CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
GROUP SIZE AND TASK CHARACTERISTICS AS FACTORS
INFLUENCING GROUP INTERACTION
AND PERFORMANCE
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Psychology
by
Stephen Elliott Riemer
January, 1981
The Thesis of Stephen Elliott Riemer is approved:
California State University, Northridge
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to the members of
my committee, Dr. Knowles, Dr. Sanders, and Dr. Blake.
Each con-
tributed immeasurably to this project.
The study developed under the tutelage of Dr. William
Knowles.
Without his collaboration it could not have been possible
to undertake a project of this magnitude.
And through his master-
ful editorial comments, the effort was finally brought to fruition.
Dr. Mark Sanders, my committee chairman, contributed to the
project from its conception in ways far too many to enumerate.
He
has been a patient and available advisor and mentor throughout my
graduate career.
His wisdom and guidance have been invaluable.
My appreciation to Dr. Tyler Blake is special.
Not an
original member of my committee, he agreed to become a member after
most of the research had been completed.
He gave generously of his
time, and his interest in me and this project is appreciated.
The
~upport
of Dr. Irv Streimer is gratefully acknowledged.
He probably taught me more about genuine professionalism than any
other person in so short a time.
Thanks are also due to Mrs. James
F. Bartlett, who spent many hours expertly typing the manuscript.
iii
And finally to my wife, Diana, and daughter, Lori.
Without
their patience and care, and sharing of the upsets and frustrations, this project could not have reached a satisfactory
conclusion.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ABSTRACT
.
.....
. . . . .. . . . .
. . .... . . .
.........
...... ........
. . . .
.. . .... .......
.... .. .. .... ..
..............
INTRODUCTION
vii
viii
ix
1
Purpose . • .
Overview
The Problem
Prior Research
Task characteristics, group size, and interaction
Task characteristics, group size, and performance
Approach of the Present Research
Hypotheses
METHOD
iii
........................
1
1
2
5
7
14
18
21
22
22
23
Independent Variables •
Dependent Variables
Experimental Design
Task Selection
Subjects . • • • •
Procedure •
27
29
29
29
31
RESULTS • • •
Reliability
Task, Size, and Trials Effects on Group Performance
Task, Size, and Trials Effects on Group Interaction •
Group Interaction and Group Performance Relationships •
v
31
32
45
54
Page
CONCLUSIONS • . . . • . • • • • •
57
Summary of the Present Research
Implications of the Study
57
59
REFERENCES
64
APPENDIXES
A.
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE EIGHTEEN SCALES DEFINING THE SIX
DIMENSIONS OF WRITTEN GROUP SOLUTIONS •
67
B.
EIGHT "INTELLECTIVE" GROUP TASKS
70
C.
GROUP INSTRUCTIONS
75
D.
TASKS RANDOMLY SELECTED FOR RELIABILITY CALCULATIONS
79
E.
SUMMARY OF RAW DATA . • . • • • • . • •
.......
.
81
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
System of Interaction Analysis • . . . • • . •
2.
Experimental Design
3.
Performance Reliability
33
4.
Interaction Reliability
34
5.
The Analysis of Variance
36
6.
Task Effects on Group Performance
37
7.
Size Effects on Group Performance
40
8.
Task Type and Group Size Interaction Effects on
Performance
42
Trials Effects on Group Performance
44
Mean Raw Frequencies and Category Rates of Group
Interaction
46
11.
Task Effects on Group
48
12.
Size Effects on Group
13.
Trials
14.
Intercorrelations between Group Interaction and
Performance Measures . . . • • • • . • . • . .
9.
10.
Effects
.......... ..... .
....
.........
Interaction . . . . . . . . . . .
Interaction
.........
on Group Interaction
26
28
51
53
55
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Group Performance as a Function of Task Type • . • • •
38
2.
Mean Category Rates of Group Interaction as a Function
of Task Type . . • •
• . • • • . • . • • • • • .
49
viii
ABSTRACT
GROUP SIZE AND TASK CHARACTERISTICS AS FACTORS
INFLUENCING GROUP INTERACTION
AND PERFORMANCE
by
Stephen Elliott Riemer
Master of Arts in Psychology
This study investigated the effects of group size (groups
of Size 2, 4, and 6), task type (production and problem-solving
"intellective" group tasks), and trials on group interaction and
performance.
The interactive behavior of group members was
recorded as they worked on the "intellective" tasks which required
a written solution.
The group's performance was measured in terms
of the characteristics of the solution.
The results indicated that
task type significantly affected group performance.
Specifically,
solutions from production type tasks were characterized by high
means on three solution dimensions, or characteristics:
originality, and qualitY of presentation.
length,
These solutions showed
little action orientation or issue involvement, and tended to be
pess1.m1.stic in
ootlook-.---P--J:'ehl~m-solving
ix
tasks yielded solutions
which were high in action orientation and issue involvement.
They
were also optimistic in outlook, but were low on length, originality, and quality of presentation.
Task type was also shown to be
an important determiner of group interactive behavior.
Specifi-
cally, production type tasks were characterized by high answer
structuring, repetition, and disagreement.
Problem-solving tasks
elicited significantly more clarification.
Group size did not sig-
nificantly affect group performance, nor did it have a significant
effect on the group interaction process.
While trials did not sig-
nificantly affect group performance, significant changes were found
in group interactive behavior across trial sessions.
On the fourth
trial groups agreed less, showed less tension, and interacted less
overall.
Conversely, on the first trial group members showed a
greater amount of tension.
More structuring of the answer and
agreement among group members occurred on the second trial.
Addi-
tionally, on the second trial, overall group activity was highest.
Across all groups, the greatest proportion of interactive activity
was in task relevant behavior as opposed to social-emotional
behavior.
X
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The present study assesses the effects of group size, characteristics of "intellective" group tasks, and trials on group
interaction and performance.
Overview
Recent reviews of the history and present state of small
group research (Hare, 1962; Hare, 1972; Hare, 1976; McGrath & Altman,
1966) indicate that published research has accelerated greatly over
the last several decades.
Although literally thousands of studies
of group performance have been conducted since World War II, very
little is still known about why some groups are more effective than
others.
Several small group researchers have expressed concern
about the impossible task of classifying and integrating the large
quantity of theoretical and empirical research and developing meaningful generalization (Hare, 1972; Hare, 1976; Helmreich et al.,
1973; Insko & Schopler, 1972; McGrath & Altman, 1966).
Similar con-
cerns have been expressed about qualitative deficiencies in the
research, particularly the absence of new theoretical formulations
(-B-o-rgatta, 1960; He ltm:'e-ieh et al., 1973).
1
8-&e-ine-t"----~1964)
concluded
2
from his review of group dynamics that the volume and methodological
sophistication of research have increased but with no striking
changes of conceptual orientation.
Apparently, researchers in increasing numbers are turning to
the small group as a medium for studying the behavior of individuals.
These researchers bring with them a great variety of theoretical orientation, vocabularies, methodologies and techniques, as well as a
diversity of particular interests.
Both the great quantity and vari-
ety of small group research efforts contribute to the vitality of
current research in this area, but at a cost:
little comparability
between studies and few attempts at replication.
Relatively few of
the experimenters have worked within a general theoretical context
which would allow them to relate their results systematically to the
results of others (Hare, 1976).
The Problem
Hare (1976) emphasizes the importance of the task as the
most general way of specifying the expectations for group behavior.
However, prominent in the small group research area has been the
lack of attention given to group tasks and task characteristics as
input variables.
This inattention to task relationships is docu-
mented by McGrath and Altman (1966), whose review encompassed a
3
total of approximately 12,000 relationships from 250 studies randomly selected from an initial bibliography of about 2,500 reports.
While noting that task characteristics generally are "highly or moderately" related to other variable classes when these relationships
are tested, McGrath and Altman (1966, pp. 146-147) point out that:
There were no instances of tests for relationships in the review
sample between stimulus properties of the task and various member properties . • • or with group level variables • • • and
there were no cases of tested relationships with certain interaction process measures and with several objective measures of
member and group performance.
Tasks represent one large and important sub-class of environmental variables, and, as such, deserve more attention.
The over-
sight is puzzling and somewhat alarming when it is realized that
virtually all small groups studied, particularly in laboratory
studies, are given some sort of task to work on during the observation period.
Usually the task is generated ad hoc by the experi-
menter and viewed as an extraneous factor which is of no substantive
importance to the research effort.
Stated in another more direct
way, small group researchers have used tasks to study groups but
have not used groups to study tasks.
To compound the problem further, specific tasks devised for
specific studies generally are not comparable across studies.
This
incomparability, together with a lack of knowledge about the main
4
dimensions along which tasks vary, has had effects on the growth of
systematic knowledge in the small group field.
One major effect
concerns the influence of task variables on group interaction process and group performance.
There is evidence that the nature of
the task makes a difference in the characteristics of group interaction and output.
Thus, to the extent that small group researchers
use different and incomparable tasks in different studies, opportunities to identify portions of this systematic variability are being
missed.
Further, such task characteristics often interact with
group or member characteristics in jointly affecting group interaction processes and, thus, output conditions.
Another aspect of small group dynamics that has been largely
neglected has been explicit quantitative assessments of how the
process of group interaction affects group performance.
Small group
researchers have concentrated on establishing relationships between
input and output conditions, particularly, in determining the
effects of various combinations of member and group characteristics
(input) on task performance (output).
However, there have been rel-
atively few studies of the group interaction processes which underlie these input-output relationships.
This is surprising since only
by study of intervening processes can it be determined how a set of
1nput conditions affec-t-s-a--s-e-E--e-f-eutput cond-it-ions--
5
McGrath (1964)
pres~nted
an organizing framework for examin-
ing the relationships among the initial state of a task-oriented
group, the group interaction process, and the group's ultimate output or performance.
The fundamental assumption underlying the para-
digm is that input factors affect performance outcomes through the
interaction process.
The state of the system at time 1 (input)
affects the group interaction process which affects the state of the
system at time 2 (output); the state of the system at time 2 serves
as input for subsequent time periods.
Therefore, variations in
group performance can be identified by a careful analysis of the
interaction process which mediates between input and output.
There are, in summary, two large gaps in the small group
r~search
literature:
the study of group tasks as input variables,
and the study of the group interaction process.
The present
research project is directed at both of these gaps and studies the
direct effect of group tasks on various aspects of the group interaction process and output or performance.
Pridr Research
Steiner (1972) provided a perspective on the history of the
study of group productivity.
He described the earliest research
groups as a setting in which individual behaviors might be
6
influenced by subtle social processes with no attention to pooling
individual resources to produce a product.
Just prior to World War
II, the focus was on demonstrating the superiority of group action
over individual action.
Diverse findings were obtained due, in
large extent, to the emphasis on productivity and neglect of task
demands and interaction process.
After World War II, the emphasis
shifted to interaction processes and ignored productivity.
Steiner
cites the research using Interaction Process Analysis (Bales, 1950)
as an example.
The literature in recent years contains an almost equal
amount of research on both interaction process and group productivity.
Davis (1969), for instance, reviewed a large amount of avail-
able research in terms of individual performance in a social context
and the way individuals combine their behaviors into a group product.
Steiner (1972) devised a typology of tasks to provide a
structure for considering a variety of substantive findings relating
to group interaction process and productivity.
Steiner's objective
was to examine empirical literature dealirig with the process and productivity of comparatively simple task-oriented groups with emphasis
on the findings from laboratory investigations.
Central to
Steiner's theory are the concepts that demands of the task and
resources or-the parricipants
determ±ne-max-irnu~Fe~~~kty-
7
(contrary to the earliest research in group productivity), and that
the process determines whether the product will be more than just
the sum of the individuals' input.
Steiner (1972) points out that
from this perspective the question of the superiority of groups or
of individuals is not a meaningful one because the answer is dependent upon the ease and dependability with which individuals or
groups can employ the process that transforms resources into high
quality products, and upon the nature of the task.
The literature shows that group characteristics make a significant difference in the interaction and performance of groups and
group members (Hackman & Vidmar, 1970; Kent & McGrath, 1969; Morris,
1966; Vidmar & Hackman, 1971).
The findings of these studies are
consistent, reporting that task characteristics account for a major
portion of the variance in group activity (Morris, 1966), and group
performance or product dimensions (Kent & McGrath, 1969).
Taken
together, these studies indicate, as Morris has noted, that task
characteristics are among the more powerful input variables determining group interaction and performance qualities.
Task characteristics, group size, and interaction.
Task
characteristics affect the amount and nature of group interaction.
Deutsch (1951) found that in weekly group meetings there was more
8
interaction when human relations problems were used for which no
single correct answer existed than when mathematical problems were
used for which there was a unique answer.
Mann (1961) used a modified form of Bales 1 s (1950) Interaction Process Analysis system to compare interaction in
with that in "social-emotional groups."
11
task groups"
Task groups were asked to
solve the "Mined Road Problem" in which groups had to devise the
best way to cross a mined road using only miscellaneous debris found
nearby.
Social-emotional groups discussed ways of handling frater-
nity pledge training and generated policies and general programs for
handling the training.
ates.
The subjects were recent fraternity initi-
Mann's results showed that in task groups there was a
stronger tendency to:
• • • give suggestions and to disagree, whereas under the socialemotional condition there was a stronger tendency to laugh and
tell jokes, to give opinions and orientations, and to show tension. Differences between conditions, with the exception of one
category, are significant at beyond the .001 level, using the z
test for the differences between populations. (Mann, 1961,
p. 676).
Carter et al. (1950, 1951) used a 53-category system of
interaction analysis to systematically study the behavior of leaders
and groups working on three kinds of tasks:
a reasoning task, a
mechanical assembly task, and a discussion task.
Results show that
on the reasoning task over half of the interaction was in the area
9
of "initiates action'' with particular emphasis on asking for and
giving information as well as making diagnoses.
moderate amount of follower action.
There was also a
On the mechanical assembly
task, there was less activity in the area of initiating action and
much more attention given to "follower action" or "worker action."
The discussion task, however, elicited virtually no worker behavior,
and almost all interaction was in the area of "initiates action."
These results were obtained for groups of four and eight.
In both the 1950 and 1951 articles, Carter et al. point out
that the generality of small group research findings will often be
affected by the kind of task used; group behavior is seen to depend
greatly on the task orientation of the group.
Morris and Fiedler (1964) found differences in group interaction for a task requiring subjects to compose a fable for children
(fable task) versus a task requiring composition of a proposal to
solve a problem (proposal task).
Results are discussed in terms of
task effects on group interaction in 54 groups.
Significant differ-
ences were found in more than half of the 17 categories of interaction.
On the proposal task, groups were more concerned with giving
information and clarification, asking questions, and disagreeing.
On the fable task there was more concern over giving orientation and
repetition. proposing solutions. making procedural comments, and
r"~'
.
f~'<
10
agreeing, and there was significantly more irrelevant activity.
However, the study on which the results are based did not counterbalance for order effects.
first.
The proposal task was always given
Therefore, the relative contributions of task and order of
presentation cannot be separated.
In the three studies discussed above, single tasks were used
to generate behavioral differences which were then attributed to
classes of tasks. For example, Carter et al. (1950, 1951) used three
specific tasks whose effects on behavior were generalized to "reasoning tasks," "mechanical assembly tasks," and "discussion tasks."
Mann (1961) used the "Mined Road Problem" and the fraternity problem
whose behavioral effects were attributed to "task conditions" and
"social-emotional conditions" respectively.
Morris and Fiedler
(1964) used a specific "proposal task" and "fable task," although
resulting differences were not generalized in that study.
Studies which generalize the effects of single tasks make an
assumption which seldom is met in practice:
that most if not all of
the variance in the observations can be attributed to task differences on the dimensions on which the generalization is made.
For
example, Mann (1961) used two specific problems, but in interpreting
the observed behavioral differences he assumed that these differences
11
were mostly, if not entirely, due to the variation of "task" as
opposed to "social-emotional" conditions.
However, Mann made no
attempt to determine whether this assumption was valid.
On the con-
trary, it is reasonable to suggest that since all of his subjects
were recent fraternity initiates, the fraternity problem was probably more familiar and possibly more interesting to them than was
the "Mined Road Problem."
The latter also appears to be more highly
structured than does the fraternity problem.
These are all possible
alternative explanations for the obtained results in this particular
study.
There is reason to question whether the simple "task" versus
"social-emotional" distinction is the only major task dimension on
which these two specific tasks differed.
This is also true of the
Carter et al. (1950, 1951) studies and the Morris and Fiedler (1964)
study.
Bales's (1950) Interaction Process Analysis was mentioned
above in the discussion of Mann's (1961) "Mined Road Problem" study.
Two other studies (Bales & Borgatta, 1955; O'Dell, 1968) have used
Interaction Process Analysis, and one other investigator (Morris,
1966), in addition to Mann, used a revised version of the category
system.
The Bales Interaction Process Analysis system is used to
analyze the process of interaction, as it occurs, in a small group
- - - -a.s-t:ne group--face s-tne-prool-e1'1'lof e-stl!b-1-:tshing-an---.:qu:tl:-tbrium
12
between the time spent on the task and the time spent on the socialemotional problems of maintaining the group structure.
tion process is broken into small units called acts.
The interacBales defines
an act as a verbal behavior which can provide enough of a stimulus
to elicit a meaningful response from another person.
Each act is
then scored in one of 12 categories indicating the element of task
behavior or social-emotional behavior which appears to the observer
to dominate the act. An interaction profile can then be established
which represents the percentages of the total number of acts for a
group which fall into each of the 12 categories.
In Bales's system, the first three categories are "shows
solidarity," "shows tension release," and "shows agreement."
When
coupled with the last three categories, "shows disagreement," "shows
tension," and "shows antagonism," they constitute social-emotional
behavior.
The six categories (numbers 4-9) "gives suggestion,"
"gives opinion," "gives information," "asks for information," "asks
for opinion," and "asks for suggestion," describe task behavior.
The effects of group size on the type of social interaction
of members within a group were reported in two studies (Bales &
Borgatta, 1955; O'Dell, 1968).
Groups of sizes two through seven
discussed a human relations problem in the Bales and Borgatta study.
·--Gro-up i-ritetaction-was-a:s-sessed using
tn-e-Trrr-e-r1:l.~ttnn-Proc-ess---------·---·---
13
Analysis system of Bales.
The analysis showed that as group size
increased there were increases in showing tension release and giving
suggestions.
Concurrently, there were decreases in tension expres-
sion, agreement, and asking for opinion.
In addition, dyads were
found to have unique interaction qualities.
These groups tended to
have low rates of showing disagreement and hostility coupled with a
high rate of showing tension.
O'Dell (1968) used a problem-solving task with the Bales
Interaction Process Analysis system to analyze interaction across
group size.
The major finding of the study was that dyadic groups
uniformly produced far less interaction than larger groups.
Also,
dyads expressed relatively less hostility and more tension than
groups of larger sizes.
These findings agreed with the Bales and
Borgatta study but were rationalized as more acceptable because raw
data rather than transformed percentages, as used by Bales and
Borgatta, were analyzed and the time of discussion was increased
with group size.
Generalization between these two studies is difficult
because of the methodological problem of task heterogeneity.
The
task employed in the Bales and Borgatta (1955) study was of a humanrelations discussion type.
was ot a proo1em
so1v~ng
The task used in the O'Dell (1968) study
type.
14
Morris (1966) researched the effects of task type on group
interaction using 108 3-man groups.
The type of task on which the
groups worked significantly affected the distribution of more than
60% of the group interactive behaviors.
After analyzing the group
activity from the first through the fourth task session, he found
significant differences between task sessions, indicating that the
effects were due almost entirely to group interaction during the
first task session.
Task characteristics, group size, and performance.
A number
of studies, investigating task characteristics, have reported a
major impact of this factor on small group performance (Hackman,
1968; Hackman & Vidmar, 1970; Kent & McGrath, 1969; Vidmar & Hackman, 1971).
In each of these studies, performance was defined in
terms of characteristics of written group products on six descriptive dimensions developed by Hackman, Jones, and McGrath (1967).
The aim of the Hackman, Jones, and McGrath study was to
determine a set of criterion dimensions for evaluating the written
group products which would account for a major portion of the variance.
Through factor-analytic procedures, six dimensions were
obtained.
They were (a) action orientation, (b) length, (c) origi-
. _ . nalit;¥., ( d)_op.t_imism, __(e.)_qyality-__Q[_j:>re~entat:ion,_a.!l~- _(_f)__ ~~~'ll.~
15
involvement.
These dimensions accounted for a major portion of the
task-independent variance of written passages and can be used for
comparing group products written in response to different tasks.
Numerical scores on the dimensions were obtained by a "seven-pile"
sorting technique.
Reliabilities of the dimension scores ranged
from .72 to .98, with a median of .89.
In addition to using the Hackman, Jones, and McGrath dimensions, each of the studies employed tasks from a list developed by
Hackman (1968).
Hackman studied the variable of task type on writ-
ten group products.
Measures of performance were the descriptive
dimensions discussed by Hackman et al. (1967).
It was found that
task type determined up to 50% of the variance of group products on
some dimensions.
The Hackman et al. study provided for the develop-
ment of a general framework for the description of "intellective"
group tasks which require a group to produce a written product.
Within this domain, three nominal categories of tasks were identified.
The three categories or "task types" are, in brief:
1.
Production tasks require a group to work with general-
ized ideas or images.
Examples might be, "Write a story about this
ink-blot," or "Describe a mountain scene."
The basic goal of the
group is to create ideas or images and unify them int:o a coherent
whole.
16
2.
Discussion tasks require a group to work with issues.
For example, "What makes for success in our culture," or "Take a
stand on capital punishment."
Here the group discusses values or
issues which are evaluated, interpreted, and so forth.
3.
Problem-solving tasks require a group to generate a solu-
tion to a specific problem. Examples are, "How could a person attach
pictures to walls without scarring the walls?" or "Develop a procedure for safely changing a tire on a busy freeway at night."
With
problem-solving tasks the group deals with proposed actions or
implementations.
Mann's (1961) ''Mined Road
Proble~'
discussed earlier is a
problem-solving task while his fraternity problem is a combination
of discussion and problem-solving tasks.
Morris and Fiedler's
(1964) fable task is a production task, and their proposal task is a
problem-solving task.
However, by providing relevant value orienta-
tions in the task instructions, the researcher can minimize discussion elements of problems and thus obtain relatively "pure"
production and problem-solving tasks.
Kent and McGrath (1969) assessed the performance of groups
of different sex composition on the three types of intellective
group tasks discussed above. Four groups of each sex composition,
three -p-ersons per-group, eacncompleted four-tasks-of a- sTngle task·
17
type.
Time to completion for every task was limited to 15 minutes.
Results showed task type and specific task effects were most important as determiners of group product characteristics.
The type of
task with which a group worked accounted for over SO% of the variance on three product dimensions.
The specific task with which a
group worked accounted for over 25% of the variance on five of the
product dimensions.
Sex composition was only of moderate importance.
While task effects have consistently been shown to be of
significant influence, there has been little agreement among
researchers regarding the relationship between group size and performance (Frank & Anderson, 1971).
Thomas and Fink (1963) and
McGrath and Altman (1966),indicate that methodological problems
which complicate interpretation of the data were the cause of the
inconsistent results produced by studies of group size-performance
relationships.
For example, many studies have not varied size over
a wide range making it difficult to discover the true relationship
between size and performance.
different across studies.
Also, the types of tasks used were
This heterogeneity could conceal size-
performance relationships if task characteristics interact with
group size.
Hackman and Vidmar (1970) and Vidmar and Hackman (1971)
attempted to overcome these methodological problems by using groups
of sizes two through seven and by using the empirically replicable
18
classification of "intellective" group tasks of Hackman (1968).
Task type was significantly related to all of the product dimensions.
The relationships between task type and performance replicated the
findings of Hackman (1968) and of Kent and McGrath (1969) perfectly.
Group size, however, had negligible effects on performance.
A further elaboration of the Hackman and Vidmar (1970) study
was reported in the research of Vidmar and Hackman (1971).
Location
of the experimental laboratory was included in the Hackman and Vidmar (1970) study as a third factor; the research was run identically
at Yale University and the University of Illinois.
While the major
findings were the same, there were a few subtleties evident in the
results.
Vidmar and Hackman (1971) discussed these nuances in terms
of subject variables.
Approach of the Present Research
As discussed in the above review, most of the past research
on small laboratory groups has examined one or two of four main
classes of variables:
group size, group tasks, group interaction,
or group performance.
Typically', investigators have studied the
relationships between a variable from one class, task characteristics, for example, and a variable from one other class such as
dimensions of group interaction.
Hackman (1968) studied the
19
relationship between task characteristics and dimensions of group
performance.
In another study, Bales and Borgatta (1955) studied
group size and the interaction process.
Seldom has an attempt been
made to include several classes of variables in a research design.
This study examines all four classes of variables simultaneously.
In the present study, the relationships between parameters
of group tasks and measures of the characteristics of group output,
or performance, and interaction process are assessed through the use
of two of Hackman's (1968) "intellective" task categories:
tion" tasks and "problem-solving" tasks.
"produc-
As reported earlier, Hack-
man (1968), Kent and McGrath (1969), Hackman and Vidmar (1970), and
Vidmar and Hackman (1971) found these "intellective" group tasks
affected group interaction and performance to a significant degree.
A number of studies were reviewed above relating the effects
of group size on both performance and interaction (Bales & Borgatta,
1955; Carter et al., 1950, 1951; Hackman & Vidmar, 1970; O'Dell,
1968; Vidmar & Hackman, 1971).
It was found that group size had a
significant effect on group interactive behavior, but size was found
to be of little consequence to group performance.
Nevertheless, a
group"-size factor (groups of Size 2, 4, and 6) is included in the
present research for two reasons:
first, to determine if variation
in group size does, in fact, influence social-emotional interactive
20
behavior, and, second, because of Frank and Anderson's (1971) contention that models of group productivity must consider type of
task, group size, and the interaction of size and task especially
when quantitative indexes of group performance are of primary
concern.
It seems reasonable that there could be important changes in
group functioning across trial sessions which can influence the
nature of the group interactive behavior and performance.
Morris
(1966) studied group activity from the first through the fourth task
session. A posteriori comparisons of the significant differences
between trials indicated that the effects were due almost entirely
to the group interaction on the first trial session.
It follows
that the interaction pattern of a group working on its fourth task
may be so vastly different from its pattern on the first task simply
as a function of experience.
The inclusion of a "trials" factor (in
addition to task type and group size) in the present study permits
further study of these effects.
In summary, the present research investigates the effects ori
group interaction and performance of three variables:
(a) task type
(production and problem-solving "intellective" group tasks); (b)
group size (groups of Size 2, 4, and 6); and (c) trials.
21
Hypotheses
Hypotheses can now be formulated which link the variables of
task type, group size, and
mance.
trials
to group interaction and perfor-
It is predicted that:
1.
Differences in task type will produce significant varia-
tions in group performance.
Specifically, problem-solving tasks
will be characterized by high "action orientation," and production
tasks by high "originality."
2.
Variation in group size will not significantly affect
group performance, although dyads will show a somewhat higher level
of performance than groups of other sizes.
3.
Differences in task type will produce significantly dif-
ferent group interaction profiles.
However, for both production and
problem-solving tasks, the greatest proportion of interactive activity will be in task relevant behavior as opposed to social-emotional
behavior.
4.
Variation in group size will not significantly affect
group interaction.
5.
Trials will not affect group performance.
However, sig-
nificant changes will be found in group interactive social-emotional
behavior across trial sessions.
METHOD
Independent Variables
Group size.
Groups of two, four, and six members were
Task type.
The tasks in this study were "intellective"
used.
tasks developed by Hackman (1968) and require a group to produce a
written passage or solution.
Further, the tasks are characterized
by at least a minimum of cooperation requirements.
This require-
ment is necessary since the analyses of group solutions were based
on a set of dimensions devised by Hackman, Jones, and McGrath
(1967), to be discussed later, which are applicable only to verbal
materials.
Production tasks call for the production and presenta-
tion of ideas or images.
In this type of task the group works
with generalized images.
Problem-solving tasks require that a
solution to a specific problem be worked out.
In this task type
the group deals with proposed actions or implementations.
Trials.
By 'requiring each group to work on four different
tasks in succession, the difference in group interactive behavior
and performance across trial sessions were examined as a function
of practice on any one or all tasks.
23
Dependent Variables
The two dependent variables utilized in the present study
were group performance and group interaction.
Group performance
was measured in terms of characteristics of the written group solutions.
Group interaction was measured in terms of a system of
interaction analysis which combined task-relevant behaviors from
the system developed by Morris (1966) and social-emotional behaviors from the Bales (1950) Interaction Process Analysis system.
Group performance.
The measures of written group solution
characteristics were the six descriptive dimensions developed by
Hackman, Jones, and McGrath (1967).
These dimensions are not task-
dependent, in that raters do not have to be familiar with the task
which produced a particular solution in order to rate the value of
that solution on the dimensions.
1.
The dimensions are:
Action orientation--the degree to which a solution
states or implies that a specific or general course of action
should be, might be, or will be followed.
2.
Length.
3.
Originality--the degree to which a solution is fresh
and unusual (not necessarily good or creative) as opposed to obvious and mundane.
24
4.
Optimism--the degree to which the general point of view
ot tone of a solution can be characterized as positive or optimistic as opposed to negative or pessimistic.
5.
Quality of presentation--evaluation of the grammatical,
rhetorical, and literary qualities of a solution.
6.
Issue involvement--the degree to which a solution takes
or implies a particular point of view regarding some goal, event,
issue, or procedure.
Numerical scores for the six dimensions of each written
group solution were obtained by performing a "sort-resort" procedure developed by Hackman, Jones, and McGrath (1967) on each of the
three scales defining a dimension.
Detailed descriptions of the 18
total defining scales are presented in Appendix A.
The procedure
for rating a scale is as follows and was repeated for each of the
other two scales within a dimension:
Five judges rated the solution as belonging to one of seven
categories, ranging from "Very True" (score of 7) to "Very False"
(score of 1).
For example, if a scale were entitled "Unusual,"
those solutions which a judge deemed to be quite out of the ordinary would be rated "Very True," whereas those judged as particularly mundane would be rated "Very False."
Solutions for which
there was little evidence-relevant to the scale, or for which
25
evidence was internally conflicting would be rated into one of the
middle categories between
11
Very False" and "Very True."
A dimension score for a solution, then, was computed by
averaging ratings across the three scales defining the dimension
and across judges.
This procedure was followed, in turn, for each of the other
five dimensions so that six dimension scores were computed for each
of the written group solutions.
Group interaction.
In using laboratory groups who gener-
ally have a relatively specific task to perform, there is a consistent behavior dimension underlying group interaction which can be
referred to as task-relevant activity.
There is also a second fac-
tor which can be called likeability or positive affect relations.
These factors reflect two different functions in groups which Bales
(1958) has called task and social-emotional functions.
In the present study, attention was focused on both.
Group
interactive behavior was classified into 12 categories of a system
of interaction analysis which focused on both the task-relevant and
social-emotional aspects of group interaction (Table 1).
Numerical scores appear in the form of raw frequencies of
each of the 12 behaviors observed.
category rate was also computed.
A second type of score called a
This derived score shows the
26
Table 1
System of Interaction Analysis
Task-relevant behaviors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Structure Problem:
Define words in task, discuss nature of
topic, explore topic, read task description; bring in relevant background material; give minutes remaining.
Structure Answer: Lay out characteristics or format of
answer, outline, listing of general points.
Propose Solution:
Set forth or develop specific answer,
reword or revise previous answers, list answers.
Clarify: Explain, elaborate, expand upon; assess progress
without positive or negative overtones; nonevaluative comments about length of answer, amount finished.
Repeat: Verbatim repetition or itemization.
Seek Structure: Ask for structuring of problem or answer
under 1 and 2 above.
Seek Solution Proposals: Ask for specific answers under 3
above.
Social-emotional behaviors
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tension Release: Laugh, joke, change subject to irrelevant
issues.
Tension:
Seek procedure, ask for help, i.e., "How do we do
this?"
Defend: Justify, support, or defend a comment with implication of exoneration or attempt to convince others.
Disagree:
Disagreement, negative evaluation, objection; call
into question.
Agree: Agreement, positive evaluation, acceptance, support.
27
percentage of the total activity which is found in each of the categories, or the relative activity in each behavior or area of
functioning.
Experimental Design
The design of this study was a 2 x 3 x 4 (task type x group
size x trials) factorial with repeated measures as shown in Table
2.
Each of the 3 group sizes was replicated with 8 groups, 4 for
each type of task.
Groups 1-12 worked on 4 production tasks
(A, B, C, and D) and groups 13-24 worked on 4 problem-solving tasks
(E, F, G, and H).
Within each group size, a balanced Latin square
design determined the order in which each subject group would perform the 4 tasks it was to work on.
Within the 4 subject groups of
a given size working on a given type of task, the Latin square
design permitted each task to appear once in each ordinal position,
to be preceded once by each of the other 3 tasks, and to be followed once by each of the other tasks.
The design, therefore,
counterbalances the sequential effects in the presentation of tasks
to groups.
In the entire experimental design, 24 separate groups
worked on 4 tasks each, thus giving a total of 96 group interaction
profiles and written solutions.
28
Table 2
Experimental Design
Production
Subject
group
1
2
Group
size
ta~k
type
Order of
presentation
of tasks
Problem-solving task type
Group
size
2
2
2
2
E
F
G
H
4
4
4
4
E F G H
A B CD
13
B DA C
14
3
4
2
2
2
2
CAD B
D C B A
15
16
5
4
AB CD
17
6
4
4
B D A C
CAD B
D C B A
18
A B C D
21
22
23
7
8
9
10
11
12
4
6
6
6
6
B D A C
CA DB
DCBA
Order of
presentation
of tasks
Subject
group
19
20
24
6
6
6
6
F
H
E
G
G
E
H
F
H
G
F
E
F HE G
GE HF
HGF E
E F GH
F HE G
G E H F
HGF E
29
Task Selection
The study design required 8 specific tasks, 4 for each particular task type.
They were selected from the pool of 108 "intel-
lective" tasks developed by Hackman (1968) and are presented in
Appendix B.
Each of the tasks selected were of medium difficulty
and high interest.
Subjects
Each of the 24 groups was composed of either 2, 4, or 6
undergraduate males who volunteered from the "subject pool" of persons taking Psychology 150 and Psychology 250 courses at California
State University, Northridge.
Subjects were assigned randomly to
the 24 groups, and the order in which groups were run was determined randomly.
Procedure
Instructions to subjects from the start to the finish of
each experimental session were standardized in the form of a script
(see Appendix C).
Inside the experimental room, chairs were uniformly
arranged around a table so as to give no impression of an implied
leadership role to any one person.
While the group worked, the
30
verbal behavior of the members was tape recorded for later interaction analysis.
Twelve minutes were allowed for each of the four tasks.
The experimenter gave a copy of the first task to each group member
and allowed 30 seconds for individual review of the task.
After
the 30 seconds had expired, the subjects were instructed to start
working on the task as a group.
Time warnings were given by the
experimenter at 5-minute intervals and with 1-minute remaining.
At
the end of 12 minutes the group was told to stop work on the task
at which time the written task solution was collected and the next
task description was handed out.
all four tasks had been completed.
The sequence was repeated until
At the completion of the fourth
task the subjects were debriefed and dismissed.
During all experi-
mental task sessions, while groups were working, the experimenter
remained in an adjoining room able to both hear and see group
function.
RESULTS
Information presented in this section will proceed in the
following sequence.
First, reliability data will be presented
which reflect on the effectiveness of the judges in rating the six
categories of group performance and 12 categories of group interaction.
Second, results of analyses will be presented to show the
effects the three experimental factors have on group interaction
and performance.
Reliability
In all, this experiment yielded 96 separate written solutions and 96 separate tape recordings of group interaction (24
groups each doing four tasks).
Five judges including the experimenter were used.
To
reduce the consequence of any rating artifacts due to order of presentation, task written solutions were given to the judges in random orders for the rating of performance as were task tape
recordings for the rating of interaction.
Performance reliability.
96 task written solutions.
Each of the five judges rated all
Ten solutions were picked at random for
the reliability calculation on each of the six dimensions.
31
32
Reliabilities are given in Table 3.
In addition, means and stan-
dard deviations of the dimensions across all 96 tasks are presented.
Dimension reliabilities ranged from .83 to .97 with a median of .95.
Interaction reliability.
In the usual sense it would not
have been possible to determine inter-rater reliability directly
from these data since each task recording was only rated by orie
judge; four judges each rated interaction recordings from 19 tasks
and one judge rated 20 task interaction recordings.
However, each
judge did rate the same 10 tasks randomly selected for the reliability calculation.
After a task was selected randomly, it was
determined which of the five judges had originally rated the task
recording.
The other four judges then rated that particular task.
Therefore, even though judges did not originally rate each of the
96 task recordings, they did rate the same 10 tasks selected for
reliability.
Table 4 presents reliabilities.
In addition, means
and standard deviations of the 12 interaction categories across all
96 tasks are given.
Reliability of measurement for interaction
categories ranged from .71 to .97 with a median of .95.
Task, Size, and Trials Effects
on Group Performance
The raw data obtained from the written group solutions and
interaction analysis profiles (or ratings from task tape
33
Table 3
Performance Reliability
Dimension
Standard
deviation a
Reliability
Action Orientation
.96
4.28
2.10
Length
.95
4.38
1.32
Originality
.97
4.18
2.10
Optimism
.83
4.36
0.98
Quality of Presentation
.96
4.26
1.62
Issue Involvement
• 89
3. 72
1.32
aAcross all 96 tasks
34
Table 4
Interaction Reliability
Interaction Categories
Standard
deviationa
Reliability
Structure Problem
.97
31.82
17.86
Structure Answer
.97
16.84
13.06
Propose Solutions
.97
50.30
16.12
Clarify
.95
23.46
11.36
Repeat
.96
7.08
6.52
Seek Structure
.94
7.28
4.40
Seek Solution Proposals
.92
2.76
2.74
Tension Release
.95
2.16
2.56
Tension
. 71
0.82
0.88
Defend
.95
8. 72
5.30
Disagree
.90
8.14
3.50
Agree
.94
30.02
8.66
aAcross all 96 tasks
~\.·,·1
35
recordings) were examined for a determination of the effects that
task type, group size, and trials have on group performance and
interaction.
Where more than one judge rated a response, the mean
was used.
Separate analyses of variance (as outlined in Table 5) were
computed for each of the six solution dimensions, or characteristics, with the ratings of group output providing the raw data.
Separate analyses of variance were also conducted for each of the
12 measures of group interaction. A frequency count of the number
of each of the 12 behaviors recorded for each group on each task
provided the raw data for these analyses.
Considering the number
of tests, it was determined that in all analyses of variance an
effect would not be significant unless it reached the£< .01 level
of significance or better, and with at least 5% of the variance
accounted for by the experimental treatment.
Task effects.
The type of task with which the group worked,
either problem-solving or production, was significantly related to
all six of the characteristics describing written group solutions.
A summary of these relationships is presented for the six dimensions in Table 6.
A graphic representation of the differences in
mean values on the solution dimensions is presented in Figure 1.
36
Table 5
The Analysis of Variance
Source
df
23
Between
A (Task type)
1
B (Group size)
2
A
2
X
B
S/AB (Error between)
72
Within
C (Trials)
3
c
3
B x C
6
A
A
X
X
B
X
c
C x S/AB (Error within)
Total
18
6
54
95
37
Table 6
Task Effects on Group Performance
Task type means
Solution dimensions
Prod.
Probsolv.
F-ratioa
Action Orientation
2.644
6.390
687 .152
85.18
< .001
Length
4. 786
3.110
104.284
36.78
< .001
Originality
5.880
2.187
1051.991
87.23
< • 001
Optimism
3.606
4.991
94.394
49.08
< .001
Quality of
Presentation
5.565
3.935
164.378
42.64
< .001
Issue Involvement
3. 071
3.735
13.936
9.67
< .005
adf = 1, 18
bal = percentage of variance accounted for
PS
7
-
= Problem-Solving
p = Production
PS
r--
6
p
r--
~
rL-
Cll
ClJ
1-<
0
~
5 1-
u
~
tf.)
c::
0
·.-I
+J
;::l
.-l
0
tf.)
4
3
p
r-p
ctl
ClJ
PS
~
--
r---
PS
::E:
2
PS
.---
~
~
c::
-
PS
~
~
1 :...
Action
Orientation
Optimism
Issue
Involvement
Originality
Quality
of
Presentation
Written Solution Dimensions
Figure 1.
Group performance as a function of task type.
Length
39
As Figure 1 represents, problem-solving tasks were high in
action orientation, optimism, and issue involvement.
Solutions for
production tasks were highest on length, originality, and quality
of presentation.
Kent and McGrath (1969) found that differences in
task type accounted for approximately 50% of the variance of the
solutions on the characteristics of action orientation and originality.
In this study, differences in task type accounted for approx-
imately 86% of the variance of the solutions on these two
characteristics.
In summary, task type was significantly related to all of
the measures of group solution characteristics.
Even though issue
involvement was significant at the p < .005 level, it accounted for
only 9.67% of the variance of the written solutions.
Problem-
solving tasks were characterized by high action orientation and
production tasks by high originality.
Size effects.
A summary of the solution dimension means
across the three group sizes is presented in Table 7.
As pre-
dicted, group size was not significantly related to any of the
measures of group performance.
Interactions between task type and group size.
Although it
seems plausible that group performance should be influenced by the
interaction between group size and task type (Frank and Anderson,
40
Table 7
Size Effects on Group Performance
Group size means
2
4
6
F-ratioa
.E.
Action Orientation
4.574
4.442
4.538
0.305
n.s.
Length
3.986
4. 054
3.804
0.828
n.s.
Originality
4.052
3.977
4.073
0.261
n.s.
Optimism
4.356
4.223
4.196
0.548
n.s.
Quality of Presentation
4.892
4. 773
4.584
1.980
n.s.
Issue Involvement
3.460
3.400
3.340
0.134
n.s.
Solution dimensions
adf
=
2, 18
41
1971), research by Hackman and Vidmar (1970) has shown that within
the domain of "intellective" tasks no such interactions should be
expected on the performance measures.
In the present study, task
type and group size did yield a significant interaction for one of
the six solution dimensions, "Length."
This interaction, however,
accounted for only 4.41% of the variance.
It was mentioned at the
beginning of the Results section that an experimental treatment
must account for at least 5% of the variance in order to be considered significant.
Therefore, in agreement with Hackman and Vidmar
(1970), group performance in this study was not influenced by a
group size, task type interaction.
The data are presented in
Table 8.
Trials effects. A summary of the solution dimension means
for tasks which were dealt with first, second, third, and fourth in
the experimental sessions is presented in Table 9.
achieved the .01 level of significance.
No relationship
The quality of presenta-
tion of the written solutions was found to increase across time to
the highest score of any dimension at the fourth trial, but the
relationship was not significant.
Interactions between task type and trials.
Task type and
trials did not yield any significant interactions on the performance measures.
Table 8
Task Type and Group Size Interaction Effects on Performance
Group size means
Solution
dimensions
Task
type
2
4
6
Action Orientation
Prod
Ps
Prod
Ps
Prod
Ps
Prod
Ps
2.683
6.464
4.450
3.523
6. 075
2.029
3.750
4.962
2.580
6.304
4.933
3.175
5.767
2.188
3.646
4.800
2. 671
6.404
4.975
2.633
5.800
2.346
3.421
4. 971
Prod
Ps
Prod
Ps
5.633
4.150
3.058
3.862
5.562
3.983
2.950
3.850
5.498
3.671
3.204
3.492
Length
Originality
Optimism
Quality of
Presentation
Issue Involvement
adf
= 2,
18
F-ratioa
~2
b
0.015
6.257
n.s.
4.41
< .01 (n.s.) c
2.500
n.s.
0.843
n.s.
0.649
n.s.
1.144
n.s.
Table 8--Continued
b 2
~
= Percentage
cn.s.
of variance accounted for
An experimental treatment must account for at least 5% of the variance to be considered significant. Therefore, even though the dimension "Length" reached the
£ < .01 level of significance, it was not considered significant in this study.
44
Table 9
Trials Effects on Group Performance
Order of presentation means
Solution
dimensions
1
2
3
4
F-ratioa
.£
Action
Orientation
4.574
4.444
4.578
4.475
0.015
n.s.
Length
3.961
3.900
3.932
4.000
0.030
n.s.
Originality
3.981
3. 911
4.053
4.192
o. 703
n.s.
Optimism
4.389
4. 239
4.428
3.978
2.017
n.s.
Quality of
Presentation
4.572
4.644
4. 720
5.062
0.949
n.s.
Issue
Involvement
3.378
3.436
3.392
3.406
0.012
n.s.
ad£
= 3, 54
45
Interactions between group size and trials.
Group size and
trials did not yield any significant interactions on the performance
measures.
Interactions between task type, group size, and trials.
Three factor interactions between task type, group size, andtrials
were not significant.
Task, Size, and Trials Effects
on Group Interaction
Before the three experimental factors and their effects on
group interaction are presented, a brief discussion of some general
characteristics of group interaction is warranted.
In this discus-
tion, data from all experimental conditions are pooled.
These pre-
liminary comments provide a context for the subsequent discussion
and interpretation of the effects of the experimental manipulation
on group interaction process.
Table 10 gives the frequency of activity and the percentage
of total activity (category rate) in each of the 12 categories on
all tasks combined.
Seventy percent of the group activity con-
cerned the four functions of structuring the problem, proposing
solutions, clarifying statements, and agreeing.
attention was given to structuring answers.
Considerably less
When structuring
answers is added in, almost 80% of the group activity can be
46
Table 10
Mean Raw Frequencies and Category
Rates of Group Interaction
Interactive behaviors
Raw frequency
Category ratea
Task relevant
Propose Solution
Clarify
Structure Problem
Structure Answer
Repeat
Seek Structure
Seek Solution Proposals
34.490
30.730
29.906
15.229
8.052
7.230
3.312
19.06
16.98
16.52
8.42
4.45
3.96
1.83
31.948
10.021
6.469
2.927
o. 771
180.948
17.66
5.54
3.67
1. 62
0.43
100.14
Social-emotional
Agree
Disagree
Defend
Tension Release
Tension
Total
~ercentage of total base activity
47
accounted for.
Another look at Table 10 shows that the major por-
tion of group interaction was composed of task relevant behavior
rather than social-emotional behavior, 71% versus 29%.
Task effects.
Different types of tasks require, or at
least encourage, different patterns of group behavior.
Morris
(1966), for example, has shown that production and problem-solving
tasks result in substantially different emphases in the group
interaction process.
The effects of these two types of tasks on
group interaction in the present study are shown in Table 11 and
depicted graphically in Figure 2.
It was originally predicted that
problem-solving tasks would encourage high problem structuring and
clarification while production tasks would be characteristically
high in answer structuring, solution proposing, structure and solution seeking, repeating, and disagreeing.
In contrast to these
predictions, Table 11 shows few significant relationships between
task type and interaction process.
Among task relevant behaviors
(as shown in Table 10 accounting for 71% of total group activity),
two behaviors that did not reach the £ < .01 level of significance
were "structure problem" and "propose solution."
Almost 36% of the
total group interaction activity, across all groups and tasks, was
centered in these two categories.
Table 11
Task Effects on Group Interaction
Task type
Production
Interactive behaviors
Frequency
Structure Problem
Structure Answer
Propose Solution
Clarify
Repeat
Seek Structure
Seek Solution Proposals
Tension Release
Tension
Defend
Disagree
Agree
Total
27.438
20.250
37.771
25.958
11.87 5
8.333
3. 708
3.167
0.917
5.854
12.708
34.083
192.000
adf = 1
b-
'
Ratec
(10.55)
(6.18)
(6.62)
Problem-solving
Frequency
32.375
10.208
31.208
35.500
4.229
6.125
2.917
2.688
0.625
7.083
7.333
29.812
169.896
Rate
(6.01)
(2.49)
(4.32)
F-ratioa
0.904
9.391
2.444
4.787
15.448
2.645
1. 020
1.621
2.602
1.150
12.501
1.015
2.734
18
~ 2 = Percentage of variance accounted for
cPercentage of total base activity. Shown only for significant effects.
11)
2b
n.s.
13.98
21.78
14.99
< . 01
n.s.
n.s.
< .001
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
< . 005
n.s.
n.s.
.
,........
>..
oi-l
•r-1
16 1-
:>
•.-I
PS = Prob1em-So1vi ng
oi-l
~ 14
p = Production
1-
(!)
rJJ
C'il
~
.-I
12 1-
C'il
p
,.._
oi-l
0
E-t
4-1
10 1-
0
(!)
bO
C'il
oi-l
c::
(!)
(.)
8
-
H
(!)
p...
.._,
~
6 1-
..!....
,..!....
(!)
oi-l
C'il
~
~
4 1-
~
PS
0
bO
(!)
oi-l
.....-
2 1-
C'il
(.)
Structure
Answer
Figure 2.
Repeat
Disagree
Mean category rates of group interaction as a function of task type·
(Note: Only those behaviors that are significantly affected are
shown.)
50
The few significant differences indicate that on production
tasks, as contrasted with problem-solving tasks, more structuring
of answers as well as more repetition and disagreement were elicited.
Approximately 23% of the group activity on production tasks
was classified in these three categories as contrasted with about
13% on problem-solving tasks.
By definition, the production tasks required the generation
of images and ideas.
These images and ideas had to be presented
and formatted into an answer or group solution (hence, structuring
the answer).
The higher rates of repetition and disagreement in
production tasks app,ear to be a reflection on the preoccupation
with precise wording and style which was seldom encountered on
problem-solving tasks.
This concern over grammatical and rhetori-
cal detail may have caused frequent disagreements and repetitions
in the development of the answer.
Perhaps this concern over detail
was in response to the wording of some of the production tasks
which often emphasized literary quality as a criterion of a "good"
answer.
Size Effects.
A summary of frequency rates for each of the
12 behaviors across the three group sizes is presented in Table 12.
Group size had no effect on group interaction process.
51
Table 12
Size Effects on Group Interaction
Group size
2
Interactive
behaviors
Structure Problem
Structure Answer
Propose Solution
Clarify
Repeat
Seek Structure
Seek Solution
Proposals
Tension Release
Tension
Defend
Disagree
Agree
Total
adf
=
2, 18
Frequency
4
Frequency
6
Frequency
F-ratioa
.E.
27.781
12.906
36.625
26.969
9.156
7.844
30.812
16.906
29.812
31.719
5.844
7.312
31.125
15.875
37.031
33.500
9.156
6.531
0.169
0.536
1.255
0.799
1.289
0.315
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n. s.
n.s.
3.562
1.469
1.000
4.531
6.906
28.969
167.719
3.938
3.062
0.844
7.656
10.469
29.906
178.281
2.438
4.250
0.469
7. 219
12.688
36.969
196.844
1.322
1.621
3.040
2.906
4.908
1.420
1.622
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n. s.
n.s.
52
Interactions between task type and group size.
Task type
and group size did not yield any significant interactions on group
interaction process.
Trials effects.
Data relevant to the effects of trials on
group interaction are given in Table 13.
Trials affected task
relevant and social-emotional behavior equally.
tive activity of the group was also affected.
The total interacGroup interactive
activity was highest during the second trial and lowest during the
fourth trial.
Inspection of Table 13 indicates that whatever significant
results there are stem from the contrast between behavior on the
fourth as opposed to the first and second trials.
This is only
speculative, however, as a posteriori tests of significance were
not conducted.
On the fourth trial groups agreed less, showed less
tension and interacted less overall.
Conversely, on the first trial
group members showed a greater amount of tension.
More structuring
of the answer and agreement among group members occurred on the
second trial.
Additionally, on the second trial overall group
activity was highest.
The contrast between the first and fourth trials for the
behavior "tension" is interesting.
The data seem to indicate that
the first trial probably served as a warmup exercise and as a
Table 13
Trials Effects on Group Interaction
Order of Presentation
1
Interactive
behaviors
Structure Problem
Structure Answer
Propose Solution
Clarify
Repeat
Seek Structure
Seek Solution
Proposals
Tension Release
Tension
Defend
Disagree
Agree
Total
- = 3'
adf
Frequency
33.625
11.667
36.750
24.958
9.667
6.292
4.667
3.042
1.125
6.292
7.458
33.708
179.250
2
Ratec
(6.50)
(0.63)
(18.80)
Frequency
25.79.2
21.667
34.625
34.625
7.000
8.667
3.000
3.167
0.958
6.750
10.708
36.125
192.542
4
3
Rate
(11.25)
(0.50)
(18.76)
Frequency
31.792
15.542
38.000
33.625
7.333
7.917
3.250
2.917
0.583
6.958
10.917
33.125
191.958
Rate
(8.10)
(0.30)
(17.26)
54
b~ 2 = Percentage of variance accounted for
cPercentage of total base activity.
Shown only for significant effects.
Frequency
28.417
12.042
28.583
29.708
8.208
6.042
2.333
2.583
0.417
5.875
11.000
24.833
160.042
Rate
(7.52)
(0.26)
(15.52)
F-ratioa
0.823
4.889
0.982
1.453
1.179
2. 041
3.149
0.305
7.161
0.344
2.577
5.186
4.435
~
2b
n.s.
8.93
< .01
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
14.02
7.95
7.09
n.s.
n.s.
< .001
n. s.
n.s.
< .005
< .01
54
vehicle for the group members to get to know one another or to
"break the ice."
The increased level of tension implies a lot of
the "how do we do this" procedural type of interaction.
By the
fourth trial this behavior was at its lowest level.
Interactions between task type and trials.
Task type and
trials did not yield any significant interactions on group interaction process.
Interactions between group size and trials.
Group size and
trials did not yield any significant interactions on group interaction process.
Interactions between task type, group size, and trials.
Three factor interactions between task type, group size, and trials
were not significant.
Group Interaction and Group
Performance Relationships
Table 14 presents the correlations between the categories
of group interaction and the group written solution dimensions
across all groups and the two types of tasks.
While the data do
not always exhibit consistent patterns of significant correlations
between the interactive activity of the groups and their performance, a few interesting trends are apparent and warrant discussion.
Table 14
Intercorrelations Between Group Interaction and Performance Measures
Action
Orientation
Structure Problem
Structure Answer
Propose Solution
Clarify
Repeat
Seek Structure
Seek Solution
Proposals
Tension Release
Tension
Defend
Disagree
Agree
Total
*.E < . 0 1 , N
96
Length
Originality
Optimism
Quality of
Presentation
Issue
Involvement
.10
-.37*
-.19
. 26
-.36*
-.18
-.14
. 24
.19
-.13
-.25
• 05
-.14
.38*
.22
-.25
.43*
.25
.19
- .42~'<'
-.04
• 18
-.29*
-.22
-.19
• 23
.16
-.23
.30*
. 00
.10
-.14
-.11
. 05
-.05
-.08
-.13
-.15
-.19
.10
-.36*
-.12
-.21
.20
• 08
.14
-.08
.31*
.04
.15
.10
.13
.17
-.10
.39*
.15
.24
-.10
-.19
-. 04
-.10
- .41~'<'
-.12
-.17
• 06
.18
.12
-.12
.19
. 02
. 05
.00
-.25
-.08
• 02
-.10
.17
-.12
56
The correlation between "action orientation" and "originality," for example, across all groups and tasks is extremely high,
r
=
-.87.
Correlations between "originality" and "optimism,"
r = -.71, and "action orientation" and "optimism," r = .64 are also
rather high.
case.
An examination of Table 14 reveals why this is the
With minor exceptions there is a consistent relationship
between specific interactive behaviors and these three measures of
performance.
The important role repeating, structuring of the
answer, and disagreeing behaviors played in developing highly original written solutions, at the same time lead to solutions low in
action orientation and optimism.
As discussed earlier and pre-
sented in Table 11, these three behaviors were common to production
tasks at or above the£< .01 level of significance.
Approximately
23% of group activity on production tasks was classified in these
three categories in contrast to about 13% on problem-solving tasks.
It is evident from Table 14 that specific behaviors do, in
fact, play significant roles in shaping performance outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Summary of the Present Research
The purpose of this research was to examine the effects on
group interaction and performance of three variables:
task type
(production and problem-solving "intellective" group tasks), group
size (groups of Size 2, 4, and 6), and trials.
Task type was shown to be an important determiner of groupwritten-solution variance.
Specifically, solutions from production
type tasks were characterized by high means on three solution
dimensions, or characteristics:
of presentation.
length, originality, and quality
These solutions showed little action orientation
or issue involvement and tended to be pessimistic in outlook.
Problem-solving tasks yielded solutions which were high in action
orientation and issue involvement.
They were also optimistic in
outlook, but were low on length, originality, and quality of presentation.
These findings supported the first hypothesis.
Task type was also shown to be an important determiner of
group interactive behavior, however, not to the degree as with performance relationships.
The third hypothesis was supported; dif-
ferences in task type did produce significantly different group
58
interaction profiles, and the greatest proportion of interactive
activity was in task relevant behavior as opposed to socialemotional behavior. Two task relevant behaviors, however, that did
not reach the .E.< .01 level of significance were "structure problem" and "propose solution."
Almost 36% of the total group inter-
active activity was accounted for by these two behaviors.
It was
thought that problem structuring would be related to problemsolving tasks and proposing of solutions would be characteristic of
production tasks.
The data show, however, that production type
tasks were characterized by high answer structuring, repetition,
and disagreement.
Problem-solving tasks elicited significantly
more clarification.
As predicted in Hypotheses 2 and 4, group size was not significantly related to any of the measures of group performance, nor
group interaction process.
"Tension'' among group members decreased
as group size became larger as predicted.
However, the relation-
ship was not significant.
Group performance was not affected by trials, supporting
the fifth hypothesis.
However, significant changes were found in
group interactive behavior across trial sessions.
Trials affected
task relevant and social-emotional behavior equally.
The total
interactive activity of the group was also affected, with
59
interaction being the highest during the second trial and lowest
during the fourth trial.
There were not any significant interac-
tions among the three experimental factors.
While the data did not always exhibit consistent patterns
of correlations between the interactive activity of the groups and
their performance, there were some interesting results.
Specifi-
cally, high correlations were found between "action orientation"
and "originality" as well as between "originality" and "optimism,"
and "action orientation" and "optimism" of written solutions.
These correlations were discussed in terms of the roles specific
interactive behaviors played in shaping these performance outcomes.
Implications of the Study
While the results of this study are interesting, it is perhaps most important that attention be directed from them to their
implications, i.e., what do all these data mean?
Group tasks make a difference.
It has been shown in this
study that tasks affect both the nature of group output, or performance, as well as the characteristics of group interaction.
These
task effects have important implications for the existing body of
knowledge and methodology of the small group field.
60
Tasks to be used in small group studies must be constructed
or selected with care.
Since task factors are potent determiners
of the characteristics of group interaction and performance, tasks
should no longer be treated merely as "something for the group to
do" while other phenomena are being studied.
For as long as this
practice continues to be acceptable in small group research, important portions of the variability of group interaction and performance will continue to be ignored.
Unless tasks are appropriately
held constant, counterbalanced, or sampled throughout an experimental design, a real possibility exists that the results of the study
may be seriously confounded with unintentional task effects.
For
example, if a researcher were to use a production task in one
experimental condition and a problem-solving task in another, he
would attain a mean difference in an outcome dimension (such as
"originality") across conditions as a function of task differences
alone.
Regardless of the number of appropriate control groups, or
the care with which subjects were sampled and assigned to conditions, such inattention to task factors would seriously compromise
the internal validity of the study.
One way to select tasks for use in small group studies so
as to eliminate difficulties as suggested above involves use of
equivalent subsets of tasks.
For this approach, subsets of tasks
61
would be selected which have heterogeneous content, but similar
general characteristics.
Tasks from such a subset would then be
assigned to groups randomly or in some systematic fashion which
insures that specific tasks, if used more than once, are counterbalanced across conditions.
Since there are likely to be no sys-
tematic differences between task characteristics across experimental
conditions, internal validity is increased.
Also, generalizability
across task content is enhanced increasing external validity.
The present research utilizes the equivalent subsets of
tasks approach.
The 8 tasks used in the research are from a pool
of 108 "intellective" group tasks developed by Hackman (1968).
The
8 tasks have heterogeneous content and their "type" (either production or problem-solving) are known.
To further understand the nature of task effects, it is
helpful to examine the different emphases in the group interaction
process associated with the two task types. What, for example, are
the underlying qualitative changes associated with different types
of interaction?
For instance, it can be suggested that "structur-
ing the problem" means quite a different thing for a group working
on a problem-solving task as opposed to a group working on a production task.
Or, as another example, it is probable that "give
solution proposals" means different things on a production task,
62
with its concern over grammatical and rhetorical detail, than on a
problem-solving task.
It is possible to go through any of the
tables of data presented earlier and offer plausible conjectures
about underlying changes in the qualitative nature of the interaction process which are predicated on the characteristics of the
task.
In other words, tasks affect the meaning of certain activi-
ties and the group shifts its distribution of activity accordingly.
One might also infer, based on the data presented in this
study, that on production tasks "structure answer" and "repeat" are
the most task relevant activities, while on problem-solving tasks
"clarify" is the most task relevant activity.
It might then be
hypothesized that if one could distinguish "task oriented" persons
from others, these persons would do more clarifying on problemsolving tasks but shift to structuring answers and repeating on
production tasks.
Such evidence would suggest that observed quan-
titative changes in the nature of the interaction process are mediated by the characteristics of the task on which the group is
working.
The above interpretation also assumes that group performance and interactive behavior result from an interaction between
the demands, or characteristics, of the task and the characteristics of the individuals performing them.
The present research
63
implies that the group task may be one of the most potent sources
of variance in influencing interactive behavior or performance of
the group.
Further systematic examination of group tasks and their
effects is needed for advancement of knowledge in the small group
research field.
An investigation of the means by which the inter-
actions between task characteristics and individual performer characteristics takes place would seem to be warranted as a first
important step.
REFERENCES
Bales, R. F. Interaction process analysis: A method for the study
of small groups. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1950.
Bales, R. F., & Borgatta, E. F. Size of group as a factor in the
interaction profile. In A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, &
R. F. Bales (Eds.), Small groups. New York: Knopf, 1965.
Borgatta, E. F. A commentary on small group research. In D. Willner (Ed.), Decisions, values and groups. New York: Pergamon Press, 1960.
Carter, L., Haythorn, W., Meirowitz, Beatrice, & Lanzetta, J. The
relation of categorizations and ratings in the observation
of group behavior. Human Relations, 1951, ~' 239-254.
Carter, L., Haythorn, W., Shriver, Beatrice, & Lanzetta, J. The
behavior of leaders and other group members. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1950, 46, 589-595.
Davis, J. H. Group performance.
1969.
Reading, Mass.:
Deutsch, M. Task structure and group process.
gist, 1951, ~' 324-325.
Addison-Wesley,
American Psycholo-
Frank, F., & Anderson, L. R. Effects of task and group size upon
group productivity and member satisfaction. Sociometry,
1971, 34(1), 135-149.
Hackman, J. R. Effects of task characteristics on group products.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1968, ~. 162-187.
Hackman, J. R., Jones, L. E., & McGrath, J. E. A set of dimensions
for describing the general properties of group generated
written passages. Psychological Bulletin, 1967, ~. 379390.
64
65
Hackman, J. R., & Vidmar, N. Effects of size and task type on group
performance and member reactions. Sociometry, 1970, 33,
37-54.
Hare, A. P. Handbook of small group research.
Press of Glencoe, 1962.
New York:
Hare, A. P. Bibliography of small group research:
Sociometry, 1972, 35, 1-150.
Hare, A. P. Handbook.of small group research.
Press, 1976.
Free
1959-1969.
New York:
The Free
Helmreich, R., Bakeman, R., & Scherwitz, L. The study of small
groups. In P. H. Mussen & M. R. Rosenzweig (Eds.), Annual
Review of Psychology, 1973, 24, 337-354.
Insko,
c.
A., & Schopler, J. Experimental social psychology.
York: Academic Press, 1972.
New
Kent, R. N., & McGrath, J. E. Task and group characteristics as
factors influencing group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 2, 429-440.
Keppel, G. Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Mann, R. D. Dimensions of individual performance in small groups
under task and social-emotional conditions. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 674-682.
McGrath, J • E. Social psychology: A brief introduction.
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1964.
New
McGrath, J. E., & Altman, I. Small group research: A synthesis
and critique of the field. New York: Holt, Rinehart~ &
Winston, 1966.
Morris, C. G. Task effects on group interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, ~. 545-554.
Morris, C. G., & Fiedler, F. E. Application of a new system of
interaction analysis to the relationships between leader
66
attitudes and behavior in problem solving groups. Technical Report No. 14, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1964.
O'Dell, J. W. Group size and emotional interaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, ~. 75-78.
Steiner, I. D. Group dynamics. In P. R. Farnsworth (Ed.), Annual
Review of Psychology, 1964, 11, 421-446.
Steiner, I. D. Group processes and productivity.
demic Press, 1972.
New York:
Thomas, E. J., & Fink, C. F. Effects of group size.
Bulletin, 1963, 60, 371-384.
Aca-
Psychological
Vidmar, N., & Hackman, J. R. Interlaboratory generalizability of
small group research: An experimental study. Journal of
Social Psychology, 1971, 83, 129-139.
Wagenaar, W. A. Note on the construction of diagram-balanced Latin
squares. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 384-386.
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE EIGHTEEN SCALES DEFINING THE
SIX DIMENSIONS OF WRITTEN GROUP SOLUTIONS
Dimension I:
Suggests action:
Action Orientation
The degree to which a solution states or implies
that a specific or general course of action should be,
might be, or will be followed.
Constructive:
The degree to which a solution is concerned with
"doing something" whether it makes actual suggestions,
implies them, "does something" by itself, or merely has a
"tone" of constructiveness.
Passive (reversed scoring):
The degree to which a solution is
inactive, complacent, quiet, or restful.
Dimension II:
Short (reversed scoring):
Length
Estimation of the brevity or number of
words in a solution.
Number of words:
This is an "operational" scale.
words in the solution are counted.
67
The number of
68
Lacks detail, elaboration (reversed scoring):
The degree to which
a solution is devoid of detail, examples, and elaboration.
Dimension III:
Bizarre:
Originality
The degree to which a solution is unique, odd, or "far
out" in a morbid, ribald, or highly unusual sense.
Not unusual (reversed scoring):
The degree to which a solution is
ordinary, everyday, or usual in content.
Original:
The degree to which the ideas contained in a solution
are unique, fresh, unusual, surprising, or refreshing as
opposed to "everyday."
Dimension IV:
Positive outlook:
Optimism
The degree to which the general outlook, atti-
tude, tone, or orientation of a solution is "positive" as
opposed to "negative""
Supportive:
The degree to which a solution lends or implies sup-
port for some idea, cause, event, issue, or person.
Disapproves (reversed scoring):
The degree to which a solution
openly disapproves of some idea, person, issue, or event,
or the degree to which disapproval is implied.
69
Dimension V:
Choppy (reversed scoring):
Quality of Presentation
The degree to which the writing of a
solution is fragmented, broken, discontinuous, or inappropriately staccato, as opposed to flowing or harmonious.
Stylistically well-integrated:
The degree to which the writing of
a solution blends together in an appropriate manner.
Consistency and synchronization of the style of the passage
are of primary importance in making judgments on this scale.
Understandably presented:
The degree to which a solution can be
read and understood without excessive difficulty; the clarity of the presentation.
Dimension VI:
Issue Involvement
Low issue involvement (reversed scoring):
The degree to which a
solution fails to adopt a position or point of view with
respect to some matter, or fails to deal with the subject
matter in the appropriate depth.
Propagandistic:
The degree to which a solution attempts to sell or
push a particular point of view.
States a belief or opinion:
The degree to which a solution states
or very strongly implies a particular belief or opinion
about some idea, object, event, or issue, etc.
APPENDIX B
EIGHT "INTELLECTIVE" GROUP TASKS
Presented here are the eight "intellective" group tasks
which are used in the present study as the basis for studying the
effects of various factors on group interaction and performance.
Four tasks are presented from each of the two task types, "production" and "problem-solving."
Production Type
#1, P-A (Production-Task A)
Several years ago a large cemetary in Bulgaria had to be
relocated.
When several coffins of the many thousands in the
graveyard were opened, there was evidence to suggest that the persons had been buried alive.
For example, some bodies had hands
which were bloody and had splinters under their fingernails.
Write a story describing the reactions of a person who woke up
to find himself buried alive.
Make your story as grotesque or as
fanciful as you like.
70
71
#2, P-B (Production-Task B)
Think of a design for a new device to automatically butter
corn-on-the-cob so that the corn may be held, buttered, and eaten
without smearing the fingers or hands.
Write a description of your device which could serve as a
guide for production of the item.
#3, P-C (Production-Task C)
The plot of a motion picture so far is as follows:
Jose is a talented young bullfighter who wants to marry an
exotic cafe dancer.
She is hesitant; being quite materialistic,
she wishes to make sure Jose will be rich and famous before committing herself.
Finally, she makes with him the following bargain:
Jose will enter the Spanish National Amateur Bullfighting Tournament.
If he wins, she will marry him.
will not marry him.
If he does not win, she
Confident of victory, Jose eagerly accepts the
arrangement.
Climactic scene:
Jose is in the finals of the tournament, fighting a terribly ferocious bull.
charges.
The moment of truth comes as the bull
He must decide--take a chance of injury or death and face
the charge of the mad, unpredictable bull, or "hop the fence" to
safety.
72
Your task:
Write an ending to this movie.
#4, P-D (Production-Task D)
A 46-year-old spinster has been having frightening dreams.
Nearly every night the dream takes the same form:
The spinster sees herself sitting quietly in her sewing
room when she suddenly notices an empty vase on the window sill.
She feels compelled to fill it with flowers.
Desperately, she
dashes through the city searching for flowers for her vase.
only ones she finds are behind a high barbed wire fence.
she jumps a fence and picks a flower.
to her house.
The
Frantic,
Clutching it, she runs back
As she finally places the flower in the vase, it
wilts in her hands.
In her sorrow she accidentally knocks the vase
to the floor, shattering
it into innumerable pieces.
At this point she awakens, cold, sweating, and horrified.
Write a detailed interpretation of this dream in the manner of a
"far out" Freudian psychoanalyst.
Make yo1,1r interpretation in as
much depth as you can.
Problem-solving Type
#5, PS-E (Problem-solving-Task E)
Explain (and write down) how a flat tire should be changed
on a high speed freeway during a rain storm.
73
#6, PS-F (Problem-solving-Task F)
Tom and Harry are roommates in a college dormitory.
They
share responsibility for keeping their room reasonably neat.
The
present problem is how to divide these "neat-keeping" chores.
Tom loathes making beds, but does not mind sweeping.
Harry also loathes making beds, but doesn't mind "straightening up" and dusting.
Tom's classes start at 7 A.M. and end at 3 P.M. each day,
while Harry's classes run from 10 A.M. until 6 P.M.
Decide (and write down) who shall do what cleaning job
when, in such a way that the solution will be satisfactory to both
and all jobs get done.
#7, PS-G (Problem-solving-Task G)
Many people want to see gambling legalized in this country.
Many reasons are given for this such as increased government
revenue, and keeping gangsters from running gambling as is the case
now, etc.
Write out a program which could be followed to help min-
imize the disadvantages of gambtling.
#8, PS-H (Problem-solving-Task H)
The prospect of ever increasing automation in the production of goods and services for our people has led some to
74
hypothesize that there will come a time when only a very small percentage of people will be required to work.
Propose a plan of action which will insure that those persons not required to work will benefit from automation in a fair
and equitable fashion.
You should include in your written proposal
both long-range and short-range programs.
APPENDIX C
GROUP INSTRUCTIONS
Please take a seat in one of the chairs in this room.
Gentlemen,
we have a lot to accomplish in the next hour, so let's get started
now so that you won't have to stay any longer than is necessary.
I'd like to thank you for signing up for this experiment.
In general, you'll be engaged in a group problem-solving
activity.
it.
utes.
You will be instructed by me what to do and when to do
You will have four problems to discuss, each taking 12 minFor each problem, you are to arrive at a group answer which
is to be written down.
It is important to stress that your group
solution be written down within the specified time and in enough
detail so that I will be able to tell what you as a group think
with regard to the problem.
There is a tape recorder in the room which will be running
while you are working on each of the problems.
If any of you
object to this let me know and you may leave, but I would like to
tell you that in no way will you be identified on the tape.
I am going to pass out the first task now.
You will have
30 seconds to read and think about the task by yourselves.
7~
I will
76
tell you when to start your work as a group.
until you are instructed to do so.
to work on this problem.
Do not begin work
You will then have 12 minutes
Remember that part of this 12 minutes
must be given to someone writing down your group answer.
write down your answer to the problem during this period.
You must
You will
not be given extra time to do the writing after the 12 minutes are
up.
Please use the paper that I have provided.
pencils on the table, too, if you need them.
There are pens and
I will tell you how
much time is remaining every 5 minutes, and I will tell you when to
stop work on the task.
You will get additional instructions as we
go along.
Here is the first task.
Read it to yourselves until I tell
you to start work as a group.
(Wait 30 seconds)
Please start work on this problem.
You will have 12 min-
utes to complete your answer.
(Call out the following warnings):
(7 minutes remaining)
(2 minutes remaining)
(1 minute remaining)
Stop work on this task.
May I have your written answer?
Thank you, and here is your second task.
You will have 30 seconds
77
to read it to yourselves as before.
Do not start to discuss the
task until you are instructed to do so.
(Wait 30 seconds)
Please start work on your second problem.
You will have 12
minutes to complete your answer.
(Call out the following warnings):
(7 minutes remaining)
(2 minutes remaining)
(1 minute remaining)
Stop work on this task.
Thank you.
Here is your third task.
read this task to yourselves.
on the task.
May I have your answer to it?
You will have 30 seconds to
I will tell you when to start work
Do not start working together until you are
instructed to do so.
(Wait 30 seconds)
Please start work on this problem.
You will have 12 min-
utes to complete your answer.
(Call out the following warnings):
(7 minutes remaining)
(2 minutes remaining)
(1 minute remaining)
78
Stop work on this task.
May I have your written answer?
Thank you, and here is your fourth task.
You will again have 30
seconds to read the task to yourselves, and I will tell you when to
start work on the problem.
(Wait 30 seconds)
Please start work on this problem.
You will have 12 min-
utes to complete your answer.
(Call out the following warnings):
(7 minutes remaining)
(2 minutes remaining)
(1 minute remaining)
Stop work on this task.
answer.
You're all finished now.
questions?
(Pause)
Please let me have your last
Before you leave are there any
You may go now and thanks again.
APPENDIX D
TASKS RANDOMLY SELECTED FOR RELIABILITY CALCULATIONS
Task Coding Interpretation
Each task is identified with a letter or letters and numbers separated with hyphens.
type (P
=
production; PS
=
The letter combination indicates task
problem-solving).
The first set of num-
bers (01-24) after the first hyphen indicates the subject group,
and the last number (1-4) after the second hyphen indicates inwhat
order the task was received for that particular subject group.
The
actual task can be found by first looking at Table 2 and then at
Appendix B.
Examples:
P-01-3
This was a production task given to subject group number one (which was of group Size 2).
The task was the
third given to them (and was Task C).
PS-18-4
This was a problem-solving task given to subject group
number eighteen (which was of group Size 4).
was the fourth given to them (and was Task G).
The task
80
Tasks Randomly Selected for Performance Reliability
P-01-1
PS-14-1
P-01-3
PS-16-2
P-03-3
PS-19-3
P-07 -2
PS-20-1
P-10-3
PS-22-2
Tasks Randomly Selected for Interaction Reliability
P-01-1
PS-13-3
P-03-1
PS-15-1
P-07-3
PS-18-4
P-09-3
PS-22-3
P-ll-1
PS-24-1
APPENDIX E
SUMMARY OF RAW DATA
The information presented here includes a summary of all
data available on each of the 96 group tasks across 24 separate
groups.
Presented first are the raw data from the written group
solutions (performance) followed by the raw data from the group
interaction analyses (interaction).
81
82
RAW DATA
COLUMN l-6,IDENTIFIERS
COL.l
TASK TYPE
1 =PRODUCTION
2=PROBLEM SOLVING
COL.2
GROUP SIZE
2=GROUP SIZE 2
4=GROUP SIZE 4
6=GROUP SIZE 6
COL.3&4 SUBJECT GROUP NO.
0 l-12=PRODUCTION
13-24=PROBLEM SOLVING
COL.5
SPECIFIC TASK
!=PRODUCTION
2=PRODUCTION
3=PRODUCTION
4=PRODUCTION
5=PROB SOLV
6=PROB SOLV
7=PROB SOLV
8=PROB SOLV
COL. 6
ORDINAl
!=TASK
2=TASK
3=TASK
4=TASK
TASK
TASK
TASK
TASK
TASK
TASK
TASK
TASK
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
POSITION
GIVEN FIRST
GIVEN SECOND
GIVEN THIRD
GIVEN FOURTH
PERFORMANCE RAW DATA
PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES
CATEGORY
cATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
01 = ACTION ORIENT ATION
02 = LENGTH
03 = ORIGINALITY
04 = OPTIMISM
05 = QUAL I,TY
06
ISSUE IHVOLVEMEHT
-
01
02
03
04
05
120111
120122
120133
2.467
l. 933
2.333
4.933
3.933
5.867
3.867
3.400
3.933
6.067
5.067
5.933
l. 600
l. 600
6.000
6.267
6.267
6.000
5. 933
120221
120242
l. 933
2.000
3.733
5.133
6.467
6.067
3.600
3.467
4.533
6.133
1.800
2.733
-:12o 144
2.067
2.867
6.067
06
2.067
3.800
83
120213
120234
4. 067
4.267
5.800
4.467
6.800
6.333
3.600
3.067
6. 0 00
5.533
120331
120312
120343
120324
4.733
2.067
1.867
2.600
3.867
4.200
3.933
5.333
6.067
6.000
5.333
6.667
4.000
4.200
4.133
3.267
5.733
5.867
6.067
1.867
4.867
3.067
120441
120432
120423
120414
1.600
3.867
2.533
2.600
4.067
2.533
3.933
3.467
5.267
6.400
5.333
6.000
5.267
4.067
3.667
3.600
5.933
6.200
4.867
5.800
4.667
2.800
4.800
2.933
140511
140522
140533
140544
1.867
5.600
1.933
2.533
4.733
2.267
6.067
5.267
6.400
3.733
6.200
6.067
3.667
4.200
2.467
2.267
6.000
5.800
6.333
6.067
1. 6 00
4.200
2.733
4.333
140621
140642
140613
140634
4.000
1. 6 0 0
2.067
1.933
4.200
3.267
6.267
4.533
6.800
4.667
6.200
4.800
3.600
3.333
4.467
5. 067
4.533
3.067
6.267
6.467
2.267
3.400
2.333
3.267
140731
140712
140743
140724
2.000
2.267
2.133
3.333
5.867
6.200
4.533
4.467
6.667
6.533
6.200
5.333
2.600
2.600
4.867
2.067
6.733
6.333
5.067
4.000
2.267
2.467
2.400
4.933
140841
140832
140823
140814
1.733
1.933
4.200
2.133
5.533
6.067
3.867
5.800
6.667
4.400
5.733
5.867
4.333
5.267
4.333
3.200
6.067
5.733
4.267
6.267
2.200
4.133
2.600
2.067
160911
160922
160933
160944
1.467
2.067
2.000
5.533
4.533
4.867
5.467
3 .. 933
4.800
6.667
5.867
4.000
2.467
2.867
4.600
3.600
4.867
6.467
5.900
2.733
5.000
2.267
2.800
161021
161042
161013
161034
5.467
2.733
2.733
2.533
2.533
5.933
4.667
5.467
3.400
6.133
6.600
6.667
3.733
2.800
3.000
2.867
4.667
6.067
4.067
6.733
4.000
3.533
4.533
2.467
161131
161112
161143
161124
2.267
1. 600
1.933
3.933
5.267
4.933
4.400
6.067
6.867
5.600
4.200
6.667
3.067
2.933
5.400
3.667
6.067
5.933
4.533
6.000
2.533
2.267
4.000
3.867
161241
161232
161223
161214
3.467
2.000
4.533
2.067
5.600
4.800
3.467
6.067
5.667
6.933
6.667
6.133
3"'. 53 3
5.133
6.533
4.667
6.133
4.067
2.267
2.133
2.800
221351
221362
221373
-221384
6.867
6.133
6.533
6.533
4.000
2.467
3.400
4.933
1. 6 00
1. 533
2.067
2.400
4.333
5.200
5.267
5.533
4.133
3.533
4.933
4.667
2.067
3.867
5.267
4. 933
221461
221482
6.800
6.467
4.267
5.000
2.000
1. 933
4.667
5.333
3.533
5.533
4.933
5.067
-
1. 933
3.400
3.467
2.933
4,3;n
3.467
3.067
~.soo
84
221453
221474
6.733
5.733
2.900
l. 333
2.267
2.467
5.533
4.200
3.400
5.067
4.533
2.600
221571
221552
221583
221564
6.700
6.867
6.067
5.933
2.867
4.533
3.933
2.933
z.oog
tt.Ofl:Z
~.~6:Z
2.600
1.867
!;2,400
4.067
4.800
5.667
221681
221672
221663
221654
6.733
5.933
6.867
6.533
3.267
2.133
4.133
4.267
2.067
2.133
l. 600
2.600
5.333
5.267
4.667
4. 133
2.667
3.333
5.267
4.800
4.000
3.400
2.333
4.200
241751
241762
24177 3
241784
6.267
6.200
5.933
6.400
l. 60 0
2.533
2.600
3.933
l. 867
l. 933
2. 333
2.600
4.667
4.200
5.667
4.333
5.000
3.933
5.067
3.467
2.533
4.133
5.267
3.600
241861
241882
241853
241874
6.067
6.600
6.333
5.533
2.467
5.933
2.133
2.667
2.600
2.267
1.933
2.000
5.067
5.667
4.200
4.333
5.000
2.467
4.933
3.733
3.867
5.600
3.333
4.067
241971
241952
241983
241964
5.400
6.533
6.200
6.667
2.267
2.333
4.600
3.133
2.467
1.733
2.400
3.067
5.000
4.533
5.400
4.667
3.667
5.133
2.467
4.333
4.400
2.667
4.867
3.933
242081
242072
242063
242054
6.533
6.733
6.667
6.800
4.867
3.733
2.467
3.533
2.333
2.400
1.800
1.267
5.267
5.133
4.600
4.067
2.067
2.933
5.000
4.533
4.400
4.533
2.467
1.933
262151
262162
262173
262184
5.867
6.533
6.800
6.067
2.000
3.600
4.467
1.533
l. 733
3.133
2.467
1.933
4.933
5.200
4.667
5.267
4.933
2.000
2.867
2.467
3.667
4.667
3.600
3.333
262261
262282
262253
262274
6.267
6. 0 0 0
6.333
6.667
4.133
2.267
1. 267
2.733
2.133
2.133
2.667
3.800
4.733
5.200
5.000
4.933
3.200
3.400
5.133
2.867
5.000
4.467
2.267
4.333
262371
262352
262383
262364
6.800
6.467
6.733
6.533
4.333
1.267
3.200
l. 400
2.600
3. 333
4. 733
5.467
l. 667
l. 933
6.067
4.333
4.333
4.267
2.667
5.133
3.933
1. 933
4.067
2.000
262481
262472
262463
262454
6.467
6.533
6.333
6.067
3.133
I. 667
2.467
1.533
2.333
5.200
5.067
4.200
4.533
2.867
3.133
5.067
4.400
4.267
3.800
2.067
2.467
4.000
l. 6 0 0
l. 200
l. 333
INTERAcTION RAW DATA
INTERACTION CATEGORIES
4.333
2.133
5.000
2.067
3.133
4.933
85
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
CATEGORY
01 = STRUCTURE PROBLEM
STRUCTURE ANSWER
02
PROPOSE SOLUTION
03
04
CLARIFY
REPEAT
05
06
SEEK STRUCTURE
07
SEEK SOLUTION PROPOSALS
08
TENSION RELEASE
09
TENSION
DEFEND
10
11
DISAGREE
12
AGREE
TOTAL
13
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
120111
120122
120133
120144
25
28
12
13
35
13
19
08
79
36
73
40
16
16
32
46
03
11
14
28
09
07
07
19
04
01
08
00
03
02
03
01
02
01
00
02
08
05
08
06
07
08
11
12
42
36
61
33
233
164
248
208
120221
120242
120213
120234
96
34
08
13
09
27
11
22
10
42
43
38
05
20
20
11
15
06
13
05
14
10
05
09
03
00
04
10
00
04
02
01
02
02
00
02
02
09
01
02
06
08
10
10
40
2Z
19
22
202
184
136
145
i20331
20312
120343
120324
38
16
15
39
10
13
14
10
47
22
51
44
20
11
08
15
02
06
01
16
06
20
05
11
01
00
01
02
02
01
00
01
00
01
00
00
00
00
03
03
02
05
09
12
26
15
16
31
157
110
123,
184
120441
U0432
120423
120414
19
14
09
24
08
51
32
71
19
30
37
16
36
32
06
14
17
26
16
20
07
03
05
10
is
03
08
03
02
03
00
01
03
03
01
01
03
03
02
00
08
10
11
06
41
37
40
30
225
172
208
151
140511
140522
140533
140544
64
43
46
43
06
14
22
02
20
23
01
36
38
24
15
10
06
05
02
07
15
13
04
04
03
01
o1
03
02
03
00
01
00
00
oi
04
10
05
06
06
06
04
10
28
19
18
09
171
176
164
105
140621
140642
140613
140634
33
26
56
30
12
28
06
04
45
37
55
06
03
03
14
10
08
08
05
04
07
04
01
01
03
03
02
01
01
11
15
12
12
40
00
02
03
05
08
02
03
14
11
03
25
31
33
18
158
175
201
130
140731
140712
14D743
140724
06
07
34
31
22
75
45
36
50
06
37
04
14
20
13
38
01
02
08
06
OD
1o
17
13
10
04
08
04
07
03
01
01
D2
01
01
00
15
08
08
18
16
14
10
24
4D
34
28
16
183
184
210
191
14o84i
140832
140823
140814
10
15
28
1D
08
07
18
32
66
47
21
19
12
24
66
27
04
10
07
D2
04
D2
04
D8
03
DO
D2
D7
03
DS
04
06
01
01
D2
01
04
04
03
D1
12
34
31
26
14
161
16
27
12
160911
160922
160933
18
21
1D
14
44
11
42
D6
61
30
19
33
12
D2
15
OD
09
D6
D4
D2
02
D6
02
06
01
01
DO
09
08
15
08
09
14
35
16
28
179
136
201
13
162
208
139
86
160944
33
08
64
06
161021
161042
161013
161034
54
16
27
22
16
05
18
11
01
96
27
22
10
21
161131
161112
161143
161124
20
30
62
15
21
54
15
27
76
26
35
44
161241
161232
161223
161214
10
18
31
55
08
74
43
09
221351
221362
221373
221384
30
36
36
60
221461
221482
221453
221474
23
182
61
201
20
03
00
03
00
04
33
12
16
08
06
22
06
02
lQ
01
02
04
06
09
08
01
01
01
00
06
05
19
04
44
16
24
61
55
58
21
03
03
11
05
03
03
01
02
03
03
01
08
03
05
01
Ol
00
01
00
0{!
08
02
00
26
18
15
46
49
15
263
251
188
55
18
45
53
42
15
12
12
37
12
33
13
07
15
18
13
06
03
04
07
02
06
01
09
01
01
00
00
10
15
07
04
20
18
19
62
22
H
260
266
274
i::'•8
02
06
15
04
47
43
33
10
39
44
26
59
06
03
06
03
07
04
04
01
10
03
00
00
01
01
00
00
01
01
01
00
08
02
09
04
07
12
06
10
33
24
09
32
04
15
04
21
31
04
16
17
06
34
16
18
17
09
04
02
05
03
00
04
06
01
06
05
01
00
02
01
03
01
01
02
01
00
02
09
13
04
00
Q6
04
05
12
12
28
24
072
136
119
100
221571
221552
221583
221564
56
09
50
61
11
16
09
03
51
23
21
15
04
59
42
11
02
02
05
02
12
02 '
16
01
01
00
02
00
00
04
00
02
00
01
00
00
04
05
01
01
04
06
00
02
23
26
19
19
168
153
165
117
221681
221672
221663
221654
33
48
09
08
04
20
10
07
04
60
38
56
36
41
77
26
10
14
04
08
14
21
07
04
05
05
07
06
02
01
01
02
02
00
01
01
02
09
10
07
00
10
08
03
36
60
44
23
148
289
216
151
241751
241762
241773
241784
35
18
36
08
06
28
09
07
22
17
21
62
24
29
01
05
01
08
17
05
02
03
02
01
02
03
03
01
00
01
00
01
00
05
10
02
07
10
05
05
06
21
47
16
09
177
176
127
068
241861
241882
241853
241874
06
33
47
23
13
02
62
21
43
12
14
16
10
02
05
04
31
81
66
41
05
04
10
05
08
06
04
03
04
01
00
01
00
00
05
04
03
16
02
01
00
13
41
25
29
41
188
195
198
202
241971
241952
241983
'241964
70
31
24
53
13
18
24
35
41
21
03
04
01
03
06
12
08
11
01
05
05
01
02
20
10
12
63
55
41
os
03
09
02
01
00
00
10
10
07
10
08
20
08
21
26
49
37
45
182
248
209
225
242081
242072
242063
242054
'44
22
23
31
1o
18
11
21
27
50
42
06
35
32
50
24
09
08
04
04
07
06
02
06
05
08
01
00
03
03
05
02
02
01
01
o2
21
12
13
06
15
10
11
12
43
41
55
28
221
212
218
141
262151
262162
262173
73
26
85
08
06
02
44
41
50
02
21
12
01
00
03
06
04
05
04
00
03
06
07
01
00
01
00
08
09
06
07
12
15
30
24
22
189
151
204
03
11
17
u
90
13
2~
03
18
05
]z
08
65
85
28
~2
71
61
12
14
26~
355
156
22~
191
179
l48
165
87
262184
10
06
36
66
02
01
02
03
262261
41
18
06
16
07
03
13
00
04
00
00
01
06
01
00
00
00
16
07
01
15
~2
41
46
26
44
01
!!2
00
02
03
02
26
31
04
04
02
09
Zf!
42
76
09
32
02
01
00
01
02
01
05
02
g'
g~
16
09
01
00
03
00
06
02
03
14
53
13
10
07
08
06
09
41
43
37
28
35
72
31
42
05
02
01
03
03
11
03
04
03
01
02
01
07
262282
~2
262371
. 262352
262383
262364
262481
262472
262463
262454
262253
262274
67
5.1
09
17
~2
11
09
u
Ol
0~
00
14
10
26
176
00
06
10
06
03
14
21
29
36
126
l 20
211
216
a~
D~
01
00
00
06
07
00
03
06
;n
09
01
05
34
12
19
157
069
106
01
00
01
04
01
06
06
11
10
QZ
33
74
28
155
279
144
01
12
22
U1
HZ