Research has suggested that most groups have two basic types of members: prototypical and peripheral. As the name implies, prototypical group members are perceived to be the model members of the group. On the other hand, peripheral group members are typically minority members whose identities, backgrounds, qualifications, etc. do not represent the mainstream majority of the group. In general, because humans desire to identify with and belong to groups, it follows that peripheral group members will put forth more effort than majority, or prototypical members to demonstrate that they belong.

Recent research suggests that minority, or peripheral group members can play an instrumental role in negotiations (Van Kleef et al., 2013). In a series of studies, researchers found that peripheral group members acquired and recalled significantly more information when negotiating than prototypical group members. They also found that peripheral group members were more likely to achieve win-win outcomes, and responded more favorably to integrative negotiations tactics used by their negotiation partner (i.e. logrolling, matching concessions).

This research suggests that peripheral group members can play critical roles when negotiating in groups. Specifically, these findings support the notion that minority members expend more effort in negotiations through information processing, acquisition, and interactions in order to achieve more favorable outcomes, thus proving that they are “true” members of the group. Of course, “minorities” can vary from group to group depending on, but not limited to age, race, educational background, work experience and/or learning orientation. Therefore, in practice, groups would do well to recognize and promote diversity within their own groups and equally important, ensure that different group members are involved when negotiating.