Individual Versus Triadic Performance on a Unidimensional Complementary Task as a Function of Initial Ability Level.

The hier2rchical model proposed by Laughlin, Branch, and Johnson for predicting group performance on a unidimensional complementary task by an explicit consideration of the differential relevant resources of the group me~bers was tested in a multidimensional complementary task situation with group size of three. The explicit ~enents of the unidimensional model are: {a) The unique or unshared resources of the group members of equal ability levels can be combined to produce greater performance than the members of the same ability level could do either alone or with a smaller number of comparable ability members, except for the low ability members where the overlap of resources seems to be virtually complete. {b) A person of greater task relevant resources possesses all the resources of a person of less resources. (c) The shared or nonunique resources of members of comparable ability decrease as the level of relevant resources increases. "From these tenents, the predicted order of improvement for each ability level was: High: H·HH (a high working with two high partners)> (H.HM = H·HL)> (H = H.MM = H·ML = H·LL); Medium: M·HH> (M·HM = M·HL)~ M.MM>M.ML ">(M = M0 LL); Low: L ·HH > (L ·HM = L ·HL) > L ·MM> L ·ML'> L ·LL = L. The predicted order of absolute second-administration performance for the 13 conditions was: mrn "> (HUM = HHL),. (H = HMM = m1L = HLL) > M~lM >MML > (M • MLL) > LLL = L. The predicted order of performance of comparable ability triads less their controls across levels was: (HHH H)>(MMM M)> (LLL U. 231 male and 231 female college students completed the ''Moon Problem" task as individuals and were trichotomized as high (H), medium (M), or low (L) ability on the basis of their scores. They then retook the problem

[1]  Vinacke We.  Variables in experimental games: toward a field theory. , 1969 .

[2]  W. E. Vinacke.  Variables in experimental games: toward a field theory. , 1969, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  H. H. Johnson,et al.  Group and individual performance on a single-stage task as a function of distribution of individual performance , 1967 .

[4]  N. Maier.  Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: the need for an integrative function. , 1967, Psychological review.

[5]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Group and individual performance on a complementary task as a function of initial ability level , 1966 .

[6]  I. Steiner.  Models for inferring relationships between group size and potential group productivity. , 1966, Behavioral science.

[7]  M. Goldman.  A COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP PERFORMANCE FOR VARYING COMBINATIONS OF INITIAL ABILITY. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  H. Guetzkow,et al.  A social psychology of group processes for decision-making , 1964 .

[9]  William A. Gamson,et al.  Experimental Studies of Coalition Formation , 1964 .

[10]  F. Fiedler.  A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness1 , 1964 .

[11]  F. Restle,et al.  Success and speed of problem solving by individuals and groups. , 1962, Psychological review.

[12]  T B ROBY,et al.  Considerations in the analysis of group tasks. , 1958, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  Clyde Young Kramer,et al.  Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications , 1956 .

[14]  Herbert Solomon,et al.  Two models of group behavior in the solution of eureka-type problems , 1955 .

[15]  R. Bales,et al.  Phases in group problem-solving. , 1951, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[16]  S. Asch.  Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments , 1951 .

[17]  Alex Bavelas,et al.  Communication Patterns in Task‐Oriented Groups , 1950 .

[18]  E. Miller.  Handbook of Social Psychology , 1946, Mental Health.

[19]  L. H.,et al.  Communication Networks , 1936, Nature.