This study investigated the effects of: (1) task-oriented communication and non-task-oriented communication on group outcome and (2) visual impairment on intragroup and intergroup communication in competitive situations. Forty-eight male and female subjects participated in the Pris oner's Dilemma game. The results showed that the amount of task- oriented interaction was significant in determining goal accomplishment, while the non-task-oriented interaction was not significant in determining the outcome. Also, it was found that the intragroup verbal interaction was significantly impaired by visual barriers. These results are discussed in relationship to group dynamics.
Back, K.W.Influence through social communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46, 9-23.
3.
Bales, R.F.Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1950.
4.
Bixenstine, V.E., Potash, H.M., & Wilson, M.Effects of level of cooperative choice by the other player on choices in a prisoner's dilemma game: Part 1. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 308-313.
5.
Bormann, E.G.Discussion and group methods: Theory and practice. New York: 1975.
6.
Bugental, D., Kaswan, J., & Love, L.Perception of contradictory meanings conveyed by verbal and nonverbal channels . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970,16, 647-655.
7.
Fisher, A.B.Communication research and the task-oriented group. The Journal of Communication, 1971, 21, 142.
8.
Galloway, C.Nonverbal teacher behaviors: A critique. American Education Research Journal, 1970, 11, 305-306.
9.
Haythorn, W.The composition of groups: A review of the literature. Acta Psychologica, 1968, 28, 97-128.
10.
Haythorn, W.The influence of individual members on the characteristics of small groups . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 276-284.
11.
Johnson, D.W., McCarty, K., & Allen, T.Congruent and contradictory verbal and nonverbal communications of cooperativeness and competitiveness in negotiations. Communication Research , 1976, 3, 277.
12.
Landers, D.M., & Luschen, G.Team performance outcome and cohesiveness of competitive coacting groups. International Review of Sport Sociology, 1974,2,57-72.
13.
Lott, A.J., & Lott, B.E.Group cohesiveness, communication level and conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 408-412.
14.
Rosenfeld, L.B., & Jessen, P.A.Compatibility and interaction in the small group: Validation of Schutz's FIRO-B using a modified version of Lash-brook's PROANA5. Western Speech, 1972, 36, 31-40.
15.
Schachter, S.Deviation, rejection and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46, 190-207.
Schelling, T.C.The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960.
18.
Shaw, M.E.Some effects of irrelevant information upon problem-solving by small groups . Journal of Social Psychology, 1958 , 47, 33-37.
19.
Shaw, M.E., & Shaw, L.M.Some effect of sociometric grouping upon learning in a second grade classroom . Journal of Social Psychology, 1962, 57, 453-458.
20.
Van Zelst, R.H.Sociometrically selected work teams increase production. Personnel Psychology, 1952, 5, 175-186.
