Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU
Master's Theses Graduate College
6-1964
Group Cohesiveness and Group Productivity
Michael M. Makedonsky
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses
Part of the Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation Makedonsky, Michael M., "Group Cohesiveness and Group Productivity" (1964). Master's Theses. 4083. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/4083
This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GROU COHSIVENESS AD:° GROU� PRODUCTIVITY
by
Michael M. Makedonsky
Jr. thesis presented to the Faculty of the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Arts
Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan June 1964
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer wishes to express .sincere appreciation to Dr. John J. Jochem for his encouragement and helpful supervision throughout the entire research.project. Grateful aclm��ledgement is also extended to Dr. Esten J. Asher and Dr. Stanley M. Kuffel, who willingly consented to act as members on the thesis committee. My work benefited from the counsel of Dr. Alvin Zander and Dr. Lawrence Schwarz, who provided clarification in the theoretical area. Appreciation is extended to Mrs. David Larom far her valuable assistance in typing the manuscript. My thanks are also extended to the volunteer students without whose participation this thesis would not have been possible.
Michael M. Makedonsky
ii TABL OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction .•••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l Method and Procedures ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8 Results and Discussion ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••1 3 Suinrna.ry and Conclusion •••••••••••••••.•••.••••••••••••••••••••••17 Appendix•••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 20
References •••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••.•••••••••••••••• 3.1
iii LIST OF TABLES_
PAGE Table 1. Comparison of Condition A and Condition Bon Mean Completion Times •••••••..•.••••••••.•••.•.••.•••••13 Table 2. Comparison of Condition A and Condition Bon Observed Behavior •••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1.4 Table 3. Comparison of Condition A and Condition Bon Group Evaluation Scale •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••15
iv GROUP COESIVNESS AD GOUP PRODCTIVITY
Cartwright and Zander (1953) distinguish at least three differ ent meanings in their intuitive and operational descriptions of
group cohesiveness: (a) attracti_on to the group, (b) morale, and (c) coordination of efforts of group members. Others have attempted to classify meanings of cohesiveness into two general categories.
One category of definitions centers chiefly on particular aspects
of group behavior or group process. Here, the meaning of cohesive 1 ness refers to 1sticking togetherness", productivity, task involve ment and good team work. A common observation is that members of a
cohesive group display a feeling of 11we-ness" or "togetherness", 11 r mea..-:iing that they are more likely to talk in terms of "we" than 11 1 •
The second category of definitions is concerned exclusively
with the attractiveness of the group. Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950) define cohesiveness as the average resultant force act ing on members -with direction toward the group. Still others, like Libo (1953), try to present a more refined meaning of the concept. Li.bo suggestst:,9 units of analysis for the study of cohesiveness:
the individual member and the group. Hence, an individual level of analysis and a group level of analysis. The attraction phenomenon in group dynamics is believed to be
a function of the needs of the individual and the properties of the
group. The valence of a group, when its goals are a source of grati fication, is equal to the strength of the need of the individual
1 2' times the probability that the group will satisfy his needs. The attractiveness of a group will be maintained as long as the needs of its members are met, but will be decreased if the gratification of needs is reduced. A group member will leave only when the forces driving him away from the group are greater than the sum of the forces attracting him to the group. According to Libo (19.53), the attractio. n phenomenon involves a personally meaningful individual-object relationship. By means of his separate units of analysis, he prefers to define cohesiveness in terms of attractiveness for the group as a collective body or ob ject as different from attractiveness for the individual member sepa rately. In his terms, "cohesiveness denotes the group's attractiveness for its membe:r-s, the resultant forces acting on all the memb.ers to re main in the group", and calls "the resultant of forces acting on each member to rei:nain in the group, attraction-to-group."' (Libo 1953, Chapter 1). ¼ short, group attractiveness is called cohesiveness and individual attractiveness is called attraction-to-group. 1 This writer feels that Libo s two units of analysis is redun dant, since the final measure of cohesiveness can be accomplished by the operation of converting individual attraction values to a total group value. His approach reflects a refinement in his research design rather than a new theoretical concept. In the present study, such fine distinction was not attempted because the group as a unit was seen as the object which possesses the quality of attraction. J
Therefore, this study will not deal with the issue of attractiveness for subparts of the group, but rather will concern itself with the group as a whole. Thus, the person's relationship with the group·will involve only the question of valence of membership in the group.
The basic method of producing differences in group attraction is to create certain perceptions and expectations about the nature or characteristics of the group to which the subject is assigned. Three general approaches have been identified by Libo: (a) the use of experimental instructions or suggestions, (b) the planned assign (c) ment of subjects to attractiveness, relevant activities, and the manipulation of group structure or process (Libo, 1953). Some experimental studies have utilized various combinations of these methods. Back (1951) for example, conducted a study in which attraction to the group was the major experimental variable.
In creating low and high degrees of cohesiveness, he used instru� tions designated to manipulate group attractiveness. He used thre / / sources: the valence of the members, the valence of the group as\ a mediator of attractive tasks and the valence of the group a� provider of prestige. Back used student volunteers who participated in two-person discussion groups. Each volunteer completed a form that included some questions ostensibly designed to help in organizing congenial
He referred to the imaginary results of his questionnair and stressed how well matched for congeniality the two persons in each strong attraction co ndition were. In the weak attraction con dition, the success of matching was made to appear less impressive. 4
The similarity between Back's use of experimental instructions and the Personality Evaluation Questionnaire used in the present.
study is quite obvious. The emphasis of course in both studies was
on creating an imaginary measure of congeniality.
After Back, other experimenters have used instructions to create differing perceptions and expectations of group attractiveness.
Some have used this method to study cohesiveness and group produc tivity. Schachter, Ellertson, McBride and Gregory (1962) studied
the corr ti between coh oup_ v�· � � = y � I~ -~� ..� - - -·-- --• their study they used four combinations of cohesiveness and direction I of induction: (a) high cohesive, positive or speed induction, (b) \ low cohesive, positive induction, (c) high cohesive, negative or \~ slow-down induction, and (d) low cohesive, negative induct� The subjects used were female volunteers from undergraduate
education and psychology classes. The subjects for any particular group were taken from different classes, so that they did not know
one another. Each experimental group was made up of three people.
There were 13 subjects in each of the high cohesive conditions,
and 12 in each of the low cohesive conditions., making a total of So s�bjects in the entire study. The task used by Schachter et al was a cooperative production of cardboard checkerboard. There were supposedly three jobs to be
done: cutting the cardboard, mounting and pasting it on heavier
stock, and painting the boards through a stencil. One group mem
ber was to be assigned to each of the jobs. Each member was as signed to_ different workroom. 5
Here, although all s::..b�ects ,,rere assigned to the job of cut
., ting, each girl was given tr:e impression that the other two members were painting and pasting. Individual members were allowed to com
municate with one another only hy notes delivered by a messenger.
All the notes were intercepted by the messenger who substi t:.uted notes from a standard prewritten set. The subject, however, be lieved that the notes she received were written by the other mem
bers of the group. These notes furnished the means by which direc tion of induction was manipulated. The subject cut cardboard for 32 minutes. Then, each member
was asked to fill out a questionnaire, after which she was returned to her group again. The purpose of the experiment was discussed
and the various deceptions were eA-plained in detail.
In their results, Schachter et al took the difference in the
number of cardboards cut during the neutral and induction periods
a� ar, indication of the extent of acceptance of the induction. In the analysis, it was evident that the direction of "group"
induction, via the notes, had a major effect on the rate of produc
tion. In the positive induction condition, production increased
markedly. On the other hand, in the negative induction condition, the rate of production decreased. Differences between productions in positive and negative induction conditions were all significant
by t test at the 1% level of confidence. 1 Although a direct comparison cannot be made between Schachter s
experiment and the present thesis, the basic theoretical orientation was similar and the method of manipulating the degree of cohesiveness
was adopted from the former. 6,
The research design is based upon the assumption that high co hesiveness and low cohesiv1..:u,ss can be manipulated by the method known as experimental inst�i.:ctions. High or low cohesiveness can be induced by experimenta::i.2.:r establishing the subjects' expectations ahead of time by using posi�ive and negative_inductions. The high cohesive group is defined as the positive-induction group and the low cohesive group as the negative-induction group. In order to assess the results of the induction on group co hesiveness a puzzle-assembly task was devised. By determining the mean completion times for each condition a measure of the relationship of the two inductions on group productivity was obtained. This pro vides us with an indirect measure of the effectiveness of the two inductions. A direct measure of the effect of the inductions on group cohesiveness was obtained by a Questionnaire (Appendix C).
This approach thus provides us with two hypotheses:
H1 The high cohesive groups will show a shorter mean comple- / tion time for the task than the low cohesive groups. (--- \ H2 The high cohesive groups will show a greater tendency to \ ) rate their groups higher on attractivenss than will the low cohe- siv e groups.
To be sure, elaborations on group productivity have included additional charac.:teristics such as taking on more responsibilities for the group, (Larson, 1953), participating more readily in meet ings (Back, 1951), persistence in working toward difficult goals (Horwitz, Exline, Goldman and Lee, 1953) and faithful attendance
(Sagi, Olmstead, and Atelsk, 1955). Productivity in this study is 7 p::ima:-ily limted to the ;;rfor!nance on the puzzle-assembly task.
The performance is to be rated in terms of the number of pieces correctly placed.
.., Method The subjects in this experirnsnt were male student volunteers from undergraduate psychology classes at Western Michigan University. During the orientation phase, the experimenter.explained that this study was a psychological study concerning group performance, adding that the experiment was based on previous research findings at other universities. The students were told that the questionnaires which they would complete were descriptive of their personalities and would enable the experimenter to select students who would work well to gether. The students were given a revised form of the F-scale (Appendix A) to give them the impression that there would be a basis for the match ing. In addition to the F-scale, general qµestions such as age, grade point average and types of students they liked best� were included. This orientation question.�aire was given to 100 students. All were assigned code numbers by taking their full initials and the last two digits in their year of birth. The code numbers were trans cribed on small cards which were rotated in a drum. Later a list of the code numbers was :rr.ade by taking one card at a time from the drum and assigning it to one of the conditions randomly. This process yielded a group of 50 subjects for each condition. Group A was desig nated for the high cohesiveness condition and Group B was designated for the low cohesiveness condition. F:inally, each group was sub divided into 10 work groups consisting of four members.* -¼Each work group participated in the experiment separately, at a sche 0 duled tiffie in accordance with convenience of the individual members. Five members were assigned to each group so as to assure that at least 8 9 It was hoped to present the subjects with an actual problem solving task which would be both interesting and enjoyable. The materials for the task consisted of a jig-saw puzzle containing 104 pieces and a frame with:i..'1 w:'1ich tr.e puzzle was to be completed. The jig-saw pieces rere divided equally into four parts (26 pieces). This was accomplished by placing all of the pieces into a drum., rotating it 6 times clockwise and 6 times counter clockwise and then dividing the pieces into four quantities randomly. Later, each piece was labeled on the back numerically one through twenty-sixe Each group was labeled in a different color for the purpose of identification. This procedure facilitated the use of the same pieces in the same locations for each of the sub- eroups,. The frame which housed the puzzle was geometrically divided into four work areas: area 1, area 2, area J, and area 4. The sides of the frame were measured and the midpoints were connected by straight lines establishing the four equal areas by a geometri- cal "cross'!.'0· The nun 1bers in the frame were designated in four different colors corresponding to the colors used to label (on the back) the pieces for each area. During the experiment, the subject had to work within the frame. four members would be available for the task. It was anticipated that som€ subjects might not be able to keep their appointed sched ule for various reasons. 10 du?licate jig-::;au puzzle was completed and mounted on card board b.:c:!.i:ig and placed 10 feet I om the subjects. Hence, the sub jects lm-.::w what the cor.iplcted puzzlC looked like. D-.!ri:ri.g the cxperirrier..t.) �:.:'".:. f:r-::.:'ne was placed in the center of a table with four chairs. The 26 pieces were also on the table., outside of the frame near each subject. Subjects were seated while working on the puzzle. The table was located 10 feet from the dupli ca�e copy of the completed puzzle, which was in clear view for all gro· p :rr.2bers. .. The task selected required interaction and cooperation among the four members. Since the :,ieces were randomly distributed., ex ch�rcge of pieces between grou p menbers was necessary for the comple tion of the puzzle. Each member was instructed to work only in his designated area, therefore, exchanges had to be made in order to com plete the individual work areas. It was impossible for any one mem ber to complete the task or even his own work area without interact ing with other n:erabers. The task, therefore, required team work for its conpletio . ., The direction for completing the puzzle was the same for all subgroups, only the induction was varied. The direction was printed and given to each member to read. (See Appendix B). Group productivity has a very limited and specific meaning in this study. It is a measure of output per unit time; the number of pieces placed within the frame per unit time being the pri.n:.ary inter est. More precisely stated, the number of pieces per unit ti.me is 11 ttc dependent variable unde L"lvestigation. After 30 minutes of work t:iJ;,e, the nur.iber of pieces within the frame was recorded for each area and a total calculated for each work group. Hence, in the final analysis it will be possible to study the variance among groups and variance within the groups for each member. A numerical value of one point was assigned for each correct juxtaposition made within the frame during the experimental time al lotmento The total possible score for each area was 26 points dur ing a period of 30 minutes or 104 points for the total group within the san� period. No credit was given for a correct juxtaposition when assembled and left outside the fr2me. Prior to p��2enting the subject s with the task, the induction :' was read to them by the ex.::t.,tl. _ero There were two inductions., one for each condition; Inducticn A, for the high cohesive condition, a.�d Induction B, for the low cohesive condition. Induction A read as follows: According to the results on the personality evaluation questionnaire which you completed earlier, you are a very con genial groupo You have a great deal in common and hold simi lar interests. Members in your group are the type of students you enjoy bei-11.g with. You will make a good working team to gether., consequently_, you will be able to complete the experi ..cnt quite successfully. Go ahead. Induction Bread as follows: According to the results on the personality evaluation questionnaire., which you completed earlier, you are not a con genial group. You have little in common and hold dissimilar interests. Members in your group are not the type of students you particularly enjoy being with. You will not make a good working team. However, due to scheduling difficulties, we have not been able to place you with the appropriate group. Go ahead. 12 At the end of the task, the s1.:ojects were asked to complete a..11.other questiomia.ireo This 1e is to determine the strength of the inductions. Ten items 1tff):'e included in this questionnaire which were subjective and attitud:...�al in nature. The subjects could an swer each question by circling a nu:r.ber on a five point scale rang ing i'rom 11ve_ y little" to "quite a lot" o (Appendix C) In order to arrive at a tLme allotment objectively, two work groups were conducted prior to the actual experL111ent. Eight male students were used for two work groups. These students were asked to complete the task "as soon as possible." The instructions for the procedure of completine t:-,c tas.· were the same.. There was no induction, however. The "'pilot1'' groups were used only to help "estim:::te" more accurately a suitable time allotment. One group required 27 minutes while the other required 33 minutes to complete the puzzle. The average was t�ken and 30 minutes was arrived at as sufficient time. Since the task was not conceived to be a speed task, a:nple time was given in order to minimiz·e the time variable. P..,1 additional variable was discovered during the pilot study. The verbal communication led to an increase L� interaction, which contributed to the emergence of a leader who tended to direct the exchange of pieces. It became obvious that communication increased the facilitative factor in the completion of the task. Verbal com munication, therefore, was eliminated in the actual experiment. The students used in the preliminary study were identified by narr.e in order to avoid future use of them as subjects in the actual experiment� The students were also asked not to discuss the task with anyo�c until the total study was completed. Re.su.lts And Discussion Although 10 work groups for each condition were established,• only 7 groups were able to ::-:-:ect during the scheduled times. The total subjects participating, then, were 7 work groups in each con dition or a total of 56 suhjects in all. All groups in both condi tions completed the task within the 30 minute time allotment. In view of this it was decided to make the comparison between condition A a�d condition Bon the basis of mean completion time only. At test was run between the mean completion time for condition A and con- dition Busing a one tailed test. The results obtained are sum- ma��zed in Tajle 1. Table 1 Cor:iparison of Condition A and Condition B on Mean Col"lpletion Time Conditions N Total Completion Mea.ri Completion Time in :tvrinute s Time in Minutes Condition A 28 429 15.32 Condition B 28 688 24.57 t value 11.58 one tailed test p peOl 13 14 "';:"'i,; ,.:c:-1 1.:>e seen that the difference between the mean completion tirr.c : ·cc cor..diti ::in A and condition B is significant beyond the 1% le•,�··· ,--:,i,• ::>� r; fidence. The inductio:-i 1-:ras successful in producing a sit::L'icari.t difference in mea7. completion time for this interactional 1% task, thus H1 is accepted at better t�an the levelo IYJ. ;::;:ddition to the quantitative findings, qualitative differ ences were noticed between the two conditions. The difference in behavior of subjects in condi-;:,ion . and condition B is summarized by Table 2. Table 2 Comparison of Condition A and Condition B on Observed Behavior Observed behavior Cor.ci.ition A Condition B I.eadership Le2der emerged No leader Amount of exchange A great deal Very little Exposure of pieces Well exposed Not exposed Willir1gr:.3ss to exchange Quite willing Rather hesitant P.oardL�g of pieces No ho2rdL'r1g Hoarding present Anxiety No overt symptoms Overt symptoms Discussion after A great deal of ½..ttle interest in experiment h1terest about experL"llent and results experiment and results 15 ·.::-,J findin�s on the questio�-:aire given at the end of the task did no: show significant dif. as al:nost all subjects rated tteir work group on the 114 11 ad 11511 point level of the scale. (T:1e scale being a five point scale raging from 11-very little11 to :1 quite a lot n in attitudinal value) However, all subjects who finished the task first in the high cohe siveness group scored the group on a lower level consistently as comoared to the rest of the members in the same condition. Individual mer.be:s ,,ho finished their work areu first rated the group on the 1 11 2 11 2. 113' level. Table 3 su1marizes these find:gs. Table 3 Comparison of Condition A and Condition Bon Group Evaluation Scale Ratings Con:ition A Condition B Mf .5 8 17 4 8 11 3 .5 0 2 7 0 ,.l. 0 0 Table 3 :ndicates that we cannot accept H2 • 16 Tho striking di�ference tot ..rec:·: :::c�jition A and condition B was the degree of interaction; ,:,hat is, the amount of exchange of pieces. In condition A members began to exchange pieces at the 11 star:- of the experiment. There was n:ore 11 exploratior! , members ex amined the piec3s freely withc-t hesit:..tion. Usually the pieces were spread out on the table so everyone could see them. At times, rr:embers tend8d to point out to others a possible placement of pieces which they freely passed on. This seemGd to suggest an interest in helping others instead of only finishing their own area. On the other hand, there 1.�z,.s lE::ss i.11t.eraction in condition B. Here exchanges did not occur until �O minutes after the experi.�ent was in progress. T',e subjects did not expose their pieces and 11 exhibited a tendency to 11hoard them� They were very careful which pieces they relinquished and which pieces they accepted from othe:r-s. A noticable difference in overt anxiety was also present be tweer, the two condir,ions. Subjects i.>1 condition A appeared more rela:-:ed and 0:;.:pressed satisfaction in having participated in the experiment. In contrast, subjects in condition B evidenced symptoms Ji anxiety such as frequent body movements, tapping of fingers, G.nd bi ting of lips. Behavior at thB end of the experiment was also different among the two conditions. Subjects in condition A asked many questions aoout the experiment in general and about their performance as com pared to previous groups. They asked the experimenter to tell them 17 the purpose of the 8}1erirne." c; d -he overall findings. Even after theL qestions were answ0red, subjects talked about the task among themselves, com:e!.ting .:'�'-t, ::this was sre fn, I haven't put a puzzle toget:1er fo:� years:'. Questions about the experiment were Yery few in condition B. After the experiment, subjects usuaily left and expressed no L1. terest in comparing themselves with other groups. No one asked about the purpose or the outcome of the experiment. If ay dis cussion followed, it was usuclly an attemt to explain a member Is performa'ce. One subject stated that ii if I had't goofed, I would 11 have probably finished earlier .. Surr.:-1ary and Conclusion T�e present study was based upon the assumption that high co hesiveness and low cohesiveness can be ma�ipulated by tha use of experimental induction. High or low cohesi vene ss ca.."'1 be induced I by varying the subjects expectatior-s of the attractiveness of the to which he ,-1as randomly assigned. Two conditions were established by giving group A the positive induction and giving group B the negative induction. It was further assurr:ed that the high cohe- siven2ss induction has a positive effect on group productivity. The proposed hypothesis tha-e, tne hig'n cohesive group will show a shorter mea..'l completion tirr:-2: for the task than the low cohesive group was substantiated at the 1% level of significa.�ce. The subsidiary hypothesis that positive induction would produce a greater feeling of cohesiveness than the negative in- ductio� "'as not born out by the data. L'l addition, comparison of the beha vior between the two con ditions revealed greater interaction, frequent exchange of pieces, 11 1 es::; anxiety, willingness to ngive up and more interest in con dition A than in condition Bo A rating scale was used to assess the effectiveness of the in ductions. The findings here did not show significant differences in attitudes toward the group in th e two conditions. /i_lrnost all subjects rated their work group on the "4 11 and 11 5 11 point level of the scale. However, individual members in condition A, who 18 11 finished their work area fir::,_ rated the group on the 11 2 ad 11 3 11 point levelo ''he fact that mibject: ( ir. conditio: A) who finished first rated the group higher, could be explained by a possible difference in the direction of the inct.cciono That is, in condition A the subjects displayed a self-cen-ccred"ess whereas in condition B the subjects appeaed tas'·-centered. Since c-mdition A was a more 11posi n tive description of the group. idividual members iJl this condition could consciously internali e the chaacteristics expressed in the induction. This then, allc.:·tC for the emergenO· of a group leader. This persor1 usuall finis:1e d first, He uns or appeared to be more aig:essi 'J ad tended to 11 0:�banize 11 th flow of the interaction. The::e/o:·e, when th1. subject rated the group, he rated it lower, si n cc he valued his own cont:ributions higher. 7::8 e1 high 11 rating of the group by the rest of the subjects in oou� conditions cold be explai�ed on the basis of task-orientatio. ·r he ��bjects in condition B, fo. example, were more task-centered, ad avoided the personal implications of the induction. Instead, they :ated the group on the basis of their prformance on the task. Since all subjects finished within the time limit, the subjects 11 coulo justifiably rate the g!o-p 11high regardless of the fact that the induction stated that the group was not congenial. ,,., J.·ne high rating by subjects who finished last in condition A co'ld be explained by the cognitive dissonance pheno:enon. (Festinger 11 and Bramel, 1962) Rting the grop 11 high , the students were able 11 to minimize their mm 11·failures by possibly over-rating the group. 20 Alt1 ough these expe:d,,::mto.l :::-esults indicate that the induction 2.p92.rently had a de.finite effect, on the productivity i.:.'1 terms of time required to complete the task, the validity of the induction needs further st;udy. It is necessar.)' to study :more carefully the relationships between the directio�"- of i?::.:t.:ctio::1 and ir,s acceptance. Since the success of the inductiorc ·.:·::..:a 3.lso depend upo,·1 the rnagni tude of other existing fore'-'� operating in the field, a closer evalua tion of each member 0 s need� and drives is necessary. In order to make a specific appraisal of the eff2ctiveness of the induction, more must be Imo:�-'- ..:':)o'.lt each su bj"'ct, p::-ior to his pru:-ticip�::.icn in the experir-ent. Alternative procedurec co�ld �lso s�ed light on the effective ness of the inductiono For exarnple, if students were allowed to talk during the experimen-:., this wo-u.ld provide for further observa tion of the reaction to the i�d.�ct."on o. the cornmunication level. Conve::-scly, the students coilld be further restricted if the labora tory condition was so desig.• cci as not to permit vis>.1al contact with the other members. Henc,1, ec.G:-. subject would be limited in evalua tions o: the rest of the members through observation. Still another variation of this experiment could be established by strc1gth0ning the forces by repeating the induction after the first 15 mi.�utes. rowever, these suggestions are to be considered as possihle inter�sts for future experimentation, since the objective of tho present thesis was limited to the ma."lipulation of the induction and its effects on group pronnctivity m terms of units of time. A?PEi,JIX ?cr:;onality Evaluation Questionnaire Directions: Please answer 1,n:e or f:C:.:!_::;e by circling the appropriate le~ter on 1,h,1 r.:. ,-.-~ . lo What a man does is not so impor·t&nt as long as he does it well. T F 2'. One shouJ.c 2.vo2.d rloir:.· t-,.,�:::.:;s �i, :):..:.blic which a::-pear ,ffong to otters, everi thotFh o,:,.; k,,o,-:s t-:·,�;.t theses thin2"s are really all dGht. T F J. No s2.ne,normal, d,-..:,:--r, ',<: r,.-,,n ��o:.::J.d ever think o: h-1::"·ting a close friend or rs:�J�ve. T F 4. Obedience and respect i.'o:· c.·,t'no:·i ty 2.r-c:: the most important virtues chj_J.dren should :..,-:,.:.:c·n. T F 1 5. It is c,.l.y r,ai.,u:rs.l a::1c �--;_.-__ ;, th��',. '.,roc1en be restricted in certain ways in which men have ,::o ··"· froccorn. T F 6. No insult to our honoy :::--r;,_::__d ever so unpunj_shed. T F 7. There are someI thin;';s too i· tirr..:,::.c or !')ersonal to talk about evsn wi r,h cne s clc::.:e:s:.: ::>·ic:nc:..;. T F 8 0 TherG is too much c·:::,'.:·:..::. .::: in c:ollece on intellectual and 1,beoretic2.l top:i.cs, not e,1ou:::h er.iphasis on practical matters a.."ld on thP. homey vii·tue5 ci' living ., T F 9. �oo r.:a.ny peop_el today are lj_vinr:; in a..r1 uimatural, soft way; 1 ,e should rcturq to the fu:-idamentals, to a more red-blooded, :.. stive w;:i.:r of life o T F 10., ?2..�:.liarity breeds contemnt.., T F 11., .: o rr.a.tt,:r how they act on tho surface, men are interested in ,romen for only one reason. T F le� r!u.!11an nature, being what it is, there will always be war 2-."'"!d con:lic ta T F 23 7 ~, 0 ...... ii One o.'.:' tr.,) r12.ir. values 01� :'2:·o::r, ;:;sive cducatior, is that it :~.i_vc:::: t:-.c cl-1:Llri ;-r,·:o..t .:·:--- .;:.'c, ... i�, c zpres·sine; those nat1.:.ral �-�7r;.)1Jl::3es ::-.1.nd destrcs sc c .-t.���'l f::·u-:·::-�eJ upon b�r co!1ven.tional T "TJ.i6.dle class soeie:-,,,\�;;t F 11:. lfovcl::; or storiGJ ti-1.:.:.-;:. ..,_c!:..:.. "bo:.,:. ·.::,,_t people t:r-.::..::i.\: a.rid feel arc r:10re j_ntGr·cs-;:,:!::::; t:1:rn t'.·1-,se .. ;:ic:1 co:::tain mai::i.ly action, rcmz�!':.co �:..�1d ad-\rer.ture c» T F 1 .:. - ;,., � �)- ·I'.".8n :rot.;_ cor,:P. ric;ht do�-:n to ::..t, :-,uian.£_• • .L nature: nev8r to do ar:ytYi:_nz �-rit�out an eJre to one's L.n _pr0.1J. ve T F 7 / "" �o. ::;:�._.,... ..:!�.:/�, �.�:t:en so r:-:un�y di�' .: · ..�nt 1:inds of people rGo\re � .. :·t.:..:·:cl so ��.t.:;h·ar1d rni:-: to· r_:.··:::ar so _f>rccly, a person has to l:,0 c:-:�-:�c�.c.lly ca'.·eful tc ·:,·c•vec"u hi:::c,elf ai:;ainst infection T F 1 17. :::.,::ic.:--ice 1.5-ke cri.el:!isty·y, �)��.'/s2 c:s :-:·:d �-::c:c j ci.Y-�e h-:�.:'tE; c�rried : .. , ..., ..,.r:.:r�\; :'ar, but t1-:r:rc::: :1.::-· .. r .2-n�.. - i�i.-;)O!'l:ian.t th :.r�£_;s that �:�r: never possibly be lL'ci,·.:::.,:,o:-', c:, tl---.0; human. mind. T F - 0 _u. :-t :!.S essc~tirJ.l for lee. . .v ·, ,. or "··.,:::t~.ve work that our t�ach0rs or bosses outli . d, t i.i :i. ~-r:-:r, t is to be done :..:.--Id. sxactly hoH to go abo1-.,·c, it. T F � () -/ . :�1t:1oe::n le::.surE":: is a fL�e ttir:r;, it is a,ood hard work t::-tat. P"iakes life intercstir:g c,,nd ':-rorthwhile. T F ::::o. '.:Jhc.t tl::is country needs is i'-,�wc!'.' lav,s and agencies and r:.cre courageous, tireless� d:.::voted leaders whom the 9eo::ile can put their fai t:: i:1. T F :,ircctions: Please check throe out o:.· each listo -::!.o , like to be with s tuder:. ts W[:o are: (a) po:!:)ula.r (d) active in extra (b) well dressed curricular activities (c) active in sports (e) intelligent (f) outgoing 2 o I do not like to be wit:-, students who are: (a) boastful (d) introverts (b) loud (e) audacious (c) studious (f) extroverts Your e;rade point avera,ce for last semester is ------You are years old. 24 Tho purpose of th:Ls ez.o::�':i.i,,m,t is to learr, how qu::..ckly t17.is r-:roup c2-ri complete this Dt,:... - •-• T:io;·k as q_u.ickly �"'ld as accurately as you c;_,n. '2:'hcre are 101-: pieces to 'vf:is ouz::le ., These are divided equally a�ong each menilic_, each ha� 26 pieces. Tr1ere are i'ou:c' , ·ork o..rc . .::.�-, Arc.:;. l, Arca 2, .i\.rea 3, and Area h. �act member is to 1-rork o,":' v ....'.... , ~is assi~~cd area. ' ' . You r~~-'-- o:;ly t.::--c:-��cl,. \·!l time. You may trade ' . CZC�ange lS equal. For example, if you e;iv0 _'ive pieces to subject 3, subj0ct 3 must in turn, give you five '.)ieces bn.cko The exch2.:-,:::;2 n.nst be ah;ays equal. You may trade as often .J.s you wish. Talkinr. is not 3.llowedo '.-fr.en you wish to exchange pieces, point '.:.o t:-�e person with whom you wi.s:: to exchan[e. Then point to the piece you wish., Remember you must work in your o,m area. You have 30 n1j_nutes. Do not turn the pieces over. Do you have srLy · :.:-stions? 25 A ·_;, ( _0 c; X C :nduc t.~c-. ..:.v2..:.~·.ci.1:,ion C}ues tior..naire 1. P.m-r '.-H::•ll �:id you l �ke your team? 1 2 . 3 4 5 very little quite a lot If you './J; ·, , be :...sk,!d to do the task over a:-:ain, 1,,Y., , .. �ri ·_,;ould you like to work with the S3.c:K: Sc.�---Ults? 1 2 3 4 5 v�-7 little quite a lot 3 o P.o�-r rr:• __,,_l do y.) ...... t.r_ink your tearr:r::c.t(:S contribt:.ted to tr..e success of your team? 7 2 _; 4 5 very little quite a lot 4. Ho·,r well cio yo'J. feel your group mer.ibers worked togetr:er? l 2 3 5 very little quite a lot 5. Bo•.-r rr:uc:-_ better do you think your group did as co�pared to the other groups? 1 2 3 4 5 very little quite a lot 26 6. In {C',k-:'�-.., .c1-. : .:.. c·l.. c.o you. t:1J.nk e2.ch member of yoJ:r· t,- ,. __-: t:..·'�.J,-: to do his best? l 2 J 4 s very lit.tlc quite a lot 7. P.ow ,;-: ...· � : . ou t.1-:ink tl-cis (.>�roun • could wor:< o,--: ot'. -..::· t.-::,ts? l 2 3 4 s very lihle quite a lot 1 B o Do you __· ...,::l -;,:1e o:.r,or- mem -el'.'s were cooperative? 1 2 3 s very l.l t. · le �.mite a lot o 9 �o{' yo,1 _· .. , l :.h'" other m:mbcrs ·t1ere _ric::c.:J·: 2 3 4 5 ve:r-y li ttk quite a lot 10" How fa.st do y-ou "hink each member tried to work? l 2 h s very· little quite a lot 27 Subjects in Condition A '::·:i.;;-,c; ?able per Group Subj. Gr� ;1.JIJ 0 Code OI Work Aren Tir..e ., .L B',·JC-lt2: 2 20 min • p- ...,i}� � - . 43 3 10 min. 0EI.-1:l )� lit min. -o--.,-, l."l .l. �\._·-•t..,,./ l 15 min • Total 59 min. 2 JR.A-L1 2 18 min. BiT-39 1 13 min. ..., -�c.::i:r.o -LJ1 .) 16 min • �r JS-ll h 17 min. Total 6! min., 3 LPA-LJ 3 16 min. LJI-L2 h 19 min. WFS-42' 1 17 min. ,.,,Yf,.:.'.._- LLI ' 2 16 min. 68 min. 28 T::..rne 4 2 lS min. RB-lJ l 17 min. ., 13 min • h 16 mj_n. Total 66 r.in. r "J =-:.:-L�2 4 17 min. GAE-U 15 r.iin� JC.:I-:_,2 ') 15 rninli ·' :-JJi-3-l.;.2 _ol min. Total 65 rr,in. .., 6 B_t_B-44 19 rnine GPE-40 2 16 rr.in ., RL?-42 l 15 min. 03J-45 4 12 min. Total 62 min. --···-- 29 ,n• Code o�· Su'::ij � _ime 7 DGB-LO 3 l.4 min. -. � J�}-I-L2 l .!..>....' r.1in• ffiD-43 2 15 min. JDG-43 ), 16 min. ,, Total 0.,1 min. JO S�bj�cts in Condition B r��e ?able per Group Gr. V_,Oo Code of Subj. �fork Arc::,, Time 1 �·JBD-L,1 1 zo min. L"CP-29 4 30 min. ' ·- ---�_) J 29 1ni::1. -..) 1' ')-; ,. -t.!L! 2 -.J :';'�i:1. Total l'J2 r·t::_:-1 e 2 .=:-:..::J.-U� l 25 min. V"°i'1-L.h 2 20 min. I D:·JL-L12 4 26 �ni�;.� l-'.V0-42 3 27 !!:in. '!:'otal 98 mina J TR'J'-H1 l 21 min. LW-L!L1 J 28 min. :1.CD-29 2 29 min. ':t'LD-L3 4 2h mino Total 102 min o Jl Gro �\Jo Q Co·... 10 ol° =���j. :.-Tork Area Time 4 S�K-�3 3 28 min. 1 I :LF-l l, H 27 min. CV-)15 1 25 min. ') F?J':-U - 25 mir1. ., ,..,,.., Total .!.•.J".) :-:iino ,.., ;) DS-L,2.. 2 20 '.nin. -· I ..'··- -� � .. 1- 23 min. ?,.., •.J - 3 �:::i '.:!in. t.: ·,,· I � .l. .. v-. ::. .'..j. 2�.? min • Total 93 r.iin. 6 HK-39 1 27 min. H�-Li3 2 23 min. GGS-L!J 3 22 min. PA.F-L!.� h 15 min. �ota.l 92 min. 32 ,.,., ...... , ,.-· ,..., . G !, \....' V Cod~· .:ime 1 ,\ Cc i - 7 _.,.,)-- !-- l 20 :r1in. ! 'I'�?-.. � .t 24 :·,:in. 2 27 min. 'l r" 1-.' t ' ' ') , �:in. ),, . "-J . --\')-/ ..J Total 96 m�n. ------33 In 'C.1"l.�� vS or -�i�utes ?\o. •,:_; ' -:i Gr. Arca l .. a - .f\.r'C3. ..,) Arca h l ,,.,-::> 2J 10 14 2 13 �-J 16 17 ) 17 1::) 16 19 4 17 -::> 13 16 r' - � _o ) l.S .L:;> 1 / 17 / C) lS �·J 19 12 J 7 18 l;;i ll..i 16 T·� -· • - r' lJD -'--) 109 111 34 ·"• .- .. -_ �•. V 1.,, ·" '-•- ii: Cur:.:.l:i.f:..Lo,1 J ------· In ; l�:i t;: C it;�·--. l1 t-s S ' Q-,.- a �\!o o Are;a l .. 2 !1.:rea 3 Arca 4 ., .L 20 -.J 29 JO r, '),., ,: 25 - 1... / 26 3 21 -/ 26 2h I ,-. _J >.,. 4 c..-;; -./ 2G 27 ,., ?� -;; 23 -":J 25 6 27 22 15 '7I 20 ?. 7 25 21.i 161 17c. 184 171 ( ;.•-� - ) �- t� 0 35 "" ...-} 0 () 0 0 ""-' C...) -�...t\ ,'--- 0 0 °' ,! ID CX) c--- 0 • c:> I (""\ l1 ! L.I"\ •! ,-J c--- 0 0 °' :----- ,....., (Y'\ • I co v,. '\..[\ -� .---- 0 CX) Q (Y'\ C--· CX) 0 0 '° '° CV"'\ (c) f-., '-l; co .., -� .::.:;. 0 '..-"\ t'- C 0 '---� r "' :-.� :'.":! (J '--� ·r·l .;..:, ..;.#,-_,. I V\ ___:::t .....) (, '-0 c--- '° 0 " 0 C'\ (.;I -� ::.::: ,.. " J -+ LC'. ·rl ,o CD ..... °' 0 " T' (J .-,-, r� t'.J (\ n1 -� r-... .:. ., co <.; c:i ('\ 0 � V'\ c--- '° CX) 0 .-,-, �.., <"". '-' C\l " r- °' ..::r '° 0 '"" 1...-""I r .J co co '\.:'\ c--- 0 '° ., G � '"" rl ) ! 0 C ! 3,6 ,,.., l. > (J 0 d .[ Il I --.a?0 I 0 r 0 rl 0 0I ...::; '! r. 1 I 1 l 'I 0 ��0 l i r- 0 0 O' r-. ...:::, l • Ii I l Ii r----1f I i CD 0 1 co . -, 0 0 i l __;! jI l r-- .::, 0 ,-· . 0 I �, G) '°'u $, I '-0 l._) C .::, 0 ·rl -! 0 .__:::r \--;} I rl I 0 ·- -r: • I --- ,-' ! �� V\ r. 0 0 t"; u, ,- ..-: 0 __; i C)..., I. ' (_;l G' H ' ! '-C ("' ! I " ;< 0 l ,..___ r. "-, 0 0 I ...::t •: �- I 1-l r, .-o C t. . :::;,,_, � lI P.. ·r i '-0 i:.; .) ! · ..,., 0 0 0 . � ('j I i r"'\ I .--; °' ...::t l I c...., I 0 l '! l,j I L"\ ! :- ('Y'\ 0 ,,) ! C •.J 0 Q •cl I r-: ~ v ! (_� i ,.) ,.; , I l r..: ! N "' r I ,.;_-:)ri 0 'L.'\ l ! ,-; 0 0 'I :t \ j � I I.:' I ! I I I I' u I rl I Cl I (.) -.:::1' Cr'\ C rl ;:;::: '.] 0 •,-i ..;.:, .,4 'O r:: 0 u 1·•·.- . .1 �j:..;.-.:.::: ., �.-.. o I:�.i..'lu\�: -:.c:e; t);:·0 L::..:;_;�:.1.l c,J: .. �n:.::1icr;..tior1. Jourr�2..1 o.L ....., � <...i.. :, •J \..-.lci.. ...1... - • .; \ ,;�•-.. _\._, ,'• ...... i. L, �' •··.>-,,·•.1 .... _,_,· .·,•.,·.,l._ ,..,�--r·t :·o·· ..: - 7 P ·rc·,.,, 1)� '"''':"·, ..:_ 7 (;·.:· -1 ),/. i,�·-23 • . J.) 1� Car-t·.r::---L t:J-:t, Do t1n:J ZoJ1,.lt..,l"", ;� \,�-j .. ---vi.:.::: ;�.:-(!:�1.t::��-cs: :research i ✓ t c_ ti� r_,,·'�t... =' .:J.=--iston. ., �12..: _-\.:.:.--?\.; .-:-.:.·;..:0�·1, 1;;57 1 !\_,� �... �r\;C::_-'·, L .. r� t.!'C.Ct")' u :.1. ✓�-- ..1 .�"J_)(;:;��.:2(;0 .. Ev.:.1nstor1, =:1.: Ro-:-�,.-?ntc:�·so:1, l�/:);, � - · ... ., . .:.\.X !... • l :f~ , . -·.' . ' C:~·:~_,,cts ot .:..::t··.!~''"":t"i~ii.r,. ... ·-r.;,~ : .. _.· ,_;·"'-~C(..3~) in r·rouns. Urbana, Tllo' Lnii..'C!l ':J.:..t,y O.~· .Li..1 .. ,.. !U.i.~ ... ,;01:....,..:;~• 1·_; O~-- Edt:cacion, bureau of ::.:;,it:catio~1:.!. l ~~c; .. ,;·:;.1:-\;i·I) 1s~)~ .. - 1 �.11.'�CY'� .• r •"•) P)S Q ., c ., _., .>�-��·-L,j·::�L·J:-:.ti0�"l :,, " J.1,J U11pu.Olisl1ed ci.oc;,,o: · .:'.. _5..�_-;c_;_·,:,:"_l.,ion, l;;·,i·1<::, ,_ �;.,y -::>.:.·. "i.chj_gan, 1953 0 L,::_be;, .-: "' � :-13astL... ir1/ C:-.. ·c-c.:l �,)�"l�;.�ivo!1Gsc ,. .A.n_1. A.rbor:��1stitute IJ of .:...,, _ ...... >_·;c ... c:): ., ��):; ., S;.:..::_:_.; _ .., ./J_••• -3·:.t..;.J.ct, J ....:J.cj ,c: -�·:.,:;.1.r:::�, ��Q, r ....�cd.icti�g maintenance of' :��;-,:b•:..�1·,�n:i.1) i1i s:--:�;.ll :-�rut,>... "• Jo1.:-··:·�;J.. br:or::1a1 and Social -.r or ..: .. :_::-_,,,,. v�-h, � ·,7 u,•. ·v 7 9r,r:' r,l ..I'JJ� I.) --,_/ ---l • • _,_ .·, - ..,,_,.,1' __.., , Sc}:,,_�;Li:,,�r, S., El1e:ctson, :L, .·.cB::·_.::.2,D., and Grei:::ory, D., An ex:::L"·it:.:·�ntal study of cohc;;;ivcr:e:L .::..:1d productivity. Hu.rnan J.e;}..:::.;:,::..ons, 1951, �, 229-23:3. 37 -'-...... J. J ..-'•-' ~ l;,�.. -"1Y .=..::d ..... v1.,o..J Prod�ct,ivity T:1e present study -;�c.:., - ".'.:...::.! c::-x,:1 ·..,1:"' c.ssurr.ption t,hat hizh co- ::::d le,'.-: U;::i8 o: cxpcri!'.1cntal inductio?::. ..' ... , tr." of t he ~,\:O cor:.~iticns 1.-:ere es- .-, �i" o_Y.• .L," :.....�,.,n' r.l,l_,.(,�.i.~+· v.':.·,r'-. '1.; i'.,..,a'•i~- ;.J, 1.,.,1,�_.-: "" (·· 1.1 ·.---....V.-.lq,_ \,.I ---·---- -•', --_,�•-,·:..�., '-__ -{,,.�,�-.1'_1·.·."d _, - t'n:i+.- ...,, h, i' 2'h U co'.ne-•-'- :,Jl.? ;iroductivity .1 The proposed \ .., hypotnr.:::i:; the h.L~h --..."'-' .·.;;1::) ,;ill :-;how a shor ter mean \- ~., ..;. 1,,.-,-, coh8sive group was sub- T'.',e s::bsidiary hypothc::;is th.::.:. po:;i t.ive induction would produce a 31-c2--.:.. r feeling of co:1esiv:m.ss3 th2n the negative induction was not bo�� c�t by the dat�a In addition, com:J2rison o.'..' the behavior between the two con- d�t�ons reve�l8d greater i.��craction, frequent exchanges of pieces, 1 le::;.:: c.::-.x::.e�y, willin6ness to :s.i.ve upH and more interest in condition i ti'-..:.:._: i?: conditicn B o ::-_,:,ing scale was uscc t,o assc:::s the effectiveness of the in- c.uci_:..:...c·,_;o The findings her,.: did not show sienificant differences �� a\.,titudes to1-1ard the g:. vu�o i?1 th2 ti-ro conditions. Al:-n.ost all ,.. cubj2et::; . �ted tl1t::,:Lr work z.:-c.t:.p on the uL_:r and n5n point level of the scalco (The scale bei!:G a five point scale ra.:-igine; from 11Very group scored rest I:i: vid�:l :..c::r.bers who fin- ,r; l"'C"" ... i:hed tteir work area .... _ .. ,.,1,J.) po::.nt level�