ABSTRACT
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION STRATEGIES
IN PROBLEM SOLVING GROUPS
By
Barbara Ann Walker
This is an experimental field study comparing the effects of con-
flict management and conflict resolution strategies in problem solving
groups at three points in time. This study finds that conflict resolu-
tion groups were significantly more satisfying to members. Over time,
groups resolved rather than managed conflicts which occurred.
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION STRATEGIES
IN PROBLEM SOLVING GROUPS
By
Barbara Ann Walker
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication
1976
Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication,
College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree.
C‘ Vs JDJ, Uzi/91A g1 “(In—UL
Director of Dissertation
Guidance Committee: , Chairman
To My Parents
11
[Ii-II
1'
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to everyone who has helped me in this process.
Professor Erwin Bettinghaus has been an excellent advisor and critic.
Professors James Phillips, David Ralph and Joseph Woelfel offered inval-
uable advice. Mark Miller and Kook-Ching Huber were exceptionally help-
ful and generous in their statistical assistance.
Many thanks to Tom Campion, Gary Wilson and Roger Spooner for their
help with procedures and equipment. A special thanks goes to my parents
for their help and encouragement, which got me this far.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES ...........................
—l—J—l—l—l
o o o o o
m-wa—a
Introduction ............................................
Purpose .................................................
Overview of Conflict Resolution Perspective .............
Overview of Conflict Management Perspective .............
Effects of Conflict Management Compared with Conflict
Resolution Strategies ...................................
l.51 Satisfaction ......................................
l.52 Survival ..........................................
l.53 Tension Release ...................................
l.54 Problem Solving ...................................
CHAPTER TWO: METHODS ............................................
2.]
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Experimental Design and Procedures ......................
Pretest .................................................
Experimental Manipulations and Independent Variables....
2.3l Conflict Rules ....................................
2.32 Time ..............................................
Subjects and Group Composition ..........................
2.4l Subjects ..........................................
2.42 Group Composition .................................
Dependent Variables .....................................
2.51 Description of Variables Measured from
Taped Interactions ................................
2.52 Operationalization of Interaction Variables .......
2.53 Dependent Measures ................................
2.54 Dependent Measures of Satisfaction ................
Coder and Observer Training .............................
2.6l Coder Training ....................................
2.62 Observers and Observer Training ...................
iv
page
n—l-u-l
5
7
ll
l2
l5
l5
16
18
18
19
20
20
20
21
21
22
23
24
24
24
26
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
page
2.7 Experimental Procedures ................................. 26
2.71 Experimental Preparations ......................... 26
2.72 Day One Procedures ................................ 27
2.73 Day Two Procedures ................................ 28
2.74 Day Three Procedures .............................. 28
2.75 Missing Data ...................................... 30
2.8 Ethical Considerations .................................. 30
2.9 Summary ................................................. 31
CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS .......................................... 32
3.1 Overview ................................................ 32
3.2 Inter-coder Reliabilities ............................... 32
3.3 Length of Time of the Interactions ...................... 32
3.31 Time One .......................................... 32
3.32 Time Two .......................................... 34
3.33 Time Three ........................................ 34
3.34 Mean Length of Exercises .......................... 34
3.4 Manipulation Check ...................................... 35
3.5 Self Report Dependent Variables ......................... 38
3.51 Survival .......................................... 38
3.52 Satisfaction Dependent Variables .................. 40
3.53 Accuracy .......................................... 41
3.6 Tension Release ......................................... 42
3.61 Negative Emotions ................................. 42
3.62 Humor ............................................. 43
3.63 Laughter .......................................... 43
3.64 Exploratory Analysis of Tension Release ........... 43
3.7 Conclusions ............................................. 47
CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ....................... 48
4.1 Overview ................................................ 48
4.2 The Experimental Situation and the
Manipulation of Conflict ................................ 48
4.3 Survival ................................................ 52
4.4 Accuracy ................................................ 53
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
page
4.5 Satisfaction ............................................. 54
4.6 Tension Release .......................................... 56
4.7 Research Extension ....................................... 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 58
APPENDICES
Appendix A Group Size Over Time ............................. 60
Appendix B The Search for Leadership Traits ................. 61
Appendix C ................................................. 64
Appendix D ................................................. 67
Appendix E Independent Variables with Negative Emotions ..... 68
Appendix F Independent Variables with Humor ................. 69
Appendix G Independent Variables with Laughter .............. 70
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Missing Data for Groups ....................................
Intercoder Reliabilities ...................................
Analysis of Variance, Length Day 1 by Conflict .............
Analysis of Variance, Length Day 2 by Conflict .............
Analysis of Variance, Length Day 3 by Conflict .............
Mean Length of Interactions ................................
Analysis of Variance, Time 1 Disagreement by Conflict ......
Analysis of Variance, Time 2 Disagreement by Conflict ......
Analysis of Variance, Time 3 Disagreement by Conflict ......
Condition Means - Number of Disagreements ..................
Condition Means - Disagreements Per Minute .................
Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance, Rate of
Disagreement, Conflict Condition by Experimental Time ......
Analysis of Variance, Survival 1 by Conflict ...............
Analysis of Variance, Survival 2 by Conflict ...............
Analysis of Variance, Satisfaction with Solution
by Conflict ................................................
Analysis of Variance, Satisfaction with Interaction
by Conflict ................................................
17 Analysis of Variance, Satisfaction with Influence
by Conflict ................................................
18 Analysis of Variance, Accuracy by Conflict .................
19 Analysis of Variance, Negative Emotion by Conflict - Day 1.
20 Analysis of Variance, Negative Emotion by Conflict - Day 2.
21 Means - Negative Emotions .................................
22 Analysis of Variance, Humor by Conflict - Day 1 ............
23 Analysis of Variance, Humor by Conflict - Day 2 ............
24 Analysis of Variance, Laughter Day 1 by Conflict ...........
25 Analysis of Variance, Laughter Day 2 by Conflict ...........
OmNO‘U'l-DwN-fl
—l—J—l
N-‘O
.—a—a._l
01-h“
-—l
0‘
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
fiflflié page
1 Number of Disagreements by Condition ....................... 49
2 Mean Length of Interactions Across All Groups .............. 50
viii
CHAPTER ONE
RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES
1.1 Introduction
This paper studies conflict in small groups. Two contrasting views
of small group processes are considered. Both points of view deal with
the strategies groups use to deal with conflict. One perspective empha-
sizes the resolution of conflict. An alternative perspective holds that
conflict ought to be managed and maintained for the benefit of the group
and individual group members.
1.2 Purpose
This is an exploratory study of the effects of conflict management
and conflict resolution strategies on small group processes. Specific-
ally, the purposes of this study are to:
(1) Compare the effect of conflict management and conflict resolution
strategies on individual member satisfaction in small groups.
(2) Analyze the communication patterns in groups which either manage or
resolve conflicts, focusing on tension release communication.
(3) Compare groups which utilize conflict management and conflict reso-
lution strategies in terms of the accuracy of solutions reached.
(4) Compare conflict management and conflict resolution groups in terms
of their survival.
In this chapter, the conflict management and conflict resolution
perspectives will be described. Hypotheses will be developed related to
l
four variables defined as potential effects of managing or resolving
conflict. These variables are group survival, group satisfaction, ten-
sion release, and accuracy of group solutions.
1.3 Overview of Conflict Resolution Perspective
The conflict resolution perspective is a set of assumptions about
the nature of conflict, commonly held by scholars in speech communica-
tion. This perspective emphasizes communication strategies which can
be used to resolve conflict once it occurs.
Hawes and Smith (1973) define this perspective as follows:
Normative theories of conflict assume that the only
good conflict is a resolved conflict. The rationale
is that people are happier, healthier, and more pro-
ductive when they are 'cooperating' and 'getting
along' with one another. . . . A central thesis
throughout these discussions is that the effect of
conflict is destructive and the best means for bring-
ing it to a speedy end should be sought.
(1973: 425-425)
According to Simons (1972), Rogers and Roethlisberger popularized
this perspective when they presented a paper to speech communication
scholars and psychotherapists at the Centennial Conference on Communica-
tions at Northwestern University in 1951. Comparing conflict to a
breakdown in a mechanical system, they argue that the barrier to effec-
tive communication is evaluation of someone else's perspective from our
own point of view. Communication breakdowns can be prevented by non-
evaluation.
The conflict resolution perspective is utilized by scholars who ad-
here to a systems perspective. From this point of view, social systems
are likened to organisms and conflict to a disease. This analysis is
characteristic of the work of Talcott Parsons (1951) who treats conflict
as a form of sickness in the social body.
Systems theorists in communication typically view conflict as a
disruption of homeostasis. According to Hawes and Smith (1973) the con-
flict resolution approach assumes that cooperation is the normal state
of a system:
Equilibrium and stability of systems are thought of
as conflict-free states in which all components are
coordinated and acting in harmony. Conflict occurs
as a temporary disruption of the system. The disrup-
tion has a beginning, in all likelihood a cause, and
is terminated allowing a return to a state which,
although possibly altered by the conflict, will remain
stable until the next episode of disruption. (1973: 425)
Thus, underlying the conflict resolution perspective is the assump-
tion that the effect of conflict is destructive. The quickest means to
bring conflict to an end is studied. Frequently analyzed according to
systems theory, this perspective views conflict as a temporary disrup-
tion of the normal state of c00peration.
There is an alternative set of assumptions underlying the study of
conflict in small groups. The conflict management approach rejects the
idea that conflict is a destructive deviation from normality. This
approach holds that conflict should be managed and maintained for the
benefit of the parties in conflict.
1.4 OverView of Conflict Management Perspective
Kenneth Boulding, editor of the Journal of Conflict Resolution,
states that the title of his journal may not be appropriate for the na-
ture of the issues covered in his journal:
Perhaps 'management' would have been better, for the
distinction between constructive and destructive
conflicts is not necessarily the distinction between
those which are resolved and those which are not.
Conflicts are sometimes resolved in ways which are
highly undesirable for one party if not for both.
Sometimes there is a need for protracting conflict
and for keeping it unresolved, perhaps by diminish—
ing its intensity and increasing its duration.
(1968: 410)
Hawes and Smith (1973) analyze the assumptions underlying the
study of conflict in the field of speech communication. They find that
the conflict management perspective has received little attention.
They suggest that the most fruitful way of analyzing conflict assumes
that "conflict is a perpetual condition to be managed and maintained"
(1973: 425).
The conflict management perspective has been discussed by scholars
in other fields. Sociologist Georg Simmel analyzes conflict as a posi-
tive, constructive force. Simmel (1955) argues that if we look at con-
flict in isolation, it may appear to be destructive. However, if we
look at the total effect of conflict in a system, it may be positive
force:
If every interaction among men is association,
conflict - after all one of the most vivid interac-
tions, which, furthermore, cannot possibly be
carried on by one individual alone ~ must certainly
be considered as sociation. And in fact, gjssocia-
tion factors - hate, envy, need, desire - are the
causes of conflict; it breaks out because of them.
Conflict is thus designed to resolve divergent
dualisms; it is a way of achieving some kind of
unity, even if it be through the annihilation of
one of the conflicting parties. (1955: 13)
In summary, the conflict management perspective looks at the poten-
tially constructive effects of conflict. If viewed from this perspec-
tive, conflict contributes to group unification, and is a continuous
process to be managed and maintained.
Four major effects of managing conflict in small groups have been
theoretically isolated, and research hypotheses can be developed related
to each of these four major effects, which are group member satisfaction,
survival of the group, tension releasing and group problem solving abil—
ity.
1.5 Effects of Conflict Management Compared With Conflict Resolution
Strategies
Several authors discuss potentially beneficial effects of conflict
management strategies in small groups. Although their attention is fo-
cused on conflict management, theorists contrast the effects of conflict
management with the effects of conflict resolution. Now, group member
satisfaction will be described as a dependent variable effected by the
management or resolution of conflict.
1.51 Satisfaction. According to Simmel (1955), in—group conflict
has positive functions for the individual as well as for relationships.
By expressing opposition, an individual is making a potentially unbear-
able situation at least tolerable. Simmel argues that expressing con-
flict gives the individual psychological relief and satisfaction.
Simmel asserts that just as a fighter must "pull himself together,"
individuals in conflict must similarly focus their energies. The inner
changes which occur when an individual is in opposition to another indi-
vidual strengthen each party.
Daily experience shows us how easily a quarrel be-
tween two individuals changes each of them not only
in his relationship to the other but also in
himself. There are first of all the distorting and
purifying, weakening or strengthening consequences
of the conflict for the individual. In addition,
there are the conditions of it, the inner changes
and adaptations which it breeds because of their
usefulness in carrying it out. (1955: 88)
Simmel (1955) argues that the changes which an individual goes
through in order to engage in conflict are positive and satisfying. The
individual must take on a concentration of his or her energies when
engaged in conflict. In a conflict-free state, however, these energies
can be unfocused. Thus, one of the satisfying consequences of conflict
for the individual is in the concentration of his or her efforts.
Weick (1969) explains that group members need to express opposing
points of view in order to be satisfied with a group product. Conflict
results from the expression of what he calls "self-centered" responses.
Weick argues that the expression of self-centered responses, or individ-
uated action, provides satisfaction with group interaction. In addi-
tion, it produces a greater degree of satisfaction with the group prod—
uct, since members feel they have an input in the group.
Torrance (1957) reports the results of a number of field studies
of small groups under conditions of survival. Through intensive inter-
views, he determines the extent to which conflict was expressed in these
groups and analyzes the effects of expressing conflict on group pro-
cesses.
One field study he reports deals with the effects of expressing
conflict on group member satisfaction. He interviews groups of equip-
ment technicians who were caught in a blizzard in the high Sierras. The
groups adapted poorly to adverse conditions, as a majority of the group
members became severely frostbitten as a result of continuing their ex-
cursion after marching through an unfrozen stream.
Each member said that he wanted to stop and dry his feet before
continuing, but was afraid of expressing dissent from the group. The
instructors claimed that they wanted to have the trainees stop and do
the same, but thought the trainees were too apathetic to take care of
themselves. Thus, the instructors interpreted fear of disagreement as
apathy.
Torrance concludes that none of the group members were satisfied
with the solution reached by the group to continue marching. He attri-
butes their lack of satisfaction to their unwillingness to express dis-
agreement.
The work of Simmel (1955), Weick (1969) and Torrance (1957) lead
to the following hypothesis:
H]: In groups where conflict management techniques are
utilized, there is greater individual member satis-
faction than in groups where conflict resolution
techniques are utilized.
1.52 Survival. A number of authors have looked at the effects of
expressing conflict on small group survival. Each individual operation-
ally defines the variable, but the conceptual definition of group survi-
val is not discussed. A definition of group survival can be developed
by looking at definitions of a group.
Sociological definitions of group emphasize structural character-
istics and role relationships. Sherif and Sherif (1956) provide the
following definition:
A group is a social unit which consists of a number of
individuals who stand in (more or less) definite status
and role relationships to one another and which
possesses a set of values or norms of its own regulat-
ing behavior of individual members, at least in matters
of consequence to the group. (1956: 144)
McDavid and Harari (1968) state a similar definition:
A social-psychological group is an organized system
of two or more individuals who are interrelated so
that the system performs some function, has a standard
set of role relationships among its members, and has
a set of norms that regulate the function of the
group and each of its members. (1968: 237)
Using this definition, group survival can be defined as the exis-
tence over time of a collective of individuals with a common structure
and function. Group members can be added or dropped, and the gpggp_
would survive. Individuals' affective relationships to other group
members can change without affecting survival of the group.
A psychological definition of group leads to a different concept of
group survival. This type of definition stresses the fulfillment of in-
dividual member needs, rather than structure and function. Bass (1960)
provides a psychological definition of group:
We define group as a collection of individuals whose
existence as a collective is rewarding to the indi-
viduals. (1960: 39)
Cattell (1951) also provides a psychological definition of group:
A group is a collection of organisms in which the
existence of all (in their given relationships) is
necessary to the satisfaction of certain individual
needs in each. (1951: 167)
Using a psychological definition of group, group survival is the
fulfillment of the needs of a collective of individuals over time.
According to this definition, groups which fail to meet the needs of
individual members fail to survive. A group could survive in the socio-
logical sense by remaining intact as a structural unit, but fail to sur—
vive in the psychological sense because member needs were not fulfilled.
All of the authors surveyed who discuss the effects of managing
conflict on group survival consider survival in the sociological sense.
Sociologists Simmel (1955) and Coser (1956) equate survival with a group
or dyad remaining as a social-structural unit. Campbell (1965), Weick
(1969) and Torrance (1957) look at survival according to the group's
ability to adapt to changes in the environment. These authors take a
sociological approach, implicitly defining survival as the ability of
the group to persist as a structural unit. Now, the relationship be—
tween conflict management and survival will be discussed.
Simmel describes the results of ppt_expressing conflict as leading
to the destruction of relationships. The feeling of oppression increases
in a relationship if conflict is not expressed. Finally, silent opposi-
tion causes such relationships to split apart.
Coser (1956) argues that the indirect expression of conflict has a
negative effect on survival of the group. If group members choose to
act out conflict toward alternative objects, the direct expression of
conflict is inhibited. This leads to rigidity in a group structure,
which would otherwise be modified by the direct expression of conflict.
The expression of conflict in indirect ways may function like lightening
rods, to clear the air, but it cannot prevent conflict from recurring.
Campbell (1965) discusses the survival value of altruism and of
self-centered behavior. He argues that there are natural selection pro-
cesses operating which cause one individual to survive at the expense of
the other individual. Also, there are selection processes operating
that cause one gppgp_to survive at the expense of another group.
Campbell holds that there is survival value for the individual to
behave cooperatively in order for his or her group to survive. There
is also survival value for the individual to behave in a self-centered
way for ego-gratification. Since individual member satisfaction is ul-
timately beneficial to the group, it is desirable for the survival of
the group to maintain selfish, as well as altruistic, responses.
Weick (1969) relying on Campbell's analysis, argues that in a small
group, whenever compromise responses are emitted, the survival of pppp_
altruistic and self-centered motives is destroyed. Although compromise
responses appear to be satisfying both individual and group interests,
Weick maintains that these responses satisfy neither interest.
10
According to Weick, compromise responses fail to satisfy group in-
terests because they level out responses from individual members which
may have great adaptive value for the group. The expression of conflict
may trigger the use of conflict resolution techniques in a group, which
can be destructive for the group when conditions change:
No one questions that if left on its own, the group
could destroy itself with conflict and ambivalence.
Our point is that the presence of conflict does not
necessarily indicate that a group is dissolving; it
merely signifies that the group retains heterogeneous
responses and preferences, all of which may be adap—
tive under some circumstances. (1969: 104)
By interviewing United States Air Force jet pilots in combat in
Korea, Torrance (1957) compares pilots who have exceptional fighting
records with average pilots. Compared to other pilots, "aces" were more
unwilling to accept "no" as an answer. They were also more willing to
oppose accepted procedures than less successful pilots. Torrance con-
cludes:
If willingness to disagree is related to individual
ability to adapt, it is only reasonable to expect
that group processes are affected accordingly.
Willingness to disagree has meant the difference be-
tween survival and failure to survive in group situa-
tions. (1957: 314)
Torrance (1955) describes an unpublished study by Howard which sup-
ports his conclusions about the effect of disagreement on group pro-
cesses. Howard analyzes survival experiences of groups which were
stranded in the Southwest Pacific in World War II. He finds that group
prejudices against eating strange foods cause groups of individuals to
starve to death, rather than overcoming these prejudices. Groups which
survived under these adverse conditions contained individual members
who dissented against the group opinion.
11
The work of Simmel (1955), Coser (1956), Campbell (1965), Weick
(1969) and Torrance (1957) leads to the following prediction:
H2: Groups which utilize conflict management techniques
will be more likely to survive than groups which
utilize conflict resolution techniques.
1.53 Tension Release. Theory relating to the tension—relieving
characteristics of conflict is characteristic of Lewis Coser (1956).
He criticizes the work of Georg Simmel for over—simplification of the
tension-relieving characteristics of conflict. Coser characterizes
Simmel's perspective as a "safety—valve" theory of conflict. That is,
conflict releases hostile feelings that would otherwise build up and
destroy relationships.
Coser's criticism of the "safety-valve“ characterization of con-
flict is based on Freudian analysis, which became popular subsequent to
the original publication of Simmel's work. Coser argues that the hos-
tilities and tensions generated in a conflict situation can be acted out
in other ways besides the overt expression of conflict.
Speaking about the feelings of hostility generated by conflict,
Coser (1956) states:
The relevant expression of these feelings in behavior
are of at least three possible kinds: (1) direct ex-
pression of hostility against the person or group
which is the source of frustration, (2) displacement .
of such hostile behavior onto substitute objects, and j
(3) tension-release activity which provides satisfac-
tion in itself without need for object or object sub-
stitute. (1956: 41)
The discussion of Coser leads to the following prediction about
tension release in small groups. Groups in which conflict is resolved
rather than managed would not be able to release tension through direct
expression of conflict. Therefore:
AI ' I I “ II-(ll' [[1 Elli-l l lint“ Ci.." I ll ll Ill I'll All II. II | f-
12
H o
3. Groups in which conflict is resolved display more tension
release behavior than groups in which conflict is managed.
1.54 Problem Solving. Irving Janis (1972) studies the relation-
ship between the suppression of conflict and the problem solving ability
of policy making groups. From historical records, recollections of par-
ticipants and descriptions of observers, Janis reconstructs the condi-
tions under which a number of major national policy decisions were made.
He finds that groups which made policy decisions based on incomplete
and distorted information, or on false premises, show the following in-
teraction patterns:
Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong
arguments against any of the group's stereotypes,
illusions, or commitments, making clear this type of
dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal
members;
Self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group
consensus, reflecting each member's inclination to
minimize to himself the importance of his doubts and
counterarguments;
A shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments
conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from
self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false
assumption that silence means consent);
The emergence of self-appointed mindguards-members
who protect the group from adverse information that
might shatter their shared complacency about the effec-
tiveness and morality of their decisions. (1972: 198)
These symptoms are among eight characteristics of groups which em-
ploy what Janis labels "groupthink." An example of a "groupthink" de-
cision was made by John Kennedy and his staff of advisors, prior to the
Bay of Pigs invasion. Individually, each man was brilliant and capable
of shrewd analysis. Collectively, they did not detect serious errors
in the invasion plan:
The President and his key advisors approved the Bay of
Pigs invasion plan on the basis of six assumptions,
each of which was wrong. In retrospect, the President's
advisors could see that even when they first began to
discuss the plan, sufficient information was available
13
to indicate that their assumptions were much too shakey.
They could have obtained and used the crucial informa-
tion beforehand to correct their false assumptions if
at the group meetings they had been more critical and
probing in fulfilling their advisory roles. (1972: 19)
Weick (1969) argues in favor of retaining heterogeneous responses
in a problem solving group. A group will be more flexible in dealing
with environmental changes if competing reSponses are maintained. Re-
sponses which were appropriate at one time may not be appropriate when
circumstances change. Groups which preserve a larger repertoire of re-
sponses will have more resources available in solving problems, espe-
cially problems which cannot be foreseen in advance.
Weick believes that if conflict is resolved, the solution should
not constitute a compromise. That is, such a solution must not destroy
the original, adaptive responses present in the conflict. The only
conflict resolution strategy acceptable to Weick is one which allows
both points of view of uncompromised expression.
Bell (1974) argues that an emphasis on the goal of consensus, and
the corresponding assumption that conflict should be resolved, destroys
the group's primary reason for being together. One of the basic rea-
sons for having groups, rather than individuals, solve problems is that
inaccuracy of perception and judgment is modified in a group. This
takes place when group members critically compare one idea against an-
other. When conflict is resolved because of an emphasis on the goal of
consensus, inaccurate solutions are likely to result.
Based on the discussions of Weick (1969) and Bell (1974) and the
observational research of Janis (1972), we would expect that groups
which utilize conflict resolution techniques would produce more accurate
solutions to problems because they are drawing from a wider range of
{I'll‘l‘lll‘aolllll‘l llllvl I Illlllla' .Illllll.
14
possible responses.
This leads to the following prediction about the solutions of prob-
lem solving groups:
H4: Groups which utilize conflict management techniques produce
more accurate solutions to problems than groups which
utilize conflict resolution techniques.
We have described four theoretic hypotheses which were investigated
in an experimental field study. In the next chapter, we will describe
a study which was conducted to test these hypotheses.
CHAPTER TWO
METHODS
2.1 Experimental Design and Procedures
This is an experimental study of small group behavior at three
points in time. Students in Communication 210, Leadership were randomly
assigned to twenty groups, which worked on problem solving tasks related
to topics covered in class. Individuals received instructions on how
to deal with conflict which occurred in their groups. Individuals in
half of the groups received instructions to manage and maintain any con-
flicts which occurred, and subjects in the other half of the groups were
told to quickly resolve any conflicts which occurred.
Students remained in their experimental groups for three sessions,
held one week apart. After the third group meeting, students were
asked to choose people whom they wanted to work with on their group pro-
jects. They were also asked how much they wanted to work with each
group member on their project. The responses were used as a measure of
survival of the groups.
Group interactions were tape recorded. Sets of coders were trained
to measure dependent variables from the tapes. The variables coded were
humor, laughter, negative emotions, disagreement, statements of agree-
ment, and use of reasoning. Also, singular and plural pronouns were
measured and were used to create an index of group cohesiveness.
The following discussion describes the experiment in detail. First,
15
16
the pretest will be described. Then, the independent variables will be
discussed. Next, subject and group composition will be described.
After discussing the subjects and group composition, we will dis-
cuss coder and observer training. Then, the dependent variables will
be described. Next, the experimental procedures will be discussed.
Finally, ethical considerations will be described.
2.2 Pretest
A pretest was conducted as a trial run for the experimental proce—
dures, and to test the effectiveness of the experimental manipulations.
Students in Communication 205, Persuasion, received extra credit for
participation in the pretest. Before the pretest experiment, six
Communication 100 students were trained to code the sequence of inter-
action in the groups.
Before the students were assigned to experimental groups, they were
given a list of the following ten health professions to rank from one to
ten according to their prestige: plastic surgeon, neurosurgeon, pedia-
trician, dentist, orth0pedic surgeon, registered nurse, opthamologist,
dermatologist, psychiatrist, and cardiologist.
After completing the rankings, the students were placed into six
three or four person groups. Three of these groups were then physically
separated from the other groups. Three of the groups were given instruc-
tions labelled "Conflict Management,“ which contained instructions to
manage conflicts which occurred. The other half of the groups received
instructions labelled "Conflict Resolution," instructing them to quickly
resolve all conflict which occurred. Each set of instructions contained
a description of theory supporting either conflict resolution or con—
flict management assumptions.
r1 1.
17
The groups were told that it was their task to come up with one
group ranking. Each group member had a card with "CONFLICT" printed on
it in large letters. Each time a conflict occurred, group members were
to hold up this conflict card. In the conflict resolution groups, mem«
bers were told that they were to have their cards gpgg most of the time.
In the conflict management groups, students were told that they should
have their cards gp_most of the time. This was to reinforce the set of
procedural rules.
An observer went to each of the groups, started the tape recorder
which was in the center of the groups, and asked each member to state
his or her name. Every five minutes group members were reminded of the
procedural rules they were to use to deal with conflict.
After completing the task, observers and participants discussed
the experimental procedures with the author. Most students agreed that
the theoretical introduction was unnecessary. Several observers stated
that the conflict cards were distracting, and students agreed. Students
said that being interrupted every five minutes was also quite distracting.
From listening to tapes of the interactions, it was confirmed that both
the cards and the interruptions distracted groups from their task.
A majority of the students indicated that there was at least one
profession they did not know. During the exercise, a number of students
asked the instructor what "opthamologist" meant.
After this discussion, a number of changes were made from the pree
test situation to the experimental situation:
1. Conflict cards were not used.
2. The groups were not reminded of the rules.
3. The groups were not given an extensive theoretical
18
explanation of conflict management or conflict resolution.
4. A different set of instructions was used for the ranking task.
The author listened to the tapes to determine if the manipulation
was effective. In the conflict management condition, there were an
average of sixteen disagreements expressed per group. In the conflict
resolution conditions, there was an average of one disagreement expressed
per group.
2.3 Experimental Manipulations and Independent Variables
One variable was manipulated in this experiment - the procedural
rules the groups used in their problem solving tasks. One set of rules
was labelled conflict resolution and the other set was labelled conflict
management, creating two levels of this variable. Time was a measured
independent variable, at three different points. This created a two-by-
three design.
2.3l Conflict Rules. One set of procedural rules was designed to
bring about the resolution of conflict in the groups. Based on the pre-
test manipulation, the following set of rules, labelled "Conflict Reso-
lution," was used:
In any group, people have different values, attitudes,
and beliefs that relate to the on-going activities of
the group. When you consider the different back-
grounds and experiences of each person in a group,
the emergence of conflict is not surprising. Since
conflict can occur frequently, most groups develop
ways of resolving it. One method of resolving con-
flict is through the specification of communication
rules.
Below are some communication rules to follow in your
small group. If you carefully follow these rules,
conflict should be effectively resolved.
1. YOUR GROUP SHOULD FUNCTION TO AVOID CONFLICTS.
IF THEY OCCUR, TRY TO QUICKLY RESOLVE DISAGREEMENTS.
Il‘l‘||lll IIIU‘I“-IIITIII1 .....
19
2. WHEN YOU AGREE WITH SOMEONE, OPENLY EXPRESS THAT
DISAGREEMENT.
3. DON'T CRITICIZE THE IDEAS OF OTHER PEOPLE IN
YOUR GROUP.
4. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW
IS EXPRESSED.
Another set of rules was designed to bring about the management of
conflict, labelled "Conflict Management."
In any group, people have different values, atti-
tudes, and beliefs that relate to the onegoing
activities of the group. When you consider the
different backgrounds and experiences of each per-
son in a group, the emergence of conflict is not
surprising. Since conflict can occur frequently,
most groups develop ways of regulating it. One
method of regulating conflict is through the
specification of communication rules.
Below are some communication rules to use in your
small group. If you carefully follow these rules,
conflict should be effectively maintained.
1. YOUR GROUP SHOULD FUNCTION TO ACCEPT AND MAIN.
TAIN CONFLICT. WHEN CONFLICT AND DISAGREEMENT
OCCUR, TRY TO MAINTAIN OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW.
2. WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE, FREELY EXPRESS
YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW.
3. FREELY CRITICIZE THE IDEAS OF OTHER PEOPLE
IN YOUR GROUP.
4. MAKE SURE YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW IS HEARD.
2.32 limp, Time was a second independent variable. The experi-
mental sessions took place at three different points in time. These
were spaced one week apart, as class met once per week. Groups re-
ceived the same procedural rules all three times. With the exception of
two groups, which will be discussed later, group composition remained
the same at all three points in time.
20
2.4 Subjects and Group Compositipp‘
2.4l Subjects. Several requirements were necessary for subjects.
First, a collective of approximately eighty people was needed. Second-
ly, these people needed to meet over time, since time was one of the
independent variables. Thirdly, these people needed to be in a situa.
tion where they could continue working in a small group, in order to
measure survival of the group. Fourth, we needed a situation where
working on a problem solving task was natural.
All these requirements were met in the author's Communication 210,
Leadership, class. This class had a projected enrollment of about
eighty peOple, and met once a week for nine weeks. Leadership classes
are frequently taught with problem solving exercises. From their ex-
perimental groups, students could choose other students to work with
for the rest of the term on their group projects, making survival of
the small groups a relevant variable.
Seventy—seven students participated in the experiment; one fresh-
man, seventeen sophomores, thirtyuone juniors and twenty-eight seniors.
Thirty-two students were female and forty-five students were male.
There were twenty different academic majors represented by students in
this class.
2.42 Group_Composition. Since we were measuring survival of the
groups, it was important that group membership remained constant across
time. Therefore, several incentives were given to the students to
attend all three sessions. They were offered an automatic 4.0 (A) as a
participation grade in class, constituting ten percent of their final
grade. Also, they were urged to attend to understand the class material,
since class met once a week.
21
Students were randomly assigned to twenty groups of four or five
students each. Females were assigned to groups first, since there were
fewer females in the class, to ensure an equivalent distribution of fe-
male students across groups. Two students who anticipated being absent
were not assigned to groups.
On day one of the experiment, five persons were absent who had
been assigned to groups. On day two of the experiment, two people
present on day one dropped the class. Any new people were not assigned
to groups. On day three, group membership remained the same as on day
two.
The stable size of the groups, after day one, was as follows. In
the conflict resolution condition, there were three three~person groups,
four four-person groups and three five-person groups. In the conflict
management condition, there were two groups which had one member less
than the conflict resolution groups. See Appendix A, a summary of the
size of the experimental groups over time.
2.5 Dependent Variables
A number of dependent variables were measured, both from the taped
interactions and from a questionnaire given to each participant. In
this section, we will describe the variables measured from the tapes of
group interactions. Then, we will describe the variables measured from
a questionnaire.
2.51 Description of Variables Measured from Taped Interactiogs.
The number of times overt disagreement occurred was measured as a mani-
pulation check. The number of times statements were made expressing
agreement or positive reinforcement was also measured.
22
Three variables were measured which were indicators of tension re-
lease. The number of times laughter occurred was measured. The number
of humorous statements was measured. Another measure of tension release
was the number of statements which expressed negative emotion.
The number of statements using reasoning or evidence was measured.
In addition, two variables were measured to create an interactional mea-
sure of cohesion. These were the number of times first person singular
pronouns were used and the number of times first person plural pronouns
were used. The more plural, as Opposed to singular, pronouns which are
used, the more cohesive the group (see Pacanowsky, 1975).
2.52 Operationalization of Interaction Variables. The eight inter-
action variables were operationalized as follows:
(1) Humorous statements - any statement that was intended to be
funny by the source was coded as humorous. Humor could be directed at
self, at others in the group, at the situation, or at the class and the
instructors.
(2) Laughter - laughter was divided into two categories, individual
and group laughter. If only one person laughed, this was considered
individual laughter. If more than one person laughed simultaneously,
this was considered group laughter.
(3) Negative emotions - any negative feelings that were expressed
through tone of voice and were indirect expressions of hostility were
coded as negative emotions. If a negative vocal tone accompanied an
overt disagreement, coders were told not to code it.
(4) Disagreement — any overt, direct expression that one person did
not agree with another person was coded. This had to be directly and
intentionally related to another person's comment.
23
(5) Agreement - any statement directly expressing that one person
was in agreement with another was coded.
(6) Reasoning — any statement indicating reasons for a person's
point of view was coded. Included were statements of evidence or fact.
(7) Singular pronouns - any first person singular pronoun or con-
traction was coded.
(8) Plural pronouns — any first person plural pronoun or contrac-
tion was coded.
2.53 Dependent Measures of Survival, After the third group meet-
ing, a measure was taken to determine whether the small groups would
survive for the rest of the term. In the time four questionnaire, each
group member was asked whom he or she wanted to work with on the group
project. They were also asked how much they wanted to continue working
with each person in their group. See Appendix B for the questionnaire
used.
The group project was a separate assignment from the small group
interactions. Students were told in the beginning of the class that
they would interact the first three weeks in problem solving groups, and
then choose people to work with on a class project. The first three in-
teractions, they were told, would give them experience working in groups
before they started the class project.
The class project was for the students, in groups with other stu-
dents of their choice, to study leadership patterns in another group,
such as a fraternity, social club, or task—oriented group. This project
was to terminate in a class presentation, counting twenty percent of the
student's grade.
24
2.54 Dependent Measures of Satisfaction. In addition to questions
related to survival, students were asked the following questions related
to their satisfaction with the group.
If 100 units is the average amount of satisfaction
and zero is the complete absence of satisfaction,
how satisfied are you with the solutions reached
by your group?
If 100 units is an average amount of satisfaction
and zero units is the complete absence of satisfac-
tion, how satisfied were you with the interaction
in your group?
If 100 units is an average amount of satisfaction
and zero units is the complete absence of satis-
faction, how satisfied were you with the amount of
influence you had in your group?
2.6 Coder and Observer Trainipg:
2.61 Coder Training. Forty—eight coders were chosen from Communi-
cation 350R, as an optional class assignment. Coders worked in pairs.
Each pair coded one of the eight variables at one point in time.
Pairs of coders were trained individually, and received the same
introduction to the research project. They were told the general nature
of the research, but were not told the hypotheses of the study. Coders
were instructed to code the frequency with which each of the eight in-
teraction variables occurred in the tape they were listening to. Speci-
fic training for each variable took place as follows:
(1) Humorous statements — a pretest tape was played, and coders
marked down the number of humorous comments which were made. After com-
paring their answers, the author described various forms of humor which
they might hear, such as banter, irony, teasing, joking, overstatement,
understatement, sarcasm, etc.
(2) Laughter - coders listened to a small segment of the pretest
25
tape at a time, marking down the number of times both group and individ-
ual laughter occurred. They compared the number of times they coded
laughter in each segment.
(3) Negative emotions - several training sessions were used for
this variable. After the nature of the variable was explained, a pretest
tape was played. Each time a coder heard a negative emotion being ex-
pressed he or she signalled and the tape was stopped. Coders listened
to that segment of the tape again, and discussed the nature of the nega-
tive emotion. This procedure continued until the coders could easily
discriminate the variable. Coders made a brief list of negative emotions
which might occur, which they read before each coding session to refresh
their memories. Such emotions included anger, resentment, frustration,
bitterness, disgust, and other emotions expressing hostility.
(4) Disagreement - the same procedure, stopping the tape each time
the variable occurred, was used.
(5) Agreement — coders listened to a pretest tape and coded the num-
ber of statements of agreement which they heard. They were specifically
instructed not to code statements such as "Yes" or "0.K." as agreements
if they were used simply as transition statements.
(6) Reasoning - coders listened to a pretest tape and were told to
listen for statements starting with because as expressions of reasoning.
Coders were told to code reasoning from the source's perspective. That
is, if an individual was attempting to use reasoning, this was to be
coded as a statement of reason. The coders were told not to evaluate
the responses according to what they felt sppp1g_be reasoning.
(7) Singular pronouns - listening to a pretest tape, students coded
every time one of the following words was used: I, me, my, mine, I'll,
l__' «I I III“! I III ...I l '11
26
I've, I'd, I'm.
(8) Plural pronouns - using the same procedure as with singular pro-
nouns, coders listened for: we, our, ours, we've, we'll, we'd.
2.62 Observers and Observer Training. Observers were used to code
the sequence of interactions in the tapes, to identify a statement with
a particular person, in case such data was needed for secondary analysis.
Observers were Communication 100 students. Each observer was given a
coding sheet, which contained columns representing people in the group
and rows representing time sequence of interaction. Coders wrote group
members' names across the top of the page, and marked down an "X" in
the appropriate column every time a person spoke. When the following
person spoke, an "X" was marked in the next row in that person's column,
and so forth.
2.7 Experimental Proceduresp
2.7l Experimental Preparations. On the first day of class, and on
their syllabus, students were told that they would be participating in a
series of three exercises, which would give them knowledge of group pro-
cesses before they worked on their group project. They were also told
they could choose people they knew from these groups to work with on
their class project at the end of the three weeks.
Cassette tape recorders were used to record the interactions of
group members. Recorders were numbered from one to twenty corresponding
to the groups, and tapes were placed in them with the same numbers.
Ten tape recorders were set up in an adjacent room while students
were in class. These tape recorders were set up in the middle of a group
of chairs. Groups were placed as far away as possible. The remaining
27
ten groups were set up in the classroom.
While class was still in session, twenty observers arrived in an ad-
jacent room. They were given a brief training session on how to code
the sequence of interaction. Due to a snow storm on the third day of
the experiment, only fourteen observers arrived. To maintain consisten-
cy across conditions, they were not assigned to observe groups.
2.72 Day One Procedure. The author handed out group assignments.
After students found their groups, the author handed out a sheet en—
titled "The Search for Leadership Traits," as in Appendix C. This con-
tained a number of conflicting findings about the relationship between
leadership and personality traits, and was abstracted from an article
entitled "Leadership" by Cecil Gibb in the 1968 Handbook of Social Psy-
chology.
Groups were told that this was actual data, and that it was their
task to derive three conclusions from this data that they felt were the
most important conclusions that could be reached. At the end of the
class, they were to hand in the conclusions. The author stressed that
next week's lecture was going to be based on the conclusions they reached.
Groups one through ten went to the adjacent room, and were told to
look for a tape recorder with their group number on it. Students in
groups one through twenty were directed to different parts of the class-
room, and an assistant followed with the appropriate tape recorder.
The experimenter handed out a set of procedural rules to each per—
son in groups eleven through twenty. These rules instructed the groups
to manage conflict, and are described in Section 2.61. She explained
that the use of these rules in their groups was very important to help
the group run smoothly. She then read the four rules listed on their
28
handout sheets.
An assistant followed the same procedure in directing groups one
through ten in the adjacent room. He handed out the procedural rules
designed to help the groups quickly resolve conflict. He explained the
importance of these rules and read them to the groups.
Observers then went to each group, turned on the tape recorders,
and asked people to introduce themselves. When the groups finished the
exercise they handed in a group solution and left class.
2.73 Day Two Procedures. Each class member was given the follow-
ing assignment before they broke into their groups. They were assigned
to rank fifteen professions according to their prestige. This exercise
is “Consensus Seeking: A Group Ranking Task" as found in Pfeiffer and
Jones' A Handbook of Structured Experiences in Human Relations Training,
Volume II. After they finished their individual rankings, students were
told to develop one group ranking.
When groups were assembled, the experimenter or an assistant passed
out copies of the procedural rules and stressed the importance of follow-
ing these rules. The appropriate procedural rules were read to each set
of groups. The groups were given a form to record a group decision, and
handed in this form when they were finished. See Appendix D for the
group task.
2.74 Day Three Procedures. As an introduction to the exercise,
the experimenter told students that it was extremely difficult for an
instructor to assign individual grades to students for a class project.
She described the following problems: It was difficult to determine how
much each individual contributed to the group's effort. If the same
grade was assigned to everyone in the group, this was unfair to people
29
who carried all the work of people who did nothing. When group members
graded each other, they usually gave everyone a high grade, or gave their
friends high grades and people they didn't like low grades.
Students were told that it was their task to come up with a method
to use in grading their class project. For the class project students
were to be reassigned to groups which would study leadership patterns in
a group of their choice. As a group, they were to develop exact criteria
the instructor should use in determining each individual's grade on this
project. The best solution was going to be adopted by the instructor.
As the experimenter was setting up a tape recorder at group thir-
teen, a member of the group told her that they did not need a tape re-
corder because they were finished. She responded that they were not fin-
ished until the group deliberated the problem according to the procedur-
al rules given to them. As she was talking someone wrote down a solu-
tion. Group members insisted that this was a group product.
When the tape recorder was being set up at group fourteen, a member
of the group said that they had finished, too. Several members of the
group said that they had discussed the problem and that they already had
a solution.
When the author returned to these groups while the other groups
were discussing the assignment, she found that they were studying to-
gether for the midterm exam, which was to be given after everyone com-
pleted the exercise. When they were questioned, both groups said that
they agreed to hand in a solution quickly so they could study for the
test together. They indicated that studying was more important than do-
ing the exercise.
After all of the groups finished, they were separated from each
30
other so that they could fill out a questionnaire in confidence. The
author reminded them that now they could choose people to work with on
their class project, which was to start the following week. They were
given the questionnaire in Appendix C.
2.75 MissinggData. Tape recordings of some of the group inter-
actions were missing. For group fourteen on day one, the background
noise was too great to hear voices of group members. The same was true
for group thirteen at time two and group seventeen at time three.
When the first set of coders was listening to tape nineteen, the
tape got caught in the machine and a large portion of it was "chewed."
When the tape was fixed, the first eight minutes of day two's exercise
were spliced off. This tape was not used in analysis of day two's in-
teraction.
There were also missing data on day three for groups thirteen and
fourteen, who finished their exercise before the recorder was turned on,
as described. Thus, the missing data for the twenty groups at the three
points in time were as follows:
Table 1
Missing Data for Groups
Time one Time two Time three
Groups: 14 l3 l3
19 14
17
2.8 Ethical Considerations
Students were offered a reward for participating in all three exer-
cises, which was 4.0 (A) as their participation grade in the class. This
31
grade was independent of their class project grade, since the class pro-
ject started after these three exercises were completed. Students were
told that they did not have to participate, although no student declined.
Exercises were designed to integrate with classroom topics, so that the
experiment could be a learning situation.
After the three experimental sessions, students were debriefed about
the hypotheses. Students were asked about any complaints they had about
participating in the experiment. One student told the experimenter after
class that she felt that her privacy has been invaded by the use of the
tape recorders. The experimenter explained that her individual responses
were not being analyzed, since we were looking for responses on the group
level. The student indicated that she felt more comfortable after this
explanation.
2.9 Summary
Subjects were assigned to small groups which worked on problem solv-
ing tasks at three points in time, while their interactions were tape
recorded. Half of the groups received instructions to manage conflict
which occurred and half of the groups received instructions to resolve
conflicts. At a fourth point in time, subjects were given a question-
naire measuring group satisfaction and survival. Coders listened to
tapes of the group meetings to measure interaction variables. In the
next chapter, analysis of the interaction and questionnaire data will be
discussed.
CHAPTER THREE
RESULTS
3.1 Overview
In this chapter, we will present results relevant to the hypotheses.
First, intercoder reliabilities for the interaction measures are pre-
sented. Second, length of time of the interactions are discussed, which
is relevant to the analysis of other measures. Next, the manipulation
check is presented. Then, the analysis of the self report questionnaire
is presented. Finally, the analysis of interaction data is discussed.
3.2 Inter-coder Reliabilities
The following table (Table 2) represents the inter-coder reliabili-
ties for the interaction measures. As discussed earlier, a different set
of coders measured each variable at each point in time. This table rep-
resents zero-orcer correlations between coders' estimates of the freu-
quency with which each variable occurred at each point in time for each
of the twenty groups. As shown, correlations are .92 or higher. (Table
2, next page)
3.3 Length of Time of Interactions
3.31 Time One. The length of time each group worked on the problem
solving task was measured. Analysis indicates that there is no signifi-
cant difference between experimental conditions in the length of time on
day one (Table 3).
32
33
Table 2
Intercoder Reliabilities
Experimental time
Variable Time one Time two Time three
Disagreement .99 .97 .95
Agreement .98 .90 .99
Negative emotions .96 .97 .99
Reasons .99 .97 .99
Humor .99 .99 .99
Laughter .94 .99 .97
Group laughter .92 .99 .99
Singular pronouns .99 .99 .96
Plural pronouns .94 .99 .99
Table 3
Analysis of Variance
Length Day 1 by Conflict
Source D.F S.S. M.S. E_ 3_
Between groups 1 .61 .6101 .029 .867
Within groups 17 357.45 21.0206
Total 18 357.96
34
3.32 Time Two. At time two, groups in the conflict management condi-
tion interacted significantly longer than groups in the conflict resolu-
tion condition.
Table 4
Analysis of Variance
Length Day 2 by Conflict
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. f_ P_
Between groups 1 108.46 108.46 8.16 .011
Within groups 15 212.61 13.29
Total 17 321.07
3.33 Time Three. There was no significant difference between exper-
imental conditions in the length of time of the interactions at time
three.
Table 5
Analysis of Variance
Length Day 3 by Conflict
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. f_ ‘3
Between groups 1 17.26 17.26 .80 .386
Within groups 15 324.09 21.61
Total 16 341.34
3.34 Mean Length of Exercises. The mean length of time of each
exercise, across groups, was as follows:
35
Table 6
Mean Length of Interactions
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
28.4 Min. 21.4 Min. 11.6 Min.
3.4 Manipulation Check
The number of times disagreement occurred in each group was used as
a manipulation check of the conflict variable.
One-way analysis Of vari-
ance at time one indicates that the manipulation was effective at this
point in time.
Table'7
Analysis of Variance
Time 1 Disagreement by Conflict
Source - D.F. S.S. M.S. E_ .3
Between groups 1 618.84 618.84 22.81 .000
Within groups 16 434.10 27.13
Total: 17 1052.94
At time two, the conflict manipulation was also effective.
36
Table 8
Analysis of Variance
Time 2 Disagreement by Conflict
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. E_ ‘3
Between groups 1 160.00 160.00 8.58 .010
Within groups 16 298.50 18.66
Total 17 485.50
At time three, the manipulation of conflict was not effective.
Table 9
Analysis of Variance
Time 3 Disagreement by Conflict
Source ' D.F. s.s. M.S. 5 3
Between groups 1 .53 .53 .200 .661
Within groups 15 39.36 2.62
Total 16 39.88
These results can be understood by considering the mean number of
times disagreement was expressed at each point in time. In both groups,
the expression of conflict decreased over time.
37
Table 10
Condition Means - Number of Disagreements
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
Conflict
Resolution 3.6 2.3 1.4
Conflict
Management 13.7 8.5 1.8
Overall Means 8.7 5.4 1.6
Thus, the experiment at time three generated few expressions of dis-
agreement, although the groups were exposed to the same experimental in-
structions regarding conflict as at the first two points in time.
Since the length of the interactions decreases over time, as illus-
trated in Table 6, the rate of disagreement was computed by dividing the
number of disagreements in each interaction by the length of that inter-
action. The followint table presents the data which was used in a re-
peated measures analysis of variance, expressing disagreement as a rate.
Table 11
Condition Means - Disagreements Per Minute
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Overall
Conflict
Resolution .13 .13 .12 .13
Conflict
Management .88 .48 .43 .60
Overall .51 .31 .28 .37
38
Repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted using rate of
disagreement as the dependent variable. This indicates that the main
effect for conflict condition was significant, p<L01, and that the inter-
action of conflict by experimental time was not significant.
Table 12
Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance
Rate of Disagreement
Conflict Condition by Experimental Time
M Li D_.F; LL. 5 2
Conflict 3.31 1 3.31 43.89 0.000
Error 3.26 18 0.18 --- ---
Time 1 0.53 1 0.53 1.90 0.185
Time 1 by Conflict 0.48 l 0.48 1.70 0.209
Error 5.05 18 0.28 --- ---
Time 2 0.09 1 0.92 0.69 0.418
Time 2 by Conflict 0.10 l 0.10 0.76 0.394
Error 2.41 18 0.13 --- ---
Time 0.63 2 0.31 1.51 0.235
Time by Conflict 0.58 2 0.29 1.39 0.261
Error 7.46 36 0.21 --- ---
The results reported in this section will be discussed in Chapter
Four.
3.5 Self Report Dependent Variables
3.51 Survival. The first measure of group survival was taken from
the questionnaire where group members were asked to choose people with
39
whom they wanted to work for the rest of the term. The number of times
each group member chose another member of the group was counted. Then,
these individual scores were summed for a measure of the total number of
times people in the group chose each other. This group score was used
as an indicator of survival. The following analysis indicated no signi-
ficant differences between experimental conditions.
Table 13
Analysis of Variance
Survival 1 by Conflict
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F_ ‘3
Between groups 1 5.00 5.00 .489 .493
Within groups 18 184.20 10.23
Total 19 189.20
Another measure of survival was derived from individuals' reports of
how much they wanted to work with each person in the group for the rest
of the term, given that 100 units is an average amount of liking. For
each group, all of the liking scores were summed for each individual. A
group average score was used in analysis. There were no significant dif-
ferences between experimental conditions.
40
Table 14
Analysis of Variance
Survival 2 by Conflict
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F_ P_
Between groups 1 20.00 20.00 .007 .933
Within groups 18 50160.80 2786.71
Total 19 50180.80
3.52 Satisfaction Dependent Variables. Three questions were asked
related to satisfaction. These questions related to satisfaction with
the solutions, satisfaction with the group interaction, and satisfaction
with influence in the group. Individuals in the conflict resolution
condition were significantly more satisfied with the solutions reached
by their groups than individuals in the conflict management condition.
Table 15
Analysis of Variance
Satisfaction with Solution by Conflict
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. .E P_
Between groups 1 4440.20 4440.20 8.83 .008
Within groups 18 9049.60 502.76
Total 19 13489.80
Analysis of the second and third measures of satisfaction indicates
that neither test reaches statistical significance.
41
Table 16
Analysis of Variance
Satisfaction with Interaction by Conflict
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F_ .3
Between groups 1 3328.20 3328.20 3.13 .094
Within groups 18 19139.60 1063.31
Total 19 22467.80
Table 17
Analysis of Variance
Satisfaction with Influence by Conflict
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. .E .3
Between groups 1 520.20 520.20 .358 .557
Within groups 18 26158.00 1453.22
Total 19 26678.20
Analysis using the second measure of satisfaction is significant at
the .01 level. Individuals in the conflict resolution groups reported
more satisfaction with the interaction than individuals in the conflict
management groups.
3.53 Accuracy. The second exercise completed by the groups had an
objective measure of accuracy. Group error was computed by subtracting
group rankings from a corresponding objectively correct ranking of the
professions. The absolute values of the error scores were added for a
42
group error score. Analysis indicated no significant difference between
conditions.
Table 18
Analysis of Variance
Accuracy by Conflict
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. f_ E_
Between groups 1 .80 .80 .017 .897
Within groups 18 837.00 46.50
Total 19 837.80
3.6 Tension Release
The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between
experimental conditions in tension release behavior was tested for three
measures of tension release: laughter, humor, and expression of negative
emotions. As discussed in Chapter One, these are three variables theor-
etically believed to express tension release. Regression analysis with
dummy variables was used to test the null hypothesis. Dummy variables
were created for groups, experimental condition, and experimental time.1
Next, analysis of the three measures of tension release will be described.
3.61 Negative Emotions. Regression analysis for the dependent var-
iable negative emotion is presented in Appendix E. Although entering all
1 According to Winer (1962: 520) the number of dummy variables cre-
ated for experimental condition and for time is equal to n-l, n represent-
ing levels of the independent variable. The number of dummy variables
created for groups is q-l, q being equal to the number of groups within
each condition. Thus, one dummy variable was created for the conflict
condition, two for time, and eighteen for groups (nine for each condition).
43
of the variables in the regression equation results in a significant F
Ratio, E = .3102, p<.01, the experimental condition is contributing less
variance than any of the other variables. Time is contributing more var-
iance, significant at less than .01, than the other variables. See
Appendix E for the regression table.
3.62 Hgmpp. Humor was used as a dependent variable with the same
independent variable set reported above in regression analysis. In this
analysis, the overall F Ratio = 1.32, p = .238. The change in the var-
iance explained by adding the independent variable conflict was .003,
contributing less of the variance than the other variables, as described
in Appendix F.
3.63 Laughter. The same regression analysis was completed as re-
ported above, with the dummy variables as the independent set and laugh-
ter as the independent variable. The overall F Ratio was 2.086, p = .031.
However, the independent variable conflict added .001 to the explained
variance. See Appendix G for a summary of this analysis.
3.64 Exploratory Analysis of Tension Release. We conducted explor-
atory analyses of the effect of the conflict manipulation on tension re-
lease behaviors. As indicated, the three measures of tension release
were laughter, humor, and expression of negative emotions. Analysis was
conducted separately for times one and two. Time three was eliminated
from this analysis since there was no significant difference between con-
ditions in the expression of conflict at time three.
Analysis of the expression of negative emotions on days one and two
indicates that one day one, there was significantly more negative emotion
expressed in conflict management groups than in conflict resolution
groups. On day two, there is no significant difference.
44
Table 19
Analysis of Variance
Negative Emotion by Conflict - Day 1
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. f_ .3
Between groups 1 .21 .21 6.97 .018
Within groups 16 .49 .03
Total 17 .70
Table 20
Analysis of Variance
Negative Emotion by Conflict - Day 2
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F_ .3
Between groups 1 .04 .04 1.46 .245
Within groups 16 .49 .03
Total 17 .53
As discussed in the regression analysis of the negative emotion var-
iable, the two dummy variables for time accounted for a significant por-
tion of the variance in negative emotions. This can be understood more
completely by looking at the table of means for this variable.
45
Table 21
Means - Negative Emotions
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
Conflict
Resolution 2.6 3.3 22.9
Conflict
Management 8.8 7.0 18.7
Overall Means 5.3 4.7 19.4
Thus, although the mean length of the interactions decreased over
time, there were a greater number of negative emotions expressed at time
three.
Analysis of the two other measures of tension release indicates
that there are no significant differences by experimental condition.
Table 22
Analysis of Variance
Humor by Conflict - Day 1
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. '5 .3
Between groups 1 .02 .02 .662 .428
Within groups 16 .40 .03
Total 17 .42
46
Table 23
Analysis of Variance
Humor by Conflict - Day 2
Source 0 F S.S. M S '5 ‘3
Between groups 1 .13 .13 .919 .352
Within groups 16 2.29 .14
Total 17 2.42
Table 24
Analysis of Variance
Laughter Day 1 by Conflict
Source 0 F S.S. M_§_ E_ .3
Between groups 1 .02 02 .55 .47
Within groups 16 .65 .04
Total 17 .67
Table 25
Analysis of Variance
Laughter Day 2 by Conflict
Source 0 F S.S. M S ‘E ‘3
Between groups 1 .03 03 .125 .728
Within groups 16 3.40 .21
Total 17 3.42
47
3.7 Conclusions
The major conclusions which can be made from our analyses will be
discussed in Chapter Four. These conclusions are:
(1) Manipulation of conflict was effective at times one and two but
not at time three.
(2) Conflict management groups took significantly longer to solve
the problem at time two than conflict resolution groups. There was no
significant difference at the other two points in time.
(3) The null hypothesis that there is no difference in survival of
conflict management and conflict resolution groups was not rejected.
(4) The null hypothesis that there is no difference between experi-
mental groups in the accuracy of solutions was not rejected.
(5) The null hypothesis that there is no difference between experi-
mental conditions in group member satisfaction was rejected. This was in
the opposite direction as predicted, such that there was more satisfaction
with solutions in the conflict resolution groups.
(6) The null hypothesis that there was no difference between exper-
imental conditions in tension release behavior was not rejected for mea-
sures of tension release across the three points in time. For time one
considered separately, however, there was significantly more expression
of negative emotion in the conflict management groups, contrary to pre-
diction.
CHAPTER FOUR
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
4.1 Overview
This chapter discusses the conclusions drawn from results in Chap-
ter Three and describes implications for future research. First, the
experimental situation and the manipulation of conflict is discussed.
Then, implications for support or non-support of the proposed hypotheses
is described. Finally, directions for future research are suggested.
4.2 The Experimental Situation and the Manipulation of Conflict
As described in Chapter Three, there was significantly more ex-
pression of disagreement in the conflict management condition than in
the conflict resolution condition at times one and two. However, at
time three there was no significant difference between conditions. This
is illustrated in the following figure.
One interpretation of the differential effect of the conflict man-
ipulation relates to the experimental situation at time three. As de-
scribed, a midterm exam was being given the second hour of class, and
two groups in the conflict management condition were not included in
analysis because they quickly finished their exercise to study for the
exam.
As described in Chapter Three, conflict management groups took sig-
nificantly longer than conflict resolution groups to complete the time
two exercise. In order to avoid another lengthy interaction, conflict
48
Number of Disagreements
49
Figure 1
Number of Disagreements by Condition
14 (13.7) Conflict Management
12
10
8
6
. . ' (1.8)
2 Confl1ct Resolut1on
(1.4)
0
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
Experimental Session
50
management groups may have ignored rules to express conflict, creating
more time to study for the exam. The following figure supports the idea
that groups quickly finished the time three exercises in order to study.
Figure 2
Mean Length of Interactions Across All Groups
3o min.~ (28 4)
(I)
C
.2 25 minw
'3
2 20 min.4 (21 4)
.8
.5 15 min.4
1...
° 10 min.- (11'6)
.C
4.1
8' 5 min.4
.3
0 mln.«_ï¬ 1. j l v L ‘—
Time 1 ije 2" 7' ' TimeTB
Experimental Session
Based on the interpretation above, one would expect that under con—
ditions of expediency, conflict would be resolved rather than managed.
Rubin and Brown (1975), analyzing a number of bargaining situations,
support this interpretation. They report that in many negotiation situa-
tions, conflict is managed until there is an expediency, at which point
conflict is resolved.
Another interpretation of the results in Figure l is based on cul-
tural norms regarding the expression of conflict. Individuals in the
conflict resolution condition were given instructions that resembled
normal behavior for most people in conflict situations. Individuals who
were asked to manage conflict, however, were asked to break cultural
51
norms. Since it is difficult to break cultural norms, subjects may have
returned to conflict resolution norms as their groups continued to inter-
act over time.
It is also possible that individuals found that conflict management
did not work, based on the nature of the task they were engaged in. As
described, individuals were asked to arrive at a group decision, although
they were told not to resolve conflicts. Several students indicated
that this seemed like a double bind. In order to deal with a perceived
discrepancy between reaching a group decision and managing conflict,
students may have learned to ignore the conflict management instructions
as their group continued to interact.
Another explanation for the decrease in the expression of conflict
in the conflict management condition over time could be the nature of
the problems which the groups worked on. At times one and two, the
groups were involved in solving objective problems which were not ego-
involving. The exercise at time three was designed to be more ego in-
volving than the first two exercises. Based on research by Maier (1970),
we expected that greater ego-involvement with the task would produce
more conflict.
Since there was less expression of conflict at time three, this sug-
gests that greater ego-involvement may gpt_be associated with more will—
ingness to express conflict. A number of groups at time three, as their
group solution to how their project was to be graded, wrote as their so-
lution, "You decide," "You know better than we do," or "Let another group
figure it out." The consequential nature of the task may have produced
a diffusion of responsibility. Also, it may have been more difficult to
express conflict when the situation was not in the context of an
52
exercise, as it was at times one and two.
A number of alternative explanations exist for the decrease over
time in the expression of conflict in the conflict management condition:
(1) due to a midterm exam following the time three exercise, students may
have ignored conflict management procedures in order to finish their
task quickly; (2) students were breaking cultural norms by managing con-
flict, and returned to more comfortable conflict resolution norms;
(3) a double bind was perceived between managing conflict and arriving
at a group decision, and the contradiction was eventually removed by ig—
noring the conflict management rules; or (4) it was more difficult to
manage conflict at time three because the task was more ego involving.
4.3 Survival
We failed to reject the null hypothesis that conflict management
groups are more likely to survive than conflict resolution groups. We
cannot infer lack of support for the underlying theory that conflict
management has greater survival value than conflict resolution because
of the failure of our manipulation at time three. Our measurement of
survival depended on the conflict management norms being operational at
all three points in time.
However, the survival variable can be used to interpret the behavior
of groups at time three. At this point in time, there was survival value
for the individuals to hurry through the exercise and study for the exam.
Therefore, group survival was less important.
This analysis relies on the description of survival by Campbell
(1965). He argues that there are two selection processes operating when
individuals interact in groups, group survival and individual survival.
53
Often, these forces seem to be in opposition, so that an individual
chooses either group-centered or individuated action.
We have not rejected the theory that conflict management strategies
have more survival value than conflict resolution strategies. Rather,
we hold that our experiment did not adequately test the hypothesis de-
rived from this theory. This study raises some questions about conflict
and survival which merit research attention.
One researchable question deals with Campbell's theory that indi-
viduated action is opposed to group-centered responses. We have suggest-
ed that under conditions where individual survival is threatened, indi-
viduals are more likely to use conflict resolution strategies than con-
flict management strategies. As it is relevant to many situations in-
volving international bargaining, this proposition merits empirical in-
vestigation.
4.4 Accuracy
We failed to find a difference between conflict management and con-
flict resolution groups in the accuracy of solutions. Our hypothesis
that conflict management groups would produce more accurate solutions
than conflict resolution groups was based on the theory proposed by Weick
(1969) that groups managing conflict produce "superior" solutions to
problems than groups resolving conflict. Janis (1972) suggests that
groups which eXpress conflict are more rational. Although it was not hy-
pothesized, analysis shows no significant difference between conditions
in the number of times rational arguments or explanations are used.
Further research is necessary to investigate the effects of con-
flict management strategies on solution quality. A number of researchers
54
have suggested that solutions to problems are "superior" when conflict
management techniques are used, but have not specified what is meant by
a superior solution.
Although we have failed to show significant differences between con-
flict management and conflict resolution groups in the accuracy of solu-
tions, accuracy is only one criterion which can be used to evaluate solu-
tions. Solutions to problems vary according to their acceptance, short
term utility, long range effects, creativity, accuracy, or other criter-
ia. The effect of conflict management on all types of solutions needs
to be studied before conclusions can be drawn about the relative super-
iority of solving problems using conflict management strategies.
4.5 Satisfaction
Our null hypothesis was rejected for one measure of satisfaction,
satisfaction with group solutions. However, this was in the opposite
direction as predicted. That is, individuals reported significantly
more satisfaction with the solutions reached in the conflict resolution
groups than in the conflict management groups. The other measure of
satisfaction, approaching significance, indicates that individuals in
the conflict resolution groups were more satisfied with the interaction
in their group than individuals in the conflict resolution groups.
Since these measures were taken after the time three interaction,
they need to be interpreted with caution. Tentatively, the results we
obtained may be explained in terms of the tasks the groups were engaging
in. In all of the tasks in this experiment, groups were asked to arrive
at a gpppp_solution. The easiest, quickest way to reach a solution was
to resolve conflicts which occurred. In the discussion following all
55
three exercises, an individual in the conflict management condition said
that he felt like he was in a "Catch 22" situation. That is, if the
groups obeyed instructions and maintained conflicting points of view,
they would be unable to arrive at a group solution.
Another explanation of the tentative finding that conflict manage-
ment groups were more satisfied with group solutions is that the ex—
pression of conflict increased individuals' awareness that there were al-
ternative solutions to the problem. Group members were also aware that
with any solution chosen, there would be some dissent among others in
the group. In conflict resolution groups, on the other hand, there would
be apparent consensus with any solution.
Our finding that conflict resolution groups were more satisfied
with solutions than conflict management groups relates to Weick's dis-
cussion about the processes which take place in participative decision
making groups. He argues that such groups are not really participative
because the norm is conflict resolution. However, Weick observes that
participants in such groups feel satisfied, since there is apparent con-
senSus and positive feeling between group members.
The findings do not represent evidence against Simmel's theory about
the satisfaction inherent in expressing conflict, but cause us to look
more closely at the situations in which conflict occurs. Most of the
groups which Simmel discusses are religious, political, or have some kind
of ideological commitment. Thus, the goals of these groups are socio-
emotional, or have a strong socio—emotional component. The groups stud—
ied had primarily task—oriented goals. Group member satisfaction in re-
lationship to the expression of conflict needs to be studied in socio-
emotional groups to adequately test Simmel's theory.
56
4.6 Tension Release
The hypothesis that there would be more tension release behaviors
in conflict resolution groups than in conflict management groups was not
supported. However, exploratory analysis of the data revealed that at
one point in time, there was significantly more expression of negative
emotion in the conflict management groups than in the conflict resolu—
tion groups, contrary to our prediction. Negative emotions were defined
as any hostility expressed through tone of voice, so that overt dis—
agreements were not coded within this category.
There are several explanations for this finding. One is that the
procedural rules themselves generated more tension and hostility than
the conflict resolution rules. The normal mode of operation in small
groups, especially in the classroom, is to resolve or avoid conflict,
so procedural rules stressing conflict resolution were probably easy to
follow. Since it is less common for groups to manage conflict, follow-
ing conflict management rules might have been difficult, generating hos-
tility when individuals were first asked to use them.
Another explanation for greater expression of negative emotion in
the conflict management group relates to the nature of the task, as de-
scribed earlier. The groups were engaged in arriving at a group solu-
tion, although they were told not to resolve conflicts. The apparent
contradiction in these two procedures may have generated hostility.
Our hypothesis about tension release behavior was derived from
Coser's theory that when conflict is suppressed hostility is generated,
which is indirectly expressed. Coser's theory needs to be tested in
groups where there are socio-emotional, as well as task, goals. We sug—
gested that hostility may have been generated over the expression of
57
conflict because such behavior seemed contradictory to arriving at a
group solution. In situations where there is no group solution required,
Coser's theory may be applicable.
4. 7 Research Extension
Further research is necessary investigating the conditions under
which conflict management is a desirable strategy in small groups. The
groups studied in this investigation were task oriented, and were asked
to reach one group decision. In addition, groups were given a somewhat
limited amount of time during which they completed their exercises. In
groups operating under different conditions, conflict management may be
a more desirable strategy.
Groups with socio—emotional goals need to be investigated. In such
groups, conflict management strategies may offer greater individual mem.
ber satisfaction than conflict resolution strategies.
Further investigation is also needed with task-oriented groups which
have various goals. Although conflict management strategies may be unde—
dirable when a group decision must be reached in a limited amount of
time, groups which do not need to reach consensus or do not have time
limitations may benefit by using conflict management strategies.
Bibliography
Bass, 8. Leadership, Psychology. and Organizational Behavior. New York:
Harper and Row, 1960.
Bell, Z. "The Effects of Substantive and Affective Conflict in Problem
Solving Groups." Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1974.
Boulding, K. "Preface to a Special Issue." The Journal of Conflict
Resolution. 12:410, 1968.
Campbell, 0. "Ethnocentrism and Other Altruistic Motives." In Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 1965.
Cattell, R. General Psychology. Cambridge: Science Art Publishers,
1951.
Coser, L. The Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe, Illinois: The
Free Press, 1956.
Hawes, L. and Smith, D. "A Critique of the Assumptions Underlying the
Study of Communication in Conflict." 59(4): 423-435, 1973.
Janis, I. Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1972.
Maier, N. Problem Solving and Creativity in Individuals and Groups.
Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1970.
McDavid, J. and Harari, H. Social Psychology: Individuals, Groups, 50-
cieties. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.
Miller, G. and Simons, H. (Eds.) Perspectives on Communication in Social
Conflict. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1974.
Pacanowsky, M. The Effects of Perceived Potential Reward on Individua-
tion. Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan. In Progress.
Parsons, T. The Social System. London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1951.
Rogers, C. and Roethlisberger, F. "Barriers and Gateways to Communica-
tion." Harvard Business Review, 30: 46-52, 1952.
Sherif, M. and Sherif, C. An Outline of Social Psychology. New York:
Harper, 1956.
Simmel, G. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. London: The
Free Press of Glencoe, 1955.
58
59
Simons, H. "Persuasion in Social Conflicts: A Critique of Prevailing
Conceptions and a Framework for Future Research." Speech Monographs,
39: 227-247, 1972.
Torrance, E. “The Behavior of Small Groups Under the Stress Conditions
of 'Survival.'" American Sociological Review, 19: 751-755, 1954.
. "Function of Expressed Disagreement in Small Group Pro-
cesses." Social Forces, 35: 314-318.
Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1971.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
GROUP SIZE OVER TIME
APPENDIX A
GROUP SIZE OVER TIME
Number of People
Group Number: ljg§;;L ijgng Tjggygi
1 1 4 4
2 5 5 5
3 5 5 5
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
6 3 3 3
7 4 3 3
8 4 4 4
9 5 4 4
10 3 3 3
11 4 4 4
12 4 4 4
l3 3 missing 3
(from q'aire)
14 missing 4 4
(from q'aire)
15 5 5 5
16 3 3 3
17 4 4 4
(from q'aire)
l8 4 4 4
19 4 4 4
20 3 3 3
6O
APPENDIX B
THE SEARCH FOR LEADERSHIP TRAITS
APPENDIX B
THE SEARCH FOR LEADERSHIP TRAITS
Between World War I and World War II, psychologists were primarily
interested in studhing and measuring personality traits. A great deal
of research took place which attempted to look for personality traits
which characterized leaders. Below is a description of some of the im-
portant findings in the search for leadership traits, which extends into
current research studies.
Hejgpp, Caldwell and Wellman (1926) found that girl leaders were
above average height; athletic captains and class presidents were the
tallest boy leaders; while magazine representatives were among the short-
est in the class. Gowin (1915) found that executives in insurance com-
panies were taller than policyholders, that bishops were taller than
clergymen, that university presidents were taller than college presidents.
Appearance. Partridge (1934) studied Boy Scout leaders and found a
strong positive relationship between appearance ratings and leadership.
Ackerson (1942) found that slovenliness and leading others in misconduct
were highly related for both delinquent girls and delinquent boys.
Intelligence. Catell and Stice (1954) find that problem-solving
leaders were significantly more intelligent than nonleaders. Sociometric
or popular leaders show no difference from nonleaders in respect to intel-
ligence. Gibb (1969) reports that in routine, mechanical or practical
activities, leaders are no more intelligent than nonleaders.
61
62
Self Confidence. (l) Cowley (1928) found self-confidence to be one
factor to be possessed in common by three widely different types of lead-
ers. (2) Cox (1926) found that great leaders are characterized by such
traits as self-confidence, self-assurance, and self-knowledge. (3) Bell-
ingrath (1930) reported a high correlation between teacher ratings of
self-confidence and leadership status for 224 boys. (4) Gibb (1947) re-
ports a strong association between interviewer ratings of self-confidence
and selection for military leadership.
Personality Adjustment. Cattell and Stice (1954) found an absence
of anxious worrying differentiated leaders from non-leaders, although
this relationship did not hold for sociometric popular leaders. The same
researchers found that deliberate will control (determination, stability
of purpose and organizational precision) distinguished leaders from non-
leaders. Deliberate will control was particularly characteristic of
problem-solving leaders.
Dominance. Jennings (1950) in a study of 400 institutionalized
girls, found that dominant, aggressive people tend to be isolated rather
than chosen or given the role of leader (ratings of dominance were based
on complaints to the housemother in this detention home). Hunter and
Jordan (1939) in their comparison of leaders with non-leaders among col-
1ege students found leaders significantly more dominant than non-leaders.
Authoritarianism. (1) Bass (1954) looked at the relationship be-
tween authoritarian personality traits and the emergence of leaders in
initially leaderless groups. The extremely rigid, authoritarian, and
conservative personalities diSplayed little leadership. The extremely
63
equalitarian person also did not emerge as a leader, while moderately
equalitarian persons emerged as leaders. (2) Gilmore (1955) found that
sociometric or popular leaders were more equalitarian than nonleaders.
(3) Hollander suggests that pe0ple who are authoritarian probably lack
social intelligence or social perception. '(4) Groups of highly authori-
tarian people usually choose highly authoritarian leaders, whereas groups
of low authoritarian people usually choose low authoritarian leaders
(Haythorn, 1956).
Empathy. Gage and Exline (1953) found that task leaders in labora-
tory discussion groups were pp; more empathic than nonleaders.
(2) Meyer (1955) reports that good leaders perceive group members with
goals, motives, and feelings of their own; whereas poor leaders are more
likely to see people in relation to their own motives and goals.
(3) Mann (1959) reviewed 16 studies on the sensitivity of leader(s) and
found that 15 of the studies showed that leaders were significantly more
sensitive than nonleaders.
Additional Studies. (1) Schrag (1954) found that leaders selected
by sociometric or popular criteria in a prison among prison inmates were
more rebellious, neurotic, and psychopathic than nonleaders. They also
were involved in more cases of attempted escape, fighting, assault and
were more likely than nonleaders to be convicted of violent crimes than
were nonleaders (this prison was maximum security). (2) Grusky (1959)
working in a small minimum security prison where treatment was a dominant
goal, found that p0pu1ar leaders who emerged among prison inmates were
more cooperative and less hostile than nonleaders.
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C
For the group project, I would like to place you with people you
like to work with. First, name the people in your small group, and beside
each name indicate how much you would like to work with them for the rest
of the term. Use the following scale:
If 100 units is the average amount of liking and zero units
is the complete absence of liking, how much would you like
to work with each person?
If you would like to work with the person twice as much as average, your
answer would be 200 units. If you would like to work with the person
half as much as average, your answer would be 50 units. Choose any
whole number you wish.
Amount you would like to work with
Group Members person for the rest of the term
#00
Name five people you would like to work with on the class project
for the rest of the term, in order of preference. They can be people now
in your group, or other people in the class. I will put you in groups of
9 for the class project, and I will try to put you in groups of pe0ple
you choose. Indicate no preference if you have no Choice.
64
65
(You do not have to answer all of the choices if you only have three
people you would like to work with. You would list three people and in-
dicate no choice for numbers 4 and 5.)
I would like some specific information on how you liked working in
your groups so far. Use any whole number.
If 100 units is an average amount of satisfaction, and zero is the com-
plete absence of satisfaction, how satisfied were you with the solutions
reached by your group?
units
If 100 units is an average amount of satisfaction, and zero units is
the complete absence of satisfaction, how satisfied were you with the
interaction in your group?
units
If 100 units is an average amount of satisfaction, and zero units is
the complete absence of satisfaction, how satisfied were you with the
amount of influence you had in your group?
units
If 100 units is an average amount of liking and zero units is the complete
absence of liking, how much would you like your entire group to stick to-
gether for the rest of the term?
units
If 100 units is an average amount of liking and zero units is the com-
plete absence of liking, how much did you like the procedural rules used
in your group?
units
If 100 units is an average amount of closeness and zero units is the com-
plete absence of closeness, how close do you feel to others in your
group?
units
66
If 100 units is an average amount of satisfaction and zero units is the
complete absence of satisfaction, how satisfied would you be if all of
your group members worked with you on the group project?
units
If 100 units is an average amount of satisfaction and zero units is the
complete absence of satisfaction, how satisfied would you be if none of
your group members worked with you on the group project?
units
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX D
Instructions: Rank the following occupations according to the prestige
which is attached to them in the United States. Place a "1" in front of
the occupation which you feel to be the most prestigious, etc., all the
way to "15," least prestigious.
Author of novels
Newspaper columnist
Policeman
Banker
U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Lawyer
Undertaker
State Governor
Sociologist
Scientist
Public school teacher
______ Dentist
______Psychologist
College professor
Physician
67
APPENDIX E
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH NEGATIVE EMOTIONS
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH NEGATIVE EMOTIONS
Variable
D2 1
Tl 36
D4 1
05
D6 1
D7 2
D8 3
D9
010 1
011 1
012 l
013 2
014 l
015
016 2
017 3
018
019
T2 35.
D3
Conflict
Overall F .3145
F prob. .002
APPENDIX E
.268
.718
.533
.480
.423
.760
.281
.552
.087
.654
.248
.099
.756
.944
.586
.118
.451
.752
092
.161
.070
68
Sig.
.269
.000
.225
.494
.242
.107
.080
.463
.305
.208
.272
.157
.185
.339
.118
.087
.507
.392
.000
.691
.793
2
B.
.081
.213
.216
.218
.231
.253
.253
.254
.256
.257
.257
.262
.266
.266
.280
.309
.310
.314
.676
.680
.680
R2 Change
.081
.132
.002
.000
.001
.013
.000
.002
.002
.000
.005
.004
.000
.014
.028
.001
.005
.361
.003
.000
APPENDIX F
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH HUMOR
APPENDIX F
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH HUMOR
Variable f_ Sig. RE_ R2 Change
02 .041 .841 .007 .007
T1 3.71 .063 .052 .045
04 1.47 .234 .063 .011
05 .056 .815 .069 .005
06 .118 .733 .072 .003
D7 .056 .815 .079 .007
D8 .412 .526 .079 .000
09 .041 .841 .088 .010
010 .029 .867 .100 .002
011 .419 .522 .103 .012
012 8.29 .007 .344 .241
013 .010 .920 .345 .001
014 .019 .891 .345 .000
015 .229 .636 .359 .013
016 .021 .885 .363 .004
017 .004 .947 .368 .004
018 2.62 .115 .440 .072
019 .008 .932 .440 .000
T2 1.05 .313 .458 .018
D3 .764 .389 .468 .010
Conflict .173 .681 .471 .003
Overall F 1.316
Significance .238
69
APPENDIX G
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH LAUGHTER
Variable
Conflict
Overall F
Significance
2.086
.031
INDEPENDENT
11
d
APPENDIX G
VARIABLES WITH LAUGHTER
.5 $19.
.257 .616
.08 .002
.010 .920
.262 .162
.049 .827
.715 .404
.609 .441
.112 .729
.759 .390
.523 .475
.448 .010
.111 .741
.273 .605
.16 .289
.256 .617
.445 .510
.001 .974
.241 .627
.29 .265
.11 .087
.074 .778
70
R2
.009
.144
.144
.150
.150
.169
.186
.188
.210
.214
.389
.392
.400
.432
.443
.467
.471
.503
.520
.585
.586
R Change
.009
.135
.000
.005
.000
.018
.017
.002
.021
.004
.175
.002
.008
.032
.011
.024
.004
.017
.064
.001
"ITIIITIITTT'IIT'IIITT