Testing a Typology of Tasks

This article presents an empirical test of McGrath’s group task circumplex, which has been used as a theoretical basis for numerous empirical and conceptual articles. Data from Straus and McGrath (1994) were used to test the hypothesis that the degree to which tasks pose requirements for member interdependence will be positively associated with the amount of communication that reflects consensus building and coordination processes in groups. Seventy-two, 3-person groups completed three tasks with increasing levels of member interdependence as prescribed by the vertical dimension of the task circumplex: an idea generation task, an intellective task, and a judgment task. Groups communicated either in computer conferences or face-to-face discussions. Patterns of group communication show support for the vertical dimension of the task circumplex. In addition, results suggest that some aspects of group process serve different purposes as a function of communication medium.

[1]  Frederick F. Stephan,et al.  The Distribution of Participation in Small Groups: An Exponential Approximation , 1952 .

[2]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[3]  R. Krauss,et al.  Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  L. E. Jones,et al.  A set of dimensions for describing the general properties of group-generated written passages. , 1967, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[6]  C. Perrow.  A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[7]  A. Mehrabian.  Relationship of attitude to seated posture, orientation, and distance. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  J. Hackman.  Effects of task characteristics on group products , 1968 .

[9]  E. Ramsden.  Group Process and Productivity , 1973 .

[10]  S. Duncan,et al.  On the structure of speaker–auditor interaction during speaking turns , 1974, Language in Society.

[11]  J. Hackman,et al.  Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration , 1975 .

[12]  V. Barnett,et al.  Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1975 .

[13]  J. H. Davis,et al.  The Social Psychology of Small Groups: Cooperative and Mixed-Motive Interaction , 1976 .

[14]  N. Kerr,et al.  Social decision schemes of the same four-person groups on two different intellective tasks. , 1976 .

[15]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[16]  Steven H. Lewis,et al.  Listener Responsiveness and the Coordination of Conversation , 1982 .

[17]  How to prepare for the graduate record examination , 1983 .

[18]  D. L. Gladstein.  Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. , 1984 .

[19]  Janice R. Kelly,et al.  Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. , 1985 .

[20]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  Affect in Computer-Meditated Communication: An Experiment in Synchronous Terminal-to-Terminal Discussion , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[21]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. , 1986 .

[22]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[23]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. , 1986 .

[24]  Paul S. Goodman,et al.  Impact of Task and Technology on Group Performance , 1986 .

[25]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[26]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. , 1987 .

[27]  Paul S. Goodman,et al.  Understanding groups in organizations. , 1987 .

[28]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making , 1988, MIS Q..

[29]  Janice R. Kelly,et al.  TEMPO: A Time-based System for Analysis of Group Interaction Process , 1989 .

[30]  Randy Hirokawa.  The Role of Communication in Group Decision-Making Efficacy , 1990 .

[31]  J. Valacich,et al.  Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups , 1990 .

[32]  Susan E. Jackson,et al.  Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse work force. , 1991 .

[33]  R. Gallupe,et al.  Unblocking brainstorms. , 1991, The Journal of applied psychology.

[34]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  ELECTRONIC BRAINSTORMING AND GROUP SIZE , 1992 .

[35]  S. Weisband.  Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups , 1992 .

[36]  Poppy Lauretta McLeod,et al.  An Assessment of the Experimental Literature on Electronic Support of Group Work: Results of a Meta-Analysis , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[37]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  How a group-editor changes the character of a design meeting as well as its outcome , 1992, CSCW '92.

[38]  J. Valacich,et al.  Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. , 1993 .

[39]  Bonita L. Daly,et al.  The influence of face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication channels on collective induction , 1993 .

[40]  R. Saavedra,et al.  Complex interdependence in task-performing groups , 1993 .

[41]  J. McGrath,et al.  Group Task Performance and Communication Technology , 1993 .

[42]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[43]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Face-to-face group work compared to remote group work with and without video. , 1997 .

[44]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Technology, Group Process, and Group Outcomes: Testing the Connections in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Groups , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[45]  E.,et al.  GROUPS : INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE , 2001 .