Examining the Impact of Interpersonal Cohesiveness on Group Accuracy Interventions: The Importance of Matching versus Buffering

Examining the Impact of Interpersonal Cohesiveness on Group Accuracy Interventions: The... Despite the wealth of research on group process interventions, there is still little known about how fundamental group characteristics influence the effectiveness of these techniques. The present study examined how one important group characteristics, interpersonal cohesiveness, influences the relative effectiveness of two distinct group decision interventions. Two competing principles (Matching versus Buffering) are presented as a guide to specific hypotheses about the relative effectiveness of two interventions under varying levels of cohesiveness. After experimentally manipulating interpersonal cohesiveness, groups discussed a series of quantitative estimation questions and were then given instructions specific to one of two strategic interventions. The interventions consisted of additional instructions to either “Share information” or “Try to identify the most accurate member” as groups discussed each question and formed a group estimate. Results provide support for the proposition that groups are more effective if there is a “match” between the existing orientation of the group (i.e., how much they feel like a group as manipulated by cohesiveness) and the strategy they have been given. There was also some evidence that the gender composition of the group moderated this effect with same-sex groups showing evidence of matching, while mixed-sex groups were more accurate regardless of experimental condition. Exploratory analyses revealed that the superiority of mixed-sex groups was not the result of existing knowledge differences, leaving open the possibility that there may be a group process advantage in mixed-sex groups. These results, in conjunction with the support for the matching principle, are discussed within a framework that emphasizes the importance of examining how differences in groups may influence the success of various group interventions. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Elsevier

Examining the Impact of Interpersonal Cohesiveness on Group Accuracy Interventions: The Importance of Matching versus Buffering

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/examining-the-impact-of-interpersonal-cohesiveness-on-group-accuracy-4Q3Gw0iqC0
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Elsevier Science (USA)
ISSN
0749-5978
DOI
10.1006/obhd.2000.2945
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Despite the wealth of research on group process interventions, there is still little known about how fundamental group characteristics influence the effectiveness of these techniques. The present study examined how one important group characteristics, interpersonal cohesiveness, influences the relative effectiveness of two distinct group decision interventions. Two competing principles (Matching versus Buffering) are presented as a guide to specific hypotheses about the relative effectiveness of two interventions under varying levels of cohesiveness. After experimentally manipulating interpersonal cohesiveness, groups discussed a series of quantitative estimation questions and were then given instructions specific to one of two strategic interventions. The interventions consisted of additional instructions to either “Share information” or “Try to identify the most accurate member” as groups discussed each question and formed a group estimate. Results provide support for the proposition that groups are more effective if there is a “match” between the existing orientation of the group (i.e., how much they feel like a group as manipulated by cohesiveness) and the strategy they have been given. There was also some evidence that the gender composition of the group moderated this effect with same-sex groups showing evidence of matching, while mixed-sex groups were more accurate regardless of experimental condition. Exploratory analyses revealed that the superiority of mixed-sex groups was not the result of existing knowledge differences, leaving open the possibility that there may be a group process advantage in mixed-sex groups. These results, in conjunction with the support for the matching principle, are discussed within a framework that emphasizes the importance of examining how differences in groups may influence the success of various group interventions.

Journal

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision ProcessesElsevier

Published: Jan 1, 2002

References

  • Improving group judgment accuracy: Information sharing and determining the best member
    Henry, R.A.
  • Helping groups determine their most accurate member: The role of outcome feedback
    Henry, R.A.; Strickland, O.J.; Yorges, S.L.; Ladd, D.
  • The effects of task and interpersonal cohesiveness on performance of a disjunctive group task
    Zaccaro, S.J.; McCoy, M.C.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off