An experimental study was designed to test whether task composition, people composition, or their interaction affected various aspects of group process, e.g., satisfaction, influence, conflict, communication, etc. Each composition variable was varied according to homogeneous or heterogeneous characteristics resulting in a 2 × 2 design. 18 groups of 5 persons each were distributed in the 4 cells and responded to a decision-making task. The results indicate a significant interaction effect between task and people composition, suggesting that the effect of each on group process is dependent on the state of the other, although task composition had the dominant impact in this study.
CollinsE. B.GuetzkowH.A social psychology of group processes for decision making. New York: Wiley, 1964.
3.
FiedlerF. E.A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1964. Pp. 149–190.
4.
GoldmanM.A comparison of individual and group performance for varying combinations of initial ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 210–216.
5.
HackmanJ. R.Effects of task characteristics on group products. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1968, 4, 162–187.
6.
HoffmanL. R.Group problem solving. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Pp. 99–132.
7.
HoffmanL. R.MaierN. R. F.Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 401–407.
8.
KentR. N.McGrathJ. E.Task and group characteristics and factors influencing group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 5, 429–440.
9.
KilmannR. H.Social systems design: normative theory and the MAPS design technology. New York: Elsevier North-Holland, 1977.
10.
LampkinE. C.Effects of n-dominance and group composition on task efficiency in laboratory triads. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, 189–202.
11.
LaughlinP. R.BranchL. G.JohnsonH. H.Individual versus triadic performance on a unidimensional complementary task as a function of initial ability level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 144–150.
12.
McGrathJ. E.AltmanI.Small group research. New York: Holt, 1966.
13.
NathR.Administrative tests and tasks. Pittsburgh: Graduate School of Business, Univer. of Pittsburgh, 1968.
14.
PelzD. C.Some social factors related to performance in a research organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1956, 1, 310–325.
15.
SeltzerJ. J.The organizational implications of group composition as related to the MAPS Design Technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 1976.
16.
ShawM. E.A note concerning homogeneity of membership and group problem solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 60, 448–450.
17.
ShawM. E.Group dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
18.
SteeleF. I.Group composition and dogmatism. Dissertation Abstracts, 1973, 33, 4956.
19.
SteinerI. W.Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
20.
TriandisH. C.HallE. R.EwenR. B.Member heterogeneity and dyadic creativity. Human Relations, 1965, 18, 33–55.
21.
Van ZelstR. H.Sociometrically selected work teams increase production. Personnel Psychology, 1952, 5, 175–186.
22.
WahiN. K.The effects of group size and group composition on performance involving problem solving ability. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 31, 830–831.
23.
ZillerR. C.ExlineR. V.Some consequences of age heterogeneity in decision-making groups. Sociometry, 1958, 21, 198–211.
