Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article compares the advantages and disadvantages of two multivariate methods for the analysis of small grolup communication data, log-linear contingency table analysis and multivariate analysis of variance, in the context of ani experimental design. The independent conditions were discussion procedure, task solution multiplicity, and discussion topic. Participant communication behaviors, the dependent variables, were coded into a mix of 15 task social, and procedural categories. The analyses of communication indicated that log-linzear analyasis produced thle most complex models for various behaviors, including both single-factor and multifactor termns. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) findings at tlte grolup level provided the most parsimonious explanations, with a main effect of discussion procedure. Some MANOVA results at the individual level were similar to loglitnear mnodels in their complexity, whereas others duplicated the results of the group-level MANOVA. The differing outcomes from these methods point to several design considerations that should be taken account when choosing a statistical test for group communication data.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson, L. R. , & Ager, J. W. (1978). Analysis of variance in small group research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 341-345.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process anialysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bishop, Y. M. , Fienberg, S. E. , & Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysi. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bochner, A. P. (1974). Task and instrumentation variables as factors jeopardizing the validity of published group communication research, 1970-1971. Speech Monographs, 41, 169-178.

Bochner, A. P. , & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1980). Multivariate analysis of variance: Techniques, models and applications in communication research. In P. R. Monge & J. N. Cappella (Eds.), Multivariate techniques in human communication research (pp. 143-174). New York: Academic Press.

Borgatta, E. F. (1962). A systematic study of interaction process scores, peer and sclfassessments, personality and other variables. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 65, 219-291.

Brown, M. B. (1976). Screening effects in multidimensional contingency tables. Applied Statistics, 25, 37-45.

Brown, M. B. (1983). Two-way and multiway frequency tables: Measures of association and the log-linear model (complete and incomplete tables). In W. J. Dixon , M. B. Brown , I. Engelman , J. W. Frane , M. A. Hill , R. I. Jennrich , & J. D. Toporek (Eds.), BMDP statistical software (pp. 143-206). Berkeley: University of California.

10.

Delbecq, A. L. , Van de Ven, A. H. , & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

11.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think Boston: D. C. Heath.

12.

Fienberg, S. E. (1980). The analysis of cross-classified categorical data (2nd ed.) Cambridge: MIT Press.

13.

Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47-58.

14.

Hawes, L. G. (1972). Development and application of an interview coding system. Central States Speech Journal, 23, 92-99.

15.

Jarboe, S. C. (1986). The effects of discussion procedure, task solution multiplicity, and topic on group communication, productivity and satisfaction. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1925a.

16.

Jarboe, S. (1988). A comparison of input-output, process-output, and input-process-output models of small group problem-solving effectiveness. Communication Monographs, 55, 121-142.

17.

Kennedy, J. J. (1983). Analyzing qualitative data. New York: Praeger.

18.

Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

19.

Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

20.

Knoke, D. , & Burke, P. J. (1980). Log-linear models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

21.

Kraemer, H. C. , & Jacklin, C. N. (1979). Statistical analysis of dyadic social behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 217-224.

22.

Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

23.

Wickens, T. D. (1989). Multiway contingency tables analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Two Multivariate Methods for Analyzing Small Group Interaction

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References