Search

This study examined knowledge sharing and problem solving in teams that included teammates who were deaf or hard of hearing (DHH). Eighteen teams of four students were comprised of either all deaf or hard of hearing (DHH), all hearing, or two DHH and two hearing postsecondary students who participated in group problem-solving. Successful problem solution, recall, and recognition of knowledge shared by team members were assessed. Hearing teams shared the most team knowledge and achieved the most complete problem solutions, followed by the mixed DHH/hearing teams. DHH teams did not perform as well as the other two types of teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explored the interaction patterns of family members of individuals with disabilities in a simulated interdisciplinary team problem-solving process. Participants included 15 members of a training cohort within a Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities program. Family trainees and non-family trainees engaged in a simulated team discussion at two points during the training year (Time 1 and Time 2). To understand how family members and other professionals interact in interdisciplinary problem-solving meetings, we applied three coding schemes to the interdisciplinary team discussions to measure language similarity, dominance and domineeringness, problem solving, and balance of power. The results suggested there were trends in the communication dynamics between family trainees and non-family trainees at Time 1 and Time 2. For example, language similarity between groups was high at both Time 1 and Time 2, yet families were less successful at controlling the team conversation at Time 2. The implications of these and other results are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stereotype threat has been one of the most studied topics in social psychology in recent years. This research shows that subtle reminders of stereotypes about one’s social category hurt task performance—an effect replicated across several stereotypes and performance domains. Despite extensive research on individual performance, it is unknown how stereotype threat affects group performance. A question of theoretical and practical importance is whether people who face a common stereotype can overcome it by working together. To answer this question, an experiment was conducted comparing the performance of individual women and groups of women on a math/logic problem when faced with a stereotype threat. Results indicated that when facing a stereotype threat, groups outperformed the best individuals and performed just as well as non-threatened groups. This effect was due to threatened groups avoiding problem-solving errors. The implications for understanding group versus individual performance when facing stereotype threats are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An experiment compared interaction process and task performance of groups composed of members with high or low preference for procedural order, assigned to an individual or group process accountability condition. Procedural order preference did not affect the use of procedures nor did procedures affect task performance. Competing hypotheses on the effects of process accountability were tested: One set of hypotheses was based on higher motivation among high order preference groups because accountability amplifies their natural work predispositions; the other set was based on higher motivation among low order preference groups because accountability induces cognitive dissonance in them. Results supported the amplifying hypotheses. High order preference groups exchanged more information, perceived their discussions as more orderly, and produced more feasible task solutions. Compared with group process accountability, individual accountability led to less information exchange in both high and low order preference groups, but low order preference groups under individual accountability produced the least feasible task solutions of all groups. Implications for the match between individual work habit preferences and task context demands are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Members of 43 three-person groups completed a deductive logic task. Each member was provided with unique clues and information indicating the utility of each clue. Objective validity varied because some clues were essential to problem solution and others were not useful. Social validity was manipulated by informing participants that some clues would likely be useful and that other clues were not likely to be useful. Clues were discussed more frequently if either objective validity or social validity was high, but the effects were not additive. Clues were discussed less frequently in the low objective validity–low social validity condition than in all other conditions. Alignment of both types of validity facilitated the group’s ability to focus on relevant information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the relationship between collective efficacy beliefs and team performance has been well-documented, few studies have explored the causal mechanisms that might explain these effects. In the current study, the authors explore the role of backing up behavior, a specific form of teamwork behavior, in explaining why high efficacy beliefs lead to high levels of team performance. Participants were 416 undergraduate business students who were organized into 104 four-person teams. The teams worked on an interdependent, computerized, decision-making task. Results of the study revealed that collective efficacy beliefs were positively related to team performance and that backing up behaviors largely mediated these effects. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research investigated the impact of small and large work groups on developmental processes and group productivity. There were 329 work groups operating in for-profit and nonprofit organizations across the United States in this study. Groups containing 3 to 8 members were significantly more productive and more developmentally advanced than groups with 9 members or more. Groups containing 3 to 6 members were significantly more productive and more developmentally advanced than groups with 7 to 10 members or 11 members or more. The groups with 7 to 10 members or 11 members were not different from each other. Finally, groups containing 3 to 4 members were significantly more productive and more developmentally advanced on a number of measures than groups with 5 to 6 members. Work-group size is a crucial factor in increasing or decreasing both group development and productivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A framework for the analysis of implicit team knowledge is developed based on action regulation theory and concepts of individual implicit knowledge. We argue that the explication and reflection on implicit knowledge in and of teams supports an individual understanding and a shared mental model of the task which in turn should enhance team innovation. In an experimental study, 48 students of mechanical engineering in 16 groups worked on a product development task. Experimental conditions were explication versus no explication and individual versus collective explication. Individual as well as collective explication enhanced the overall outcome quality, but not the originality of solutions. The positive effects of collective explication were stronger than the effects of individual explication. Group processes and contents of explication were in line with the assumption from action regulation theory that reflecting on goals and strategies facilitates performance of complex tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Group behavior research suggests that differences among group members cause individuals to interact in ways that may enhance or weaken group performance. Dissimilarities among members may cause the development of negative attitudes about work groups, leading to dysfunctional performance. Network theorists have found that demographic factors influence individuals' tendency to form network ties within their organizations. This article bridges these findings, examining whether work group demographic differences affect a group member's tendency to form network ties with other group members or outside the work unit. In a study of 49 employees at a Midwest consulting firm, individual differences in sex and tenure predicted whether employees interacted within their work groups on advice and friendship dimensions, respectively, but did not affect the establishment of working relationships. Increased group heterogeneity tended to reduce the effect of demographic differences. Longer-service men were more likely to forge relationships within the work group than were short-term or female workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In two studies, the influence of divergent (generating many words on differences for given dual words) and convergent (generating many words on similarities for given dual words) exercises on the subsequent performance was assessed with dyads in either a nominal or interactive condition in a brain writing paradigm. In the first study, these cognitive exercises were given after the first session. In the second study, these tasks were presented before each of the two sessions in either the divergent-convergent or convergent-divergent sequences with a temporal order Exercises on these tasks had no effect on productivity when they preceded the first session of brainstorming. However, the provision of a divergent thinking exercise and a convergent-divergent sequence led participants' to generate more ideas and scan more categories than their counterparts' in the second session. These findings are discussed in light of the cognitive stimulation and incubation perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although some descriptions of group discussion have characterized group process as an overall sequence of functionally organized linear stages, others have emphasized the presence of short proposal-centered "reach-testing" sequences recurring ("spiraling") throughout the discussion. Research has indicated that people's preconceived notions of ideal group procedure (their "group procedural memory organization packets [MOPs]") can be classified as linear, reach-testing, or some compromise between the two. A study was performed to examine whether groups consisting solely of these three MOP types differed in group process and output. The results showed linear groups to spiral less often than reach-testing and compromising groups, but the content of these spirals did not differ among the types. Across MOP types, group process revealed aspects of both linear and reach-testing models. Group output did not differ reliably among the three types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explores the potential negative and or dysfunctional consequences of group support systems (GSS) anonymity by analyzing four aberrant subject groups in four separate investigations of GSS. Discussion of the relevant implications of the research; Demonstration of the potential of anonymity to allow the group process to degenerate into overly caustic interaction.

Describes groupthink as a process model that seeks to explain how groupthink develops. Definition of groupthink; Small group problem solving; Suggestions on how to test a process theory of groupthink; Critique of the theory.

Examines the effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Analysis of three-person groups working on a problem-solving task; Effects of media on information sharing or performance.

Presents a dynamic model of group brainstorming designed to describe the effects that group members exert on each other's rates of processing. Processes of production blocking and performance matching; Cognitive processes of idea generation, working memory and output.

Examines the performances of group and individual problem solving differences. Effect of lack of incentives for optimal subject performance; Factors affecting assembly bonus effect; Operation mechanics of the study; Groups as decision-making units.

Presents a participant-generated agenda for small group research constructed from a structural analysis of influence maps developed by seven groups over a six-year period. Influence model of barriers to group problem solving; Proposed agenda.

Focuses on the demands of situations and issues involved in supporting computer-assisted group problem solving. Development of a greater focus on shared meaning; Adoption of a view on human rationality; Emphasis on individual and group learning.

Investigates the differences in communication behaviors in small groups trained in creative problem solving (CPS) with groups not trained in CPS. Evaluation of communication behaviors and on quantity of ideas generated; Role of the idea recorder in the groups.