This article reports a replication and extension of the work of Kelly and Duran in assessing the relationship of group member perceptions of group interaction to group effectiveness. Using their original and our alternative operations of group cohesion, we conclude that perceived similarity may not always align with perceptions of cohesiveness. The difficulties we report in measuring group constructs should encourage future group researchers to seek grounded explanations of the constructs of interests from members themselves.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bales, R. F. , & Cohen, S. P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press.
2.
Evans, N. J. , & Jarvis, P. A. (1986). The group attitude scale: A measure of attraction to group. Small Group Behavior, 17(2), 203-216.
3.
Isenberg, D. J. , & Ennis, J. G. (1981). Perceiving group members: A comparison of derived and imposed dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 293-305.
4.
Kelly, L. , & Duran, R. L. (1985a). Interaction and performance in small groups: A descriptive report. International Journal of Small Group Research, 1(2), 182-192.
5.
Kelly, L. , & Duran, R. L. (1985b, November). The SYMLOG approach: A descriptive report of small group performance. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
6.
Koenigs, R. G., & Cowen, M. A. (1988). Toward SYMLOG consulting group effectiveness norms: The empirical results of selected SYMLOG ratings. Unpublished manuscript.
7.
McGrath, J. E. (1978). Small group research. American Behavioral Scientist, 21, 651-674.
8.
Polley, R. B. (1985). A general theory of polarization and unification. International Journal of Small Group Research, 1(2), 150-161.
9.
Polley, R. B. (1989). GFD: Group field dynamics [Computer program]. Portland, OR: Author.
10.
Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups III: A multiple sequence model of groups decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321-341.
11.
Schwartzman, H. B. (1986). Research on work group effectiveness: An anthropological critique. In P. S. Goodman & Associates, Designing effective workgroups (pp. 237-276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
Solomon, M. J. (1981). Dimensions of interpersonal behavior: A convergent validation within a cognitive interactionist framework. Journal of Personality, 49(1), 15-26.
14.
Wheeless, L. R. , Wheeless, V. E., & Dickson-Markman, F. (1982). A research note: The relations among social and task perceptions in small groups. Small Group Behavior, 13(3), 373-384.
15.
Wish, M. , D'Andrade, R. G., & Goodnow, J. E., II. (1980). Dimensions of interpersonal communication: Correspondences between structures for speech acts bipolar scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 848-860.
