Unintended Cognitive,Affective,and Behavioral Consequences of Group Assignments

Self-selecting groups

When given the opportunity to self-select groups, students may simply turn to those who are seated in close proximity. However, one subject explained that doing so is like relying on “fate or luck” and “is a little bit dangerous, especially for a class grade.” Therefore, as students progress in their academic program, they tend to avoid “relying on fate or luck” by forming and activating, when possible, a group-specific social network. One student even touted his ability to do so by stating, “I’ve gotten really good at this group stuff; I’ve been getting into the right teams.”

The group assignment network

A social network is defined by a set of individual actors and the nature of relations among them (Van den Bulte & Wuyts, 2007). A group assignment network is a set of individual students and the nature of relations among them is characterized by trust and its main precursor—trustworthiness. Drawing on Mayer et al. (1995), I define trust as the willingness of one student to be vulnerable to the actions of another student, based on the beliefs that the student will perform particular actions—for example, help achieve the grade to which one aspires and do so in an equitable way. Although making oneself vulnerable is risk taking, trust is not the act of taking risk per se. Instead, trust can lead to risk-taking behaviors that are observable and that differ depending on context. In the context of group assignments, the act of one student soliciting another student to be part of a group is an observable risk-taking behavior that indicates trust.

Consistent with Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995), fieldwork strongly indicates that trustworthiness, in the form of one’s student’s beliefs about another student’s ability, benevolence, and integrity, is the main precursor to trust and is thus the key attribute that connects students in a group assignment network. Abilities are the skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a student to have a positive influence while working on a group assignment. For subjects in this study, the most salient abilities on which beliefs form are general intelligence and support skills, including writing, presentation, technology, and interpersonal communication. Subjects also clearly indicated that they form beliefs about other students on the extent to which they are different from themselves in strengths (discipline-related knowledge or support skills) and possess the ability and willingness to provide different perspectives. For example, one student explained,

I selected “think different” by Apple. I really like that statement because what I like in group members are people who are very clever and people who can think differently. In projects they can think of different ideas and then our group can stand out from other groups. I’ve had groups that I’ve had that and it has had positive impacts on the group as a whole.

Benevolence is the extent to which a student is believed to want to do good for other students. This dimension of trustworthiness emerged as subjects explained the extent to which they believe others to be “team oriented,” “supportive,” and willing to “help me with my weakness.” Finally, integrity is the belief that a student adheres to a set of values deemed acceptable. Similar to other dimensions of trustworthiness, subjects explained at length their beliefs about other students’ values, including equity, hard work, high-outcome performance (e.g., a high grade), honesty, timeliness, and reliability.

Forming beliefs about trustworthiness

Forming a group assignment network requires developing beliefs about other students’ trustworthiness, and students in this study tend to do so in three basic ways. First, beliefs about trustworthiness develop through direct experience working with other students in formal group assignments or informal class exercises. These prior experiences appear to directly influence all three dimensions of trustworthiness.

Second, throughout one’s academic program, beliefs about other students’ trustworthiness form through direct observation of their behaviors. As such, in any given class a student will likely have preestablished beliefs about the trustworthiness of at least some of the other students, and the beliefs will have formed from prior direct observation or work experience. Then, if the need arises to self-select a group, students will likely approach those who are believed to be trustworthy group members and avoid those who are not. If a student is unable to activate the needed number of members from their existing group network, he or she tends to observe behaviors of unfamiliar classmates, form beliefs about their trustworthiness, and avoid or approach the classmate based on those beliefs. As one subject explained, “There might be a couple people [in a class] who I don’t know, but by looking at their behavior I’ll decide whether I want to work with them or not.”

Observing behaviors appears to be directly linked to beliefs about abilities and integrity. Beliefs about abilities form as students observe others’ behaviors, such as “the way that they talk and the words they use” or “how they answer the teacher’s questions; how they respond or what their thinking is.” In addition, subjects explained a range of behaviors that shape beliefs about values. One subject explained that “a [person] reviewing their notes before class starts or reading a textbook” is believed to be “a hardworking student who is motivated and determined to get the project done.”

The third way that beliefs about trustworthiness form is by observing others’ traits, including race, sex, and clothing. Similar to observing others’ behaviors, observing others’ traits influences beliefs about their abilities and integrity. For example, subjects indicated that one’s race and sex are associated with beliefs about their ability to provide different perspectives or ideas, and one’s race is associated with beliefs about their intelligence or areas of strengths. One subject explained that when he does not know other students in a class, he tries to form a group with “a person from an Asian country or from India . . . because I know that he is probably a smart kid and getting smart people on your team is better than getting people that might not know what is going on.” During fieldwork, it also became quite clear that beliefs about others’ trustworthiness are influenced by what they wear. Subjects explained that those who wear eyeglasses are thought to be high in abilities, a belief that was explicitly expressed through images such as one of the GEICO gecko wearing glasses. The subject who selected the image explained, “He’s wearing glasses. He looks intelligent. He looks like he can bring something to the team that no one else can. He’s smart in an area that other people might not be knowledgeable about.” Clothing was quite consistently discussed as a physical cue associated with beliefs about other students’ values. Subjects in this study consistently characterized images of people dressed in business attire and uniforms as desired group members because they are motivated, hardworking, honest, and responsible.

Dividing labor

Dividing labor is an inevitable aspect of group assignments as students partition their assignment into multiple discrete units of work. Then, individual group members assume or are assigned responsibility for completing one or more units of work and decisions about who is responsible for what are made in several different ways.

Students often assume or assign responsibility for units of work based on the abilities—discipline-related knowledge and support skills—in which a student believes they are most proficient. That is, students discuss their own individual strengths and weaknesses and then group members create assignments such that a member’s strengths fit the skill or knowledge areas needed to complete the task. As one subject explained, “We try to play to people’s strengths. If someone is a better writer they can work on the paper, if someone is an excellent researcher they can take on more of the research, or whatever we feel like they’re best at to maximize their effort and efficiency.”

Units of work can be distributed based on trustworthiness, which, as previously explained, deals with one student’s beliefs about another student’s abilities, benevolence, and integrity. When a group member is believed to be relatively low in trustworthiness, other group members may not be willing to engage in the risk-taking behavior of assigning the individual “important” units of work. Instead, responsibility for those units of work is assumed by those who are believed to be trustworthy or possess the abilities and integrity to do the work well.

Students also assume or assign responsibility for units of work based on interest in either the type or topic of work to be performed. At times students strive to assume responsibility for units of work based on the perceived amount of labor required to complete the task. Finally, there are times when units of work are assigned randomly. Random assignment is used when the units of work cannot be distinguished in terms of basic skills, knowledge, or amount of labor needed to complete the task.

Providing labor

While working on group assignments, students tend to perform as a distinct group member type, of which five emerged during fieldwork. Inevitably, at least one group member is a leader who performs supplemental tasks needed to accomplish a goal—for example, to produce a final product that earns an “A.” These supplemental activities include coordinating the division of labor, monitoring task completion, and serving as the hub for communication.

Another type of group member is what some subjects referred to as a “hamster.” A hamster is one who follows the leader and provides adequate labor—in terms of quantity and quality—to effectively accomplish the group’s goal. One subject explained that this is the “person who wants to contribute and do a lot of work, but they don’t necessarily want that leadership role so they will just say ‘ok, tell me what to do and I’ll do it.’”

During most group assignments, one student serves as a “closer.” A closer is the group member who brings closure to an assignment by integrating the work of individual group members and refining the final product. Integration is needed to combine discrete units of work that may have been completed autonomously, and refinement is needed to deal with individual units of completed work that differ in quality.

Subjects explained at length many images that reflect a fourth type of group member who creates inequity. What emerged during fieldwork is the understanding that inequity arises when labor that is provided by a team member is compared to that which is expected. The type of group member who is perceived to create inequity is then one whose actual quantity or quality of labor provided falls below the expectations of others.

Inequity is commonly attributed to social loafing (Latane et al., 1979), which occurs when a student reduces his or her individual effort when part of a group. In this study, social loafers routinely appeared in images that represent what other students do. However, inequity is caused not only by social loafers but also by normal heterogeneity among students. For example, students differ on academic abilities, and a group member whose abilities are relatively low can create the gap between the expectations held by those with high relative academic abilities and their perceptions of performance. Students also differ with respect to grade aspirations and the amount of effort they normally put forth to earn a desired grade. The low relative effort put forth by one group member may be normal for that student. Even though they are not loafing, their effort can create the perceived inequity among group members who aspire to earn a high grade and put forth effort to do so. And, a student’s lifestyle (e.g., employment status and number of hours worked, number of courses or credit hours, or family status) and interest in the subject may also influence the amount or quality of labor provided, which, in turn, can cause perceived inequity.

Finally, the fifth distinct type of group member is one who deals with inequity and does so either reactively or proactively. Basically, when one or more group members actually create inequity, one or more other members commonly provide supplemental labor to reactively deal with it. When one or more group members are perceived as those who will create future inequity, one or more other members may proactively deal with it. That is, if early in a project a student has negative beliefs about another’s trustworthiness, he or she may not grant that student responsibility for a task that can negatively influence the group’s grade. In doing so they proactively assume responsibility for additional tasks to avoid having to deal with inequity after it occurs. From one subject’s perspective, the Allstate logo was used as a metaphor to explain that the group member who strives to deal with inequity proactively is “helpful” and “wants more of the workload because they don’t want other people to mess up their grade.”

Evaluating peers

Several studies have investigated the use of peer evaluations as a means to judge individual performance and reduce problems such as social loafing (Y. Chen & Lou, 2004) and free riding (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008) or to enhance satisfaction with and attitudes toward group work (Druskat & Wolff, 1999). In this study, participants reported that their group assignments often included a peer evaluation. However, a common belief among subjects was succinctly expressed by one individual who said, “It is a peer evaluation but it’s not valid whatsoever.” Students who participated in this study generally think of peer evaluations as “not valid” because they tend to bias their responses in three primary ways.

First, a bias can occur when group members collaboratively agree to rate each other equally even when labor provided was not equal. Such collaboration leads to a positive bias for group members who contributed labor that was relatively low and a negative bias for members who contributed labor that was relative high. As one subject explained, “Honestly, we are agreeing to say we all did the same work, but there is always that one leader who deserves more and is really modest, a team player, and he or she is okay with it.”

Second, as students complete peer evaluations, their attitudes regarding a group member’s performance may differ from what is considered socially acceptable. Peer evaluations can then lead to responses that indicate students’ desire to respond in a socially acceptable way (May & Gueldenzoph, 2006). In the context of this study, the socially acceptable behavior is to avoid creating negative emotional consequences for other group members or, as subjects explained, avoid “hurting another’s feeling,” “stepping on people’s shoes,” or “throw[ing] your colleague under the bus.”

Third, peer evaluations can constitute a psychological threat (Sherrard, Raafat, & Weaver, 1994) to students because they are dealing with an issue that can have two primary negative outcomes for them—confrontation with, and negative word-of-mouth that can be spread by, a group member who received low scores. Students may evaluate peers in a way to minimize the threat of such outcomes.

Autonomy

A group project has been defined as “a graded assignment requiring students to work collaboratively across multiple class periods and involving some time outside the normal class meeting” (Ettington & Camp, 2002, p. 357). However, the division of labor reduces, and at the extreme eliminates, collaboration across class periods after units of work have been assigned. As a consequence, several participants in this study think of a group project as a number of individual discrete assignments on which they work autonomously. This basic perception was explained by one subject who stated, “I don’t see the projects we are assigned as group projects. They are like individual projects that are related to each other and when they are put together, it becomes a group project.”

Grade “boost.”

In An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (1776) explained how the division of labor and specialization on subtasks leads to greater proficiency and productivity than would be achieved by individuals completing the broad task on their own. In the context of group assignments, students also recognize that assigning tasks based on the strengths of individual group members leads to higher performance on the assignment than if they each completed it individually. They also recognize that higher performance translates to a higher group grade and the “benefit” accrues to most students. This “benefit” of division and specialization of labor was highlighted by one subject who explained, “That’s how school is. You try to figure out the system and try to get an A in the course. If you can’t learn everything from it that’s too bad, but at least you got an A.”

Perceptions about group assignment grades likely depend on the type of group member. For group members who create inequity, a group grade may be thought of as a “boost.” The belief forms when students benefit from a grade that is higher than they would expect on their own individual contribution to the assignment, higher than they typically receive when completing an assignment on their own, or higher than they normally aspire to. The “boost” naturally occurs since those who deal with inequity do so to ensure that the product delivered meets their expectations and will earn the grade to which they aspire. Since inequity is normally dealt with by group members who are relatively high in performance expectations and academic ability, they have a disproportionate influence on the quality of the final product delivered and ultimately the grade assigned.

Injustice

Subjects in this study commonly associate group assignments with injustice and the belief arises in two ways. First, subjects collected many images that reflect inequity in labor provided and explained how the quantity of labor in particular is often unfair. As one subject explained, “You get angry [and] you kind of wonder why? Why am I the only one doing all the work? You ask is this fair?” Second, a single group grade is often thought of as unfair, and the perception arises when group members who create inequity receive the aforementioned “boost” to their grade or when members who do not create inequity take a “hit” to their grade because of low relative labor provided of others. In the context of this study, the perception is quite common since students’ performance evaluation is always based on a single group grade and, as subjects explained, there are “always” one or more group members who do not “carry their weight.” Students may also think of the group grade as unfair since it results in a loss of individual recognition and a constraint on one’s ability to stand out. For example, “If a group is given a project and a grade for that project, it is really hard for an individual to stand out . . . schools should look at that diversity and realize it and appreciate it; instead we are all put into groups.”

Constraint on learning

Group assignments are purported to increase active learning and develop each student’s discipline-related knowledge and skills (Skilton, Raafat, & Weaver, 2008). At the same time, group assignments are often intended to provide students an opportunity to develop and receive feedback on support skills such as writing. However, subjects generally associate group assignments with a constraint on their development of both discipline-related knowledge and support skills and the constraint occurs in three main ways.

The division of labor constrains the breadth of content and skills each student applies and the more students there are in a project group the greater the division of labor and the greater the constraint on learning. As one student stated, “I guess all those professors just assume that you learn enough by doing your own section. I’ve never quite understood that thought process.” In addition, assigning or assuming responsibility for tasks based on areas in which students are relatively strong is, in essence, the specialization of labor, which was also reported by McCorkle et al. (1999). When students specialize in certain types of labor, they avoid areas in which they are relatively weak and thus miss opportunities to develop in areas where the greatest opportunity for learning exists. Finally, division and specialization of labor constrain the extent to which students learn though feedback. Learning is constrained when students receive a disproportionately high level of feedback on knowledge or skill areas in which they are most proficient and a low level of feedback on those areas in which they are least proficient. When feedback is provided, some students receive limited input on their own individual contributions since the final group output is often refined by a “closer” who completes their work autonomously and may not inform others of changes or corrections made to their part of the project. As one student explained “Yeah, they messed up so I just took it and I fixed it and they don’t know that they messed up.’”

Disparity in learning

In academic literature, one of the commonly mentioned benefits of group assignments is that they increase active learning (e.g., Skilton et al., 2008). Although students may be actively learning when completing a group assignment, they tend to participate as the same group member type(s) and by doing so they experience disparity in learning. For example, students who possess leadership abilities routinely perform as group leaders and by doing so they further develop their abilities to lead. Students who have strong written communication skills tend to be closers and by doing so they further develop their writing skills. Group members who consistently deal with inequity are, in general, more actively engaged in the learning process and thus learn more than group members who either create inequity or do not deal with it when it does occur. Also, each time a group member is thought of as one who will create future inequity, he or she is at risk for disparity in learning. The fundamental issue is that students who are believed to create future inequity may not be granted the opportunity to actively participate in an assignment at the same level as other group members. As one subject explained, “If we know they won’t do as much work or as good of a job as others, we usually give them a smaller portion. We’ll make him our runner, or the person who prints the paper, or edits the paper if they can; more of an easier role.”

Anxiety

Group assignments induce anxiety, which is characterized by apprehension and physiological symptoms of tension that may arise in response to the anticipation of future misfortune (VandenBos, 2007). The anticipation of future misfortune is a cognitive response that may occur at the very outset of a course when students first learn of a required group assignment. For some students, the future misfortune is in the form being teamed with one or more students who will create inequity in labor provided. At the same time, for other students the misfortune is in the form of being teamed with classmates whose expectations are relatively high and having to put fort additional effort to meet those expectations. Subjects also highlighted how anxiety may occur throughout a group assignment in response to the belief that a group member will create future inequity in the quantity or quality of labor he or she provides.

Frustration

Frustration, the emotion that subjects discussed most extensively, is assumed to result from the act of interfering with or disrupting behavior that is directed toward some goal (Sutherland, 1989). In the context of group assignments, frustration appears to result when the actions or performance of one or more group members disrupts another’s ability to achieve two simple goals: earn the grade to which they aspire and contribute their fair share in doing so. Frustration runs especially high during task completion among group members who deal with inequity and believe they contribute more than their fair share of labor to earn the desired grade. For example, one subject explained, “It’s frustrating. Say that the final grade is an A. I would feel like I got that A but I don’t think that they got the A. They probably did C or B work not necessarily A work. But because I went through and took the extra time to edit, fix their parts, or whatever, everyone gets an A.”

Stress

Stress is a psychological tension produced by a physical, psychological, or social force that when applied causes some significant modification to the individual to which the force is applied (VandenBos, 2007). Results of this study indicate that students experience stress from having to modify their own behavior to cope with the expectations of, or work provided by, others. That is, for some students stress is brought on during task completion by high relative performance expectations of other group members and by striving to increase their own quantity or quality of labor to meet those expectations. For example, “This one group I have right now, they’re actually over Since they are overachievers they are really strivto bust out the A+ work all the time. Sometimes it can be overwhelming trying to keep up with that.” For other students, stress is brought on during task comby group members whose output does not meet expectations and by the tension from having to provide addilabor to deal with such inequity and achieve the perevaluation to which they aspire.

Disappointment

Group assignments leave some students feeling disappointed, which is defined as a negative affect resulting from perceived performance that is below expectations (Oliver, 1996). The most obvious and frequently discussed cause of disappointment is the belief that the labor provided is inequitable, which arises any time group members perceive that the actual labor provided by others does not meet expectations. Although subjects explained several examples of such disappointment, the failure of expectations to manifest occurs in two additional ways.

For some students, disappointment results from the constraint on learning or when the learning that occurred from the group assignment fell below what they believe could have been learned had the assignment been completed individually. Subjects indicated this link through comments such as, “I felt like I missed out by not working on the other sections” or “I haven’t accomplished much just a little section of a project.” Disappointment also arises when performance on the final output is constrained by one or more group members, and the group’s evaluation is lower than what individuals think they earned on their own contributions or lower than they would have earned had the assignment been completed individually.

Anger

Several subjects explained that group projects induce anger, which is an emotion characterized by tension arising from such sources as frustration, real or imagined injury by another, or perceived injustice (VandenBos, 2007). Anger is considered a transitory emotional reaction, is brief in nature, and varies in intensity from mild to distressingly strong (Popplestone & McPherson, 1988). For those who participated in the study, anger arises primarily when one believes that the quantity of labor provided is unjust. Anger seems to occur among all group member types who do not create inequity, and the intensity is strongest for those who actually deal with it.

Relief

The one positive emotional consequence that clearly emerged in this study is relief, which occurs as a response to a threat that has abated, disappeared, or failed to materialize (Sutherland, 1989). Fieldwork indicates that relief can occur at the very outset of a course when a student, who knows or learns about a required group assignment, sees classmates who are members of his or her group network. The emotion will likely continue if the student is able to actually form a group with others who are in the network. In addition, early in the group project, relief may result from the division of labor and not having to complete an assignment individually. For example, one subject stated, “If I have a good group I feel more relief with the group project because we divide things up.” Students may also feel relief during project completion when other group members perform in a way (e.g., do their fair share and do it well) as to not induce negative emotions. Finally, for a group project during which a student actually does experience negative emotions, relief commonly occurs after submission of the final product (e.g., paper or presentation). The basic issue is that students feel relief when they realize there is no longer the threat of negative emotions they felt while completing the group assignment. For example, one subject explained that after completing group assignments, he is often “relieved and excited there is no more stress and there is no more anxiety. That is relief.”