these to represent activated
faultlines, given that the information sets were required in order for
the group to complete the task. Objectively, these subgroups were
further distinct in that Subgroup A preferred Pat Stone and Sub-
2
Two participants did not provide demographic information.
 THREAT AND DIVERSITY FAULTLINES
group B preferred Chris Pepper.3 Despite this, across both sub-
groups, each team collectively had all 30 pieces of information,
which, if all shared, would reveal to the correct candidate (Lorey
Weiss).
Threat. We adopted the threat manipulation used in Study 1,
with minor modifications to the wording of the statement to make
it specific to a decision-making task and not a creativity task.
Measures. All variables were assessed using 7-point scales
that ranged from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly) unless
otherwise described.
Information faultline manipulation check. To check the ef-
fectiveness of the information faultline manipulation, we assessed
individuals’ perceptions of information subgroups using an item
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
adapted from Jehn and Bezrukova (2010): “During the task our
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
team split into subgroups based on knowledge about the task.”
Threat manipulation check. We used the same item as in
Study 1 to assess the effectiveness of the threat manipulation.
Status conflict. We measured status conflict using Bendersky
and Hays’ (2012) four-item scale. Sample items include: “My team
members frequently took sides (i.e., formed coalitions) during
conflicts,” and “My team members disagreed about the relative
value of members’ contributions.” Cronbach’s alpha for the scale
was .74. We created a team-level variable from the mean of team
members’ responses, in line with the referent shift model (Chan,
1998). To demonstrate agreement, we calculated ICC(1), ICC(2),
and mean rwg(j). Supporting aggregation, we found values of .27,
F(89, 270) ⫽ 2.50, p ⬍ .001; .60; and .71, respectively.
Team decision-making performance. Team decision-making
performance was operationalized with a dichotomous measure of
whether or not the team selected Lorey Weiss, the most qualified
and therefore correct candidate, according to objective ratings.
Results
Manipulation checks.
Information faultline. We aggregated members’ responses to
create a team-level manipulation check; ICC(1) was .31, F(89,
270) ⫽ 2.76, p ⬍ .001; ICC(2) was .64. Teams in the information
faultline conditions (M ⫽ 4.16, SD ⫽ 1.24) indicated a signifi-
cantly greater level of agreement with the statement that during the
task their team split into subgroups based on knowledge about the
task than did participants in the no faultline conditions (M ⫽ 2.55,
SD ⫽ 1.05), F(1, 86) ⫽ 43.35, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .33. The infor-
mation faultline manipulation check was neither influenced by
threat, F(1, 86) ⫽ 0.01, p ⬎ .05, ␩2 ⫽ .00, nor by the interaction
between information faultline and threat, F(1, 86) ⫽ 0.50, p ⬎
.05, ␩2 ⫽ .00.
Threat. A team-level threat manipulation check was created
by aggregating members’ responses; ICC(1) was .21, F(89, 270) ⫽
2.06, p ⬍ .001; ICC(2) was .52. Teams in the threat conditions
(M ⫽ 2.23, SD ⫽ 1.04) indicated a significantly greater level of
agreement with the statement that they were working under a great
deal of stress during the task than did participants in the no threat
conditions (M ⫽ 1.87, SD ⫽ 0.63), F(1, 86) ⫽ 3.98, p ⬍ .05, ␩2 ⫽
.04. Both the information faultline main effect, F(1, 86) ⫽ 3.53,
p ⬎ .05, ␩2 ⫽ .04, and the interaction between information
faultline and threat, F(1, 86) ⫽ 0.84, p ⬎ .05, ␩2 ⫽ .01, had
nonsignificant effects, supporting the effectiveness of our manip-
ulation.4
9
Tests of hypotheses. Table 3 presents means, standard devi-
ations, and correlations for the study variables and experimental
conditions at the team level. Information faultline and threat were
coded using dummy variables (0 ⫽ no information faultline, 1 ⫽
information faultline; 0 ⫽ no threat, 1 ⫽ threat). H3 proposed that
the effects of information faultlines on team decision-making
performance would be moderated by threat such that effects would
be more negative when threat is present than when threat is not
present. To test H3, we used binary logistic regression at the team
level of analysis. In Step 1, we entered both manipulations as
independent variables predicting decision-making performance.
The information faultline term had a significant negative direct
effect on decision-making (B ⫽ ⫺1.21, SE ⫽ 0.53, Wald ␹2 ⫽
5.13, df ⫽ 1, p ⬍ .05) while threat did not have a significant effect
(B ⫽ 0.00, SE ⫽ 0.50, p ⬎ .05). We added the interaction term in
Step 2. This did not significantly affect team decision-making
performance (B ⫽ ⫺1.18, SE ⫽ 1.11, p ⬎ .05), which does not
support H3.
To test H4, which proposed that the interactive effects of infor-
mation faultlines and threat on decision-making would be partially
mediated by status conflict, we used SPSS PROCESS Model 8
(Hayes, 2013). Similar to Study 1, we adopted Preacher and
Hayes’ (2004, 2008) bootstrapping application with 10,000 resa-
mples as recommended by MacKinnon and colleagues (2004). The
results revealed a significant conditional indirect effect of infor-
mation faultlines on decision-making via status conflict; the indi-
rect effect was nonsignificant for no threat, indirect ef-
fect ⫽ ⫺0.30, SE ⫽ 0.40, 95% CI [⫺1.21, 0.45], and significant
for threat, indirect effect ⫽ ⫺1.41, SE ⫽ 0.65, 95% CI
[⫺2.83, ⫺0.50]. These indirect effects were significantly different
from each other, 95% CI [⫺2.81, ⫺0.05]. In sum, these results
support H4.
Supplemental analyses. To provide evidence for the unique
role of status conflict in this relationship, participants assessed
levels of task, relationship, and process conflict after completing
the decision task utilizing scales constructed by Jehn and Mannix
(2001). Identical to how we tested H4, we separately tested the
mediating role of each type of conflict. None significantly ex-
plained the effect of the information faultline and threat interaction
on the decision-making. Further, when we put status, task, rela-
tionship, and process conflict in the model together as parallel
3
Pretesting confirmed that subjective perceptions were aligned with the
objective distribution. A separate sample of undergraduates was given
these information packets to read and select the candidate they believed to
be most qualified. Those that received Subgroup A’s packet (n ⫽ 18)
selected Pat Stone 66.7% of the time, while those that received Subgroup
B’s (n ⫽ 17) selected Chris Pepper 64.5% of the time.
4
To further demonstrate the effectiveness of our threat manipulation, we
collected additional data from 10 teams following the procedures outlined
in Study 2. We randomly assigned teams to threat (five teams) or no threat
(five teams). We then asked participants to complete the following items on
a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree):
“The idea that I was being evaluated during this task was stressful” and “I
felt panicky.” Regarding the first item, groups in the threat condition
reported much higher levels of stress (M ⫽ 4.25, SD ⫽ 1.52) than groups
in the no threat condition (M ⫽ 2.30, SD ⫽ 1.30), t(38) ⫽ 4.36, p ⬍ .001,
d ⫽ 1.41. Regarding the second item, groups in the threat condition again
reported much higher levels of stress (M ⫽ 3.50, SD ⫽ 1.32) than groups
in the no threat condition (M ⫽ 2.05, SD ⫽ 1.23), t(38) ⫽ 3.60, p ⬍ .01,
d ⫽ 1.17.
 10 SPOELMA AND ELLIS

Table 3 complex tasks. In effect, this would stimulate intergroup bias in the
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study 2 form of status conflict, disrupting the performance of decision-
Variables and Experimental Conditions making teams. Partially supporting this notion, we found that
information faultline teams under threat had a significant (nega-
Variable 1 2 3 4 tive) indirect effect on decision-making performance via status
1. Information faultline conflict. However, contrary to our prediction, we did not find that
2. Threat .00 the interaction between information faultlines and threat directly
3. Team decision-making performance ⫺.24ⴱ .00 affected decision-making performance. This suggests that the ef-
4. Status conflict .34ⴱⴱ .05 ⫺.49ⴱⴱ fect of the interaction on decision-making performance is indirect
Descriptive statistics totals through status conflict.
M .76 2.76
SD .43 .71
Information faultline/threat condition General Discussion
M .61 3.19
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

SD .49 .73 Faultlines are generally detrimental in teams (Thatcher & Patel,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Information faultline/no threat condition
M .70 2.80
SD .47 .76
No information faultline/threat condition
M .91 2.38
SD .29 .56
No information faultline/no threat condition
M .82 2.63
SD .39 .56
Note. N ⫽ 90 teams. Information faultline was coded as 0 ⫽ no infor-
mation faultline, 1 ⫽ information faultline. Threat was coded as 0 ⫽ no
threat, 1 ⫽ threat. Team decision-making performance was coded as a
dichotomous variable; incorrect decision ⫽ 0, correct decision ⫽ 1. The
mean value for team decision-making performance is the percentage of
teams that made the correct decision. The means and standard deviations in
columns 3 and 4 refer to team decision-making performance and status
conflict, respectively.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
mediators, the only type of conflict to have a significant condi-
tional indirect effect was status conflict. These results are available
from the first author upon request.
In addition, psychological safety and status conflict did not
operate as mediators in both studies. In Study 1, we measured
status conflict and found a nonsignificant conditional indirect
effect of activated identity faultlines on creativity via status con-
flict; the indirect effect was nonsignificant for no threat, indirect
effect ⫽ ⫺0.11, SE ⫽ 0.29, 95% CI [⫺0.90, 0.34] and nonsignif-
icant for threat, indirect effect ⫽ 0.33, SE ⫽ 0.31, 95% CI [⫺0.07,
1.23]. Further, the indirect effects were not significantly different
from each other, 95% CI [⫺0.14, 1.74]. In Study 2, we measured
psychological safety and found a nonsignificant conditional indi-
rect effect of information faultlines on decision-making via psy-
chological safety; the indirect effect was nonsignificant for no
threat, indirect effect ⫽ 0.15, SE ⫽ 0.46, 95% CI [⫺0.55, 1.33],
and nonsignificant for threat, indirect effect ⫽ 0.22, SE ⫽ 0.43,
95% CI [⫺0.33, 1.32]. These indirect effects were also not signif-
icantly different from each other, 95% CI [⫺0.95, 1.30]. In sum,
these results support our conceptual arguments and hypothesized
model.
Discussion
In Study 2, we proposed an explanation for when and why
information faultlines disrupt team performance. We argued that
threat is likely to trigger the negative effects of information sub-
groups by inducing rigidity that hinders integrative behavior on
2012). However, as noted by Joshi and Roh (2009), researchers
should move “beyond a debate regarding the potential benefits or
costs of diversity and [highlight] the inherent context dependence
of diversity effects in organizations” (p. 622). One contextual
variable of interest in the faultline literature has been faultline type,
and researchers have suggested there are demonstrable differences
between the effects of identity and information faultlines (e.g.,
Carton & Cummings, 2013; Chung et al., 2015). Identity faultlines
are thought to harm the team through social categorization pro-
cesses, while information faultlines are thought to benefit the team
through information/decision-making processes. Unfortunately,
research has not unequivocally supported this intuitively appealing
idea.
We believe value remains in distinguishing between identity and
information faultlines. However, we argue that effects are more
complex than researchers have proposed. According to the CEM,
any type of diversity can lead to social categorization or informa-
tion elaboration. We focused on identity and information faultlines
that lead to social categorization, which has the potential to stim-
ulate negative affective and evaluative reactions, and we then
introduce threat as a critical moderating variable. More specifi-
cally, we argued that threat can elicit both positive and negative
effects from faultlines on affective and evaluative reactions, de-
pending on whether the faultlines are identity- or information-
based. In Study 1, we proposed that threat increases members’
perceptions of psychological safety (an affective and evaluative
reaction) among teams with activated identity faultlines due to
recategorization processes, improving team creativity. In contrast,
in Study 2, we proposed that threat stimulates status conflict (an
affective and evaluative reaction) among teams with information
faultlines and disrupts decision-making, as threat-rigidity pro-
cesses accentuate a focus on subgroup boundaries and the avoid-
ance of unfamiliar opinions.
Results were largely supportive of our hypotheses. Activated
identity faultlines negatively affected team creativity when the
team did not experience a threat because team members felt less
psychologically safe in their interpersonal interactions. Psycholog-
ical safety was less of an issue when teams with activated identity
faultlines experienced a threat, thereby eliminating any creative
performance decrements. Information faultlines negatively af-
fected decision-making performance under threat due to increased
status conflict within the team. However, we did not find that
information faultlines were beneficial to teams when threat was
not present; a result that contradicts some research in the faultlines
literature (Carton & Cummings, 2013). However, this could have
 THREAT AND DIVERSITY FAULTLINES
been due to our comparison group, where team members fully
shared information required for the task.
We believe our results have implications for several streams of
research in the management literature. First, our findings are of
consequence for the faultlines literature. Recent field studies have
demonstrated the unique relationships identity and information
faultlines have with team loyalty behavior (Chung et al., 2015) and
performance (Carton & Cummings, 2013). By examining the
effects of these two types of faultlines in groups under threat, our
study identifies a contextual boundary condition that uniquely
shapes the extent to which identity and information faultlines
affect group behavior. By conducting two experiments with dif-
ferent faultlines, we were able to provide evidence that all fault-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
lines do not have equal consequences in a threatening context. Our
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
results also demonstrate the importance of conceptually and meth-
odologically considering whether or not the faultlines under in-
vestigation are activated. It is common for field studies to use
measures of faultline strength as a way to approximate faultline
activation, under the logic that faultlines composed of more attri-
butes are more likely to be salient (Chung et al., 2015). However,
as shown in Study 1, threat is only beneficial for teams with
activated identity faultlines—teams under threat with nonactivated
subgroup differences did not exhibit the same effects. Finally, we
extend our understanding of the how identity and information
faultlines uniquely affect teams by expanding the nomological net
to capture unique mediators (psychological safety and status con-
flict) and outcomes (creativity and decision-making). This is par-
ticularly interesting, given the fact that prior faultlines research has
tended to focus on conflict (e.g., Pearsall et al., 2008). We did not
find any effects for conflict in Study 1, suggesting that additional
emergent cognitions begin to play a role when threat is present in
groups with identity faultlines.
Second, our findings contribute to and clarify research on the
effects of threat in groups and teams. Threat is defined as “an event
that has impending negative or harmful consequences for the
entity” (Staw et al., 1981, p. 502 [emphasis added]). Yet, research
across multiple domains paints a complex picture. Threat has been
shown to disrupt team member collaboration and coordination
(Baer et al., 2010; Weick, 1993), but has also been shown to
increase social cohesion by decreasing prejudice (Lott & Lott,
1965). Our two studies suggest threat’s effects on team processes
and performance can be better understood by considering the
team’s composition. For teams composed of faultlines formed
around identity attributes that are less likely to be task-relevant,
recategorization processes are likely to better account for threat’s
effects (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010). For teams composed of task-
relevant information faultlines, threat-rigidity processes may better
explain the impact of threat (Staw et al., 1981). Through this lens,
we believe seemingly paradoxical findings can be reconciled and
suggest scholars ground their predictions by specifying how threat
might interact with a particular team composition.
Third, our results support the use of the CEM as an explanatory
framework when examining the effects of faultlines in teams and
also add to the theory in a critical location—the link between
social categorization and affective and evaluative reactions. Ac-
cording to the CEM, social categorization will exhibit more dam-
aging effects on affective and evaluative reactions when identity
threat is present. Our results indicate that threat unrelated to
identity can also play a role: one that can actually reduce the
11
potential for social categorization to negatively influence affective
and evaluative reactions. However, we examined faultlines that
were high in comparative fit, normative fit, and cognitive acces-
sibility. It would be interesting for future research to examine
faultlines low in fit and accessibility, which, according to the
CEM, would be more likely to lead to information elaboration.
Threat in such contexts may operate in a much different fashion,
and likely only functions to detract from team performance.
Our results have theoretical implications for those who wish to
generate context-specific predictions of the effects of faultlines.
When faultlines are activated, the CEM suggests that positive or
negative outcomes depend on the extent to which contextual
factors threaten or challenge the value of the identities created by
the faultlines. Our results indicate that there is value in going
beyond questions of whether a certain context has uniformly
positive or negative effects on faultlines to consider how contexts
uniquely affect different types of faultlines. One potentially inter-
esting direction for future work is to examine the role of virtual
contexts. To date, the few studies in this area reveal that faultlines
in virtual teams negatively impact team outcomes (Gilson, May-
nard, Young, Vartiainen, & Hakonen, 2015). However, we would
suggest that virtual contexts may be more functional for teams
with certain types of faultlines than for others. While teams with
information faultlines may struggle to coordinate and provide
timely feedback in virtual settings, teams split by identity faultlines
may benefit from more technology-mediated communication as a
way to reduce the salience of task-irrelevant identity characteris-
tics and threats that might inhibit participation (Driskell, Radtke, &
Salas, 2003).
Practical Implications
The results of our studies have implications for diversity man-
agement. Team leaders may at times be faced with leading a team
polarized by faultlines. Based on our studies, one tactic leaders
might use to reduce harmful divisions is to strategically introduce
threats. For instance, leaders might introduce a competitive out-
group (Baer et al., 2010), implement time pressure through a
deadline (Karau & Kelly, 1992), increase the team’s workload
(Driskell et al., 1999), or increase the socioevaluative nature of the
task by having an influential third party evaluate their performance
(Ellis, 2006). If threats are already prevalent, leaders might take a
different approach and embrace these threats as useful for bringing
teams together and increasing task focus, instead of buffering
teams from them. Importantly, our results suggest that these threats
can be beneficial if teams have identity faultlines, but not if teams
have information faultlines. However, threats may backfire in
other ways. From an organizational justice perspective, threats
may be viewed as unfair and increase retaliatory behavior (Skar-
licki & Folger, 1997). Threats may also have longer-term motiva-
tional consequences in the form of avoidant coping and psycho-
logical withdrawal (Pearsall et al., 2008). Taken together, our
results offer insight into the role of threat in managing diverse
teams, demonstrating that while it is not a panacea, it can serve to
effectively reduce identity-based subgroup divisions in teams.
Limitations and Future Directions for Research
Despite these contributions, our studies have limitations. First,
our two studies leave us with several moving pieces that we have
 12 SPOELMA AND ELLIS
conceptually tied together using the CEM. One way future re-
search could bring these pieces together to create a more coherent
understanding of how threat moderates the effects of faultlines in
teams would be to design a single study that tests the effects of
both activated identity and information faultlines and threat on
team performance. For example, this could be an experiment
where each team consists of two men and two women to create a
dormant gender faultline, and our Study 1 and 2 manipulations are
combined to form a 2 (threat vs. no threat) ⫻ 2 (identity faultline
activation vs. no activation) ⫻ 2 (information faultline vs. no
information faultline) design. Procedurally, this study could first
manipulate information faultlines (vs. shared information) similar
to how we did in Study 2 using task-relevant information, then
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
have teams come together to complete a task where the identity
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
faultline is activated (vs. no activation) like we did in Study 1, and
then have teams complete a task where they utilize the task-
relevant information to perform while under threat (vs. no threat).
In this study, we would not expect threat to benefit teams with
activated identity faultlines when they also have information fault-
lines. In line with our conceptual arguments and Study 2 results,
this is because threat will cause members to focus on categoriza-
tions relevant for responding to the threat (i.e., information-based
subgroups) and narrow attention to well-learned and familiar cog-
nitive orientations, inducing rigidity and creating status conflict.
This additional study would enable more direct comparisons
between our studies to gain a clearer understanding of how diver-
sity faultlines influence team functioning under threat. For in-
stance, this study could include both types of activated faultlines,
and measure both mediators and both outcomes. Although we
provide support for the uniqueness of psychological safety and
status conflict in Study 1 and 2, a third study would be able to test
which of these mechanisms underlie performance in teams with
activated identity and information faultlines under threat. As sug-
gested above, we would expect status conflict to explain this
effect. In addition, this study could measure both creativity and
decision-making outcomes in the same study, which is a limitation
of our studies. Although according to the CEM creativity and
decision-making are both considered complex task performance
outcomes that rely on high levels of information processing (van
Knippenberg et al., 2004) and are similarly affected by threat and
intergroup bias (e.g., Kelly & Karau, 1993, 1999), it is possible
that these variables could have unique effects with identity and
information faultlines. To address this limitation, we suggest this
additional study include both creativity and decision-making de-
pendent variables. Operationally, we suggest that scholars who
take this route ensure the information that creates the information
faultlines is relevant for both tasks and to counterbalance their
order across teams.
An additional study would also be able to capture other poten-
tially important mediators of the effects of identity and information
faultlines. According to the typology offered by Carton and Cum-
mings (2012), there are three types of subgroups in work teams and
they affect task performance through intersubgroup processes
based in three different theoretical frameworks. Identity subgroups
are characterized by social identity processes such as identity
threat and fragmentation while information subgroups are charac-
terized by information processing processes like the openness to
alternative sources of knowledge and mental model convergence.
In Study 1, we found that psychological safety explained social
identity processes at play when teams with activated identity
subgroups felt that another subgroup’s presence undermined their
ability to safely express themselves on an idea generation task.
Future research might consider how other social identity-related
mechanisms play a role in this relationship. For instance, shifts in
identity motives like distinctiveness, the desire to differentiate
oneself (or one’s subgroup, in this case) from others (Vignoles,
Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2000), might explain why threat
brings together teams with activated identity faultlines. On the
contrary, in Study 2, we found that status conflict captured the
degree to which members of teams with information subgroups
considered the value of others’ task-related contributions. We
argued that teams favored information put forth by their ingroup
members and discounted the contributions of outgroup members.
Future research might consider how other information processing-
related mechanisms explain this relationship. For example, we
would expect that in information faultline teams under threat,
processes related to a team’s transactive memory system, how
members cooperatively store, retrieve, and communicate informa-
tion (Lewis, 2003), would be affected. Overall, we believe that
Carton and Cummings’ (2012) typology is a useful starting point
to use to consider other potentially informative mediators in fault-
line research designs.
Another limitation of these studies is that we did not measure
social categorization or intergroup bias directly. We inferred that
intergroup bias was reflected in our use of psychological safety in
Study 1 and status conflict in Study 2 as affective and evaluative
reactions in line with the CEM. In addition, consistent with past
faultline studies, we used perceptions of subgroup divisions as a
measure of social categorization. While these are methodological
limitations of the broader faultlines literature, scholars might ad-
dress these design limitations with recent insights. For example,
social psychology researchers have used the Implicit Association
Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) and the Go/No-Go
Association Task (Nosek & Banaji, 2001) to capture intergroup
bias in ways less susceptible to social desirability bias than explicit
responses to self-reports. In addition, scholars might measure
social categorization directly with the algorithm introduced re-
cently by Mayo, van Knippenberg, Guillén, and Firfiray (2016).
One of the advantages of this algorithm is that it avoids asking
people directly about perceived social categorizations, which could
potentially artificially prime their accessibility. This could allow
scholars to assess the presence of a broader range of subgroup
divisions (e.g., race, age), which is a limitation of this study. We
hope that future research can utilize these methodological ad-
vances to provide better tests of the interplay between social
categorization and intergroup bias in the CEM.
Further, our information faultline manipulation created different
amounts of information in the faultline and control conditions.
More specifically, the total amount of information was higher in
the control, or shared, condition, which may have affected our
results regarding H3. Because faultline teams had smaller amounts
of information, they might have been able to partially overcome
the negative effects of threat rigidity. Although our manipulation
was consistent with past research (e.g., Gruenfeld, Mannix, Wil-
liams, & Neale, 1996; Homan et al., 2007; Stasser & Titus, 1985),
further investigation of how amount of information interacts with
distribution of information is warranted. One way scholars could
avoid potentially confounding information distribution and infor-
 THREAT AND DIVERSITY FAULTLINES
mation processing demands in an experimental setting would be to
hold the number of distributed cues constant across all conditions,
but to align these cues in a way where each subgroup held different
opinions in the information faultline condition.
Our results should also be considered in light of several other
limitations. First, Study 2 did not have a condition where infor-
mation was fully distributed (i.e., one in which each member has
a unique set of information). Although using homogenous condi-
tions as comparison groups is representative of how diversity
research is typically conducted and interpreted (Apfelbaum, Phil-
lips, & Richeson, 2014), not having a completely heterogeneous
condition is a potential limitation. Without this condition, we
cannot determine if teams with information faultlines perform
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
better or worse than teams with fully distributed information.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Further, we cannot determine if teams with information faultlines
under threat display more or less status conflict than teams with
fully distributed information. While our purpose in Study 2 was to
examine how threat affects groups that differ in the presence of
information faultlines, adding a fully distributed information con-
dition would allow researchers to examine how threat affects
groups that differ in the strength of information faultlines.
In addition, the threat manipulation utilized in this study ap-
peared relatively weak according to our manipulation check item.
Participants in the threat conditions across both studies reported,
on average, that they “disagree” with the statement that they were
working under a great deal of stress during the task. However, this
may have been due more to the wording of the item (i.e., “great
deal of stress”) than the manipulation itself. Additional data indi-
cated that, using different items, mean differences between the
threat and no threat conditions were quite large and comparable to
other studies in the literature.
Finally, the structure of the faultlines in our studies should be
considered. First, the subgroups in our studies were of equal size.
Although faultlines can exist between subgroups of different sizes,
when subgroups are perfectly balanced as in our studies, every
team member perceives a threat to their identity by the outgroup
(Carton & Cummings, 2013) and teams are most likely to get
locked in conflicts (Phillips, Mannix, Neale, & Gruenfeld, 2004).
We suggest future research investigate the effects of threat on
teams with subgroups of varying sizes. For instance, we expect
that changing the sizes of subgroups divided by similar perspec-
tives and knowledge could “tip the scale” of influence in favor of
subgroups with more members. In addition, given our focus on
internal validity and teasing apart effects of two kinds of faultlines,
the faultlines we created were necessarily weak. In each of our
studies, we only examined the effects of a faultline based on only
one factor. Although this allowed us to develop and test precise
predictions that were not confounded by multiple types of attri-
butes, our results should be replicated among teams with real-
world complexity.
Conclusion
By integrating faultlines research, the CEM, and two discon-
nected perspectives on the effects of threat in groups and teams, we
provide an explanation for when and why threat moderates the
effects of identity and information faultlines in teams. In doing so,
we expand our understanding of the complex nature of diversity in
teams and highlight specific contexts where diversity has the
13
potential to detract from team performance on creative and
decision-making tasks.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 221–233. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.2.221
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005).
Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50,
367– 403. http://dx.doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
Apfelbaum, E. P., Phillips, K. W., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). Rethinking the
baseline in diversity research: Should we be explaining the effects of
homogeneity? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 235–244.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691614527466
Argote, L., Turner, M. E., & Fichman, M. (1989). To centralize or not to
centralize: The effects of uncertainty and threat on group structure and
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
43, 58 –74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90058-7
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193,
31–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for
initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm per-
formance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45– 68. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/job.179
Baer, M., Leenders, R. T. A., Oldham, G. R., & Vadera, A. K. (2010). Win
or lose the battle for creativity: The power and perils of intergroup
competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 827– 845. http://dx
.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.52814611
Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L.
(2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team
performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management,
37, 709 –743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365001
Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. A. (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organi-
zation Science, 23, 323–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0734
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2009).
Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines,
team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20,
35–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0379
Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). The
effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cul-
tures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 77–92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023684
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In S. W. J.
Kozlowski & K. J. Klein (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and meth-
ods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp.
349 –382). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work
groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 48, 557–591. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3556637
Burnstein, E., & McRae, A. V. (1962). Some effects of shared threat and
prejudice in racially mixed groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 64, 257–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046022
Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict
in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 1300 –1309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.74.5.1300
Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work
teams. The Academy of Management Review, 37, 441– 470. http://dx.doi
.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0322
Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2013). The impact of subgroup type
and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 732–758. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0033593
 14 SPOELMA AND ELLIS
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content
domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition mod-
els. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
Chun, J. S., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Members’ needs, intragroup conflict, and
group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 437– 450. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036363
Chung, Y., Liao, H., Jackson, S. E., Subramony, M., Colakoglu, S., &
Jiang, Y. (2015). Cracking but not breaking: Joint effects of faultline
strength and diversity climate on loyal behavior. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 58, 1495–1515. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0829
Cooper, D., Patel, P. C., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2014). It depends: Envi-
ronmental context and the effects of faultlines on top management team
performance. Organization Science, 25, 633– 652. http://dx.doi.org/10
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
.1287/orsc.2013.0855
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated
information processing in group judgment and decision making. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 22– 49. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/1088868307304092
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship
conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innova-
tion in large firms. Organization Science, 3, 179 –202. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1287/orsc.3.2.179
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In S. T. Fiske,
D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1084 –1121). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002029
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why
can’t we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 88 –102. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.8.2.88
Dovidio, J. F., ten Vergert, M., Stewart, T. L., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson,
J. D., Esses, V. M., . . . Pearson, A. R. (2004). Perspective and prejudice:
Antecedents and mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 30, 1537–1549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616
7204271177
Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H., & Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: Effects of
technological mediation on team performance. Group Dynamics: The-
ory, Research, and Practice, 7, 297–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1089-2699.7.4.297
Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. (1999). Does stress lead to a loss
of team perspective? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
3, 291–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.3.4.291
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350 –383. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/2666999
Ellis, A. P. J. (2006). System breakdown: The role of mental models and
transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 576 –589. http://dx
.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794674
Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O. L. H., West,
B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the
dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 821– 835. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0021-9010.88.5.821
Ellis, A. P. J., Mai, K. M., & Christian, J. S. (2013). Examining the
asymmetrical effects of goal faultlines in groups: A categorization-
elaboration approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 948 –961.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033725
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The
common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust,
M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization
and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psy-
chology, 4, 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S.,
Ward, C. M., . . . Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias:
Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 388 – 402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3
.388
Gardner, H. K. (2012). Performance pressure as a double-edged sword
enhancing team motivation but undermining the use of team knowledge.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 57, 1– 46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0001839212446454
Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a
stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly,
48, 202–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3556657
Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., &
Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10
opportunities. Journal of Management, 41, 1313–1337. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0149206314559946
Gladstein, D. L., & Reilly, N. P. (1985). Group decision making under
threat: The tycoon game. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 613–
627. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256117
Gong, Y., Kim, T., Lee, D., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team
goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 56, 827– 851. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011
.0177
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring
individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464 –1480. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996).
Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and
information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1006/obhd.1996.0061
Gump, B. B., & Kulik, J. A. (1997). Stress, affiliation, and emotional
contagion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 305–319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.305
Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives
become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work.
Organization Science, 17, 484 –500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060
.0200
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity
constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. The
Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199 –1228. http://dx.doi.org/10
.5465/AMR.2007.26586096
Haslam, S. A., Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Jans, L. (2013). The
collective origins of valued originality: A social identity approach to
creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 384 – 401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868313498001
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 575– 604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev
.psych.53.100901.135109
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging
conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological
Bulletin, 121, 43– 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43
Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G.
(2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking
diversity’s potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 982–996. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029159
 THREAT AND DIVERSITY FAULTLINES
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K.
(2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, infor-
mation elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 1189 –1199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.92.5.1189
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Horstkotte, J. (2013). Performance effects of top
management team demographic faultlines in the process of product
diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 704 –726. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2035
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group
interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 85–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation process and
the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cesses, 112, 24 – 42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.008
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A
longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 44, 238 –251. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
3069453
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity
research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52,
599 – 627. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331491
Kamphuis, W., Gaillard, A. W., & Vogelaar, A. L. (2011). The effects of
physical threat on team processes during complex task performance.
Small Group Research, 42, 700 –729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1046496411407522
Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer
between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and
knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 96, 56 –71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.09.002
Karau, S. J., & Kelly, J. R. (1992). The effects of time scarcity and time
abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Jour-
nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 542–571. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0022-1031(92)90045-L
Kelly, J. R., & Karau, S. J. (1993). Entrainment of creativity in small
groups. Small Group Research, 24, 179 –198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1046496493242002
Kelly, J. R., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Group decision making: The effects of
initial preferences and time pressure. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 25, 1342–1354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167299259002
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and
group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 44, 78 –94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44
.1.78
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being “right”: The problem
of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin,
106, 395– 409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.3.395
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1991). Group members’ reactions to
opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to
decision deadline and of environmental noise. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 212–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.61.2.212
Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resis-
tance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior
information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 861–
876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.861
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and fault-
lines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 325–340.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and
subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 48, 645– 659. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005
.17843943
15
Lauderdale, P. (1976). Deviance and moral boundaries. American Socio-
logical Review, 41, 660 – 676. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094842
Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field:
Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
587– 604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal
attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent
variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259 –309. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/h0022386
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence
limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling
methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99 –128. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team
effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a
glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410 – 476. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061
Mayo, M., van Knippenberg, D., Guillén, L., & Firfiray, S. (2016). Team
diversity and categorization salience: Capturing diversity-blind,
intergroup-biased, and multicultural perceptions. Organizational Re-
search Methods, 19, 433– 474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442811
6639130
Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go/no-go association task.
Social Cognition, 19, 625– 666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.6.625
.20886
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social
reality. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal
and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
607– 634. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256657
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for
creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 82, 76 – 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2888
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. (2008). Unlocking the effects
of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 225–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.93.1.225
Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2004).
Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 497–510. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.10.003
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Re-
search Methods: Instruments & Computers, 36, 717–731. http://dx.doi
.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple me-
diator models. Behavior Research Methods: Instruments & Computers,
40, 879 – 891. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Ren, H., Gray, B., & Harrison, D. A. (2015). Triggering faultline effects in
teams: The importance of bridging friendship ties and animosity ties.
Organization Science, 26, 390 – 404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014
.0944
Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Antino, M., & Lau, D. (2012). Bridg-
ing team faultlines by combining task role assignment and goal structure
strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 407– 420. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0025231
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., Gaertner, S. L., McDonald, S. A., & Lamor-
eaux, M. J. (2010). Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup
threat? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 403– 423. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430209346701
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88 –106. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01
 16 SPOELMA AND ELLIS
Sanner, B., & Bunderson, J. S. (2015). When feeling safe isn’t enough.
Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 224 –243. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/2041386614565145
Schachter, S., Ellertson, N., McBride, D., & Gregory, D. (1951). An
experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations,
4, 229 –238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675100400303
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of inter-
group conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The
roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 434 – 443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.82.3.434
Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and
information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244 –
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1012
Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in
structured and unstructured discussions of three-and six-person groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67–78. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.67
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group
decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I., & Stewart, D. D. (2000). Pooling unshared
information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is
distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 82, 102–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd
.2000.2890
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity
effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392337
Swaab, R. I., Schaerer, M., Anicich, E. M., Ronay, R., & Galinsky, A. D.
(2014). The too-much-talent effect: Team interdependence determines
when more talent is too much or not enough. Psychological Science, 25,
1581–1591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614537280
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of inter-
group relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams
are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,
5, 2–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01396.x
Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Group faultlines. Journal of
Management, 38, 969 –1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311
426187
Thompson, L. (1999). The endowed chair (offered by the Dispute Reso-
lution Research Center and Kellogg’s Team and Group Center). Re-
trieved from http://www.negotiationexercises.com/TeachingMaterial
.aspx
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S.
(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Turner, M. E., & Virick, M. (2008). Threat and group creativity. Social
Influence, 3, 286 –303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510802341199
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group
diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research
agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008 –1022. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
Vignoles, V. L., Chryssochoou, X., & Breakwell, G. M. (2000). The
distinctiveness principle: Identity, meaning, and the bounds of cultural
relativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 337–354. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0404_4
Voci, A. (2006). The link between identification and in-group favouritism:
Effects of threat to social identity and trust-related emotions. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 265–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/
014466605X52245
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The
Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628 – 652.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393339
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative
model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–387. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00951
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P., & Zuckerman, C. (1999). Mutual
enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for
shared information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,
967–978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.967
Received April 8, 2016
Revision received March 13, 2017
Accepted March 27, 2017 䡲