THE COMBINED EFFECTS OF
INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION AND
GOAL -,PATH CLARITY ON
THE COHESIVENESS 0F
TASK-ORIENTED GROUPS

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ALONZO B. ANDERSON
1972

"-”'”m"-..”o «‘s *—

(141151! "

.m LIBRARY
”LII/III![III/III////l/l////I/l///l////l////I Michigan 5””

IJtfiansNRV

10524 1594

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE COMBINED EFFECTS OF INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION AND GOAL-PATH CLARITY ON THE
COHESIVENESS OF TASK-ORIENTED GROUPS

BY

Alonzo B. Anderson

The present study investigated the combined
effects of interpersonal attraction and goal-path clar-
ity on the cohesiveness of small task-oriented groups.
Using the Allport-Vernon-Lindzy Study of Values 120
undergraduate females were selected based on their
scores on theoretical, social and religious values,
then assigned to 40, 3-person experimental groups.

This procedure yielded 20 groups that were high in
value similarity and 20 groups that were low in value
similarity.

The plan of the study involved two experimental
sessions. The first session was designed to create a
jpsychological group and to manipulate interpersonal

attraction. This was accomplished through intensive

Alonzo B. Anderson

discussion of meaningful topics. As anticipated, groups
high in value similarity were higher in interpersonal
attraction than those low in value similarity.

With the manipulation of interpersonal attrac-
tion accomplished in the first session, the second ses-
sion presented the experimental task situation and the
manipulation of the second independent variable, that
of goal-path clarity, operationally defined as the ex-
tent to which there exists, among all members, only one
possible sequence of actions available for the group to
reach a desired outcome. The method used in this study
to manipulate goal-path clarity is based on a research
paradigm developed by Hammond (1965).

Two types of dependent measures were employed
to test the effects of value similarity and goal-path
clarity on the functioning of the group: 1) a behav-
ioral measure of cohesiveness; 2) a questionnaire de-
signed to examine subjects' perceptions of various
dimensions of group functioning.

The results indicated that the level of cohe-
siveness of the task-oriented groups examined was a

function of goal-path clarity, and that level of

Alonzo B. Anderson

interpersonal attraction did not differentially affect
group cohesiveness. The importance of the extent of
goal-orientation in determining the variables that

affect group cohesiveness was discussed.

. j 7 7

o I J Ir“ / ‘5'"!
Approved 0 (:4! 42', . fl/L/rf .-/I" 1"" ..
3’ if; r

Da te : F L 41411 4 :7 A) f .1" ,1“ xi.“

I,‘ I-

I

Thesis Committee:
Joel Aronoff, Chairman
Lawrence A. Messé

Andrew Barklay

THE COMBINED EFFECTS OF INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION AND GOAL-PATH CLARITY ON

THE COHESIVENESS OF TASK-ORIENTED GROUPS

BY

Alonzo B. Anderson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1972

To my wife and my parents

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to
Dr. Charles W. Thomas, for providing moral and spiritual
guidance, both before and during the conduct of this
research. Without his leadership and gentle prodding
I never would have come to graduate school.

I am also deeply indebted to Dr. Joel Aronoff,
my committee chairman, whose suggestions, encouragement,
and cooPeration contributed significantly to this thesis.
Although he spent many hours in consultation with me
throughout the entire research process, his belief in
my capacity for creative self-expression allowed me the
freedom to conduct this research in my own way. As a
result we have gained a great deal of respect for one
another, both as men and as psychologists.

Sincere appreciation is also expressed to
Dr. Kenneth R. Hammond, of the University of Colorado,
for his aid in the early stages of the research. Al-
though he is not a member of this faculty and did not
even know who I was before this project began, he took

iii

time out from a very busy schedule to correSpond with me
and provide very valuable inputs to the project. It is
men such as he who have made psychology such a respected
science.

I am also deeply indebted to Dr. Lawrence A.
Messé and Dr. William D. Crano for their aid in the
analysis and interpretation of my data. Thanks are also
due to Dr. Andrew Barkley for sitting on my committee
during my oral defense. I would also like to thank
Dr. Eugene Jacobson, Dr. Jeanne Gullahorn, and Dr. Jack
wakely for their suggestions in the early phases of the
research.

Finally, I would like to express my sincerest
appreciation to my wife, Phyllis, for her unselfish
support and encouragement throughout every phase of this
project, without her the research would have been nearly

impossible to complete.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . .

II.

The Concept of Group Cohesiveness. .

Interpersonal Attraction as an Antecedent

of Group Cohesiveness. . . . . . .

Similarity of Values as an Antecedent
of Interpersonal Attraction. . . .

Goal-Path Clarity as an Antecedent
of Group Cohesiveness. . . . . . .

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MET HOD O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O I O 0

Selection of Subjects and Experimenters.

Manipulation of Interpersonal Attraction

and Goal-Path Clarity. . . . . . .
Dependent Measures . . . . . . . . .

Experimental Setting and Procedure .

Page

. vii
l

. 4
. ll
15

. 22
. 29
. 3l
. 34
. 34
. 37
47

. 50

 

lllllll l.|ll I'll

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Chapter
III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Dependent Measures of Cohesiveness .
Tests of Hypothesis 1. . . . . . . . . .
Test of Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . .
IV. DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Dominance of Goal-Path Clarity in
Determining Group Cohesiveness . . . .

Interpersonal Liking: A Function of
Value Similarity and Goal-Path Clarity

The Effects of Interpersonal Attraction
and Goal-Path Clarity on Various

Measures of Satisfaction . . . . . . .

Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
APPENDIX

A. Specific Group Composition with Cut-Off
Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Factor Loadings, Member Reaction
Questionnaire and Group Transfer Form . .

C. Experimenter Duties, Instruction Sheets,
and Training Card . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page
57
57
59
61

66

68

71

72

74

80

85

87

96

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary of Fisher Exact Test on Behavioral
Measure of Cohesiveness . . . . . . . . . . . 59

2. Mean Questionnaire Responses Relevant to

Hypothesis 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3. Summary of Analysis of Variance Effects
(df=1/36) Relevant to Goal—Path Clarity . . . 61

4. Summary of Fisher Exact Test on Behavioral
Measure of Cohesiveness . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5. Questionnaire Response Means Related to
HypotheSiS 2. O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 64

6. Summary of Analysis of Variance Effects

(df=l/36) Relevant to Interpersonal
Attraction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

vii

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Social psychology does and must continually
strive to bring theory and human behavior into closer
agreement. That this activity exists can easily be seen
through the examination of the volumes of meaningful
literature on human social behavior and attitudes. How-
ever, the time has come for social psychologists to
become even more socially relevant and address themselves
more vigorously to the needs of the general society.

Very often social psychologists have been willing to
wait, particularly since there are many pressing problems
in other parts of the field. As a result, this community
of scholars has not consistently exhibited an awareness
of issues such as the need for social change, the need
for an increase in society's ability to change, and the
need for understanding the motives underlying individual
involvement in social-change oriented groups. However,
given the acceleration in the number and complexity of
social problems, it is necessary for more social

1

psychologists to View involvement in social action and
other society-related issues as the subject matter of the
discipline. For them the field will no longer look quite
the same as it has. Part of its different appearance
will result simply from the new fixation point of scien-
tific scrutiny. An even more important source of change
will be the nature of solutions offered to the numerous
social problems that the concerted attention of the field
will make available.

Assuming that society can be affected substan-
tially, for better or worse, by the particular kinds of
organizations or movements involved in social action,
there exists a need to understand this phenomenon more
clearly. In reSponse to this need, it is suggested that
basic to the understanding of any type of larger organi-
zation or movement as it relates to social action, is the
understanding of small group dynamics.

It is apparent that this subject matter is di-
verse, for groups display a great variety of properties.
They differ in size, duration, objectives, activities,
degree of formalization, internal structure, importance
to their members, and in many other respects. However,

perhaps the most important distinction between groups is

their primary purpose for developing and existing. Re-
searchers in group dynamics (e.g., Bales, 1950; Hommans,
1950; Jennings, 1950) suggest that there are two major
purposes, and groups can be distinguished by the extent
to which one or the other is of primary concern. One
type of group has been variously referred to as friend-
ship groups, psyche groups, or socio-emotional groups.
By whatever name these groups are called, the reference
is clearly to groups whose members belong to them for the
emotional satisfaction they derive from participation,
i.e. support of one's self conception, consensual vali-
dation about the world, etc. The other type of group is
the task-oriented group. These groups exist to accom-
plish some sort of task and its primary purpose is to
manipulate the environment. However, it is necessary to
point out that neither dimension is mutually exclusive,
that is, both dimensions are present in groups, but one
is dominant depending on the purpose for the group's
existence. The present research examined groups that
were primarily task-oriented; its focus was possible
determinants of cohesiveness in these types of groups.
It can be observed that in some groups there is

high and regular participation around one particular

condition, while the Opposite typifies other groups. It
can also be observed that there is much hostility and
conflict in one group and apparent harmony and effective-
ness in another. So the questions arise: What motivates
people to remain in a group? Why do some groups have a
greater feeling of "oneness" than others? Why do groups

stay together?

The Concept of Group Cohesiveness

 

Indeed, this area of research is not at all for-
eign to the field of social psychology. The questions
raised above have been approached variously through re-
search in group cohesiveness. Most researchers in the
area have employed the definition advanced by Festinger,
Schachter, and Back (1950), who state that group cohe-
siveness is "the resultant of all forces acting on members
to remain in the group." This definition requires a
conceptualization of crucial factors that will affect
the magnitude of the "force field." Two classes of
forces are distinguished by Festinger et al.; they are

(l) the attractiveness of the group for its members, and

(2) the extent to which the group mediates goals for its
members. These forces, acting in conjunction, are postu-
lated to be the immediate determinants of cohesiveness.
The first class of forces has reference to the needs of
the person for affiliation, recognition, security, and
other individual variables which can be satisfied by some
facet of group participation. The second class of forces
has reference to such prOperties of the group as its
goals, programs, size, type of organization, and position
in the community.

Lott (1961), however, conceptualizes cohesiveness
somewhat differently from Festinger. She defines cohe-
siveness as "that group property which is inferred from
the number and strength of mutual positive attitudes
among the members of a group [p. 279]." While this
definition at first glance seems to be inconsistent with
that of Festinger, they are actually quite compatible.
Lott's definition is really one of interpersonal attrac-
tiveness based on similarity, a position that is very con-
sistent with part of Festinger's definition. Clearly
interpersonal attraction is a member of Festinger's first
class of factors that affect the magnitude of the force

field. Perhaps the best summary of current perSpectives

on cohesiveness is presented by Back (195$), who states,
"Individuals may want to belong to a group because they
like other members, because being a member of a group may
be attractive in itself (for example it may be an honor
to belong to it), or because the group may mediate goals
which are important for the members [p. 9]."

While it may be said, with justification, that
Lott's definition merely focuses on one of several compo-
nents of cohesiveness, there is some reason to assume
that interpersonal attraction, liking, or positive atti-
tudes among group members is central to the cohesiveness
of small groups, while other factors are seen as less
central to the understanding of this phenomenon. Even
though it is true that most researchers in the area have
indicated support for the position introduced by Fes-
tinger et al. (1950), it is also true that most investi-
gators have focused on one force, intermember attraction.
When investigators have desired to manipulate the cohe-
siveness of groups, regardless of their nominal defini-
tion of the concept, the operations performed have typ-
ically involved telling the members of some groups that
they would probably like each other, be congenial, etc.,

while telling others just the Opposite. Further, in

 

measuring the cohesiveness of experimental or naturally
existing groups, some Sociometric device is generally
utilized to determine how much each member likes or is
attracted to the other members. For the most part the
other forces which are postulated to determine, or be
reflected by, the cohesiveness of a group have received
less attention.

Some investigators, however, have manipulated
variables other than interpersonal attraction in varying
the degree of cohesiveness experienced by a group. Some
of these variables were anxiety level (Schachter, 1959),
need satisfaction (Ross and Zander, 1957), competition/
cooperation (Grossack, 1954), clarity of goal and path
(Raven and Rietsema, 1957), type of interdependence
(Deutsch, 1959), styles of leadership (Lewin, Lippitt,
and White, 1939), decision-making opportunity (Morse and
Reimer, 1956), and communication structure (Bavgflas,
1950). Also, some researchers have measured group cohe-
siveness along different dimensions. Two of these mea-
sures were a friendship index (Simock, 1941), and liking
the group as a whole (Jackson, 1959; Bovard, 1951).

It is the purpose of this study to investigate

the differential influence of interpersonal attraction

and goal—path clarity-~here defined as the extent to
which there exists, among all members, only one possible
sequence of actions available for the group to reach a
desired outcome—-on cohesiveness in task-oriented groups.
The definition of group cohesiveness used in this study
is that of Festinger et a1. (1950), which assumes that
the resultant force acting on a member to remain in the
group will usually be made up of component forces that
have a variety of sources. By examining the effects of
both interpersonal attraction and goal-path clarity on
cohesiveness, the assumption is that the extent to which
both variables, acting independently or in interaction,
contribute to the magnitude of the force field can be
successfully measured. Such an examination permits
exploration of the relative strengths with which these
two classes combine into a single resultant force, cohe-
siveness. The study allows a determination of the degree
to which intermember attraction, based on value simi-
larity, is in fact central to the cohesiveness of small
task-oriented groups.

As previously stated, Lott (1961) defines cohe-
siveness in terms of interpersonal attraction and other

researchers have manipulated and measured it in these

same terms. Therefore, it is incumbent upon researchers
in the field to determine whether interpersonal attrac-
tion is central to the cohesiveness of all groups, socio-
emotional and task-oriented, or if its effects are more
situation Specific. The procedure and results of this
study permitted a direct examination of this issue.
Based on the findings of previous research (e.g. Newcomb,
1956), the present study manipulated interpersonal
attraction by constructing groups whose members were
similar or dissimilar with respect to their values. It
was hypothesized, however, that for task-oriented groups,
goal-path clarity would be a more important determinant
of group cohesiveness than interpersonal attraction.
Given that interpersonal attraction based on value simi-
larity is the same in two groups, the question then is,
will one have more attraction if in addition one has a
clear goal-path?

In the context of exchange theory (Thibaut and
Kelley, 1959) it was assumed that the primary basis for
a member's comparison level in a task-oriented group
would be the extent to which the group efficiently per—
formed its task, a factor that should be affected by

goal-path clarity; in this type of situation,

 

10

interpersonal attraction should be less relevant. Fur-
ther, it seemed reasonable to hypothesize that in a task-
oriented group in which goal-path clarity is high, the
expected outcomes of the group will fall above any
member's comparison level for alternatives (i.e., the
group would be highly cohesive) no matter the level of
interpersonal attraction.

It is the purpose of the literature reviewed below
to examine the crucial areas relevant to this position
and to present the theoretical basis from which the spe-
cific hypotheses tested were developed. This review pre-
sents the relationship between value similarity and inter-
personal attraction and the use of interpersonal attrac-
tion in past research as a basis for manipulating group
cohesiveness. These two, in conjunction, provided a
basis for examining interpersonal attraction, as manipu-
lated by value similarity, as an antecedent of group
cohesiveness. Finally, this review considers goal-path

clarity and its relationship to group cohesiveness.

ll

Interpersonal Attraction as an
Antecedent of Group Cohesiveness

 

 

Interpersonal attraction has been shown to be an
antecedent of group cohesiveness in a number of studies.
This section examines some of the more important studies
which are illustrative of many experiments in which
interpersonal attraction was explicitly manipulated
through instructions or some other Operation, and its
consequences for some dependent variable were subse-
quently ascertained.

Pepitone and Reichling (1955) used instructions
to create high and low-cohesive groups. Instruction in—
formed members of the former that they would make "an
exceptional team" since they were well matched, compatible,
and would get along well; opposite expectations were pre-
sented to members of the low-cohesive groups. Following
provocation by a rude and insulting assistant, high-
cohesive pairs were found to express greater hostility
than low-cohesive pairs. In a study by Exline (1957),
subjects who had been told that they were in groups with
well-matched, congenial others expressed greater satis-
.faction with their group's progress and were more accurate

Sin perceiving the task-oriented behavior of their fellow

12

members than were subjects given the opposite orientation
regarding their fellow group members. Similarly, Libo
(1953) had shown earlier that volunteer subjects who were
told they were to work with congenial group members dif-
fered significantly from subjects given the opposite in-
structions in the degree to which they expressed a desire
to stay with the group. Libo (1957) has also reported a
significant relationship between the attraction of pa-
tients to their therapist, following their first inter-
action, and whether or not the patients returned for a
second visit one week later.

Two studies by Berkowitz (1956, 1957) provide
additional relevant data. In the first investigation,
high liking within effective air crews were found to
correlate positively with members' perception of high
motivation in one another. In the second investigation,
utilizing simulated groups, high liking between partners
(manipulated by means of instructions with regard to
probable congeniality of one's fellow members) was
accompanied by high regard for one another's opinion.

A study by Back (1951) is often cited in support
of the hypothesis that pressures toward uniformity are

greater in high than in low cohesive task-oriented

13

groups, although Back's data provide only minimal sup-
port. Pairs of individuals worked on a story-writing
task under different instructions with regard to personal
attraction, task direction, and group prestige (all
hypothesized by Back to be determinants of cohesiveness).
However, the extent to which the attempted manipulations
of cohesiveness were successful is not clear. When both
partners were taken into account, no significant differ-
ences were obtained between the high and low-cohesive
pairs on a measure of change following influence attempts,
although in high-cohesive groups there was reliably more
change on the part of one partner. In the same study,
Back compared high and low-cohesive pairs with respect

to communication patterns in discussion of the story
derived from pictures and found significantly more "with-
drawal" patterns among the latter. However, it should

be noted that the statistical analysis employed by Back
is open to question because he did not test to determine
if the effects of dyads nested in conditions was signif—
icant. Also, probably of most relevance to the present
research, Back did not measure directly the degree to
which his manipulation of interpersonal attraction af—

fected cohesiveness in his task-oriented groups.

14

The technique of manipulating group cohesiveness
by telling subjects that they will probably like (find
congenial) or not like one another has been used in a
large number of investigations of the attraction-uniformity
hypothesis. Festinger et al. (1952) told members of some
groups that they would find each other compatible, con-
genial, and interesting, and would most likely get along
very well. Such groups were found to exert greater pres-
sures for uniformity of member opinion with regard to a
particular issue under discussion than groups given the
opposite orientation. In another investigation Berko-
witz (1954) related intermember liking with persistence
of group productivity standards for an experimental task
similar to one utilized by Schachter, Ellerton, McBride,
and Gregory (1951). This latter study found that persons
in high-cohesive groups followed presumed member sug-
gestions for low productivity to a significantly greater
extent than did members of low-cohesive groups, but when
the pressure was for high production, cohesiveness made
no difference. In sum these experiments tend to indi-
cate that persons tend to respond favorably to situations
in which liked others are present. Thus, interpersonal

attraction may affect the develOpment and maintenance of

15

norms (e.g. low productivity) that act in opposition to
typical standards, but not norms (e.g. high productivity)

that are congruent with such standards.

Similaritywof Values as an Antecedent
of Interpersonal Attraction

 

 

The Allport—Vernon Study of Values (or one of
its revisions) has been employed in a number of investi-
gations on friendship and interpersonal attraction.
Newcomb (1956), for example, has reported a significant
relationship between obtained similarity in Allport-
Vernon scores and attraction. He also reported estimates
between subjects' perception of how others would rank
order the six values in the scale compared with their
own rankings and liking (Newcomb, 1957). This latter
relationship was greater after fourteen weeks of inter-
action among men in a dormitory than it was after two
weeks. Smith (1957), concerned with the causal direc-
tion of this relationship, gave two partially completed
Allport-Vernon booklets to each of his subjects; one
booklet contained responses identical to those previously

made by the subjects and the other contained dissimilar

16

responses. Subjects then rated each of the individuals,
whose Allport—Vernon booklets they had presumably re—
viewed, on their desirability as social companions and

as work partners. Acceptance on both measures was sig-
nificantly greater for the hypothetical persons whose
values were similar to those of the respondents. Reilly,
Commens, and Stefic (1960) have reported a slight ten-
dency in the direction of greater similarity in value
scores between friends than between nonfriends. In still
another investigation utilizing the Study of Values,
Jones and Dougherty (1959) found that subjects with high
political scores evaluated another politically-oriented
person favorably, especially when competitive interaction
with him was anticipated. When no interaction was anti-
cipated, subjects with a high political value score chose
as "liking best" a political rather than an aesthetic
person.

No correlation between value homogeneity and the
ratio of in-group to out-group choices made by members of
natural college groups was reported by Eisemn (1959) and
also by Ramuz-Nienhuis and van Bergen (1960), who repli-
cated the Eisman study in Amsterdam. The later investi-

gators noted, however, that an in—group to out-group

l7

choice ratio may "not reflect personal attraction very
accurately," since feelings about other persons outside
the group will affect the choice ratio, while it has
nothing to do with the feelings of personal attraction
toward the group member.

Thibaut and Kelley (1959) have suggested that it
is costly (in terms of effort and expense) to maintain
friendships over a distance and that such relationships
would therefore, "be expected to show relatively high
value similarity." In support of this hypothesis, they
cited data obtained by Williams and others to the effect
that greater agreement was found between a sample of indi-
viduals and their friends residing outside their immediate
community than between the same individual and their
friends living close by.

Other research not directly concerned with value
similarity may be considered relevant to the present dis-
cussion because it supports the findings reported above.
Consider, for example, that in a study by Byrne and Wong
(1962), White subjects were provided with both background
information and the results of a 26-item attitude ques—
tionnaire (dealing with a range of issues from God to

television) for either a White or Black stranger and

l8

asked to indicate their feelings toward (i.e., liking of)
the stranger by checking one of several statements. Half
of the subjects were led to believe that the stranger's
attitudes were basically in agreement with their own,
while the other subjects were led to believe that the
stranger's attitudes were opposite to their's. Personal
feelings were found to be significantly influenced only
by attitude similarity and not by race of the stranger,
or by the subject's degree of prejudice. These data and
other findings reported by Rokeach (1960) indicate that
belief congruency may, under certain conditions, be more
important than race in determining interpersonal prefer-
ence.

Similarity in interest was found to be more
closely associated with clique membership than either
grade or neighborhood in a study of adolescents in a
California high school (Marks, 1959), although the in-
terests which were relatively homogeneous within cliques
differed with the sex of the group. From this study
it is not possible to determine clearly whether common
interests preceded clique formation or whether membership
in the same group gave rise to shared interests. In some

other investigations, however, there is less ambiguity

19

regarding the independent and dependent variables.
Broxton (1962), for example, found that freshmen women
who at the end of five weeks, did not desire to change
roommates were more similar to their roommate in certain
attitudes, for example, toward drinking and smoking, than
were women who did want to change.

A considerable amount of relevant data has been
reported by Newcomb (1958, 1961) from a large-scale
study of university men, initially strangers, who were
housed together in a dormitory. Measures of attitudes
toward 100 objects as diverse as President Eisenhower,
house rules, and classical music, were obtained prior
to the boys' acquaintance with one another. For the
first of two groups of seventeen students, "it turned
out that clusters of most closely agreeing individuals,
before acquaintance, were those most likely later to
constitute cohesive cliques [Newcomb, 1958, p. 250]."
The pre-acquaintance indices of actual agreement did not
predict early sociometric choices, but they were related
to choices made after the first two or three weeks, pre-
sumably after the men had a chance to learn one another's
orientations to various issues. The attitudes of the

men remained, in general, relatively stable, while their

20

"high attraction preferences tended to change in favor of
individuals with whom they were more closely in agree—
ment [Newcomb, 1961, p. 254]." During the early weeks,
judgments made by the men about each other's attitudes
were related to their feelings of attraction, but their
judgments tended not to be very accurate. "With the ac-
quisition of new information about each other, estimates
of other's orientations tended to become more accurate,
and the preponderance of changes in attraction were thus
influenced by considerations of reality [p. 255]."

In a theoretical paper, Festinger (1954) presents
data from a study by Festinger, Gerard, Hymovitch, Kelley,
and Raven (1952) which had been omitted from the original
research report. Groups of subjects studied a labor dis-
pute and then evaluated the unions' behavior. After the
experiment, the subjects were asked how well they liked
the other persons in their group. Festinger (1954) re-
ports, "In each of the eight experimental conditions
those who thought that the others held divergent opinions
were less attracted to the group [p. 163]."

In a study of Air Force personnel, Gross (1954)
found interpersonal attraction was associated with common

satisfaction with the Air Force, or agreement with

21

respect to personal commitment to Air Force goals. For
other men, attraction was associated with shared dissat-
isfaction with the air site and with their jobs.

In Hilltown, one of the housing communities dis-
cussed by Lazarsfeld and Marton (1954), White residents
tended to overselect as friends those with the same
"racial attitudes." Newcomb (1953) similarly has re-
ported that in two replications of a study in a small
college community, students at each extreme with respect
to political attitudes chose, as friends, those like
themselves.

Altman and McGinnies (1960) have related simi-
larity in ethnocentrism among group members to their
attraction to one another. Six-man groups of varied
composition with respect to the California E-Scale scores
of the members, viewed and discussed a film dealing with
ethnic minorities and prejudice. Low-ethnocentric (E)
subjects were found to be more apt to choose other low-E
subjects on an attraction question, while high-E subjects
divided their choices about equally between highs and
lows. High—E subjects, however, were not as accurate as
low-E subjects in identifying the attitudes of the other

group members.

22

Together, the weight of all of the evidence
strongly indicates that individuals tend to prefer
friendly associations with others who are similar to

themselves in values or attitudes.

Goal—Path Clarity as an Antecedent
of Group Cohesiveness

 

 

In the past research on group goals has primarily
been concerned with such things as their motivational
aSpects, or some aspect of the relationship between in-
dividual goals and group goals. Very little research
attention has been directed toward understanding the re-
lationship between goal-path clarity and group cohesive-
ness. Therefore the literature on the effects of goal-
path clarity on cohesiveness is neither as abundant nor
as consistent as that on interpersonal attraction. How—
ever, before moving into an analysis of the literature
on this tOpic it may be beneficial to state more speci-
fically what the writer has reference to when employing
the term goal-path clarity.

What is goal-path clarity? In order to give

these rather abstract terms more concrete meaning, let

23

us first consider a statement from Cartwright and Zander
(1968, p. 401):

The terms used in everyday language to describe
the goal-directed behavior of groups suggests
that a group can be said to have a location of
some sort, that it may change its location from
time to time, and that certain locations are
preferred by all or some segment of the member-
ship to others. As a first step, then, toward
conceptualizing the phenomena related to group
goals, we assume that a group may be conceived
as an undifferentiated entity which at a given
time has a particular location in its environ-
ment. Whenever it is possible to assert that
some location is relatively preferred for a
group and that a sequence of efforts to change
the groups location will terminate when it is
reached, we will designate that location as

the group's goal. If the group changes its
location we will speak of group locomotion.

For group locomotion to occur it is usually
necessary for the group to perform a sequence
of group actions; a sequence that leads to a
preferred location may be thought of as a

path through the group's environment to its
goal.

As it will be employed in this study, the term
goal-path clarity refers to the existence, among all mem-
bers of a group, of only one possible sequence of group
actions available for the group to reach a desired out-
come. The assumption is also made that whenever a group
has a goal it also has a path or paths to that goal.

This leads to the conclusion that when speaking of group

locomotion or action the two should be considered together.

24

Further support for the above mentioned concept-
ualization comes from March and Simon (1958, p. 155).
They developed the concept of Operational and non-
Operational goals: "When a means of testing actions is
perceived to relate a particular goal or criterion with
possible courses of action, the criterion will be called
operational. Otherwise the criterion will be non-
operational [p. 155]." By their definition a goal is
only Operational if it is accompanied by some plan of
action. It is one that allows for and is followed by
the designing of an appropriate path whose efficacy can
be tested empirically. In short, an operational goal
is one that is easily followed by purposive goal-directed
behavior.

Other researchers have placed more emphasis on
the description of the impact a clear or unclear goal-
path situation will have on a group. Korten (1962), in
developing the concept of "goal structure," distinguishes
between two types: high and low. In the high goal
structure situation, Korten places groups which have
rather specific goals that are important in the concensus
of group opinion. In this situation, the group is looked

upon as a means of carrying out tasks or Operations which

25

will lead to these goals. It is not generally character-
ized by the desire to maintain the status quo, but rather
by the desire to work toward a new situation or to attain
something which the group has not presently attained.
Group goals assume considerable more importance than
individual goals; individuals see the attainment of the
group goal as prerequisite to the attainment of their

own goals.

On the other hand, Korten maintains that the
group in the low goal structure situation will have fewer
and/or much less important shared achievement goals. He
goes on to state that such goals as exist will more
likely relate to maintaining the status quo or making
slight readjustments in it. There will be less common-
ality of individual goals, and attraction to the group
might be considered more social in nature. In these
groups emphasis will tend to be on individual rather than
on group goals. To the extent that the person does
identify with the group, the identification is likely
to be based on personal attractiveness or on the means
which the group offers for the facilitation of personal

efforts to attain individual goals.

26

An essential feature of the conception of group
goals used here is that they are an important factor in
determining the direction of activities the group will
adopt to move them toward certain desired outcomes.
However, undesirable outcomes may result in task-oriented
groups in which the goal itself is not clearly understood
or the best procedure for reaching a goal is not clearly
evident to all members. As Lewin (1959) points out, "An
unstructured region has the same effect as an impassable
obstacle. Being in unstructured surroundings leads to
uncertainty of behavior because it is not clear whether
a certain action will lead to or away from a goal [p. 255]."

Other researchers such as Zander (1971) have ex-
tended the same concept to include group behavior. Using
the concept in this context it can be said that a group
that has an unclear goal-path will find it difficult to
establish a criterion for success. For group members
this will result in a hazy comprehension of where the
group is going and the extent to which it is getting
there. This type of goal-path will also serve to inhibit
the defining of the duties of participants, detract from
a coordination of action, and inhibit the development of

sensible procedures for work. In short, it can be stated

27

that it is necessary for a group to have a clear goal-
path if it is to develop the qualities most favorable
to its effective Operation and survival.

Torrence (1954), who studied a group of 200 Air
Force personnel downed over enemy territory during World
War II or Korea, describes the results of situations
where goal-path unclarity is not reduced. He found that
in this stressful survival situation two types of struc-
tural unclarity were likely to be evident: a) unclear
structure of paths to survival; and b) unstabilized rela-
tions among persons. He found that these were likely to
lead to either random, trial-and-error behavior or to
the development of a feeling of hopelessness which usu-
ally led to surrender to the enemy.

In this same study Torrence points out that sur-
vivor group behavior shows that relief and behavior of
increased survival value results when the goal-path of a
group becomes specific and clear. This was dramatically
illustrated in the story of one survivor in Korea. He
and other members of his group were suffering from in-
juries and other ailments and were feeling rather hope-

less. One night he chanced to see a search light which

28

revealed the location of the front. He states they then
started planning their escape and forgot their miseries.

Studies have found that in situations where goal-
path clarity is not established, there will be a tendency
to avoid the situation or to leave the group. French
(1941) found that some members withdrew from participa-
tion when disagreement arose among members. He noted
that withdrawal was most likely to occur when members
were disagreeing over the method they should use in solv-
ing the problem. A study conducted by Gerard (1960,
p. 397) lends support to this earlier finding. He re-
ported that low-status subjects whose group goals were
unclear tended to withdraw from their group, become dis-
satisfied with their roles, and devaluate their own
effectiveness. Weits (1956) conducted a study of 474
life insurance salesmen. A detailed book describing the
work to be done was given to 226 of them. The other 248
were not given the book. There was a considerably high
rate of termination among those for whom the situation
was not clearly defined.

Raven and Rietsema (1957) present one of the few
studies that centered specifically on the problem of

cohesiveness and goal-path clarity. By using tape

29

recordings they manipulated work-groups' perception of
the clarity of their goals and path. Their obtained data
indicate that the incentive value of a particular group
goal for a particular person will depend not only on its
content but also upon how explicitly the goal is formu-
lated and how clear the paths for goal attainment are.
Where goal-path clarity was minimal, disinterest in the
task and hostility were greater relative to high goal—
path clarity. In addition feelings of group belonging-
ness and sympathy for group emotions were greater in the
high clarity groups. However, it is important to note,
that given the manipulation used in this study, it is

not clear which condition caused the effect. That is,
there is no way to determine whether the condition of the
goal, or the condition of the path, generated the ob-

tained results.

Summary

American society today is at a critical stage of

its development. It is assumed that this society can be

importantly affected--for better or worse--by particular

 

30

kinds of organizations or movements. This state of af-
fairs thus creates the need for a better understanding of
large organizations and social movements. In response to
this need it is hypothesized that basic to understanding
any type of larger organization or movement as it relates
to social action, is the understanding of small group dy-
namics, in particular, a central question here is why
groups stay together.

These considerations lead to an investigation of
two variables considered to be important in determining
group cohesiveness, those of interpersonal attraction
and goal—path clarity. From the literature, several
issues become clear regarding the relationship between
these two variables and cohesiveness in small groups.
Interpersonal attraction has been successfully utilized
in the manipulation of group cohesiveness in a number
of situations. The literature on the effect of goal—path
clarity on cohesiveness is neither as abundant nor as
consistent as that on interpersonal attraction. However,
it does indicate that when Speaking of group locomotion

or action that goal and path should be considered to--

gether. The literature also indicates that inappropriate

 

31

structure and conditions detrimental to small group cohe-
siveness are likely to evolve from an unclear goal—path.
At least two very important questions remain
which have not been approached directly by previous re-
search. (1) Can the very important variable of inter-
personal attraction, as it relates to group cohesiveness,
be affected by the clarity of a group's goal-path?
(2) Can the detrimental effects of an unclear goal-path

be neutralized by high interpersonal attraction?

Hypotheses

 

The present research is concerned with the cohe-
siveness of task-oriented groups. Previous research
seems to indicate that interpersonal attraction is cen-
tral to the cohesiveness of all groups. However, the
centrality of interpersonal attraction as a determinant
of cohesiveness may not hold for task—oriented groups.
The rationale for the foregoing assumption is based on
exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959) which asserts
that in evaluating the expected outcomes of group member—

ship, a person employs a standard, called the comparison

32

level, against which he compares the expected outcomes
of membership. This comparison level derives from his
previOus experience in groups and indicates the level of
outcomes he aspires to receive from membership. A person
will be more attracted to the group the more the level
of expected outcomes exceeds his comparison level. In

a task-oriented group the level of outcomes a member
aspires to receive from membership would seem to relate
to successful task performance. In a situation such as
this the only salient variables are those which affect
task performance. Therefore, interpersonal attraction
should be less relevant and goal-path clarity should be
central to a member's decision to remain in or to leave
a particular group. The present research examines this
proposition. Within this framework two hypotheses were

derived:

1. Given that the groups examined were primarily
task-oriented in purpose, it was expected that
groups under clear goal-path conditions would
experience significantly more cohesion than

groups under unclear goal-path conditions.

33

Given that the groups examined were primarily
task-oriented in purpose, it was expected that
interpersonal attraction would have a minimal
overall affect on level of cohesion. Further,
given that goal-path clarity was predicted to
be more salient to cohesion in task-oriented
situations, it was expected that any effect of
interpersonal attraction would occur under con-
ditions of a clear goal-path. This hypothesis
follows from the speculation that goal-path
clarity is a primary prerequisite of cohesion
in task-oriented groups, and other factors can
be influential only in situations in which goal

paths are clear.

Chapter II

METHOD

Selection of Subjects and Experimenters

 

The instrument employed to select the subjects
used in this project was the self-scoring, 45 item
Allport-Vernon—Lindzey (1960) Study of Values. This
instrument was chosen because previous research (e.g.,
Newcomb, 1956, 1958; Smith, 1957) has shown it to dis-
tinguish reliably between persons who are and are not
likely to be attracted to one another. The Study of
Values assesses the relative importance of six basic
interests: theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social,
political, and religious. The classifications are based

directly upon Ecuard Spranger's Types of Men.

 

Given the need to View cohesiveness in the con-
text of a "real world" situation, three of the six values
were used as selection criteria. The three values used
were theoretical, social, and religious. Previous re-
search (e.g., Reiley et al., 1960; Jones et al., 1959;
Newcomb, 1956, 1958; Smith, 1957) has not used any

34

35

particular value or combination of values in those studies
reported. The rationale for using these values in this
study is based on these basic observations: In groups
that come together, for the purpose of involving them-
selves in some form of social action, these values would
be most prevalent in that they most likely characterize
the dominant interests of a person inclined to be a member
of this type of group. Also these values are relevant

to the discussion task which is thought to be one which
lends itself to the expression of a variety of Opinions.
This latter observation is a key one because it is cen-
tral to this research that all group members have an
opportunity to express their opinions during a group

discussion.

Selection of Subjects

 

Female subjects were recruited through the use of
sign-up sheets posted in introductory level psycholOgy
classrooms at the university. The sign-up sheets invited
female undergraduates to participate in an intragroup
communications research project and so earn extra credit

in their psychology class. The sign-up sheet presented

36

a number of times and places where preliminary testing
would take place. Female subjects were used because many
other studies being conducted at the same time were using
male subjects. Because this study required the services
of so many subjects it was thought that a higher proba-
bility of approaching the number needed would result from
employing the pOpulation of females. In response to the
sign-up sheet, 386 female undergraduate students appeared
for the preliminary testing.

The preliminary testing, which lasted for about
an hour, involved the administration of the Allport-
Vernon-Lindzey (1960) Study of Values. Every subject's
total score on each of the three values was rated either
high, medium, or low based on the national average of
college females as reported in the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
(1960) Testing Manual (see Appendix A for criterion
scores). Based on these scores, one hundred and twenty
subjects were assigned to forty, 3-person experimental
groups in order to obtain twenty groups in which there
was high similarity among the three members and twenty
groups in which there was low similarity among the three
group members (see Appendix A for the Specific composi-

tion of each group).

37

Selection of Experimenters

Five female experimenters were selected from ad-
vanced undergraduate social psychology courses at Michigan
State University. Two sections of social psychology re-
search methods classes were approached in an effort to
recruit experimenters. It was explained that a research
project was being undertaken which required female ex-
perimenters and allowed an Opportunity for gaining first-
hand research experience. In response ten students
appeared to be interviewed by the project director. From
the ten, five were selected based on the interviewer's
perception of their maturity, interest in gaining re-
search experience, and reliability. All experimenters
were trained in the procedures necessary to conduct the

experimental session prior to formal data collection.

Manipulation of Interpersonal Attraction
aneroal-Path Clarity

The plan of the present study involved two exper-
imental sessions, with the second session occurring no

more than two weeks after the first.

38

The First Session

 

The first session was designed to create psycho-
logical groups here defined as a number of persons who
interact and influence each other, and who are recognized
in some Special way because of the interaction. As has
been stated earlier, previous research, by manipulating
a subject's perceptions of the other group members, has
varied interpersonal attraction in laboratory situations.
However, given that this study sought to approximate a
real group as much as possible, this procedure was not
thought to be practical. In real groups there is rarely,
if ever, any public statement to the effect that the
members will probably like one another, or be congenial,
etc.

In response to the need to examine groups which
more closely approximate those of the real world, the
first experimental session was devoted to subjects get-
ting acquainted. This was accomplished through intensive
discussion of meaningful topics. The first session was
also planned to allow a determination of the effects of
assigning subjects to groups based on their value simi-

larity or dissimilarity. Analysis of variance was

39

performed to assess treatment effects on interpersonal
liking. One measure of interpersonal liking was used,
a subscale in the questionnaire discussed below.

However before assessing these results it is
necessary to establish that groups differed only on value
similarity and were otherwise statistically similar. To
demonstrate this the means, standard deviation, and
correlation coefficients for all four conditions were
computed prior to the first experimental sessions. With
cells 1 and 3 containing high similar groups and cells 2
and 4 containing low similar groups, the analysis revealed
the means and standard deviations to be quite similar
(cell 1 SE = 39.79, a = 9.75; cell 2 X = 40.70, a = 9.13;
cell 3 Y = 40.76, 0 = 9.85; cell 4 X = 40.80, 0 = 8.89).
However the correlation coefficients proved to be quite
different between high similar (cell 1, r = .71; cell 3,
r = .69) and low Similar (cell 2, r = .10; cell 4, r = .12)
groups.

In order to assess accurately the results of the
attempted manipulation of interpersonal attraction, it
was necessary first to determine the extent to which
participation in a particular group made a significant

difference in terms of subjects' expressed interpersonal

40

liking. This was necessary in order to determine the
apprOpriate error term to use in subsequent analysis of
the data. Therefore a preliminary test was performed to
examine the effects of groups within conditions (a nested
factor). The results of this test indicate that groups
did yield a significant difference (p < .05) in the way
subjects responded. Thus, it was not possible to use a
pooled error term of subjects within conditions (df = 116)
for subsequent tests, but rather the error term of groups
within conditions (d: = 36) was employed.

The analysis of variance on first session data

revealed a Significant difference (F = 7.13; p < .025)

1,36
between high similar groups (R = 37.87) and low similar
groups (35.62) on the measure of interpersonal liking.
It seems that people in the high similar groups like one
another much more than those in the low similar groups.
This result indicates that the pre-experimental assign-
ments were valid as well as lending support to the no-

tion that value similarity is an antecedent of interper-

sonal liking.

41

The Second Session

 

With the manipulation of interpersonal attraction
accomplished in the first session, the second session
presented the experimental task situation and the manipu-
lation of the second independent variable, that of goal-
path clarity.

In this study, goal-path clarity has been opera-
tionally defined as the existence, among all members of a
group, of only one possible sequence of group actions
available for the group to reach a desired outcome. The
method used in this study to manipulate goal-path clarity
is based on a research paradigm introduced by Hammond
(1965). Although this paradigm was originated to study
cognitive conflict and its resolution, in collaboration
with Hammond it was quite easy to adapt it to meet the
requirements of the present research.

This method was chosen because it represents the
situation which is likely to be present in any social
action group in its early stages. Three conditions can
be seen as definitive of this type of group situation;
shared fate, uncertainty, and individual differences in

thinking. The tasks of a group of this type also lend

42

themselves to a continuation of these conditions. These
types of groups will either analyze a problem and produce
a document, plan a course of action in response to some-
thing, carry out a course of action, or all of these.
Although the goal in all of these cases are relatively
clear, the situations are uncertain enough to support
different viewpoints. Members of a group under these
conditions are likely to have varying prior experience
which would lead them to suggest different paths to a
desired outcome, giving a group several plausible alter-
native solutions to their problems. To create a situa-
tion such as this in the laboratory it was necessary to
utilize a task that involved mutual aims or goals,
equivocal information, and discrepant cognitive processes.
Hammond's paradigm offers a means of doing this.
Hammond's method is a laboratory technique which
involves two stages: 1) a training stage in which the
subjects are trained in such a way that each learns to
think differently about a common problem, and 2) a con-
flict stage in which the subjects are brought together
and attempt to arrive at a joint decision concerning the
problem. The training and conflict phases are discussed

in turn.

43

Training Stage. The aim of the training stage is

 

to develop different sets of cue dependency in subjects.
To illustrate, Hammond (1965) reported a study concerning
political decision-making. In the training task, which
involved a training deck with 60 data cards, the subjects
were required to learn to estimate the "level of demo-
cratic institutions" in a given nation on the basis of
two cues: l) the extent to which free elections existed
in the nation, and 2) the extent to which state control
was a factor in government. This was a two-cue proba-
bility task.

Each member of a pair of subjects received dif-
ferent training. Subject A was given a task in which the
"state control" variable accounted for 98% of the vari-
ance in the "level of democratic institutions" (criterion)
variable; furthermore the "state control" variable was
related to the criterion variable in a nonlinear (one
phase of a sine function) manner. Thus, both low and
high degrees of state control indicated a low level of
"democratic institutions" and in a moderate level of state
control indicated a "high level of democratic institu-
tions." For subject A, the second predictor variable

(free elections) was randomly related to the criterion

44

variable. Subject A, then, built up a high degree of
dependency on "state control" as an indicator of "level
of democratic institutions."

Subject B was trained in the opposite way; for
him "free elections" accounted for 98% of the variance
in the criterion, and it was related to the criterion in
a linear way. The "state control" variable, however, was
randomly related to the criterion. Subject B, then,
built up a high degree of dependency on "free elections"
as an indicator of "level of democratic institutions."

Conflict Stage. At the completion of training

 

the subjects are told that they have mastered the train-
ing task and that their next problem is to apply what
they have learned; furthermore, they are to carry out
the second part of the task with another subject, and
they are required to make a joint decision.

The research paradigm produces the following
situation. Three persons who attempt to solve a problem
which concerns all of them, have mutual utilities (their
gain-or-loss derives from their approximations to the
solution of the problem), and receive different training
in the solution of a problem involving uncertain infer-

ences. These persons are then brought together and find

45

themselves dealing with a familiar problem for which
their experience apparently prepared them but, find their
answers differ, and that their own answer is not as good
as it has been, although each answer is logically defen-
sible. Finally, these persons provide a joint decision
as to the correct solution, and, therefore, must adapt

to one another as well as to the task if they are to
solve their problem.

Hammond (1965) maintains that these features were
chosen because they represent the situation in which men
of good will find themselves when dealing with a problem
for which they have less than adequate solutions because
of limitations in their ability imposed by their past
training, and for which they have different solutions
because of cognitive differences imposed by their past
training. The paradigm does not pretend to represent
fully or adequately all the important features of such
a problem situation, if for no other reason than that
all relevant or important features are not yet known.

Previous research (e.g., Rappaport, 1964; Hammond
et al., 1971) as well as pilot testing has shown this
to be a reliable method for developing cognitive differ-

ences through different prior experience. It is also a

46

good method for develOping equivalent cognitive orienta-
tions across subjects by giving them the same prior ex-
perience. In this study, then, goal-path clarity, as
previously defined, was develOped within a group by
varying the similarity of the training given to members.
In the present study a three-cue probability task
was employed. The cues were: a) educational facilities,
b) recreational facilities, and c) residential facil-
ities, all for a living/learning dormitory. PSubjects
were trained to become dependent upon one of these cues
by being required to learn to estimate the "level of de-
sirability" of a particular university's dormitories.
The cues were presented in a deck of 60 data cards in
bar graph form (see Appendix C). Each card presented
three bar graphs on the front, one for each cue, and a
rating on the back. One cue was highly correlated (.98)
with the correct answer presented on the backhj In the
clear goal-path situations the valid cue was the same in
each deck. In the unclear goal-path situationithe valid
cue was different in each of three decks. To illustrate,
subject #1 learned to depend heavily on cue A, less

heavily on cue B, and least on cue C. Subject #2 learned

the reverse system--to depend most heavily on cue C, less

47

on cue B, and least on cue A. Subject #3 learned to de-
pend most heavily on cue B, less on cue C, and least on
cue A. Cognitive differences were thus "built up" in

the three subjects in their separate and different train-

ing experiences.

Dependent Measures

 

Two types of dependent measures were employed in
this study to test the effects of interpersonal attrac-
tion and goal-path clarity on the functioning of the
group: 1) a behavioral measure of cohesiveness; 2) a
questionnaire designed to examine subject's perception

of various dimensions of group functioning.

Behavioral Measure

 

The first dependent measure was a two item Group
Transfer Form (see Appendix B) constructed by the author
and administered at the end of the second session. The
form explained that some subjects in other groups had
requested that they be changed to a group where they would

have a better chance of winning the prize offered. Then

48

it invited the reader to make a choice as to whether they
wanted to change their group assignment or not. It also
invited the subject to state a preference, if any, as to
which other subject from their group they would like to

work with in the next group. The subjects were under the
impression, at the time of administration, that there was

going to be at least one more session.

Questionnaire

 

The second measure was a 28 item Member Reaction
Questionnaire constructed for this study. The question-
naire used a seven-point Likert-type response scale for
each item. A factor analysis (described in Appendix B)
indicated that the questionnaire contained six subscales.
On the basis of the factor loadings, the factors were
named "general cohesion," "interpersonal liking" (used
to assess the validity of the manipulation of interper-
sonal attraction described above), "general group evalu-
ation," "leadership/atmosphere evaluation," "task evalu-
ation," and "interaction evaluation."

The first factor is believed to measure conse-

quences of cohesiveness-—amount of influence exerted and

49

received, involvement, unity and the desire to work with
the same peOple. The second factor measures intrinsic
liking--sociometric ratings, the degree to which group
members were friendly, responsible, reliable, and sin-
cere. The third factor, it is felt, measures general
satisfaction with the group--the degree to which they
were satisfied with being a member of the group, satis-
fied with the type of interaction and satisfied with
their individual and group performance. The fourth
factor measures general atmosphere and leadership satis-
faction--the extent to which a leader was present or
needed, the extent to which a feeling of anxiety or felt
inhibition existed. The fifth factor is thought to mea-
sure task satisfaction--the extent to which a subject
was satisfied with the groups' creativity, organization
for the task, individual and group performance, and
quality of the groups' solution. The sixth factor is
thought to measure interaction satisfaction--opinion
consideration and group imposed interaction standards
(see Appendix B for Member Reaction Questionnaire and
specific factor loadings). This instrument was employed
after the first and second session. The measures of

satisfaction were included because this writer believes

50

that various aspects of satisfaction are logical conse-
quences of group cohesion. The influsion of these mea-

sures allowed for an examination of this assumption.

Experimental Setting and Procedure

The research was carried out in three identical
rooms at Michigan State University. Each room, measuring
8-1/2' x 12-1/2', contained the following: a large rec-
tangular table placed in the center of the room; three
chairs, one placed at each end and one side of the table
(subjects were randomly assigned to seats before coming
to the experimental room); three desks placed in each
of three separate corners of the room (each desk was
facing away from the others so it was not possible to
see the other subjects while sitting there); and a tape
recorder, placed on a window ledge.

In this study subjects reported to the same room
for both sessions and sat in the same pre-assigned seat
during both sessions. A tape recorder was used in both
sessions because SS believed the study to be one con-

cerned with intragroup communication.

51

Description of The First Session

As the subjects arrived the E, who was unaware
of the composition of the group, seated each S in their
pre-assigned seat and told them the session would begin
as soon as everyone arrived. When all §S were seated
the E passed out instruction sheets and requested that
the SS read the instructions to themselves as she read
them aloud. The E explained that she was doing this so
that all instructions would be the same for every group.
The instructions were as follows:

The purpose of this part of the study is to
find out how peOple communicate in a group
of strangers. Please imagine that you are
a panel of experts on the subject of Human
Relations and that you are meeting today for
the first time. Your agenda for today in-
cludes comprehensive discussions of the fol-
lowing issues: (1) Euthanasia (mercy kill-
ing), (2) Capital punishment (pro or con),
and (3) The morality of war (to include

the question of whather the taking of an-
other life under cricumstances of war, is
murder or something else). Since you anti-
cipate working with this group for several
meetings you are interested in finding out
the views and Opinions of your fellow group
members. So, your task in this session is
to get to know your fellow group members
and for them to get to know you. Remeber,
this is a study fo communication styles so
feel free to say whatever you please.

52

After the instructions were read the E asked for
questions, turned on the tape recorder, then left the
room. After 45 minutes had passed, the E returned to
the room and asked the Es to conclude their discussion.
At this time the E collected the instruction sheets and
told them that she would like for them to then complete
a short questionnaire. After the questionnaires were
completed, the E told the Es that they would be debriefed
when the study was completed and collected their extra
credit cards. Before the E dismissed the Es she reminded

them of the time and place of the next session, and

thanked them for coming.

Description of Second Session

 

As the Es arrived the E, who was unaware of the
hypotheses, again seated each person in their pre—assigned
seats which were the same as in the first session, and
told them the session would start as soon as everyone
arrived. When all Es were seated the E told them what
they were going to do would probably be interesting and
perhaps profitable. She told them that their group had

a chance to win a $15.00 prize. After this introduction

53

she passed out the instruction sheet and asked them to
read it to themselves as she read it aloud. Again She
explained that the purpose for this was so that all in-
structions would be the same. The instructions informed
the group that the purpose of that part of the study was
to investigate decision-making communication patterns in
small groups. They were told we were interested in learn-
ing how people put facts together, how they reach deci-
sions on the basis of these facts, and the type of com-
munication that goes on during the group decision making
process. They were also told that they would first be
given some background information to serve as a basis for
their decision. Then they would be given an Opportunity
to put this information to work by making a group decision
about a hypothetical situation. They were also told that
we had summarized all the information they would need to
know to make their decision in one deck of cards. They
were told what the deck represented (see Appendix C).
They were instructed to view the three bar graphs
on the front of the cards and predict the rating which
appeared on the back and to record their prediction on
the answer sheet provided them. Then they could turn to

the back of the card so that they could see how accurate

54

their predictions were. Finally they were told that when
they finished they would go into a group decision phase
where their group could win $15.00 (for the complete in-
structions see Appendix C).

After the instructions were read the E demon-
strated to the Es the exact procedure for going through
the training deck and recording their predictions. Then
each E was given a training deck, a pencil, and an answer
sheet. The Es were then asked to move to one of the
desks in the room. The E was present during the entire
training session.

When all Es completed the training deck, which
took about 45 minutes, a second instruction sheet was
passed out. Here the Es were instructed that their task
was then to plan and sketch a living/learning dormitory.
They were told that it was important for them to decide
and include in their plan, "the most important facility
to hold at a moderate level as compared to the other

facilities."1 They were first to spend 5 minutes working

 

1This phrase and the use of "control" was inten—
tionally made to be somewhat ambiguous and contradictory
since it was assumed that the statement of a group's goal
is rarely unequivocal, this owing to individual differ-
ences in the way peOple define and/or interpret words.

55

on their plan for the ideal living/learning dorm, then
they would come together and work on a group plan. They
were also instructed that it would be their group dis-
cussion and decision that would count toward the prize
and that they must agree on the right facility to con-
trol.

After working five minutes on their individual
plan the E asked them to please come back to the table
and work on their group plan. The E then collected the
training decks, turned on the tape recorder, advised the
group she would return in 45 minutes for their decision,
and left the room.

At the end of 45 minutes E returned, asked the
group to conclude their discussion and turned off the
tape recorder. The E then collected all materials,
except pencils, and asked the Es to move back to the
desks. She then passed out the questionnaire to be com-
pleted. When the first person completed the question-
naire it was collected and the E announced that she would
like each person to come out to the desk just outside
the door to complete the last step for the day. The E
then took each E into the hall one at a time and gave

them a "Group Transfer Form" (see Appendix B), explaining

56

that the E should put a check on the appropriate line.
(See Appendix C for specific instructions given for the
Group Transfer Form.)

When the E completed the form she was told that
she had just completed the last session of the research
(each E previously thought there would be a 3rd session)
and advised of the time and place of the debriefing
session. Each E was then thanked for her participation
and excused. This procedure was followed for each indi-

vidual E (see Appendix C for specific operation).

Debriefing

 

A debriefing session was held two weeks after the
completion of the research. At the beginning of the
session subjects were asked if they knew what the research
was about (none did), and what they thought about it.
Questions were asked for and answered. A description of
the entire project was given along with the announcement
of the winners of the $15.00 prize (a team chosen at

random) and Es were thanked again.

Chapter III

RESULTS

The Dependent Measures of Cohesiveness

 

As described above, two measures were used in
order to determine the effects of interpersonal attrac-
tion and goal—path clarity on small group cohesiveness.
The first measure was a behavioral test in which subjects
were given the choice of staying in their group or chang-
ing to another one. This was thought to be a direct test
of the cohesiveness of a group, in that, if cohesiveness
is the resultant of all forces working on members to re-
main in the group, then choosing not to remain would be
the most appropriate measure of the phenomenon. Thus,
the unit of analysis is the group, the behavioral test is
the number of groups disrupted by at least one person
choosing to leave the group. This measure was only used
after the second session and is seen as the major test
of the hypothesis of the conditions that contribute sig-
nificantly to the cohesiveness of task-oriented groups.
The second measure was a subjective perception test of

57

58

cohesiveness. This measure was contained as a subscale
of the questionnaire and was utilized after both the
first and second sessions. The analysis of these data
used groups within conditions as the error term, since,
as with the analysis of the interpersonal liking scores
obtained after the first session, preliminary tests
indicated that this nested factor was significant

(p < .05) for each dependent measure.

Tests of Hypothesis 1

 

Hypothesis 1 predicted that groups under clear
goal-path conditions would experience significantly more
cohesion than groups under unclear goal-path conditions.

Data which examined this prediction are presented below.

Behavioral Test

 

To test Hypothesis 1, the number of groups in
each condition of goal-path clarity that were disrupted
by at least one member expressing a desire to leave the
group was examined. Table 1 presents these data, which

were subjected to a Fisher Exact Test. This analysis

59

revealed a significant difference (p = .009) between the
clear goal-path and the unclear goal-path conditions. As
predicted from Hypothesis 1, the number of groups dis-
rupted by at least one person choosing to leave the group
was significantly higher in the unclear goal-path than

in the clear goal-path conditions.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF FISHER EXACT TEST ON BEHAVIORAL
MEASURE OF COHESIVENESS

 

 

Goal-Path Clarity

 

 

Clear Unclear
Groups Disrupted 3 11
Groups Not Disrupted l7 9

 

p = .009.

Subjective PerCeption Test

 

Examination of the subscales derived from the
questionnaire administered after the second session
tended to support the results of the behavioral data.
Table 2 presents the relevant cell means for each of the

dependent variables, and Table 3 presents the E values

60

for the main effects of goal-path clarity derived from
the analyses of variance that were performed on these
data. Table 2 indicates that the means were in the pre-
dicted direction for all six dependent measures (p < .02;
binomial test) and Table 3 shows that two of these dif-
ferences--for interpersonal liking and general satisfac-
tion--were of sufficient magnitude to yield marginally
significant (p < .10) main effects. Thus, Hypothesis 1
received some support from’both the behavioral and sub-

jective perception dependent measures.

TABLE 2

MEAN QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
RELEVANT TO HYPOTHESIS l

 

 

Goal-Path Clarity

 

Dependent Measure

 

 

Clear Unclear
Cohesion 5.28 4.92
Interpersonal Liking 6.26 5.88
Satisfaction
General 6.12 5.16
Leadership/Atmosphere 5.74 5.71
Task Performance 5.80 5.41

Interaction

6.18

5.94

 

61

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF ANALYSES OF VARIANCE
EFFECT (df = 1/36) RELEVANT TO
GOAL-PATH CLARITY

 

 

Goal-Path Clarity

 

 

 

Dependent Measure Main Effects
F Values

Cohesiveness 2.78
Interpersonal Liking 2.88*
Satisfaction

General 3.99**

Leadership/Atmosphere .421

Task Performance .579

Interaction Quality 1.32

*p < .10.
**p < .10.

Tests of Eypothesis 2

 

Hypothesis 2 predicted that in task-oriented
groups, interpersonal attraction would have a minimal
overall effect on level of cohesion and that any effect
of interpersonal attraction would occur under conditions
of a clear goal-path. Data which examined these predic-

tions are presented below.

62

Behavioral Test

 

To test Hypothesis 2, the number of groups, in
each condition, that were disrupted by at least one
member expressing a desire to leave the group was exam-
ined. Table 4 presents these data, which also were
subjected to a Fisher Exact Test. This analysis revealed
no significant differences between the high and low in-
terpersonal attraction conditions. Contrary to Hypoth-
esis 2, however, the effect of interpersonal attraction
on cohesiveness was not substantially stronger under the

clear goal-path condtion than under the unclear condi-

 

 

 

 

 

 

tion.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF FISHER EXACT TEST ON
BEHAVIORAL MEASURE OF COHESIVENESS
Goal-Path Clarity
Interpersonal Clear Unclear
Attraction
Groups Groups
Groups Groups
Disru ted NOt Disru ted Not
p Disrupted p Disrupted
High 2 8 5 5

Low 1 9 6 4

 

63

Squective Perception Test

Examination of the subscales derived from the
questionnaire administered after the second session
tended to support the results of the behavioral data.
Table 5 presents the relevant cell means for each of the
dependent variables, and Table 6 presents the E values
for the main effects of interpersonal attraction and
goal-path clarity by interpersonal attraction interac-
tions derived from the analyses of variance that were
performed on these data. Table 5 indicates that under
clear goal—path conditions only one mean is slightly in
the predicted direction while all other means are the
same or in a direction opposite to that which would be
predicted from hypothesis 2. Under unclear goal-path
conditions, none of the means are in the predicted di-
rection. However, it can be noted that the means are
slightly higher under clear goal-path conditions.

Table 5 indicates that interpersonal attraction did not
affect the subjects' desire to leave the group, irre-

spective of the condition of goal-path clarity, nor did
it interact with goal-path clarity on any of the depen-

dent measures. Thus, the general premise that attraction

64

would be less influential than clarity in task-oriented
groups was supported, although the second part of hypoth-

esis 2 was not.

TABLE 5

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE MEANS RELATED
TO HYPOTHESIS 2

 

 

Goal-Path Clarity

 

 

Interpersonal
Attraction Clear Unclear
Cohesiveness
High 5.28 4.80
Low 5.28 5.05
Liking
High 6.26 6 26
Low 6.26 5 99
General Satisfaction
High 6.11 5.30
Low 6.13 5.92

Leadership/Atmosphere Satisfaction

High 5.75 5.58
Low 5.73 5.83

Task Performance Satisfaction

High 5.74 5.07
Low 5.87 5.75

Quality Satisfaction

High 6.11 5.75
Low 6.22 6.13

 

65

TABLE 6

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE EFFECTS

(df = 1/36) RELEVANT TO
INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

 

 

 

 

Goal-Path
Interpersonal Clarity X
Dependent Measure Attractions Interpersonal
Main Effects Attraction
Interactions
Cohesiveness .33 .33
Interpersonal Liking .24 .27
Satisfaction
General 1.54 1.39
Leadership/AtmOSphere .24 .21
Task Performance .61 .28
Interaction Quality 1.23 .50

 

Chapter IV

DISCUSSION

The results of this study certainly lend support
to the conceptualization of group cohesiveness advanced
by Festinger et al. (1950). As they present the concept,
they distinguish two classes of forces working on an
individual to remain in a group, those of the individual
and those of the group. This research was designed to
allow a determination of the significance of goal-path
clarity to the concept of small group cohesiveness.
Hypothesis 2 prOposed that the effects of interpersonal
attraction on group cohesiveness would be mediated by
the effects of goal—path clarity. This result would have
established the centrality of the group property goal-
path clarity, to the concept of cohesiveness in task-
oriented groups, irrespective of the presence and strength
of other relevant variables. However, the lack of any
statistically Significant interactions between the two
independent variables examined in the present research
does indicate that the two classes of forces do in fact

66

67

effect group cohesiveness quite independently and that
goal-path clarity cannot be considered as a singular
determinant of group cohesiveness.

Although this investigator reasoned that goal-
path clarity exists in a linear relationship with group
cohesiveness, the inadequacy of this assumption is re-
flected in a position advanced by Libo (1953). Libo
maintains that

cohesiveness is a concept specifying a phe-

nomenon that exists if and only if the group

exists. Yet a totalling of individual needs,

preferences, or predispositions which derive

from individual personality structure or

from interaction with objects other than the '

group, and which are present regardless of

the existence of the group, cannot define

group cohesiveness. Nor can a descriptive

statement about certain group properties,

such as structure, goals, or activities

define cohesiveness if it takes no account

of the significance of these prOperties for

the members.
Therefore, he maintains, that the cohesiveness phenomenon
involves a personally meaningful individual-object rela-
tionship. It cannot be defined in terms of one or the
other alone. It seems then that Libo is correct in

assuming that cohesiveness is a phenomenon which requires

a combining of both individual and group variables.

68

The results of this research does not refute the
hypothesized existence of two independent classes of
forces which act on the individual to remain in a group.
These results, however, suggest that one class of forces,
particularly, goal-path clarity, may be dominant in

determining group cohesiveness in task-oriented groups.

The Dominance of Goal-Path Clarity
In Determining Grogp Cohesiveness
The results of this study clearly indicate that
the level of cohesiveness of a task-oriented group is a
function of goal-path clarity. As predicted from Hypoth-
esis l, the number of groups disrupted by at least one
person leaving, was significantly more for groups with
an unclear goal-path than groups with a clear goal-path.
These differences were consistent across conditions of
interpersonal attraction. Furthermore, these results
suggest that the effects of interpersonal attraction are
less salient to group cohesiveness than are the effects
of goal-path clarity in task-oriented groups. In a task

group, the situation of not knowing precisely where the

69

group is going and how it is to get there is extremely
disruptive to the effective functioning and survival of
that group.

A possible explanation of this phenomenon could
be the amount of tension or anxiety experienced by group
members. For example, Horwitz (1953) showed that tension
of individual members of a group depended on the loca-
tion of the group relative to its goal. The further away
the group was from its goal, the more tension they exper-
ienced. When a group is not able to locomote toward its
goal, owing to disagreement as to the prOper path to
that goal, tension in that group will be high.

The tension in a group caused by an ambiguous
goal-path Situation can become a very serious threat to
that group's cohesion, because the ambiguity in the
procedure for solving the task can not be tolerated.

One of the primary antecedents in the intolerance of
ambiguity, according to most theoretical personality
formulations, is anxiety or threat. That this holds for
ambiguous task situations as well is supported in a
study by Smock (1955). He concluded, in brief, after
testing subjects under stressful and nonstressful task

conditions, that the individual under psychological

70

stress or anxiety is likely to be intolerant of ambi-
guity. Therefore, the tension must be reduced and only
two options are open to the individual. Classical drive
theory would maintain that an individual in a tension-
producing situation can only attack the source or remove
himself from the situation. In a group Situation this
can lead to the same Options; an expression of hostile
or aggressive behavior or withdrawal from the group.
When given the choice withdrawal was the obvious choice
in this study.

The indirect measure of cohesiveness (the sub-
jective perception test) does not completely support the
foregoing results and assumptions. However, a weak trend
was detected in the predicted direction. This is, pos-
sibly, a result of the lack of refinement of the instru-
ment used to measure cohesiveness. Given the small
sample size of this study and the possibly insensitive
nature of the questionnaire, these results could be
interpreted as relatively moderate support under these
conditions. Thus, it can be concluded that when several
courses of action exist that a task-oriented group may
follow to reach its goal, disruptive disagreement, ten-

sion, hostility, and withdrawal are all possible outcomes

71

of the situation. These conditions apparently outweigh
any positive effects of interpersonal attraction in
determining the degree of cohesiveness experienced by a

task-oriented group.

Interpersonal Liking: A Function of
Value Similarity and Goal-Path Clarity

 

Members of high Similar groups liked one another
significantly more than did members of low Similar groups
in the first session as the members were coming to know
one another. However-these effects of similarity on
liking were not present after the second session, as no
significant difference between high similar groups and
low similar groups were found. Interpersonal liking is
more clearly differentiated when viewed from a perspec-
tive of goal-path clarity. The results clearly indicate
that a group will experience more interpersonal liking
under conditions of a clear goal-path than under‘those
of an unclear goal-path. If these findings are consi-
dered together they suggest that while value similarity

can determine liking, its effects can be modified by the

72

conditions of the group's goal-path and the extent to
which its purpose is task-oriented.

For reasons mentioned in the preceding section
an unclear goal-path creates circumstances that are not
conducive to an increase in interpersonal liking. If
ambiguity and feelings of tension and hostility can be
associated with interaction one has with the other group
members, then certainly any positive regard initially
experienced toward these people will diminish. However
if these perceptions of ambiguity and feelings of tension
and hostility are not present, further interaction with
these same people should permit positive regard to in-

crease .

The Effects of Interpersonal Attraction
and Goal-Path Clarity on Various
Measures of Satisfaction

 

 

 

Generally, the results obtained on the satisfac-
’
tion measures only slightly supported the hypothesis that
various aspects of satisfaction with group are logical

consequences of group cohesiveness. Results indicate

that interpersonal attraction does not differentially

73

affect any of the four measures of satisfaction with the
group. Furthermore, satisfaction seems to be only mar-
ginally affected by goal-path clarity. Of the four mea—
sures taken, on only one, general satisfaction, was a
near significant results obtained. This would indicate
that there is a strong trend for members of task-oriented
groups with a clear goal-path to have a higher amount

of general satisfaction with the group than for members
of unclear goal-path groups. Therefore, it can be con-
cluded from these results that interpersonal attraction
and goal-path clarity have very little to do with the
amount of satisfaction experienced by the members of a
task group as measured in this study.

It must be recognized in this context though that
only limited aspects of satisfaction were examined. In-
spection of the items contained in the factors indicate
that such areas as perceived success or failure on the
task and expressed satisfaction with the task or goal of
the group were not included among the items. Therefore,
the generalizability of the results are somewhat re-

stricted.

74

Implications

 

Theoretical. As previously stated, Festinger

 

et al. have defined cohesiveness as the resultant of
forces acting on group members to keep them in the group.
These forces are said to stem from the sources of at-
traction within the group which are, primarily, the group
activities, and from the members themselves. Cohesive-
ness, therefore, is said to refer to the general degree
of attractiveness of a group to its members.

This definition has been widely accepted in the
body of research in the area of cohesiveness. Although
this definition is general, the Operationalization and
measurement of group cohesiveness has been, for the most
part, quite focused. The assumptions underlying this
focus is well represented by Lott (1961). She maintains
that

regardless of the unique group properties in
terms of which groups may be described, a
group is inescapably made up of individuals.
It is suggested, therefore, that when we
Speak of a group as being attractive, we

are refering actually to the attractiveness
of the members of the group. The possibil-
ity that individuals are attracted to a
group's activities or aims, etc. is not
denied but, Since it is the members of a

group who perform the activities, who ver-
balize the aims, etc., it is possible that

75

a high positive correlation will exist be-
tween attraction to members and to activi-
ties, etc., and that attraction to members
is the most general factor in attraction

to, "or cohesiveness of" the group [p. 278].

 

 

 

Although the above View is seldom made explicit,
it is clearly implied by the fact that sociometric de-
vices, which measure attraction to individuals, are the
most frequently utilized measures of group cohesiveness.
Also, the most popular technique for manipulating group
cohesiveness, when it is treated as an independent var-
iable, is to assure individuals who are slated for high
cohesive groups that they will find their fellow group
members congenial, that they will like them, get along
with them, etc.

The results of this study, however, throws these
techniques and the assumption that interpersonal liking
is a primary determinant of cohesivenss into question.
Two results should be considered here. First, groups
that experienced a high amount of interpersonal liking
were identical to groups that experienced a low amount
of interpersonal liking in terms of the number of groups
disrupted by at least one person leaving. If this is

considered to be a valid measure of cohesiveness then

interpersonal liking has nothing to do with group

76

cohesiveness. Consider further that the introduction of
an unclear goal-path to groups high on interpersonal lik-
ing caused a decrease in the mean level of liking exper-
ienced in these groups. Second, consider that a very
strong trend existed for groups with a clear goal—path

to be consistently higher on cohesiveness, interpersonal
liking, and general satisfaction than groups with an
unclear goal-path.

These results, taken together, indicate that
goal-path clarity plays a very important role in the
determination of cohesiveness in task-oriented groups.
Although this conclusion, at first, may seem surprising
and contrary to a great deal of research in this research
area, it is not. The relationships derived from this
study were, in the past, difficult to see because most
researchers had restricted their examinations to groups
that were low on task-orientation. Most researchers
(e.g. Libo, 1953; Festinger, 1952; Berkowitz, 1956 and
1957) have been concerned with friendship groups and
those who were not (e.g. Schachter et al., 1951; Berko-
witz, 1954; Back, 1950; Exline, 1957) used no direct
measures of cohesiveness. (It Should be noted that even

those concerned with friendship groups, with the

77

exception of Libo, used nondirect measure of cohesive-
ness.) Therefore, the differential importance of inter-
personal attraction and the group property of goal-path
clarity on task-oriented groups was never examined di-
rectly.

Certainly this is not to say interpersonal at-
traction is not important to group cohesiveness. Inter-
personal attraction has been demonstrated to be very
important to the cohesiveness of friendship groups where
peOple have come together for socio-emotional support
and consensual validation of the world. However, as was
previously assumed, the centrality of interpersonal
attraction to group cohesiveness does not apply to all
groups. When there is a task to be performed, only
variables relevant to the successful completion of the
task are relevant. Therefore, it can be assumed that
the only reason researchers have found significance for
interpersonal attraction in task-oriented groups is
because there was little task-related tension in the
group, this being a result of having a clear goal-path.

Unfortunately, the results of the present study
are not clear on the question of how these two variables

combine into a single resultant force. Given that both

78

variables or classes of variables, are important and
independent the results reported here can only lead to

a hypothesis of circular causation. That is, in con-
currence with Libo, group cohesiveness can not be con-
sidered in the light of only one class of variables. It
must be considered in recognition of both classes. It
appears that one class may give rise to some aspect of
the other class and that together they result in a very
cohesive group. To illustrate, a group which has a clear
goal-path from the outset may now be Open to interact
more freely and with fewer negative feeling toward one
another. Under these circumstances positive feelings
about other group members are permitted to develop thus
improving the cohesiveness of the group. The Opposite is
also true, i.e., given positive feeling toward other group
members, the establishment and locomotion toward a goal
will occur with less friction giving rise to greater
cohesiveness.

Certainly more research is needed in this area,
because the present study does not answer many of the
questions prOposed by a person interested in the deter—
minants of cohesiveness. However, it does establish the

possibility that group properties, particularly goal-path

79

clarity, deserve more attention in developing an under-
standing of the phenomenon of cohesiveness in task-oriented
groups. The present study also strongly indicates that
interpersonal attraction is not central to the cohesive-
ness of all groups, and further research is needed to
define more clearly the conditions under which it is im-

portant.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Altman, I. & McGinnies, E. Interpersonal Perception and
Communication in discussion groups of varied
attitutional composition. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1960, EE, 390-395.

 

 

Back, K. Influence through social communication. Jour-
nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 195‘, fig,
9-23.

 

 

Broxton, June. A Method of predicting roommate compati-
bility for college freshmen. Journal of the
National Association of Women Deans and Coun-
selors, 1962, EE, 169-174.

 

Byrne, D. & Wong, T. J. Racial Prejudice, interpersonal
attraction, and assumed dissimilarity of atti-
tude. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1962, EE, 253-264.

Cartwright, D. & Zander, A. Grogp Dynamics: Research
and Theory. (2nd ed.) Evanston, Ill.: Harper
& Row, 1960.

 

Cartwright, D. & Zander, A. Group Dynamics: Research
and Theory. (3rd ed.) Evanston, Ill.: Harper
& Row, 1968.

 

Deutach, M. The effects of cooperation and competition
upon group process. Human Relations, 1949, E,
129—152 and 199-231.

Eisman, Bernice. Some Operational Measures of cohesive-
ness and their interaction. Human Relations,
1959, la! 183-189.

 

Festinger, L. Informal social communication. Psycholgg-
ical Review, 1950, El, 271—282 (a).

 

80

81

Festinger, L. Laboratory experiments: The role of group
belongingness. In J. G. Miller (Ed.), Experi-
ments in social process. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1950. pp. 31-46 (b).

Festinger, L. Group attraction and membership. In D.
Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics:
Research and Theory. Evanston, Ill.: Row,
Peterson, 1953.

 

 

Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes.
Human Relations, 1954, 1, 117-140.

 

Festinger, L., Schachter, 8., Back, K. Social Pressures
in Informal Group_. New York: Harper, 1950.

 

 

Festinger, L., Gerard, H., Hymovitch, B., Kelley, H., &
Raven, B. The influence process in the presence
of extreme deviates. Human Relations, 1952, E,
327-346.

 

French, J. R. P., Jr. The disruption and cohesion of
groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, 1941, EE, 361-377.

 

Gross, E. Symbiosis and consensus as integrative factors
in small groups. American Sociology Review,
1956, EE, 174-179.

 

Hammond, K. R. New Directions in Research and Conflict
Resolution. Journal of Social Issues, 1965, 3;,
No. 3, pp. 44-66.

 

Horwitz, M. The Recall of Interrupted Group Tasks: An
Experimental Study of Individual Motivation in
Relation to Group Goals. Human Relations, 1954,
7, 3-38.

 

Jones, E. B., & Daughterty, B. N. Political orientation
and the perceptual effects of an anticipated
interaction. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1959, E2, 340-349.

 

 

82

Korten, D. C. Situational determinants of leadership
structure. The Journal of Conflict Resolution,
1962, E, 222-235.

Lazarafeld, P. R., & Merton, R. K. Friendship as social
process: A substantive and methodological anal-
ysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. H. Page (Eds.),
Freedom and Control in Modern Society. New York:
Van Nostrand, 1954, pp. 18-66.

Lewin, K. Field Theory in Social Science. New York:
Harper, 1959.

Lott, A. J., & Lott, Bernice B. Group cohesiveness, com-
munication level and conformity. Journal of
Abnormal and Social P§ychology, 1961, EE, 408-412.

Lott, Bernice E. Group cohesiveness: A learning phe-
nomenon. Journal of Social Psychology, 1961,
EE, 275-286.

Lott, Bernice E., & A. J. The formation of positive
‘attitudes toward group members. Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psyghology, 1960, El, 297-300.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York:
Wiley, 1958.

 

Marks, J. B. Interests and group formation. Human
Relations, 1959, $3! 385-390.

 

Newcomb, T. M. An approach to the study of communica-
tive acts. Psychological Review, 1953, EE,
393-404.

Newcomb, T. M. The prediction of interpersonal attrac-
tion. American Psychology, 1956, ii, 575-586.

Newcomb, T. M. The cognition of persons as cognizers.
In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person Per-
ception and Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford,
Ca1if.: Stanford University Press, 1958. pp.
179-190.

83

Newcomb, T. M. Varieties of interpersonal attraction.
In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group
Dynamics: Research and Theory. (2nd Ed.)
Evanston, Ill.: Harper, Row, 1960.

 

Newcomb, T. M. The Acquaintance Process. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961.

 

Ramuz-Nienhuis, Wilhelmia & Van Bergen, Annie. Relations
between some components of attraction-to-group:
A replication. Human Relations, 1960, EE, 271-277.

 

Rappaport, L. Interpersonal conflict in non-competitive
and uncertain situations. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology (in press).

 

 

Raven, B. H. & Rietsema, J. The effects of varied clarity
of group goal and group path upon the individual
and his relations to his group. Human Relations,
1957, LE, 29-44.

 

Reilly, Mary St. Anne, Commins, W. D., & Stefic, E. C.
The complementarity of personality needs in
friendship choice. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1960, El, 292-294.

 

 

Rokeach, M. The Qpen and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, 1960.

 

Schachter, S. The Psychology of Affiliation. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1959.

 

Schachter, S., Ellerlon, N., McBride, Dorothy & Gregory,
Dorris. An experimental study of cohesiveness
and productivity. Human Relations, 1951, E,
229-238.

 

Shelly, H. P. Focused leadership and cohesiveness in
small groups. Sociometry, 1960, EE, 209-216.

 

Smith, A. J. Perceived similarity and the projection of
similarity: The influence of valence. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, El,
376-379.

 

84

Smock, C. D. The influence of stress on the intolerance
of Ambiguity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1955, EE, 177-182.

 

Thibaut, J. W. An experimental study of the cohesiveness
of underprivileged groups. Human Relations,
1950, E, 251-273.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H._ The social Psychology
of Small Groups. New York: Wiley, 1959.

 

Torrance, E. P. The Behavior of small groups under
stress conditions of survival. American Socio-
logical Review, 1954, $2! 751-755.

 

Weitz, J. Job expectancy and survival. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 1956, 40, 245-247.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SPECIFIC GROUP COMPOSITION

WITH CUT-OFF SCORES

 

APPENDIX A

SPECIFIC GROUP COMPOSITION WITH CUT-OFF SCORES

The cut-off scores were based on the national average of college
females as reported in the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey (1960) Testing Man-
ual. From this source, it was determined that a score on one of the
values could be considered definitely high or low if it fell outside
31-41, Social: 37-47, and Reli-

the following limits. Theoretical:

gious: 37-50.
The following presents the specific composition of each of the ex-
perimental groups based on theoretical, social and religious values

presented in that order.

HIGH VALUE SIMILARITY GROUPS

 

GROUP 1 GROUP 5 GROUP 9 GROUP 13 GROUP 17
H M L L M H M H L H L M H M L
H M L L H H M H L H L M H M L
H M L L H H M H L H L M H M L
GROUP 2 GROUP 6 GROUP 10 GROUP 14 GROUP 18
L H M M H L M H L H M L H M L
L H M M H L M H L H M L H M L
L H M M H L M H L H M L H M L
GROUP 3 GROUP 7 GROUP 11 GROUP 15 GROUP 19
L H M M H L M H H H M L H M L
L H M M H L M H H H M L H M L
L H M M H L M H H H M L H M L
SBQHE_§_ GROUP 8 GROUP 12 GROUP 16 g59gg_gg
L H I. M H L M H H H M L H M L
1: Pi M M H L M H H H M L H M L
L H b! M H L M H H H M L H M L

85

GROUP

H H
M M
L L

GROUP

L H
M M
H M

GROUP

M M
H M
M H

GROUP

M H
H L
H M

H

b 3 m

3 m b

b)

GROUP

L H
M M
H L

GROUP

M H
H MM
M L

GROUP

M H
H M
L H

GROUP

L H
H M
M L

86

LOW VALUE SIMILARITY GROUPS

 

:2 3 3

v 3 2 m

GROUP 9
H L L
M L M
M H M
GROUP 10
M M H
L L M
H H M
GROUP 11
M M M
M H M
H H L
GROUP 12
M M H
M L L
L H M

GROUP 13

m 3 I
3 m
b 3

GROUP 14

L H H
H M L
M L M

GROUP 15

M M M
L H H
H M L

GROUP 16

M H M
H L L
MM M H

GROUP 17

H M L
M L M
M H M

GROUP 18

M M M
H L L
M H H

GROUP 19

3 F m
m U
m 3

GROUP 20

M M H
L H L
H L M

APPENDIX B

FACTOR LOADING

MEMBER REACTION QUESTIONNAIRE

GROUP TRANSFER FORM

FACTOR LOADINGS

COHESIVENESS
FACTOR l LOADINGS

 

 

QUESTION #20. 0.6605

22. 0.6183

23. 0.7200

24. 0.5038

27. 0.5936

INTRINSIC LIKING--SOCIOMETRIC RATINGS
FACTOR 2 LOADINGS

 

QUESTION # 6. 0.7673
0.7837

14. 0.6440
15. 0.7919
17. 0.7888
26. 0.6908

SATISFACTION
FACTOR 3 LOADINGS (GENERAL SATISFACTION)

 

QUESTION # 3. 0.5641

7. 0.4024
8. 0.5377
9. 0.4065

13. 0.4349

28. 0.5137
87

88

FACTOR 4 LOADINGS (GENERAL ATMOSPHERE AND
LEADERSHIP SATISFACTION)

 

 

QUESTION # 2. 0.5221
4. 0.6280
10. 0.7265
11. 0.6757

13. 0.4119

FACTOR 5 LOADINGS (TASK SATISFACTION)

 

QUESTION # 8. -0.4826
1. -0.6463

9. -O.7284

12. -0.7341

16. -0.6642

19. -O.7047

28. -0.6294

FACTOR 6 LOADINGS (INTERACTION SATISFACTION)

 

QUESTION # 7. 0.6034
8. 0.4460
18. 0.6443

21. 0.6344

MEMBER REACTION QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions: We are interested in your reactions to being a member of
this group. Please read each question carefully and rate
your reaction on the scales by placing a check on the
line below each question.

On this questionnaire the response alternatives are as
follow:

- Strongly disagree

- Moderately disagree

- Slightly disagree

Neither agree or disagree

- Slightly agree

- Moderately agree

- Strongly agree

\JO’lU'lnbwml-d
I

1. This group made the best use of its time solving the task.

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I II_ I. I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
-sagree

2. I felt tense and uncomfortable in this group.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I. | I I I
St.D. Md.D. 51.0. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
aiéssrggr

3. There was much disagreement among the members of the group.

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
sagree

4. Some people in the group talked too much.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
III I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. 51.0. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
3 Essrégr

5. I talked too much.

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
II I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
sagree

89

90

6. Below there are three scales, one for each member of the group.
Please rate each member,excluding yourself, on the scale as to

how much you like or dislike them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(a) l 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I |
DI got Md.D. Dis%ike E: fither Likg Md.like Like
atiaIl IIEtlg inflor IIEtlg M85
(b) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I L J
D M ,dis- Dislike g; ther Like Md.like Like
.2139. Ilka ieeeie Eiie°r ieeeie S32
(0) l 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I | I I
DYiEOt MIikgis- Dis ige Se fithegrL kg a Md.like %§¥e
at aIl iIEtle infle iittle muc
7. Considering the entire problem-solving session, my opinion was
given adequate consideration by the other group members.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.. I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree
8. I was quite satisfied with being a member of this group.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree
9. On a whole I was satisfied with this group's performance.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree
10. There was a definite leader in the group.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I L I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.

a ree nor
isagree

91

11. My group needed a strong leader to keep on the track.

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree

12. My group was creative on this task.

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
I J I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree

13. I felt inhibited from expressing my feelings during the group

 

discussion.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree

14. The atmosphere of this group was quite friendly.

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree

15. On the whole the members of this group were quite responsible.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I L I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree

16. This group was organized well for the task we were to perform.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I l
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree

17. On a whole the members of this group were quite reliable.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I J I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.

a ree nor
isagree

92

18. The group placed no restrictions on what or how much each member
of the group could say.

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
L I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree

19. I think my group developed a high quality solution to this task.

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree

20. I had considerable influence in determining my group's final
solution to the task.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree

21. On the whole I was satisfied with my performance in this group.

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree
22. I felt a real sense of involvement with the group.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree
23. If I were taking part in another experiment, I would like
working with these same women.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
isagree

24. Rather than working as one unified group, it seemed the group
worked in sub-groups or as individuals on this problem.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.

a ree nor
isagree

93

25. I was interested in the task this group performed during this

 

session.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
sagree

26. On the whole the members of the group seemed quite sincere.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I I I I I I I
St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neriglélegor Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
3 sagree

27. How much influence did the group have on your personal final ideas
about what would be a good solution to the task?
1 2 3 4 5

I I I I

I
aegies g§I21§§£' gggei;-- .IIEIIS i%?ifi§n28
éficeU" uence uence ence

28. On a whole I was satisfied with the group's performance.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I I I I I I I

St.D. Md.D. Sl.D. Neither Sl.A. Md.A. St.A.
a ree nor
sagree

GROUP TRANSFER FORM

As you know this study involves a large number of
people, each participating in a group. Some students have
not been at all happy with their group. They have asked to
be changed to another group where they might get along
better with the other members and have a better chance of
winning the prize. In these situations we have accomodated
them. What we'd like to know now is since there are other

group situations available as a result of these changes:

1) Would you like to change your group?

Yes No

2) Who would you like to be with in the next group?

Person: A B C

94

APPENDIX C
EXPERIMENTER DUTIES, INSTRUCTION

SHEETS, AND TRAINING CARD

5.

EXPERIMENTER DUTIES
Warm-Up Session

Report at least 15 min. before your first session.

As the S's arrive ask them to be seated and tell them the session

will start as soon as everyone arrives.

When all S's are seated pass out the instruction sheet to each S.

Pause then leave the room.

Return after 40 min. "Time is up, will you please conclude your

discussion now."
(a) Collect the instruction sheets.

(b) "Now I have a short questionnaire that I would like you
to complete."

(c) Pass out MRQ and pencils.

(d) When all S's have finished collect MRQ and pencils.
Collect all of the S's credits cards.

"As you know this is a four-part experiment. At the end of the
final session I will tell you what the research is about and
answer any questions you might have regarding the study. At
that time I will also return your cards with the full 6 credits.
You will be contacted by telephone within one week to arrange
for the next testing session. Do you have any questions?

(Pause.) Thank you for coming and I'll be in touch."

95

INTRODUCTION TO INSTRUCTIONS
Warm-Up Session

 

I'm glad that all of you could come. I know you are
all probably wondering about the purpose of the test you took
last month. Well, we wanted to assemble groups based on
those test scores and determine if there is a relationship
between test performance and your performance in this group.
I'll be glad to explain the exact relationship we are looking
for at the conclusion of the study.

Now to get started. Here are your instructions for
this session. (Pass them out.) Please read them to your-
selves as I read them aloud. Are there any questions? Fine,
then I will return in about 40 minutes. Turn on tape

recorder and leave.

96

INSTRUCTION SHEET

 

The purpose of this part of the study is to find out
how people communicate in a group of strangers. Please imag-
ine that you are a panel of experts on the subject of Human
Relations and that you are meeting today for the first time.
Your agenda for today includes comprehensive discussions of
the following issues: (1) Euthanasia (mercy killing), (2)
Capital punishment (pro or con), and (3) the morality of war
(to include the question of whether the taking of another
life under circumstances of war, is murder or something else).

Since you anticipate working with this group for sev-
eral meetings you are interested in finding out the views and
opinions of your fellow group members. So, your task in this
session is to get to know your fellow group members and for
them to get to know you. Remember, this is a study of com-
munication styles, so feel free to say or do whatever you

please.

97

EXPERIMENTER DUTIES
(Session II)

 

At the beginning of the session say something like the following:
"Today we are going to participate in a part of the study which I
think you will find both interesting and perhaps profitable. Today
you have an opportunity to win $5.00 apiece. But I'll tell you
more about that later. I won't be able to tell you a great deal
about the nature of the research at this time, but I will do so
immediately after we have finished the study. I'll also be glad
at that time to answer any questions you might have about it.

Now to get started.

Pass out lst instruction sheet. "Please read the instructions to
yourselves while I read them aloud." Be sure to make appropriate

jestures toward the training deck.

Demonstrate to the 8's the exact procedure for going through the
training deck and recording their predictions. Try to answer all
of their questions and be sure they understand what's going on at
this time. We want to try to eliminate any talking before the
discussion phase. After the demonstration say the following: Now
the task is designed so that completely accurate predictions on

every trial are very unlikely. Therefore, you should not be

98

99

discouraged that you cannot predict the ratings perfectly. You will,
however, be able to come quite close on almost every trial when you

learn to use the information presented on the front correctly.

Give each S an answer sheet, a training deck and a pencil. Be sure
to remind them to sign their name on the answer sheet. Ask S's to
move to the desks. Then tell them: "You will have 40 minutes to
complete this part of the session. I will notify you when 20 minutes

have passed.

When 20 minutes have passed tell the 8'3: "20 minutes have passed

and you should be half finished now."

After 40 or 45 minutes tell them that time is up. Pass out the
second instruction sheet. "Please read the instructions to your-

selves while I read them aloud."

Pass out blank sheets of paper to each S. (Let them keep training

decks for now.)

Notify them when 5 minutes have passed.

Say: "Now will you move to this table for your group session. You
may leave your graphs and answer sheets at the desk. Remember you
are to make a joint decision on which facility to hold at a moderate

level as compared to the others. I'll return in 45 minutes for your

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

100

decision." (When you leave the room be sure to take the training

decks with you.)

At the end of 45 minutes say, "the group discussion period has

ended; will you please conclude now."

Collect all materials except the pencils and stack them somewhere.

Ask S's to move back to the desks, then pass out MRQ.

When the lst S has finished the MRQ . . . (see next page).

With the door closed, prepare the room for the next set of S's.

INSTRUCTIONS
Behavioral Measure

 

 

13. When the first S finishes the MRQ, collect hers and say the follow-
ing: "When you've completed the questionnaire can you come, one at
a time, to the desk outside for the last step for today. This part
will be brief and I'll be back for the next person in just a minute.
(Point to the first S finished.) "Will you come first and bring
your X (coat, purse, books or whatever.) (Motion her toward the
door as you leave. When you are in the hall with the door closed
behind you, give her a "Group Transfer Form" and say the following:)

"Will you please read this and place a check on the appropriate
lines." (When they have finished, say the following without even
glancing at the form—-I do not want them to think their response
eliminated them from the research.) "This session was actually the
last in the research and this is the last measure we will need. I
realize that we misled you about there being another session but it
was very important to the success of the research that we do so. I
hope you don't mind. If you are interested in finding out exactly
what the research is about, there will be an optional debriefing
session held on May 24th in Room 455 Baker Hall. I'm sorry I can
not tell you now. (Return their cards as you say:) Thank you very

much for participating."

101

INSTRUCTIONS
(lst Part of II Session)

 

The purpose of this part of the study is to investigate decision-
making communication patterns in small groups. Specifically it is di-
rected toward studying how administrators reach decisions on the basis
of information gathered from several similar sources.

Because this is a laboratory study, the decision in which you will
be involved has been simplfied so that certain features of the decision
process may be investigated in a relatively pure form--without the in-
terference of various disturbing factors in the real world. Nevertheless,
in order that the information obtained from the study is relevant, it is
important that you treat the decision you will make as a real one and
do the very best you can.

In this part of the study we are interested in learning how people
put facts together, how they reach decisions on the basis of these facts,
[and the type of communication that goes on during the group decision-
making process. This is fundamentally a study of decision-making and
group communication patterns. Thus, we will first give you some back-
ground information to serve as a basis for your decision. Then you will
be given an opportunity to put this information to work by making a
group decision about a hypothetical situation.

All administrators need information regarding the specifics of

their task. Ordinarily this information is accumulated over a fairly

102

103

long period of time. Because the amount of time we have is limited,
however, we have summarized all the information you will need to know to
make your decision in these decks of cards. The deck represents a sample
of universities throughout the country. Each one of the cards represents
one particular school in the nation. Each card has three bar-graphs on
the front of it which represents the amount of a given facility the dor-
mitories on that campus has. That is, it represents the make-up of the
dorms at one school in terms of the amount of each facility in all dorms
at that school. The numbers on the back represent how the dormitories
have been rated in terms of "their desirability as a total living/learning
situation." The ratings are based on the responses of students, faculty
and administrators from all over the country as reported in a recent
issue of the magazine "American Universities and Colleges."

Each of the three bar-graphs has 5 levels and two steps within
each level. One of these graphs provides information about educational
facilities, another about recreational facilities, and the third about
residential facilities. On the basis of this information, you are to
predict how the dorms are rated which is shown on the back. Now by
learning how the values on the graphs relate to the ratings on the back
you can learn how to correctly make predictions of those ratings and gain
the information for your future group decision. It may be, for example,
that only the educational facility graph is important for your predic—
tions and that the higher the values on this scale, the larger will be

the number on the back of the card. Or it may be that only the

104

recreational or residential facility graph is important and the others
should be ignored. It is also possible that some combination of the
three graphs must be used to make accurate predictions. Essentially,
your job here is to try to figure out a system, based on one, two or
all three of these things, that will enable you to make accurate pre-
dictions of the rating on the back of the cards. When you can do this
successfully, you will have become an "experienced" administrator in
that you will know all of the relevant information.

You should try to predict the rating on each trial (with each
card) and record your prediction on the answer sheet provided you. Then
you may turn to the back of the card so that you can see how accurate
your prediction was.

The prediction scale for rating an "optimal living/learning
dorm" is pictured on the following page and has 5 levels and 4 steps
within each level. You are to give your decisions in terms of both
the levels and the steps on the prediction scale.

You may have questions at this point but most of your questions
will be answered by working out a few examples. When you have gone
through the entire deck please look up at me. It is essential that you

understand the task.

105

 

3 A
_ d (Good)

 

% —i
3
— - (Above Average)

 

3
— - (:3 (Average)

 

3
- —' [:> (Below Average)

 

 

— ‘ (Bad)

 

 

 

Optimal Facilities for a Living/Learning Dorm

INSTRUCTIONS
2nd Part of II Session

 

 

Now that you have reviewed the graphs it should be evident that
they indicate a good administrator will exercise a certain amount of con-
trol in planning a living/learning dorm. It seems that certain facili-
ties can vary in amount without affecting the desirability of the dorm,
while one type of facility must be strictly controlled for the dorm to
receive a good rating.

Your task now is to plan and sketch a living/leraning dormitory.
It is important that you decide and include in your plan, the most im-
portant facilities to control in terms of amount, in order to create the
most ideal living/learning dorm possible.

(1) First I would like for each of you to work privately on your plan
for the ideal living/learning dorm. Please spend about 5 minutes on
this.

(2) After you have had some time to gather your thoughts and do some
preliminary planning, we are going to see if three heads are better than
one. At that time you will all be working on a common plan. After each
of you have done your private plan, you are to reach a joint decision on
the plan you will use and what facilities you should keep within what
certain limits. That is, I want you to agree on exactly how the dormi-
tory should look. Then record your agreed-upon decision. And lastly
make a brief rough sketch of the facility that should be strictly con-
trolled. It is this joint decision that will count toward the prize.
There is only one correct decision that can be made. The group which
has the most complete discussion and makes the correct decision will
win $5.00 prize for each person in the group.

Remember it is your joint discussion and decision that counts
toward the prize. Your private judgments are just for the records.

So be sure to discuss everything completely before you make your group
decision.

You may start on your individual plan now. I will notify you
when 5 minutes have passed.

106

T R A I N I N G C A R D

 

 

 

 

MANY

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

'- d
I .I
EDUCA f/OA/AL RECREATIONAL RES/DE IV 7' ML
FAC/L/TIES FAG/LINES FAC/L/T/ES
(FRONT)

 

 

F—Z

 

(BACK)

107

 

 

"IIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIII