The setup
How long does a group have to exist before it truly has an “inside”? This question was explored in a 2026 study by Sydney Phlegar, Kareena del Rosario, Oana Dumitru, and Tessa West, published as an accepted manuscript in Communications Psychology. The researchers designed an experiment where three-person teams had to make a hiring decision for an airline pilot job, with a twist: two original members initially discussed pilot qualifications in a text chatroom for five minutes, while the third, a newcomer, watched a nature video during that time and joined afterward. Then, all three were tasked with choosing the best candidate from four applicants.
Each team was given shared information about the candidates, with one member receiving additional, critical unshared information that revealed the candidate who appeared weakest on shared notes—Candidate C—was actually the best fit for the job. Interestingly, the study’s results showed teams selected the correct candidate 28.7% of the time when one of the original members held this crucial information, but only 15% when it was the newcomer. This significant difference highlights how information location and newcomer status influence group decision-making, even in minimal interaction settings.
The experiment involved 370 teams, with the only variable being which participant held the critical information and the newcomer’s status. Each team then had ten minutes to communicate via typed chat to reach their decision, providing a controlled environment to isolate the effects of being new in the group and the distribution of information.
Behind the two percentages
The study applied a Bayesian statistical model to analyze the difference in correct selections between teams where the newcomer held the critical information and those where an original member did. The resulting coefficient was -0.77 with a 95% credible interval from -1.26 to -0.26, effectively ruling out zero and confirming the effect’s reliability. Traditional frequentist methods supported the same conclusion.
The sample comprised 1,110 participants from the United States, aged 17 to 79, with a mean age of 35 and a gender distribution of approximately 57% women and 41% men. Participants were recruited via Prolific, a trusted platform for behavioral studies. Of the 443 teams initially formed, 73 were excluded due to procedural issues such as suspected manipulation, inactivity, or technical difficulties.
It is important to note that the hypotheses and analyses were not preregistered, meaning these findings represent exploratory results that merit further replication rather than definitive confirmation. This transparency aligns with best practices in research integrity, underscoring the study’s openness about its methodological boundaries.
A chatroom is not an office
The study’s setting—a typed chatroom—intentionally excluded many social cues present in face-to-face interactions, such as eye contact, interruptions, speaking time differences, and nonverbal signals that typically convey status. This design allowed the researchers to isolate the newcomer effect from other social identity factors.
The absence of these cues may partially explain why status information provided to participants (an artificial “Person Insight Test” score) did not override the newcomer’s lower influence in decision-making. In real-world settings, status or prestige typically emerges over time through earned recognition rather than explicit assignment, which was not replicated here.
Furthermore, each team was initially a pair, creating a dyadic bond before the newcomer joined. Dyads are often more resistant to incorporating outsiders, potentially intensifying the newcomer’s challenge. However, the authors note that similar newcomer disadvantages have been observed in larger teams in other research, suggesting this effect is not a mere artifact of the dyad starting point.
While the experiment offers insights into newcomer dynamics, it is bounded by one task, one cultural context, and a brief interaction window—ten minutes of typing—limiting generalizability to broader organizational settings.
The function-word score
To measure subtle social dynamics, the study employed linguistic coordination metrics using the ConvoKit toolkit, analyzing eight categories of function words such as articles, prepositions, conjunctions, and pronouns. For example, a coordination score of 0.10 on articles means a person uses articles 10 percentage points more often immediately after their interlocutor does, reflecting unconscious accommodation.
Linguistic accommodation can serve multiple psychological functions, including building rapport or persuading others, which may sometimes conflict during decision-making tasks. The study found no direct link between coordination scores and decision outcomes, emphasizing the complexity of interpreting these micro-level interactions.
Interestingly, within the newcomer subgroup, those holding the critical information coordinated about two percentage points less than newcomers without such information. Among original members, holding critical information did not affect coordination. The overall newcomer effect on coordination was negligible, with intervals crossing zero, suggesting newcomers do not consistently coordinate less than original members across the board.
Another subtle finding was that participants assigned high-status ranks coordinated slightly less—about half a percentage point—than those with low status, though the practical significance of this difference remains to be explored.
Friction, self-reported
Self-reported measures of task conflict added nuance to the findings. Newcomers holding the critical information experienced more task-related friction than newcomers without it, indicating the challenge of integrating valuable but unshared knowledge. Original members showed no difference in reported conflict based on information possession.
Among participants lacking critical information, original members reported more conflict than newcomers, contradicting a simplistic narrative that newcomers always feel more excluded or stressed. Furthermore, when holding critical information, newcomers and originals did not differ significantly in conflict reports.
The authors interpret this pattern as reflecting a split experience: newcomers attempting to assert critical points may face resistance, feeling friction, whereas much of the group conversation centers on shared information and thus feels smoother. This interpretation aligns with the complexity of newcomer integration, where inclusion is not uniform or guaranteed.
The status boost with no detectable effect on the decision
Each participant received a randomly assigned status rank—either the 40th or 80th percentile on a fabricated “Person Insight Test.” In each team, the two original members held different assigned ranks, which were reminded to participants before the group task. Despite successful manipulation checks confirming participants remembered their ranks, this status information did not translate into better decision outcomes.
Teams where a low-status member held the critical information chose the correct candidate 16.0% of the time, while those with a high-status holder chose correctly 23.5% of the time. However, the credible interval for this difference crossed zero (-0.07 to 0.98), indicating no statistically reliable effect of status on decision accuracy.
The authors caution that the absence of detected effect is not definitive proof that status is irrelevant. The artificial nature of the status assignment and lack of typical prestige signals in the chatroom likely muted any potential influence. Additionally, status affected coordination scores, suggesting it did have some subtle social impact even if not on the final decision.
The 2009 newcomer study this site covered in August
This 2026 study builds on and contrasts with earlier research, such as the 2009 experiment by Phillips, Liljenquist, and Neale on socially distinct newcomers, which was covered by Silicon Canals. That study found that groups with newcomers from outside their social circle performed better, despite newcomers reporting less confidence and lower perceived interaction quality. Crucially, performance gains were not due to newcomers introducing new ideas.
Phlegar and colleagues reference this work to highlight that newcomers similar to existing members often conform quietly to prevailing views, potentially limiting their influence. In contrast, the 2026 study shows that when the newcomer uniquely holds critical information, their ability to influence group decisions remains limited, with only a 15% accuracy rate in selecting the best candidate.
It’s important to note this experiment involved only ten minutes of typed interaction. Real-world newcomers have managers, titles, organizational roles, and extended time to integrate—all factors absent here. Additionally, neither study included a control group without a newcomer, limiting direct comparisons.
Data and analysis code for the 2026 study are openly available on the Open Science Framework, providing transparency and opportunities for further research.
In sum, five minutes was sufficient for two strangers to establish a basic group “inside.” However, a newcomer holding critical information remained on the outside for the ten-minute task, coordinating less, experiencing more friction, and helping the group reach the correct decision only 15% of the time. As the authors conclude, newcomer identity “can form rapidly,” and this identity may precede the arrival of valuable information.
Source: Here
