This study investigates the effects of shared cognition on group member satisfaction and group task performance. The hypotheses are that groups who have shared cognition concerning communication rules, such as politeness and efficiency, will be more satisfied with their group processes and will perform a task better than will those in groups lacking shared cognition concerning communication rules. The research involved 67 groups (N = 236) performing a radio assembly task for 20 minutes. Group members in the shared cognition condition received the same instructions to communicate politely (or efficiently). In the non—shared cognition condition, some members in a group received instructions to communicate politely and other members in the same group received instructions to communicate efficiently. The data are consistent with the part of the hypothesis relating to satisfaction but not to the one relating to performance.
Berger, C.R., & Kellermann, K. (1994). Acquiring social information . In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wieman (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 1-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making . In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Clark, H.H., & Carlson, T. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language , 58, 332-373.
5.
Clark, H.H., & Marshall, C.R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Cushman, D., & Whiting, G.C. (1972). An approach to communication theory: Toward consensus on rules. Journal of Communication, 22, 217-238.
7.
Davis, D., & Holtgraves, T. (1984). Perceptions of unresponsive others: Attributions, attraction, understandability, and memory of their utterances . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 383-408.
8.
El-Shinnawy, M. (1998). Polarization and persuasive argumentation: A study of decision making in group settings. MIS Quarterly, 22, 165-198.
9.
Frey, L. R. (Ed.). (1994). Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
12.
Harkins, S.G., & Szymanski, K. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation: New wine in old bottles. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 9. Group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 167-188). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Harkins, S.G., & Szymanski, K. (1988). Social loafing and self-evaluation with an objective standard. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 354-365.
14.
Hatfield, J.D., & Huseman, R.C. (1982). Perceptual congruence about communication as related to satisfaction: Moderating effects of individual characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 349-358.
15.
Hecht, M. (1978a). Measures of communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4, 350-368.
16.
Hecht, M.L. (1978b). Toward a conceptualization of communication satisfaction . Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64, 47-62.
17.
Heslin, R., & Dunphy, D. (1964). Three dimensions of member satisfaction in small groups. Human Relations, 17, 99-112.
18.
Ho, J.L., & Keller, L.R. (1994). The effects of inference order and experience-related knowledge on diagnostic conjunction probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 129-158.
19.
Hofmann, D.A., & Gavin, M.B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management , 24, 623-641.
20.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1998a). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 34, 423-442.
21.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1998b). Group and individual training: The impact of practice on performance. Small Group Research, 29, 254-280.
22.
Holtgraves, T. (1986). Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 305-314.
23.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J.N. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 719-729.
24.
Kaplan, M.F., & Miller, C.E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306-313.
25.
Karau, S.J., & Hart, J.W. (1998). Group cohesiveness and social loafing: Effects of a social interaction manipulation on individual motivation within groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 185-191.
26.
Kellermann, K., & Kim, M.-S. (1991, May). Working within constraints: Tactical choice in the pursuit of social goals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association , Miami, FL.
27.
Kellermann, K., & Park, H.S. (2001). Situational urgency and conversational retreat: When politeness and efficiency matter. Communication Research , 28, 3-47.
28.
Kellermann, K., & Shea, B.C. (1996). Threats, suggestions, hints, and promises: Gaining compliance efficiently and politely. Communication Quarterly , 44, 145-165.
29.
Keyton, J. (1991). Evaluating individual group member satisfaction as a situational variable. Small Group Research, 22, 200-219.
30.
Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192-224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor?Journal of Management, 20, 403-437.
32.
Lane, C.L. (1993). Yes, I don't understand: Yes, no and European-Polynesian miscommunication in New Zealand. Journal ofPragmatics, 20, 163-188.
33.
Langfield-Smith, K. (1992). Exploring the need for a shared cognitive map . Journal of Management Studies, 29, 349-368.
34.
Liang, D.W., Moreland, R.L., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384-393.
35.
Marston, P.J., & Hecht, M.L. (1988). Group satisfaction. In R. S. Cathcart & L. A. Samovar (Eds.), Small group communication: A reader (5th ed., pp. 236-246). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
36.
Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.
37.
McCornack, S.A., Levine, T.R., Solowczuk, K.A., Torres, H.I., & Campbell, D.M. (1992). When the alteration of information is viewed as deception: An empirical test of information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 17-29.
Mitchell, R. (1986). Team building by disclosure of internal frames of reference. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 15-28.
40.
Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R., & Rentsch, J.R. (2000). The measurement of team mental models: We have no shared schema. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 123-165.
41.
Peterson, E., Mitchell, T., Thompson, L., & Burr, R. (2000). Collectivistic efficacy and aspects of shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 296-316.
42.
Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1996). The structuration of group decisions. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (2nd ed., pp. 114-146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Raudenbush, S.W. (1989a). “Centering” predictors in multilevel analysis: Choices and consequences. Multilevel ModelingNewsletter , 1(2), 10-12.
44.
Raudenbush, S.W. (1989b). A response to Longford and Plewis. Multilevel Modelling Newsletter, 1(3), 8-11.
45.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Rentsch, J.R., & Hall, R.J. (1994). Members of great teams think alike: A model of team effectiveness and schema similarity among team members. In M. M. Beyerlin & D. A. Johnson (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Vol. 1. Theories of self-managing work teams (pp. 223-262). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
47.
Shepperd, J.A., & Taylor, K.M. (1999). Social loafing and expectancy-value theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1147-1158.
48.
Slugoski, B.R., & Turnbull, W. (1988). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter, and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 101-121.
49.
Stewart, G.L., & Barrick, M.R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135-148.
50.
Strauss, S. (1999). Testing a typology of tasks: An empirical validation of McGrath's (1984) group task circumplex. Small Group Research , 30, 166-187.
51.
Walsh, J.P., Henderson, C.M., & Deighton, J. (1988). Negotiated belief structures and decision performance: An empirical investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 194-216.
52.
White, M.C., Crino, M.D., & Hatfield, J.D. (1985). An empirical examination of the parsimony of perceptual congruence scores. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 732-737.
53.
Williams, K., Harkins, S.G., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-311.
