The study examined how group structure affects group process and performance in stressful and nonstressful environments. Research suggests that clear structure should facilitate group process and performance, but reactance theory suggests that prearranged group structure may reduce individual freedom, thereby reducing group satisfaction and performance. A 2 x 4 factorial design involved groups that were either given structure or left unstructured before working on a task. Groups worked in either positive, crowded, or noisy environmental conditions. A perceived negative environment condition in which subjects were informed that the environment would inhibit performance was also included. The results indicated that the predetermined structure facilitated interpersonal relations and performance in the positive environment and the perceived negative environment. However, the predetermined structure had a negative effect when the groups faced a stressful environment (crowded or noisy). The results suggest that the environmental setting influences the type of group structure that will be most effective in promoting process and performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bales, R. F. (1958). Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
2.
Baum, A. , Singer, J., & Baum, C. (1981). Advances in environmental psychology: Vol. 3. Energy: Psychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
4.
Brehm, S. S. , & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance. A theory of freedom and control. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
5.
Brown, R. (1988). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. New York: Basil Blackwell.
6.
Foushee, H. C. (1984). Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet Factors affecting group process and aircrew performance. American Psychologist, 39, 885-893.
7.
Fry, L. W. , & Slocum, J. W. (1984). Technology, structure, and work-group effectiveness: A test of a contingency model. Academy of Management journal27, 221-246.
8.
Gladstein, D. L. , & Reilly, N. P. (1985). Group decision making under threat The tycoon game. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 613-627.
9.
Hackman, J. R. , Brousseau, K R., & Weiss, J. A. (1976). The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance16, 350-365.
10.
Hackman, J. R. , & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
11.
Hamblin, R. (1958). Leadership and crisis. Sociometry, 21, 322-335.
12.
Hirokawa, R Y. (1980). A comparative analysis of communication patterns within effective and ineffective decision-making groups. Communication Monographs, 47, 312-321.
13.
Klein, A. L. (1976). Changes in leadership appraised as a function of the stress of a simulated panic situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1143-1154.
14.
LaCoursiere, R. B. (1980). The life cycle of groups. New York: Human Sciences Press.
15.
Leavitt, H. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 38-50.
16.
Pearce, J. A. , & David, F. R. (1983). A social network approach to organizational design performance. Academy of Managemt Review, 8, 436-444.
17.
Rodin, J. , Solomon, S. K., & Metcalf, J. (1978). Role of control in mediating perceptions of density. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 988-999.
18.
Schoonhoven, C. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 349-377.
19.
Schutz, W. C. (1967). Expanding human awareness. New York: Grove Press.
20.
Shaw, M. E. (1959). Acceptance of authority, group structure and the effectiveness of small groups. Journal of Personality, 27, 196-210.
21.
Shaw, M. E. (1961). Some factors influencing the use of information in groups. Psychological Reports, 8, 187-198.
22.
Shaw, M. E. (1964). Communication networks. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in social psychology (Vol. 1). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
23.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
25.
Sherif, M. , Harvey, O., White, B., Hood, W., & Sherif, C. (1961). inter-group conflict and cooperation: The robber's cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma, Institute of Group Relations.
26.
Storms, M. , & Nisbett, R. E. (1970). Insomnia and the attribution process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 319-328.
27.
Tesser, A. , Canpbell J., & Mickler, S. (1983). The role of social pressure, attention to the stimulus, and conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 217-233.
28.
Thibaut, J. W. , & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
29.
Tucknan, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bullin, 63, 384-399.
30.
Worchel, S. (1974). The effect of three types of arbitrary thwarting on the instigation to aggression. Journal of Personality, 4Z, 300-318.
31.
Worchel, S. , Andreoli, V. A., & Folger, R. (1977). Intergroup cooperation and intergroup attraction: The effect of previous interaction and outcome of combined effort. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 131-140.
32.
Worchel, S. , Coutant-Sassic, D., & Grossman, M. (in press). A model of group development and independence. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33.
Worchel, S. , & Norvell, N. (1980). Effect of perceived environmental conditions during cooperation on intergroup attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 764-772.
34.
Wortman, C. B. , & Brehm, J. W. (1975). Responses to uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
35.
Zanna, M. P. , & Cooper, J. (1974). Dissonance and the pill: An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 703-709.
