Perception of group interaction were measured varying four levels of leader-supplied information and respondents' levels of dogematism. Qualitative and quantitative dimensions of leader-supplied information were varied in the study. Dogmatism was found to be a significant factor in the satisfaction respondents had with the group decision. The quality of leader-supplied information was found to have a greater impact upon the dependent measures in the study than the quantity of that information. Implications for leaders of small groups and future small group research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Dacey, R.
(1978). The role of ambiguity in manipulating voter behavior. Theory and decision. Dordecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
2.
Farace, R.
, Monge, P., & Russell, H. M. (1977). Communicating and organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
Fulk, J.
, & Wendler, E. (1982). Dimensionality of leader-subordinate interactions: A path-goal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 241-264.
4.
Goss, B.
(1982). Processing communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
5.
Goss, B.
(1972). The effect of sentence context on associations to ambiguous, vague, and clear nouns. Speech Monographs, 39, 286-289.
6.
Gouran, D. S.
(1969). Variables related to consensus in group discussions of questions of policy. Speech Monographs, 36, 387-391.
7.
Gouran, D. S.
, & Geonetta, S. C. (1977). Patterns of interaction as a function of degree of leadership centralization in decision-making groups. Central States Speech Journal, 28, 47-53.
8.
Greene, C. N.
, & Schriesheim, C. A. (1980). Leader-group interaction: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 50-59.
9.
Hemphill, J. K.
, Pepinsky, P. N., Shevitz, R. N., Jaynes, W. E., & Christner, C. A. (1956). The relation between possession of past relevant information and attempts to lead. Psychological Monographs, No. 14.
10.
Hill, T. A.
(1976). An experimental study of the relationship between opinionated leadership and small group consensus. Communication Monographs, 43, 246-257.
11.
Kwal, T.
, & Fleshler, H. (1973). The influence of self-esteem on emergent leadership patterns. Speech Teacher, 22, 100-106.
12.
Lashbrook, W. B.
(1975). PROANA5: A computerized technique for analyzing small group interaction, Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company.
13.
Pfeffer, J. S.
, Salancik, G. R., & Liblebici, H. (1976). The effects of uncertainty on the use of social influence in organizational decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 227-244.
14.
Robinson, J. P.
, & Shaver, P. R. (1973). Measures of social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
15.
Rokeach, M.
(1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
16.
Shannon, C.
, & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
17.
Shaw, M. E.
, & Penrod, W. T. (1962). Does more information available to a group always improve group performance?Sociometry, 25, 377-390.
18.
Shevitz, R. N. (1955). An investigation of the relation between exclusive possession of information and attempts to lead in small groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
19.
Stang, D. J.
(1973). Effect of interaction rate on ratings of leadership and liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 405-408.
20.
Troldahl, V. C.
, & Powell, F. A. (1965). A short-form dogmatism scale for use in field studies. Social Forces, 44, 211-214.
21.
Tjosvold, D.
(1982). Effects of cooperative interdependence and task complexity on subordinate's productivity, perception of leader and group development. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 14, 24-34.
22.
Yates, J. F.
, & Zukowski, L. G. (1976). Characterization of ambiguity in decision-making. Behavioral Science, 21, 19-26.
