In Search of True Causes: Examination of the Effect of Group Potential and Group Interaction on Decision Performance

The present investigation sought to obtain empirical data that either directly supports or refutes the popular assumption that communication is an essential element of effective decision making. Specifically, it reports three phases of study that attempt to determine whether the variance in group decision making is best accounted for by noninteraction or interaction sources. Phase 1 examines the relationship among group member ability, communication opportunity, and decision performance. Phase 2 examines the relationship among group member ability, qualities of group communication, and decision performance. Phase 3 examines the relationship among fulfillment of communication functions requisite to decision-making efficacy, group member ability, and decision performance. In Phase 1, a strong independent main effect for communication opportunity was found; whereas in Phase 2 we discovered classification and explanatory effects for three facets of interaction quality—“evaluation of task-relevant issues,”“goal-directed communication,” and “idea development”—and in Phase 3 no classification or explanatory effects for either of the communication functions examined was found. Open channels of communication and high quality task-oriented discussion that focused on issue evaluation and task accomplishment facilitated group performance in light of the effects of group potential.

[1]  J. Sorenson,et al.  Task Demands, Group Interaction and Group Performance' , 1971 .

[2]  Peter Urbach,et al.  Randomization and the Design of Experiments , 1985, Philosophy of Science.

[3]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[4]  Irving M. Lane,et al.  Quality and Acceptance of an Evaluative Task: The Effects of Four Group Decision-Making Formats , 1984 .

[5]  M. E. Shaw,et al.  Does More Information Available to a Group Always Improve Group Performance , 1962 .

[6]  J. H. Davis.  Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. , 1973 .

[7]  Donald W. Taylor,et al.  Twenty questions: efficiency in problem solving as a function of size of group. , 1952, Journal of Experimental Psychology.

[8]  Randy Hirokawa,et al.  Group communication and problem‐solving effectiveness I: A critical review of inconsistent findings , 1982 .

[9]  M. E. Shaw.  Group dynamics : the psychology of small group behavior , 1971 .

[10]  John P. Campbell,et al.  Individual versus group problem solving in an industrial sample. , 1968, The Journal of applied psychology.

[11]  Henry W. Riecken,et al.  The Effect of Talkativeness on Ability to Influence Group Solutions of Problems , 1958 .

[12]  J. Elashoff,et al.  Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. , 1975 .

[13]  G. W. Hill.  Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?" psychological bulletin , 1982 .

[14]  Randy Hirokawa,et al.  A descriptive investigation of the possible communication‐based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making , 1983 .

[15]  I. Janis,et al.  Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment , 1977 .

[16]  Randy Hirokawa,et al.  A comparative analysis of communication patterns within effective and ineffective decision‐making groups , 1980 .

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

[18]  M. Zaleska.  Individual and group choices among solutions of a problem when solution verifiability is moderate or low , 1978 .

[19]  Joseph R. Dominick,et al.  Mass Media Research: An Introduction , 1983 .

[20]  Linda L. Putnam.  Preference for procedural order in task‐oriented small groups , 1979 .

[21]  J. McGrath.  Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[22]  Gerald H. Shure,et al.  Group Planning and Task Effectiveness , 1962 .

[23]  Warren E. Watson,et al.  Group Interaction Behaviors that Affect Group Performance on an I ntellective Task , 1988 .

[24]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision‐making: Social decision schemes versus valence distributions , 1982 .

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

[26]  Helmut Lamm,et al.  Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency , 1973 .

[27]  Reid Hastie,et al.  Models of jury decision making: A critical review. , 1979 .

[28]  Earl R. Babbie,et al.  The practice of social research , 1969 .

[29]  D. C. Barnlund,et al.  A comparative study of individual, majority, and group judgment. , 1959, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[30]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods , 1978 .

[31]  Randy Hirokawa.  GROUP COMMUNICATION AND PROBLEM-SOLVING EFFECTIVENESS: AN INVESTIGATION OF GROUP PHASES , 1983 .

[32]  Dorothy Irene Marquart,et al.  Group Problem Solving , 1955 .

[33]  Wendy Samter,et al.  DECISION‐MAKING PROCEDURE AND DECISION QUALITY , 1984 .

[34]  Dennis S. Gouran,et al.  Behavioral correlates of perceptions of quality in decision‐making discussions , 1978 .

[35]  H. Landsberger,et al.  Interaction process analysis of the mediation of labor-management disputes. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[36]  Randy Hirokawa,et al.  Group communication and problem‐solving effectiveness II: An exploratory investigation of procedural functions , 1983 .

[37]  I. Steiner.  Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[38]  Dennis S. Gouran,et al.  The Evolution and Current Status of the Functional Perspective on Communication in Decision-Making and Problem-Solving Groups , 1993 .

[39]  Edward A. Mabry,et al.  Small Group Interaction and Outcome Correlates for Structured and Unstructured Tasks , 1990 .

[40]  R. L. Thorndike.  On what type of task will a group do well , 1938 .

[41]  Randy Hirokawa.  Discussion Procedures and Decision-Making Performance: A Test of a Functional Perspective. , 1985 .

[42]  Theodore T. Herbert,et al.  A COMPARISON OF DECISION QUALITY UNDER NOMINAL AND INTERACTING CONSENSUS GROUP FORMATS: THE CASE OF THE STRUCTURED PROBLEM* , 1979 .

[43]  F. Fiedler.  The Effective Utilization of Intellectual Abilities and Job‐relevant Knowledge in Group Performance: Cognitive Resource Theory and an Agenda for the Future , 1989 .

[44]  Randy Hirokawa.  Group Communication and Decision-Making Performance: A Continued Test of the Functional Perspective. , 1988 .

[45]  M. Swafford.  Three Parametric Techniques for Contingency Table Analysis: A Nontechnical Commentary , 1980 .

[46]  M. Rosenbaum,et al.  Group performance on a multiple-solution task as a function of available time , 1972 .

[47]  M. E. Shaw.  A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. , 1932 .

[48]  M. E. Shaw,et al.  Validity of Information, Attempted Influence, and Quality of Group Decisions , 1962 .

[49]  G. Koch,et al.  Analysis of categorical data by linear models. , 1969, Biometrics.

[50]  J. Lanzetta,et al.  The Relationship between Certain Group Process Variables and Group Problem-Solving Efficiency , 1960 .

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

[52]  M. E. Shaw,et al.  GROUP EFFECTIVENESS AS A FUNCTION OF AMOUNT OF "LEGITIMATE" INFORMATION. , 1964, The Journal of social psychology.

[53]  Dale G. Leathers.  Quality of group communication as a determinant of group product , 1972 .

[54]  Randy Hirokawa,et al.  Why Informed Groups Make Faulty Decisions , 1987 .

[55]  Leonard C. Hawes.  Development and application of an interview coding system , 1972 .

[56]  R. L. Ebel,et al.  Estimation of the reliability of ratings , 1951 .

[57]  D. Hegedus,et al.  Task Effectiveness and Interaction Process of a Modified Nominal Group Technique in Solving an Evaluation Problem , 1986 .

[58]  N. Harper,et al.  Group communication and quality of task solution in a media production organization , 1980 .

[59]  W. Greenough,et al.  Effects of isolation, daily handling, and enriched rearing on maze learning , 1972 .

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

[61]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Individual Versus Triadic Performance on a Unidimensional Complementary Task as a Function of Initial Ability Level. , 1969 .

[62]  Patrick R. Laughlin,et al.  Individual versus tetradic performance on a complementary task as a function of initial ability level , 1972 .

[63]  Susan Jarboe,et al.  A comparison of input‐output, process‐output, and input‐process‐output models of small group problem‐solving effectiveness , 1988 .

[64]  N. Rotter,et al.  Effects of leadership and other inputs on group processes and outputs. , 1970, The Journal of social psychology.