on Exclusive Social Group Cohesion
Christopher Scales
Western Connecticut State University
In terms of studying small group
communication special emphasis has been focused on group cohesion (Carron &
Brawley, 2000). Many different academic fields, such as sociology, psychology,
and communications, have examined cohesion in-groups (Carron & Brawly,
2000). There has been interest with the study of small groups in regards to why
cohesion exists in these groups and what communication behaviors that
reinforces cohesion (Anderson & Martin, 2000). Communication behavior such
as argumentativeness can have a positive correlation with group cohesion while
verbal aggressiveness can have negative effect on group cohesion (Kassing &
Avtgis, 1999). This research applies the theory of relational communication.
Relational communication in group refers to the verbal and nonverbal messages
that create the social fabric of a group by promoting relationships between and
among group members (Barker et. Al. 2000.). The purpose behind focusing on small exclusive group is to
see if high cohesion exists in these groups and if so what type of
communication behaviors are involved.
Literature Review
Before looking at the main focus of
relational communication and groups, it is important to understand how groups
form. There are all sorts of reasons why small social groups form and then
reform. However, for this research it is important to have a working definition
and understanding of what consists of a small group. A small group can be
characterized as,
1)
A small number of people that interact and are aware of each other, 2) share a
mutually interdependent purpose, 3) each person has a sense of belonging and
membership, identifying with others in the group, 4) oral interaction, 5) and
behavior is based on norms, values and procedures accepted by all members.
(Trenholm, 1986).
It
is possible to have a collection of people, such as student protesters, and not
have a group. If the protesters organized set up rules for protesting, and
communicated regularly, then you would by all means have a group. People join
groups for many different reasons, such as to satisfy the need to belong, for
identity, or for a social outlet. It is impossible not to be in a group (Trenholm,
1986).
There are many different theories about
why people join groups. The most common theories are Festinger’s Social
Comparison Theory and Shultz’s Theory of Interpersonal Needs.
Festinger’s theory states people join groups in order to evaluate their
own abilities and opinions, while Shultz’s theory argues that
interpersonal needs are filled by joining groups because it helps establishing
identity through association with others (Tenholm, 1986). People join groups
for all sorts of reasons; the important question is once they join a group,
what makes them stay with the group? Relational communication can be applied to
understanding social group communication (Barker et al., 2000). The point of
applying relational communication theory to groups is to examine how the
individuals of a group interact with one another to promote cohesion within the
group, not how communication is used in a group to achieve a certain task.
Relational communication gets to the point of interpersonal communication in a
group. It is to understand “ the intention in groups: cooperation, connection,
autonomy, similarity, flexibility, cohesion/withdrawal, harmony/conflict,
stereotyping, and stigmatization.” (Barker et al., 2000) behavior (Anderson &
Martin, 2000).
Most
current research applies the relational communication theory to understand the
decision making process. There has been a new push in relational communication
research to understand that relational messages influence other aspects group
interaction and affects group dynamics based on their communication traits
(Barker et al., 2000) and behavior (Anderson & Martin, 2000). In other
words, understanding relational communication in exclusive groups is to
understand the behavior of the communicator and the impact of their message on
other individuals as well as the whole group. Negative messages in a group
atmosphere can have a detrimental impact on group cohesion (Kassing &
Avtgis, 1999). Overall, relational
theory for groups is only one aspect of studying small group communication.
There are many factors that hold groups together, such as
having common focus, identity, and experiences, (Lawler, 2000) and the most
important element that holds a group together is cohesion. (Carron & Brawly,
2000). There are many definition of the word
‘’cohesion’’. The definition for cohesion for this
study will come from the Communication Handbook: “Cohesion”: The property of togetherness. As applied to group
communication situations, it refers to the mutual attractiveness among members,
a measure of the extent to which individual members of a group work together as
a group (DeVito, 1986,p 58).
Almost any type of group, whether it be
a work group, religious group, or social group, will have some amount of
cohesion regardless of the motivation behind the group. (Carron & Brawly,
2000). The need to belong is a fundamental human motive for the foundation of
social bonds (Carron & Brawley, 2000). Cohesion is formed because there is a common basis for
individuals joining that specific group. Cohesion is the main element that
binds one individual to another because it makes the group members feel good
about themselves and brings about unity within the group. “Joint
social activities generate positive emotions or feelings.”
(Lawler, 2000).
It
has to be noted that the studies of cohesion can vary depending in what type of
group being studied. Cohesion in groups that form for a specific task will have
high cohesion at the beginning but once that group has completed that task it
might not have any cohesion (Carron & Brawly, 2000). The cohesion will end because the
purpose of the group’s formation has ended. However, the cohesion with
long standing social groups is very different from task orientated groups.
People join social to be associated with an entity and for interpersonal needs
(Burgoon, Heston, & McCroskey, 1974). The reason for this is that humans
need to communicate with other humans. One of the most important outcomes of
face to face communication is the improvement of social relations in social
groups (Burgoon, Heston, & McCroskey, 1974). For example, middle-aged men
join the Knights of Columbus because of its community service work they perform
together, as well for a social outlet. Long-standing social groups have life
cycles that the group will undergo while members move in and out of the
organization (Carron & Brawly, 2000).
Thus,
new membership can affect the group cohesion. This change in attitude can be explained with the
uncertainly reduction theory (Lawler, 2000). When the group members communicate
with the new members information gaps will be filled through the these
interactions. This process is best described by Moreland and Levine’s
process of group interaction (Tenholm, 1986). The new member will go through
three phases for socialization in the group, which are evaluation, commitment,
and role transition (Tenholm, 1986).
But once when socialization occurs, group cohesion can increase. If the
group experiences positive social events this will lead to strong commitment to
the group thus strengthening its cohesion. Satisfaction with events in the
group can lead to positive communication, which will bolster cohesion. This cycle also can have a negative
affect on the social group cohesion. If new members are not properly socialized
this can lead to negative feelings in the group which can lead to an emotional
down or disappointment (Lawler, 2000) this can lead to the erosion of cohesion
with in the group. This let down can lead to negative communication, which will
affect the relational communication within the group. This leads us to ask how
different forms of group communication can have positive or negative impact on
the cohesion of that group.
Satisfaction and group cohesion are formed
by relational communication within in a group (Barker et al., 2000). The
communication can take on different tones and meanings, which can create
positive or negative feelings within in the group (Lawler, 2000). “Specific
contexts and forms of communication affect relational communication in groups.”
(Barker et al., 2000). This study will examine argumentativeness and verbal
aggressiveness within on going social groups. Many researchers have studied
this area of group cohesion and relational communication research (Anderson
& Martin, 2000). The purpose of this type of study is to understand the
behaviors and the communication related to those behaviors. Argumentativeness
and aggressiveness are not only applied to the study of cohesion and
communication in social groups, but cohesion and communication in groups has
been used to investigate the communication of employees (Kassing & Avtgis,
1999), sports teams (Shields, 1997) and international organizations
(O’Conner, 1993).
It
is important to address the different types of communication within social
group because of the impact it can have on social group’s sense of
satisfaction. Interpersonal communication affects the attitude of the group and
its outcomes (O’ Conner, 1993). For the purpose of this research, verbal
aggressiveness and argumentativeness will be examined in a long-term exclusive
college social group. In related research, there has been positive correlation
between argumentativeness and high group cohesion and communication competence
in analytical groups. Members of groups view the other members in a positive
light when members are able to argue issues sensibly and intelligently
(Anderson & Martin 2000). The ability to argue is also viewed as a
leadership quality. (Shields, 1997).
“High argumentative individual were perceived by
others as leaders and were rated as more influential in decision making.”
(Shultz, 1982). Argumentativeness also cuts down on bias decision-making and
groupthink (Anderson & Martin, 2000).
A
related field is verbal aggressiveness. Verbal aggressiveness is viewed a
negative attribute within groups. Verbal aggressiveness, according to the Communication
Handbook, can be defined as
behavior designed to advance one’s own goals without concern or regard
for any harm done to others (DeVito, 1986,p 9). Individuals who exhibit verbal
aggressive traits while communicating within their social group tend to be
viewed as anti-social and unwanted (Anderson & Martin, 2000). Relational
communication in highly cohesive groups tends to be productive within a group because
it allows its members to constructively communicate with the group but if there
is verbal aggressiveness present within the group it can lead to a reduction of
communication because of personal attacks by the aggressor. Research has made
links between verbal aggressiveness and low communication comprehension
(Anderson & Martin, 1999). Verbal aggression can be broken down into four
main area of dysfunction: 1. Psychopathology (attacking for other unresolved
issues), 2. Disdain (expressing hate thought verbal attacks), 3. Social
learning, and 4. argumentative skill deficiency (Kessing & Avtgis, 1999).
With this in mind, aggressive communication within a group can erode the
cohesion of the group. If cohesion is eroded and the group members are not
being satisfied with the outcome of communication of the group, it could lead
to less or no interaction with that social group (Anderson & Martin,
2000).
Overall
there are various methods to study this new emphasis on communication behaviors
for small social groups. The Group Evaluation Questionnaire will be formatted
from its original purpose of studying cohesion of sports team (Carron &
Brawly, 2000) to studying small social group cohesion. Another tool that will
be employed is the Argumentativeness Scale from DeVito’s Communication
Handbook. The research
conducted so far has not directly examined exclusive small group relation
communication and cohesion when dealing with argumentativeness and verbal
aggression.
Method
To
test for agrumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness communication traits as
well as small group cohesion, an exclusive small social group that has been
well established at Western Connecticut State University for over ten years
volunteered. This group is a community minded social group that meets on a
regular weekly basis. They are predominately white and from middle to upper
class background.
In order to test for the effects
of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness on small exclusive groups, the
Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) was reformatted with permission from Dr.
Carron to apply to this group. The Small Group Socialization Scale (SGSS) and
DeVito’s Argumentativeness Scale were used to measure these communication
trait members at the end of the year. All three test were administered twice to
7 males that are in an exclusive group at Western Connecticut State University.
Following the first test, the GEQ and the SGSS will be administered once more
to the same group to compare data samples. There was no attempt to provoke
aggressive behavior during the group meetings. The purpose of this is to get an
accurate reading of group cohesion as well as to test the reformation of the
GEQ for small exclusive social groups.
The goal of this research was to see if
there was a positive correlation between agrumentativeness communication traits
and small group cohesion. With DeVito’s Argumentativeness Scale, the
group showed positive results of those communication traits. The group averaged
occasionally true to mostly true meaning that each member was not afraid to
argue with other group members. The group as a whole does not argue With the
questions that dealt with avoiding arguments, the group scored between 1 and 2,
meaning that the group members have the ability to engage another member in
debate over a controversial issue.
With
the SGSS, the members mainly scored between 4 and 5. This shows that the group
had cohesion through socialization. The SGSS showed that the group members
understood the group process and showed a high inter-dependency level. This is
clear because of the questions that dealt with emotional support and what was
expected of the group member reported the highest averages from the test. The
overall average for the members surveyed is 3.50. This means that the group has
cohesion.
With the Group Environment Questionnaire,
the group also showed positive results. The questionnaire had 12 negative
questions and 6 positive questions. With the negative question the group
averaged 3.27. With the positive question the group averaged 6.81. The overall
average of the GEQ was a 4.79. The GEQ proves that the group has a high rate of
cohesion and the highest rate question was “For me, this
group is one of the most important social groups that I belong to.”
the rating was 8.21 out of 9.
Discussion
In reviewing the results from the three tests that
were administered to the exclusive social group, there is a high amount of
cohesion among its members. The Argumentativeness Test was administered to see
if the exclusive group had those traits and if so how high or low were those
traits. The group did in fact have those argumentative communication behaviors
and that the test also shows the those traits were high. This leads to the
question of “Does argumentativeness lead to cohesion?”
(Anderson & Martin, 2000). Anderson and Martin stipulate that
arguementativeness does not have a high correlation with small group cohesion,
but with the SGSS and the GEQ test show that the exclusive group does in fact
have high correlation. Satisfaction is found with groups that can effectively
argue instead of using verbal aggression. (Anderson & Martin, 2000).
Anderson and Martin (2000), also state that these traits have not yet been
fully studied. The test group did in fact encourage arguing over controversial
issues at their meetings.
With keeping
in mind of the results of the Argumentativeness Test, the SGSS did in fact
provide results that were comparable with this research. A group that has high
socialization will also show high group communication dynamics giving the group
satisfaction. (Riddle et al., 2000). If the group is able to effectively argue
and bring about a sense of satisfaction it will also affect the group cohesion.
(Riddle, et al., 2000) In this case of social exclusive group it was found
through the SGSS that the group did have a high rate which can be linked to
argumentativeness and cohesion due to its socialization. The most interesting
results out of this research came from the reformatting of Carron’s Group
Environment Questionnaire. Carron suggested that the GEQ be reformatted for
further research of group cohesion. (2000). The GEQ can have broad applications
beyond cohesion of sports teams. (Carron & Brawly, 2000). The results of
the reformatted GEQ, it can be used to measure the cohesion of exclusive social
groups. In this case all the questions of the survey were retained and the only
modification to the survey was changing the word “team”
to “group”. Overall the survey did in fact give an accurate
measure of cohesion for the exclusive social group. For further research the
GEQ should be modified for other related groups.
When studying
small groups, one of the most important focus should be group cohesion (Carron
& Brawly, 2000) and relational communication. (Barker et al., 2000). It is
important to understand how and why, though communication, the group sustains
cohesion without being task oriented. (Carron and Brawley, 2000). The important
aspect of this research is to understand the levels of cohesion in certain
types of groups. This research has highlighted that exclusive small social
groups on a college level have cohesion because of the communication traits. A
question that can be examined in future research could be “Does
education level correlate with cohesion levels of an exclusive social group?”
The main conclusion is that cohesion does in fact exist in exclusive groups and
that the GEQ is one useful tool in order to test for cohesion.
In
conclusion, the GEQ should be used to measure many different types of social groups.
This test for cohesion on exclusive social groups using the GEQ, SGSS, and the
Argumentativeness Scale should be repeated using a large number participants as
well as over an expanding the period of time to at least a year. By doing so,
it will further validate this test.
Anderson C., Martin, M.
(1999). The relationship of
argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness
to
cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction in
small
Group. Communication Reports, 12, 21-32.
Barker, V. et al.
(2000). New contexts for relational
communication in groups. Small Group
Research,
31, 470-504.
Burgoon,M., Heston, J.,
McCroskey, J. (1974). Small
Group Communication:
a Functional Approach.
New York, NY: Holt.
Carron, A., Brawley,L.
(2000). Cohesion. Small Group
Research, 31, 89-107.
DeVito, J. (1986). The
Communication Handbook. New
York,NY:
Harper & Row.
Kassing, J., Avtgis,T.
(1999). Examining the relationship
between organizational dissent and
aggressive
communication. Management Communication
Quarterly,
13, 100-116.
Lawler,E. (2000).
Emotion and group cohesion in productive
exchange. American Journal of
Sociology, 106,p.616-648.
O’Conner, K.
(1993). The experience and effect of conflict
in continuing work groups. Small Group
Research, 31,
362-383.
Riddle, B. et al.
(2000). Small group socialization scale.
Small Group Research, 31, 554-573.
Sheilds, D. (1997). The
relationship between leadership
behavior and group cohesion in team sports.
Journal of Psychology, 131, p.196-203.
Trenholm, S. (1986). Human
Communication Theory.
Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Group Environment
Questionnaire
By Bert Carron
Reformatted by Chris Scales
This questionnaire is designed to assess your perceptions of your social group. There are no right or wrong answers so please give immediate reaction. Some of the questions may seem repetitive but please answer ALL questions. Your candid responses are very important to us. Your responses will be kept in strict confidence. Neither your president nor anyone other than the researcher will see your responses.
The following questions are designed to assess your
feelings about YOUR PERSONAL INVOLVMENT with this social group. Please CIRCLE a number from
1 to
9 to indicate your level of agreement with each of the statements.
1. I do not enjoy being a part of the social activities
of the group.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. I am not happy about the time I have to spend in
meetings.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3. I am not going to miss the group members at the end of
the year.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly
Disagree Strongly
Agree
4. I am unhappy with the group’s level of desire
for success.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly
Disagree Strongly
Agree
5. Some of my best friends are in this group.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6. This group does not give me enough opportunities to
improve my personal performance.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7. I enjoy other parties more than group parties.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8. I do not like the social interaction of this group.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9. For me, this group is one of the most important social
groups to which I belong.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
The following questions are
designed to assess your perception of YOUR GROUP AS A WHOLE. Please CIRCLE
number from 1 to 9 that best
indicates your level of agreement with each of the statements.
10. Our group is united in trying to reach its goal for
performance.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11. Members of our group would rather go out on their own
than get together as a group.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
12. We will take responsibility for any loss or poor
performance by our team.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
13. Our group members rarely party together.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
14. Our group members have conflicting aspirations for the
group’s performance.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15. Our group would like to spend time together over the
summer months.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
16. If members of our group have problems, everyone wants
to help them.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
17. Members of our group do not stick together outside of
meetings and group events.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
18. Members of our group do not communicate about each
other’s responsibility during meetings or parties.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Small Group Socialization Scale
Directions: 1. For strongly disagree, 2. For somewhat disagree, 3. Don’t know,
4. Somewhat agree, 5. Strongly agree.
1.
I understand what was
appropriate dress for group meetings. 1 2 3 4 5
2.
I understood the
authority the group had for doing its work. 1 2 3 4 5
3.
I did not see myself as
an effective member. 1 2 3 4 5
4.
I understand the
“group talk” the group used to do its work. 1 2 3 4 5
5.
I found someone in the
group who could provide me with emotional support.
1 2 3 4 5
6.
It was clear what was
expected of me in this group. 1 2 3 4 5
7.
I found someone in the
group whom I could talk to about career plans. 1 2 3 4 5
8.
It was not alt all clear
what was expected of me in this group. 1 2 3 4 5
9.
I found someone in the
group who could help me adjust to the group. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I depend on the other group members for support in the
group. 1 2 3 4 5
11. I found someone in the group on whom I could depend on
for support. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I had no clear idea of what this group was to
accomplish. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I found someone in the group with whom I could discuss
personal matters.
1 2 3 4 5
14. There was no one in the group on whom I depend on for
support
1 2 3 4 5
The Argumentativeness Scale
Directions: Place a 1. For Almost Never True 2. For Rarely True, 3 For Occasionally True, 4. For Often True, 5. For Always True.
1.
Arguing over
controversial issues improves my intelligence. 1 2 3 4 5
2.
I enjoy avoiding
arguments. 1 2 3 4 5
3.
I am energetic and
enthusiastic when I argue. 1 2 3 4 5
4.
Once I finish an
argument I promise myself that I will not get into another. 1 2 3 4 5
5.
Arguing with a person
creates more problems for me than it solves. 1 2 3 4 5
6.
I have a pleasant, good
feeling when I win a point in an argument. 1 2 3 4 5
7.
When I finish arguing
with someone I feel nervous and upset. 1 2 3 4 5
8.
I enjoy a good argument
over a controversial issue. 1 2 3 4 5
9.
I get an unpleasant
feeling when I realize I am about to get into an argument.1 2 3 4 5
10. I enjoy defending my point of view on an issue. 1 2 3
4 5
11. I am happy when I keep an argument from happening. 1 2
3 4 5
12. I do not like to miss the opportunity to argue a
controversial issue. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I prefer being with a person who rarely disagrees with
me. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I consider an argument an exciting intellectual
challenge. 1 2 3 4 5
15. I find myself unable to think of effective points during
an argument. 1 2 3 4 5
16. I feel refreshed and satisfied after an argument on a
controversial issue. 1 2 3 4 5
17. I have the ability to do well in an argument. 1 2 3 4
5
18. I try to avoid getting into arguments. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I feel excitement when I expect that a controversial
argument I am in is leading to an argument. 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Group Enviorment Questionnaire |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member1 |
Member2 |
Member 3 |
Member 4 |
Member 5 |
Member 6 |
Member 7 |
|
|
|
1.I do not enjoy being a part of this group |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Test 1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1.571429 |
|
|
Test 2 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.285714 |
|
|
2. I am not happy about the time I have to
spend with this group. |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Test 1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2.571429 |
|
|
Test 2 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3.285714 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.928571 |
|
|
3. I am not going to miss the group members
at the end of the year. |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Test 1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1.428571 |
|
|
Test 2 |
2 |
9 |
3 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3.571429 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
4. I am unhappy with the group's level of desire
for success. |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Test 1 |
6 |
2 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
Test 2 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
5.714286 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.857143 |
|
|
5. Some of my best friends are in this
group. |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Test 1 |
8 |
1 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
7.571429 |
|
|
Test 2 |
8 |
1 |
9 |
7 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
7.428571 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.5 |
|
|
6. This group does not give me enough
opportunities to improve my personal performance. |
|
||||||||
|
Test 1 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3.571429 |
|
|
Test 2 |
8 |
5 |
4 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
4.285714 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.928571 |
|
|
7. I enjoy other parties more than group
parties. |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Test 1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2.142857 |
|
|
Test 2 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3.285714 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.714286 |
|
|
8. I do not like the social interaction of
this group. |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Test 1 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
3.142857 |
|
|
Test 2 |
6 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3.857143 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.5 |
|
|
9. For me, this group is one of the most
important social groups to which I belong. |
|
|
|||||||
|
Test 1 |
7 |
6 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
8.285714 |
|
|
Test 2 |
8 |
4 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
8.142857 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.214286 |
|
|
10. Our group is united in trying to reach
its goal for performance. |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Test 1 |
5 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
9 |
7 |
9 |
7.142857 |
|
|
Test 2 |
3 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
5.285714 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.214286 |
|
|
11. Members of our group would rather go out
on their own than get together. |
|
|
|||||||
|
Test 1 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
3.571429 |
|
|
Test 2 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
5.714286 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.642857 |
|
|
12. We will take responsibility for any loss
or poor performance by our group. |
|
|
|||||||
|
Test 1 |
5 |
9 |
7 |
7 |
9 |
7 |
9 |
7.571429 |
|
|
Test 2 |
3 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
7 |
7 |
6.142857 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.857143 |
|
|
13. Our group members rarely party together. |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Test 1 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
2.857143 |
|
|
Test 2 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.928571 |
|
|
14. Our group members have conflicting
aspirations for the group performance. |
|
|
|||||||
|
Test 1 |
3 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
7 |
2 |
5.142857 |
|
|
Test 2 |
8 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
5.857143 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.5 |
|
|
15. Our group would like to spend time
together over the summer months. |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Test 1 |
6 |
4 |
7 |
9 |
9 |
6 |
8 |
7 |
|
|
Test 2 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
2 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
5.571429 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.285714 |
|
|
16. If members of our group have problems,
everone wants to help them. |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Test 1 |
5 |
8 |
7 |
5 |
9 |
7 |
9 |
7.142857 |
|
|
Test 2 |
4 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
1 |
7 |
4 |
4.714286 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.928571 |
|
|
17. Members of our group do not stick
together outside of the meetings and group events. |
|
||||||||
|
Test 1 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
6 |
3 |
2 |
3.428571 |
|
|
Test 2 |
7 |
4 |
6 |
1 |
3 |
7 |
3 |
4.428571 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.928571 |
|
|
18. Members of our group do not communicate
about each other's responsibility during meetings. |
|
||||||||
|
Test 1 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
7 |
9 |
6 |
2 |
5.142857 |
|
|
Test 2 |
7 |
3 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
5.428571 |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.285714 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall Average |
4.777778 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Small Group Socialization Scale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
1. I understand what was appropriate dress
for group meetings |
|
|
Averages |
|||||
|
Test 1 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4.571429 |
|
Test 2 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4.857143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.714286 |
|
2. I understood the authortiy the group had
for doing its work. |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
2 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4.142857 |
|
|
1 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
3.857143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
3. I did not see myself as an effective
group member. |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
1.857143 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.428571 |
|
4 I understand the "group talk"
the group used to do its work. |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
4 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4.571429 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.285714 |
|
5. I found someone in the group who could provide me with
emotional support. |
|
|||||||
|
|
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4.428571 |
|
|
4 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4.428571 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.428571 |
|
6. It was clear what was expected of me in
this group. |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4.857143 |
|
|
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.928571 |
|
7. I found someone in the group with whom I
could talk about career plans. |
|
|
||||||
|
|
5 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
|
|
5 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4.142857 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.071429 |
|
8. It was not at all clear what was expected
of me in this group. |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1.857143 |
|
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1.285714 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.571429 |
|
9. I found someone in the group who could
help me adjust to the group. |
|
|
||||||
|
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
|
|
4 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4.142857 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.071429 |
|
10. I depend on the other group members for
support in the group. |
|
|
||||||
|
|
4 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4.285714 |
|
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4.285714 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. I found someone in the group on whom I
could depend on for support. |
|
|
||||||
|
|
5 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4.142857 |
|
|
4 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4.142857 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.142857 |
|
12. I had no clear idea of what this group
was to accomplish. |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1.428571 |
|
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1.571429 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
13. I found someone in the group with whom I
could discuss personal matters. |
|
|||||||
|
|
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4.428571 |
|
|
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4.857143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.642857 |
|
14. There was no one in the group on whom I
could depend on for support. |
|
|
||||||
|
Test 1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Test 2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1.428571 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.214286 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall Average |
3.501742 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Argumentativeness Scale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||