No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Valence in the adoption of solutions by problem-solving groups. II. Quality and acceptance as goals of leaders and members
Abstract
DESIGNED TO TEST THE GENERALITY OF THE VALENCE MODEL FOR GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING FOR GROUPS WITH LEADERS. 4 EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS, BASED ON MAIER’S DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE QUALITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF GROUP SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS, WERE ESTABLISHED BY OFFERING MONETARY REWARDS TO LEADERS AND MEMBERS SEPARATELY FOR ACHIEVING THEIR RESPECTIVE GOALS. 9 3-MAN AND 10 4-MAN GROUPS WERE ASSIGNED RANDOMLY TO EACH CONDITION TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. THE SAME RELATIONSHIPS, SHOWN IN LEADERLESS GROUPS TO SUPPORT A MODEL OF VALENCE IN GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING WERE UNCOVERED IN THESE GROUPS WITH LEADERS AND SHOWED NO VARIATION ACROSS EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS. THE DIFFERENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE LEADERS AND MEMBERS TO MAINTAINING THIS STABILITY VARIED ACCORDING TO THE GOAL INSTRUCTIONS. LEADERS TENDED TO CONTROL THE DISCUSSION BY HAVING THE MOST INFLUENCE OVER THE FINAL DECISION, REGARDLESS OF THEIR GOALS. THE RESULTS POINT UP THE INADEQUACIES OF MERELY CHANGING ATTITUDES TO ELICIT APPROPRIATE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR.
... In addition, many researchers emphatically assert that during the group interaction process, the social structure of the group has a significant effect (Fisher and Ellis, 1990;McGrath and Hollingshead, 1994;Poole, 1999). In other words, individuals with high status (i.e., leaders, experts) seem to play an important role in the group process by significantly enhancing the pressures toward conformity (Hoffman and Maier, 1967;Schminke et al., 2002). Further, group researchers consistently report that whenever group members need to reach a consensus about a certain issue, yet have incompatible views surrounding that issue, conflict occurs; and this has important implications for group dynamics (McGrath and Hollingshead, 1994;Fisher and Ellis, 1990;McGrath, 1984). ...
... Literature also suggests that high-status individuals with structural and legitimate authority (as held by the leader) can significantly influence other group members' opinions regarding a certain issue (Bass, 1990). Specifically, Hoffman and Maier (1967), examining the role of valence in predicting the adoption of solutions by groups, concluded that leaders had a significant influence on the group valence. Thus we argue: ...
... This additive effect may be understood simply by considering the following situation: If a group finds a technology to have relatively high levels of, say, transferability, utility, maintainability, and group supportability and a low level of complexity, a majority support for the technology would further increase the group valence. Likewise, even when the properties (e.g., transferability, utility, and maintainability) of a technology are favorable, high status individuals' lack of positive orientation toward that particular technology would, as a result of their significant social influence, tend to reduce the group's valence toward that technology (Hoffman and Maier, 1967;Bass, 1990). ...
While past research has contributed to an understanding of how organizations or individuals adopt technologies, little is known about how such adoption occurs in groups. Given the widespread acknowledgment that organizations are moving to group-based structures and that groups often utilize technologies for performing their tasks, it is critical that we understand how such collective social entities adopt technologies. Such an understanding can better guide investment and implementation decisions. In this paper, we draw on existing literature about groups, technology characteristics, and valence to conceptualize a model of technology adoption by groups (referred to as the TAG model). We view the TAG phenomenon as a process of communication and negotiation in which analytically distinct factors-such as the individual members' a priori attitudes toward the technology, the majority subgroup's opinion, high-status members' opinions, substantive conflict, and relevant characteristics of the technology play an important role. We develop several theoretical propositions regarding the nature of the contribution of these factors toward an adoption decision and discuss measurement tradeoffs and guidelines.
... The awareness of power and opportunities for influencing the group are likely to result in utilization of power by the powerful person (Zander, Cohen, & Stotland, 1957;Smith, 1967). Other studies have shown that powerful people tend to participate more actively in the group discussion than do the low power members (Hurwitz, Zander, & Hymovitch, 1953;Gerard, 1957;Caudill, 1958;Hoffman & Maier, 1967;Blau & Scott, 1962;Larson, 1969;Morris & Hackman, 1969), dominate the group discussion, and steer the group to adopt their favored solutions (Torrance, 1954;Solem, 1958;Maier & Hoffman, 1960;Maier, 1967). This behavior can be influenced by the powerful person's (1) conviction that his or her own solution is superior, (2) sense of accountability for the decision, and (3) desire to satisfy a need for power. ...
... Both factors (the dominance of a superior and the submissiveness of subordinates) tend to lead to a decision that is favored by the powerful person (French & Snyder, 1959;Maier & Hoffman, 1960;Hoffman, 1961;Hoffman & Maier, 1967). Torrance ( 1954) showed that the superior's success in making a team adopt his or her preferred solution was independent of whether the solution was correct or not. ...
In organizational decision making, the dominance by a power figure in a group discussion is frequently an inhibiting force that hinders a group from effective performance and from reaching effective decisions. This problem provides an impetus for searching for methods to mitigate the disruptive effects of power inequalities. This study proposes a new method: assignment of a majority rule. Specifically, this study suggests that assignment of a majority rule in some unequal-power groups has a greater potential for reducing power inequalities than a unanimity rule or no assigned decision rule.
... Other evidences for ineffective knowledge sharedness can be found in the solution-mindless, where team members tend to agree on solution very early in the process (e.g., [131]), and in the related groupthink phenomenon (e.g., [132]). This phenomenon describes instances where members are extremely seeking to achieve concurrence and thus are inclined to poor decision-making process and outcomes, and to information processing pathology. ...
In recent years an innovative sociocognitive perspective for exploring teamwork effectiveness has been advocated by numerous researchers. This perspective examines ways by which team members develop mutual understanding. The general idea is that team effectiveness will improve if team members hold adequately shared cognitive representations, often termed as team mental models. Although this theory has significant potential for explaining teamwork effectiveness, there are several conceptual inconsistencies that impede its developmental potency. The purpose of the current article is to review and integrate the accumulated knowledge, thus facilitating future theoretical and empirical work. The paper reviews interdisciplinary groundwork relating to team mental models, analyzes recent empirical findings, and develops a conceptual framework from which conclusions for future research are drawn.
... For such a view, a textual presentation of changes is always needed to support discussion between enterprise architects and different business roles. This will increase their ability to understand and accept changes as the effect of a design conversation (Hoffman and Maier, 1967). ...
... For such a view, a textual presentation of changes is always needed to support discussion between enterprise architects and different business roles. This will increase their ability to understand and accept changes as the effect of a design conversation (Hoffman and Maier, 1967). ...
Change analysis of enterprise architectures is usually done by observing differences between two enterprise architectures, As-Is and To-Be. If the As-Is and To-Be have a lot of differences, it is problematic to manually create a correct view on changes. This paper proposes a revision of a definition of the Gap of Changes and defines it as a language independent analytic pattern suitable for using in tools. The paper describes a tool built on the basis of this definition. The change analysis without the tool and with the tool output has been tested in a workshop. The added value of the tool was acknowledged by the workshop participants.
... None of these factors related to problem-solving ability, that the best problem solver in the group may not have the influence to upgrade the quality of the group's solution (which he would have had if he was to solve the problem by himself). Hoffman and Maier (1967) found that the mere fact of appointing a leader causes this person to dominate a discussion. Thus, regardless of his problem-solving ability a leader tends to exert a major influence on the outcome of a discussion. ...
Ideally, meeting evaluations hsould enable a facilitator to diagnose a group's strenghts and weaknesses and select appropriate interventions to help the group improve its effectiveness. John Rohrbaugh and Bradley Wright critique various approaches to the evaluation of group decision-making and suggest that evaluations should focus on processes rather than outcomes, address the group rather than the individual roles and behaviours, and view the group on organizational context rather than in isolation. Building on the Competing Values Approach (CVA) to organizational analysis, they describre four perspectives on group decision processes: empirical, rational, political, and consensual. They present a case in which a validated evaluation instrument, based on the CVA, was used to gain insight into the decision-making processes of an executive team. While the reliance on team management by organizations has increased (Bennis & Biederman, 1997; Dyer, 1995; Schrage, 1995; Schwarz, 1994), so has the number of interventions that have been developed and promoted to improve group decision making with the intention of achieving ever greater group effectiveness and performance (Bostrom, Watson, & Kinney, 1992; Coleman & Khanna, 1995; Kleindorfer, Kunreuther, & Schoemaker, 1993; Morecroft & Sterman, 1994; Van Gundy, 1988). Of course, no single tool or technique will prove best under all circumstances. The intervention most suited to the needs of a particular group depends on a variety of situational factors such as group size and composition, task characteristics, available time, and organizational resources.
... Clearly, our findings tell us that items of information will receive a different weight depending on the chance of the information being validated during the ongoing group discussion. As the early studies of Hoffman and Maier (1967) showed, simple rhetorical utterances (e.g., "I got that" or "Never heard about it") or the repetition of information in a group discussion all can enhance the chances that information will influence the final decision of a group, irrespective of the information's argumentative quality. And-as has been shown in the collective information sampling paradigm-leadership style (Larson, Foster-Fishman, & Franz, 1998), explicit mutual knowledge of group members' expertise (Stasser, Stewart, & Wittenbaum, 1995; and/or ample time to discuss task-relevant information (Wittenbaum & Park, 2001) can compensate for biases in information processing that would otherwise be detrimental to the group's outcome. ...
Research on information sharing within groups confirms a favoring of shared compared to unshared information. Social validation is considered to be the primary psychological mechanism explaining this group bias (Wittenbaum, Hubbell, & Zuckerman, 1999). Our focus here is on a process-related measurement of the social validation of shared information, as well as the social nonvalidation of unshared information in the discussion protocols of 31 decision-making groups. Results confirmed that mentioning shared information evoked social validations, whereas mentioning unshared information evoked nonvalidations (H1). Contrary to our expectation that social validation would encourage the repetition of shared information and social nonvalidation would discourage the repetition of nonshared information (H2), we found that nonvalidation of information enhanced the probability of repetition. We conclude that the need for social validation found in face-to-face groups can be overcome in a more task-oriented, goal-focused, and depersonalized media-based communication setting such as the one in this study.
... Hoffman and his associates (Hoffman, 1961(Hoffman, , 1979Hoffman & Kleinman, 1994;Hoffman & Maier, 1964, 1967 rely on the probity of distributional process structures in explicating their group valence model (GVM) of decision making. They reason that group discussion facilitates an exchange of deliberative arguments and sentiments about decision alternatives. ...
This study tested three models of group interaction for their ability to discriminate between groups that reach consensus and those that do not. Fifteen mock juries (seven hung and eight conviction) constituted the sample. Model 1, a “functional action model,” successfully discriminated between consensus and hung juries based on the relative number of simple disagreements. Model 2, an “interact pattern model,” successfully discriminated between consensus and hung juries based on the sequential redundancy of interaction patterns that perpetuate or resolve ambiguity, that digress from the work at hand, and that clarify or resolve conflict. Model 3, Fisher’s four phases of development, failed to discriminate between consensus and hung juries.
... This suggests that arguments generated by individuals and groups should be good predictors of their choices and should provide a deeper understanding of how frames influence the choices of both individuals and groups. Several studies (e.g., Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 1995;Hoffman & Maier, 1964;Hoffman & Maier, 1967;Poole, McPhee, & Seibold, 1982;Winquist & Larson, 1998) have demonstrated the predictive power of discussion content. We are the first, to our knowledge, to examine the predictive power of such argument-based process measures for framing, and to combine it with an investigation of the role of individual exposure to a decision before group discussion. ...
Two choice tasks known to produce framing effects in individual decisions were used to test group sensitivity to framing, relative to that of individuals, and to examine the effect of prior, individual consideration of a decision on group choice. Written post-decision reasons and pre-decision group discussions were analyzed to investigate process explanations of choices made by preexisting, naturalistic groups. For a risky choice problem, a similar framing effect was observed for groups and individuals. For an intertemporal choice task where consumption was either delayed or accelerated, naïve groups (whose members had not preconsidered the decision) showed a framing effect, less discounting in the delay frame, opposite to that observed in individuals. Predecided groups showed a non-significant effect in the other, expected direction. In all cases, process measures better explained variability in choices across conditions than frame alone. Implications for group decision research and design considerations for committee decisions are addressed.
در دنیای کسب و کار کنونی، توسعه موفقیت آمیز محصول جدید عامل توسعه، رشد و بقا شرکت ها است و اشتباه در فرایند توسعه محصول به ویژه برای بنگاه های کوچک ومتوسط که از منابع محدودی برخوردار هستند، عواقب مایوس کننده ای را به همراه خواهد داشت. محققان در جهت ارائه راه حل برای هریک از مشکلات توسعه محصول، عوامل کلیدی موفقیتی را مطرح کرده اند. زمانی این عوامل کلیدی بصورت کامل در موفقیت پروژه توسعه محصول تاثیر گذارند که شخص کارآفرین و گروه های میان وظیفه ای از آگاهی نسبت به قالب های ذهنی برخوردار باشند. این آگاهی به آنها کمک می کند که بتوانند در شرایط ریسک و نا اطمینانی، تصمیمات را منطقی تر بگیرند و قضاوت آنها کمتر متاثر از ارزشهایی باشد که قالب دهی مسائل به آنها تحمیل می کند. بنابراین در این تحقیق عوامل تاثیرگذار قالب های کلیشه ای، نتنها بعنوان یک عامل کلیدی موفقیت بلکه بیشتر بعنوان یک گلوگاه بین این عوامل و موفقیت توسعه محصول مورد بررسی قرار گرفته شده است. شرکت ها با استفاده از قالب های ذهنی می توانند شرایط برد را در محیط کسب و کارشان برای خود فراهم کنند. روش تحقیق حاضر کیفی و برگرفته از مرور متن در حوزه عوامل کلیدی موفقیت در ادبیات توسعه محصول، بررسی قالب های ذهنی و اثرات آنها و اکتشافات و سوگیریهای شناختی در هریک از عوامل کلیدی موفقیت است و درآخر مدل پیشنهادی تحقیق از مجموع بحث های مطرح شده ارئه می شود.
This study reports on the evaluation of four meeting techniques for decision-making by small groups. Two face-to-face and two computer conferencing techniques were evaluated by small groups solving business cases. Particular groups varied widely in their satisfaction with different meeting techniques, but there was no significant difference in the quality of the group decisions.
The purpose of this paper is to review models and methods for aggregating opinions. By the word “opinion” is meant the expression of a person’s belief concerning the outcome of an uncertain event, either in the form of a point estimate or a probability distribution1. For example, consider a group of businessmen meeting to decide upon a sales forecast, the evolution of certain share prices or an uncertain economic variable (e. g. U.K. oil revenues in 1984). Given the prevalence of such forecasting activity in many fields, the importance of this topic hardly needs emphasizing.
In this chapter, the concentration is on trial by jury. It discusses the difficult interface between psychology and law and describes the numerous empirical studies related to individual differences in conviction proneness and/or punitiveness, extra-evidentiary factors in individual decision-making, and the dynamics of juror interaction that culminate in the verdict. The chapter provides an overview of the psychology and the law in the institution of trial by jury. It outlines the antecedents and historical developments in trial by jury. The jury in America, their competence, representativeness, and qualifications are discussed in the chapter; it also describes the determiners of fact versus interpreters of the law and court decisions and discrimination. The chapter explores demographics and jury verdicts, wherein it has described sex and race of juror or defendant; age, politics, and education of jurors; the characteristics of the defendant; the attitudes and personalities of jurors; jury selection—efficacy and ethics; and attitudes toward capital punishment. Influence and persuasion within the jury in two situations that is the person being the foreperson and the person being in the majority and minority is discussed in the chapter. The chapter reviews evidence related to recent changes in the operation of juries, for example, in the size of jury, the requirements of unanimity, as well as various proposed reforms.
Eighteen groups of four subjects each performed the “Lost on the Moon” task before and after group discussion of the task. The major variable manipulated involved the influence of a group member's knowledge about his pretest performance on group decisionmaking. It was found that the greatest influence is exerted by individuals told by the experimenter that their performance was the most accurate when it was actually the least accurate. Under this influence synergy, although achieved, was impeded relative to gains made by the control condition and the condition where the “piant” actually had the most accurate score within his group on a pretest.
As a vehicle for comparing the group valence model's description of the group problem-solving process with more individually oriented models, several versions of McPhee, Poole, and Seibold's (1982) valence distribution model were derived and examined in 42 decision-making groups. Although the methods of the valence distribution model had predictive power, they appeared to be generally inferior to the group valence model. The latter consistently accounted for more of the decision-making phenomena. Implications for the nature of the group decision-making process are discussed.
In three studies the amount of shock directed towards an opponent was assessed as a function of the subject's role, aggressor or advisor. Subjects when serving as aggressors (directly set shock for the target) directed less intense shock toward a nonprovocative target than when they were serving as advisors (instructed another individual to set the shock), whether vulnerable or invulnerable to attack. When the target was provocative there was no significant difference in the intensity of aggression as a function of the role change. Results were discussed in terms of vulnerability, potency of provocation, and role demands and expectations.
A descriptive study of 71 task-oriented groups was undertaken to assess the relationships among the amount of perceived inequity, group satisfaction, amount of perceived conflict, quality of group outcome, types of conflict and styles of conflict management. Results indicated that inequity was negatively related to the amount of expressed satisfaction with the group and positively related to the amount ofperceived conflict within the group. Inequity was associated more strongly with conflict centered around people than conflict centered around the task. Inequity was least associated with groups not experiencing conflict. In terms of styles of conflict management, groups characterized by integrative management reported less perception of inequity than did groups using an avoidance style. Group satisfaction was found to be negatively related to the amount of conflict experienced. However, the results provided interpretive support for the proposition that group satisfaction is more strongly associated with integrative conflict-management styles than avoidance styles. Finally, it was found that people conflicts were predominantly associated with avoidance management styles and task conflicts with integrative styles.
The paper has two goals. First, to find out whether majority rule or a unanimous decision rule would facilitate more task conflict. Second, to develop several operational measures of task conflict. The study used an experimental design using 18 groups. The group discussions were tape recorded and coded using the valence coding system (Hoffman & Maier, 1964, 1967). Eight operational measures of task conflict are presented and used to test the main hypothesis. The results indicate that in unequal power groups an assigned majority rule facilitates more task conflict than an assigned unanimous rule or no assigned decision rule. The eight measures of task conflict are shown to be useful but require additional refinement.
This study tests the relative and combined merits of two behavior modification inputs for effecting predictable and productive task group behavior change. Two hundred and seventy-seven subjects, mostly between 20 and 27 years of age, acted in problem solving groups of five to seven members. Analysis of variance results indicate that video tape presentation of model groups and video tape feedback yield significant behavioral change. It is concluded that video tape feedback and modeling can be utilized in a constructively oriented behavior modification effort in a task group context.
Pursuing a line of inquiry suggested by Crookall, Martin, Saunders, and Coote, the author applied, within the framework of design science, an optimal-design approach to incorporate into a computer-assisted simulation two innovative social choice processes: the multiple period double auction and continuous voting. Expectations that the multiple-period-double-auction market would be bustling, that the continuous voting process would be adaptive, and that the simulation would be a suitable candidate for the assessment of learning were met in an administration of the simulation involving about 87 participants. The author suggests that the technology is ready for computer-assisted simulations to be much more widely used than they are today, but that progress may nevertheless be slow because a great deal of personal investment of time and energy is needed to do good work.
This chapter reviews existing research and thought on the role of group interaction in task-oriented groups, and provides suggestion that part of the difficulty in understanding the relationship between group interaction and group effectiveness has to do with the nature of existing methodological and conceptual tools. It proposes an alternative framework for research on group effectiveness. The major functions group interaction serves in enhancing and depressing group effectiveness have been explored in the chapter and a set of strategies for influencing group interaction and group performance by alteration of “input” factors has been proposed within the new framework. The chapter presents an argument for a return to action-oriented research as a way to improve simultaneously the understanding of the determinants of group effectiveness and the capability to change and improve it. Implications for research and for action have been drawn and explored.
This experimental study attempted to prove that teams formed with dissimilar personality types would have better decision making than teams which were not formed by dissimilar types. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, based on Jung's Theory of Psychological Type, was used to determine the subject's personality type preferences. Subjects' perceptions of team processes were also investigated. The sample population consisted of military officers and civil servants who attended the Advanced Program Management course at the Air Force Institute of Technology. Decision making effectiveness was determined from team performance on the Time-by-Event-by-Member-Pattern-Observation system (TEMPO). The design for this research consisted of comparing the scores from teams formed by dissimilar MBTI personality types to scores from teams which were not formed by dissimilar MBTI personality types. The T-test was used to determine the differences between the teams' mean scores at an alpha equal to .1. The research concluded that teams formed by dissimilar MBTI personality types were statistically no more effective than teams formed without the MBTI; however, the teams formed by dissimilar MBTI personality types did score higher than the teams that were not formed with the MBTI.
Examined the extent to which increased experience in working in a group would affect group vs individual problem solving. The duration and intensity of group involvement for Ss (over 30 hrs) were extensive. In addition, the reward system provided a clear and direct tie between individual or group performance and a significant outcome (i.e., course grades). The decision-making task had a great deal in common with many of the aspects of group decision making in organizations. Results were overwhelmingly in favor of group decision making across time, given this type of task. The percentage by which the group performance score was higher (or lower) than the group's best member was called the group added value. In addition, a synergy ratio was developed in an attempt to measure how much a group added over their best member's contributions. Best members rarely repeated as the top scorer and became less important to the group success as the groups gained experience. The results call into question much of the previous group decision-making research and strongly support the value of group-consensus decision making both in task forces and ongoing organizational groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
This experiment investigates whether the introduction of exploratory questions into a group problem-solving discussion influences the nature of the solution. Groups of three, including a discussion leader-member, were asked to develop at least three solutions toward improving output of a circular five-man assembly line. Many solutions are possible. One solution, rotation, is clearly superior to all others, yet is rarely developed. Leaders were given one of two different statements of the problem, a statement of two ways to improve a boring job, and three exploratory questions to read aloud to their groups prior to a 20-minute discussion. The job improvement questions were based on principles drived in Karsten's (1928) investigations into psychological satiation. Results indicate that exploratory questions cause groups to develop the insightful solution significantly more often than do comparable groups without experimental introduction of such questions. More generally, the results indicate that efforts directed toward upgrading the manner in which a task is experienced can generate inventive improvements in the group product.
When a group approaches a decision, each member may hold a schema for the information domain of the issue in question. A negotiated belief structure represents the politically enacted collection of schemata employed by the group in their deliberations. The aggregation of these schemata is marked by two structural properties—realized coverage and realized consensus. An examination of 713 product decisions made by 29 firms in a simulated business environment indicates that these structural properties are systematically related to product and firm performance.
Studies on groups within the MIS discipline have largely been based on the paradigm of methodological individualism. Commentaries on methodological individualism within the reference disciplines suggest that studies embracing this paradigm can lead to potentially misleading or incorrect conclusions. This study illustrates the appropriateness of the alternate non-reductionist approach to investigating group-related phenomenon, specifically in the context of technology adoption. Drawing on theories of group influence, prior research on conflict, technology characteristics, task-technology fit, group communication media, and recent theoretical work surrounding group technology adoption, the paper proposes and empirically tests a new non-reductionist model for conceptualizing technology adoption by groups. Further, the study also empirically compares this non-reductionist model with a (hypothetical) methodological individualist model of technology adoption by groups. Results strongly support most of the assertions of the non-reductionist model and highlight that this model provides a more robust explanation of technology adoption by groups than a methodological individualist view. Further, the study also highlights some conditions wherein the methodological individualist view fails to provide correct explanations. The implications of the study's findings for future research are discussed.
These experiments were designed to test whether the quality of group problem solving could be improved by instructing groups to follow certain procedures. 192 groups of 2 male and 1 female S each solved Maier's Sewing Room Case under 4 different experimental conditions: I—no instructions regarding processes or procedures to follow; II—instructions for carrying out idea-evaluation in two separate stages; III—instructions requesting diagnosis and factual support for each solution generated; and IV—instructions requiring locating obstacles before generating solutions. The results show limited support for the value of such instructions. These marginally significant results were due to a relatively small number of groups conforming to the experimental manipulation rather than to the inadequacy of the principles on which the manipulations were based. Some directed training in use of problem-solving principles, rather than a mere knowledge of them, seems to be essential in achieving high qualiry solutions. Idea-evaluation seems to suffer in group problem solving. Brainstorming, which stresses idea-getting, has its limitations because it leaves the evaluation to outside judges.
As members of a group begin to interact and solve problems, a
group schema evolves. This group cognitive structure is the result of
realized consensus about and coverage of the problem domain of the
group; and it becomes the mechanism by which the group structures and
solves problems. The authors describe how a technological agent can be
used to control and enhance the evolution of the group schema by
creating an environment which facilitates consensus and coverage
Studies included cover the period from 1900 to October 1957 and do not include those studies wherein children constitute the sample. The review is concerned with 7 personality characteristics (introversion-extraversion, dominance, interpersonal sensitivity, masculinity-feminity, conservatism, intelligence, and adjustment) and their relationship to such group behavior variables as leadership, popularity, conformity, task activity, total activity, and social-emotional activity. Most of the studies yielded low positive relationships, intelligence being the best predictor of individual behavior in the group. Considering the studies as a whole, the author is encouraged by the many clear trends which emerge. 151 refs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
What effect does having a group solve a problem the second time have on the quality of group solutions? 100 students were divided into 25 groups of 4 each to "role play the case of the Change of Work Procedures. The roles of the foreman and three workers were assigned randomly to the members of each group." When they finished, "they were asked to arrive at a second solution to the problem." Although the double-solution method seemed to require little more time, the "solution quality was generally increased without a loss of acceptance." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
This paper describes the development of a new observational system designed to provide data to test Hoffman's (see ^W36:^n 3CN29H) hypotheses concerning the adoption of solutions to problems in groups. Interobserver agreement in assigning members' statements to solution categories was relatively good in 20 3- and 4-man groups. 2 indexes of members' emotional attachment (valence) to solutions were strongly related to the adoption of the solutions by the group. The valence indexes correlated about .50 with members' rated satisfaction with the solution.
Attempts to define the basic dimensions descriptive of group behavior have produced somewhat inconsistent results. It was hypothesized that such inconsistency was due to methodological differences, i. e., presenting groups with different tasks. The present study investigates group behavior when presented with 2 differing tasks (one wherein the focus is on a solution to an intellectual problem, the other involving one with personal relevance emphasizing group integration and eventuating in tension reduction). A modification of Bales' (1950) interaction analysis was utilized, as well as peer and observer ratings. Factor analysis of these data yielded factors which both confirmed and challenged aspects of previous research; some factors were evident cross-task items, others seemed to be task-specific. From Psyc Abstracts 36:04:4GE74M.