This article presents an empirical test of McGrath’s group task circumplex, which has been used as a theoretical basis for numerous empirical and conceptual articles. Data from Straus and McGrath (1994) were used to test the hypothesis that the degree to which tasks pose requirements for member interdependence will be positively associated with the amount of communication that reflects consensus building and coordination processes in groups. Seventy-two, 3-person groups completed three tasks with increasing levels of member interdependence as prescribed by the vertical dimension of the task circumplex: an idea generation task, an intellective task, and a judgment task. Groups communicated either in computer conferences or face-to-face discussions. Patterns of group communication show support for the vertical dimension of the task circumplex. In addition, results suggest that some aspects of group process serve different purposes as a function of communication medium.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Argote, L. , & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Group processes in organizations: Continuity and change. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson, (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333-389). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
2.
Bramson, M. , Selub, M., & Solomon, L. (1987). How to prepare for the Graduate Record Examinations. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
3.
Cohen, J. A. (1960). Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Education and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
4.
Connolly, T. , Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36, 689-703.
5.
Daly, B. L. (1993). The influence of face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication channels on collective induction. Accounting, Management, and Information Technologies, 3, 1-22.
6.
Davis, J. H. , Laughlin, P. R., & Komorita, S. S. (1976). The social psychology of small groups: Cooperative and mixed-motive interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 501-541.
7.
Dennis, A. R. , & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531-537.
8.
DeSanctis, G. , & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33, 589-609.
9.
Duncan, S. (1974). On the structure of speaker-auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society, 2, 161-180.
10.
Futoran, G. C. , Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 211-232.
11.
Gallupe, R. B. , Bastianutti, L. M., & Cooper, W. H. (1991). Unblocking brainstorms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 137-142.
12.
Gallupe, R. B. , Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Nunamaker, J. J., & Bastianutti, L. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 350-369.
13.
Gladstein, D. (1984). A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
14.
Goodman, P. S. (1986). Impact of task and technology on group performance. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 120-167). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Goodman, P. S. , Ravlin, E., & Schminke, M. (1987). Understanding groups in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 121-173.
16.
Guzzo, R. A. (1986). Group decision making and group effectiveness in organizations. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 34-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Hackman, J. R. (1968). Effects of task characteristics on group products. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 162-187.
18.
Hackman, J. R. , Jones, L. E., & McGrath, J. E. (1967). A set of dimensions for describing the general properties of group-generated written passages. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 379-390.
19.
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, pp. 45-99). New York: Academic Press.
20.
Hiltz, S. R. , Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.
21.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1990). The role of communication in group decision-making efficacy: A task-contingency perspective. Small Group Research, 21, 190-204.
22.
Hollingshead, A. B. , McGrath, J. E., & O’Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307-333.
23.
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse work forces. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 138-173). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Kelly, J. R. , & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 395-406.
25.
Kiesler, S. , Zubrow, D., Moses, A., & Geller, V. (1985). Affect in computer-mediated communication: An experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 77-104.
26.
Krauss, R. M. , & Weinheimer, S. (1966). Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 343-346.
27.
Kraut, R. E. , Lewis, S. H., & Swezey, L. W. (1982). Listener responsiveness and the coordination of conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 718-731.
28.
Landis, J. R. , & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
29.
Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative, problem-solving groups as verbal intellective tasks. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (pp. 127-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
Laughlin, P. R. , & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177-189.
31.
Laughlin, P. R. , Kerr, N. L., Munch, M. M., & Haggarty, C. A. (1976). Social decision schemes of the same four-person groups on two different intellective tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 80-88.
32.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33.
McGuire, T. W. , Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917-930.
34.
McLeod, P. M. (1992). An assessment of the experimental literature on electronic support of group work: Results of a meta-analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 257-280.
35.
Mehrabian, A. (1968). Relationship of attitude to seated posture, orientation, and distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 26-30.
36.
Neter, J. , Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1985). Applied linear statistical models. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
37.
Olson, G. M. , Olson, J. S, Storrøsten, M., & Carter, M. R. (1992, November). How a group-editor changes the character of a design meeting as well as its outcome. CSCW Proceedings, pp. 91-98.
38.
Olson, J. S. , Olson, G. M., & Meader, D. (1997). Face-to-face work compared to remote group work with and without video. In K. Finn, A. Sellen, & S. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-mediated communication (pp. 157-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194-208.
40.
Rutter, D. R. (1980). An experimental analysis of teaching by telephone: Theoretical and practical implications for social psychology. In G. M. Stephenson & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Progress in applied social psychology (pp. 345-374). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
41.
Saavedra, R. , Earley, C. P., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61-72.
42.
Shaw, M. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small groups. New York: McGraw-Hill.
43.
Shea, G. P. , & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters?Sloan Management Review, 28, 25-31.
44.
Siegel, J. , Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
45.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
46.
Stephan, F. F. , & Mishler, E. G. (1952). The distribution of participation in small groups: An exponential approximation. American Sociological Review, 17, 598-608.
47.
Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 227-266.
48.
Straus, S. G. , & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter: The interaction of task and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87-97.
49.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
50.
University of Illinois . (1992). Electronic conference system [Computer program]. Urbana, IL: Office for Information Management.
51.
Weingart, L. R. (1997). How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 189-239.
52.
Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 352-380.
53.
Zigurs, I. , Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1988). A study of influence in computer-mediated group decision making. MIS Quarterly, 12, 625-644.
