Small Group Research

The purpose of the study was to determine athletes’perceptions of the sources of role ambiguity in interactive sport teams. Athletes (N = 151; 97 females and 54 males) were asked to identify why ambiguity might exist in relation to the scope of their role responsibilities, the behaviors necessary to fulfill those responsibilities, the evaluation of their role performance, and the consequences of not successfully fulfilling their role responsibilities. Results revealed an extensive set of possible sources for each dimension of role ambiguity that emerged from the responses that included factors associated with the role sender (e.g., coach), the focal person (e.g., the athlete), and the situation. The types and frequency of factors differed among the various dimensions of ambiguity thereby lending support to the necessity of considering role ambiguity in sport as a multidimensional construct. The relevance of the results to sport and future intervention research is discussed.

While exploring the relationships between the strength of an individual’s team roles and his or her cognitive styles, this study examines the convergent validity of the Team Role Self-Perception Inventory (TRSPI) with Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI). Data were obtained from two samples of 109 managers and 114 students. Results from students were compared to those obtained by Fisher, Macrosson, and Wong (1998) to explore differences arising from the use of Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka's (1970) 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) and the TRSPI. Data from managers were used to examine convergence between team role preferences and cognitive styles. The TRSPI showed convergent validity with Kirton’s cognitive styles. KAI subscale correlations were more coherent than those obtained by Fisher et al. probably due to misinterpretation of innovative and adaptive subscale scores. Cognitive style differences were found in the two samples. Future research and practical implications for team-building interventions and team performance are discussed.

The study examined task interdependence as a structural factor, which influences the emergence of collective-efficacy versus self-efficacy as a team-level construct. It tested for the differential effects of self- and collective-efficacy on team performance and the effects of initial perceptions of self- and collective-efficacy and record of past performance on the development of their subsequent perceptions. Results of a laboratory study demonstrated that collective-efficacy solidified as a meaningful team construct and influenced team performance only when a highly interdependent task required team members to closely interact and coordinate their efforts. Under conditions of low task interdependence, collective-efficacy had no basis from which to emerge as a higher level team characteristic and no significance in what is, in essence, individual performances. In contrast, self-efficacy emerged as a meaningful construct that explained individual performance under low task interdependence conditions.

In two studies, the influence of divergent (generating many words on differences for given dual words) and convergent (generating many words on similarities for given dual words) exercises on the subsequent performance was assessed with dyads in either a nominal or interactive condition in a brainwriting paradigm. In the first study, these cognitive exercises were given after the first session. In the second study, these tasks were presented before each of the two sessions in either the divergent-convergent or convergent-divergent sequences with a temporal order. Exercises on these tasks had no effect on productivity when they preceded the first session of brainstorming. However, the provision of a divergent thinking exercise and a convergent-divergent sequence led participants to generate more ideas and scan more categories than their counterparts in the second session. These findings are discussed in light of the cognitive stimulation and incubation perspectives.

This study investigates how the regulation of interaction on the performative level (types and functions of interactions) and the referential level (relations of concepts) varies depending on the modality of communication: face-to-face, synchronous, and asynchronous text-based computer-mediated communication. In the experimental setting, six groups consisting of four experts cooperated per one of the three modalities in planning a marketing campaign for solar energy systems. The communication transcripts were analyzed on the performative level by SYMLOG. On the referential level, a network analysis was established to examine how relevant concepts were introduced in the discussion. The group output was measured with regard to group work, satisfaction, and performance. The results show that all communication modalities differ on the performative and on the referential level. No differences between the modalities were found regarding group work and satisfaction of the members. Group performance was judged better in face-to-face than in computer-mediated groups.