This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]On: 11 October 2014, At: 14:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Research ReportsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

The effects of performance feedback on groupmembers' perceptions of prestige, task competencies,group belonging, and loafingM. Sean Limon a & Franklin J. Boster ba Assistant professor in the Department of Communication , Illinois State University , 460Fell Hall, Campus Box 4480, Normal, IL, 61790‐4480b Professor in the Communication Department , Michigan State UniversityPublished online: 06 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: M. Sean Limon & Franklin J. Boster (2003) The effects of performance feedback on group members'perceptions of prestige, task competencies, group belonging, and loafing, Communication Research Reports, 20:1, 13-23, DOI:10.1080/08824090309388795

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090309388795

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Effects of Performance Feedback on Group Members'Perceptions of Prestige, Task Competencies,

Group Belonging, and Loafing

M. Sean LimonIllinois State University

Franklin J. BosterMichigan State University

This experiment examined the differential effects of positive and negative perfor-mance feedback on group members' perceptions of the prestige of their group, the taskcompetencies of other group members, group belonging, and loafing. Additionally, amodel indicating causal ordering among these variables was proposed and tested. Par-ticipants were placed in groups, completed two tasks, and received either positive, nega-tive, or no feedback. Perceptions of prestige, task competencies, and group belongingwere highest in the positive performance feedback conditions, whereas perceived loafingwas highest in the negative feedback conditions. The causal order of the variables wasconsistent with the proposed model.

Performance feedback can be a dramatic and important event for groups or teamsin an organization, yet what impact the performance feedback process has on taskgroups is not fully understood (Nadler, 1979; Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, & Ekberg,1988). Although it is often touted that performance feedback results in positive effectson an employee or group's performance (Guzzo, Jette, & Katzell, 1985), performancefeedback can have negative effects depending on the valence of the performance feed-

M. Sean Limon (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 2000) is an assistant professor in the Commu-nication Department at Illinois State University and Franklin J. Boster (Ph.D., Michigan StateUniversity, 1978) is a professor in the Communication Department at Michigan State University.A previous version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the International Com-munication Association, Washington, D.C. The authors would like to thank Chuck Atkin, SandiSmith, Georgia Chao, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this manu-script. Correspondence should be directed to the first author at the Department of Communica-tion, Illinois State University, 460 Fell Hall, Campus Box 4480, Normal, IL 61790-4480.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 20, Number 1, pages 13-23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

11

Oct

ober

201

4

14 - Communication Research Reports/Winter 2003

back (Geddes & Linnehan, 1996). Specifically, performance feedback can affect theperceptions group members have of one another, and toward the group as a whole(Boster, Limon, & Johnson, 2002). Boster et al. (2002) demonstrated that the type ofperformance feedback a group received (positive, negative, or neutral), affected groupmembers' perceptions regarding the different components of cohesion. The purpose ofthis study is to more fully understand how performance feedback affects group mem-bers' perceptions. In a replication of Boster et al. (2002), this study investigates theaffect of performance feedback on the different components of cohesion, and in anextension, investigates the affect of performance feedback on perceived loafing.

Performance FeedbackPerformance feedback occurs when a person or group receives information re-

garding past performance. The information received can range from positive to nega-tive (Cusella, 1987). Positive feedback indicates to the person or group that the workthey completed is adequate, above average, or exceptional. Conversely, negative feed-back indicates to the person or group that the work completed is subpar, below aver-age, or abysmal.

Numerous studies and reviews document the positive impact of performance feed-back on performance and other important organizational variables (e.g., Cusella, 1987;Guzzo, et al., 1985; Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996); however, notall performance feedback effects are positive. Responses to performance feedback var-ies (Cusella, 1987), as evidenced in a meta-analysis reporting that 38% of the studiesanalyzed demonstrated a negative feedback effect (Kluger & Denisi, 1996). Whereassome people or groups appreciate being informed as to how well or poorly they aredoing, others dislike performance feedback, particularly negative feedback (Geddes &Linnehan, 1996). In the group or team context, the type of feedback received affectshow group members view the group as a whole, as well as one another (Boster et al.,2002). Specifically, the cohesion of the group can be greatly affected based on the typeof feedback the group receives.

CohesionCohesiveness can be defined as "the total field of forces which act on members to

remain in the group" (Festinger, Schachter, & Back,1950, p. 37). There are a number ofthese forces that can affect cohesion. Among them are perceived task competencies(Boster et al., 2002; Mullen & Copper, 1994), which refers to how capable or committedgroup members perceive one another to be at completing a task, perceived prestige(Back, 1951), which refers to the status of the group, and perceived group belonging,which is the extent group members feel as though they are part of the group or belongin the group. How a group performs or is told that they performed can influence groupmembers' perceptions of one or more of these forces of cohesion (Bakeman & Helmreich,1975; Boster et al., 2002; Bowen & Siegel, 1973; Greene, 1989; Turner, Hogg, Turner, &Smith, 1984; Williams & Hacker, 1982). Although there are other forces that could im-pact cohesiveness, such as social or interpersonal attraction, this study focuses only onhow performance feedback causally impacts perceived prestige, task competence andgroup belonging because these components along with performance feedback are in-herently task-oriented.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Feedback, Cohesion and Perceived Loafing - 15

Boster et al. (2002) demonstrated that the performance feedback a group receivessets a causal chain into motion such that positive or negative performance feedbackaffects group members' perceptions of prestige, which, in turn, affects perceptions oftask competencies, which in turn, affects perceptions of group belonging. In general,positive feedback produces positive perceptions toward a group and other memberswhereas negative performance feedback produces negative perceptions. Furthermore,Boster et al. suggested that differences between positive and negative feedback groupswith respect to group belonging might be affected by group members' perceptions ofother group members' efforts. Specifically, negative feedback should cause group mem-bers to perceive other group members as participating less on the tasks than they couldhave which should negatively affect group belonging. Conversely, positive feedbackshould lead to the perception that group members are participating to the best of theirabilities, thus positively affecting group belonging. If this thinking is correct, positiveor negative feedback should affect perceptions of loafing by group members.

Perceived LoafingPerceived loafing is the perception that a group member or members are making

less of a contribution to the group than they are capable of making (Comer, 1995).Although perceived loafing and actual social loafing may covary, perceived loafingcan occur even though all group members are participating to their full potential(Mulvey, Bowes-Sperry, & Klein, 1998). Thus, perceived loafing pertains to percep-tions of group members' contributions, and not necessarily their actual contributions.

Perceived loafing has been found to be associated negatively with both group per-formance and cohesion (Mulvey et al., 1998; Mulvey & Klein, 1998). If a group does notperform well, group members will attribute the poor performance to other group mem-bers' loafing, which, in turn, lowers group belonging. Conversely, members of a groupthat performs adequately or above average are less likely to perceive other group mem-bers as loafing. Because perceived loafing is related to group members' perceived con-tribution to the task, it likely will be negatively associated with perceived task compe-tencies. Hence, perceived loafing should causally mediate the relationship betweenperceived task competencies and perceived group belonging.

Summary and HypothesesFrom the preceding discussion, a number of hypotheses are advanced:

HI: Positive feedback will result in greater perceived task competence thanno feedback, which in turn will result in greater perceived task compe-tence than negative feedback.

H2: Positive feedback will result in greater perceived prestige than no feed-back, which in turn will result in greater perceived prestige than nega-tive feedback.

H3: Positive feedback will result in greater perceived group belonging thanno feedback, which in turn will result in greater perceived group be-longing than negative feedback.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

11

Oct

ober

201

4

16 - Communication Research Reports/Winter 2003

H4: Positive feedback will result in less perceived loafing than no feedback,which in turn will result in less perceived loafing than negative feed-back.

Additionally, it is predicted that performance feedback will set into motion a causalchain (Figure 1) such that the more positive the performance feedback the higher theperceived prestige. An increase in perceived prestige will increase group members'perceptions of other group members' perceived task competencies. In explaining theattributions people make regarding contributions, when the perceptions of task com-petencies are high, perceived loafing will be low and when perceived task competen-cies are low, perceived loafing will be high. Perceived social loafing will in rum affectperceived group belonging.

performance -^perceived -^perceived -^perceived -> perceivedfeedback prestige task loafing group

competence belonging

FIGURE 1. Predicted path model of the effect of performance feedback on the different forces of cohesionand perceived loafing.A positive sign indicates a positive relationship and a negative sign indicates a nega-tive relationship.

METHODParticipants

Participants (Ps) were students enrolled in either an introductory or an upper divi-sion communication course at a large Midwestern university. Students in the introduc-tory course fulfilled a course requirement by participating and students in the upperdivision course received extra credit for participating. A total of 123 Ps took part in theexperiment of which 32% were males and 68% females. Groups ranged in size fromthree to five members with seven three-person groups, 13 four-person groups, and 10five-person groups.1

DesignGroups were assigned randomly to one of three performance feedback conditions:

positive, no feedback, or negative. The performance feedback inductions consisted ofgroups given two problem-solving tasks, the Winter Survival Problem and the Haz-ards Problem (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). The first task required groups to rank orderthe survival value of 12 items, and the second task required groups to rank order thefatality rate of 15 hazards such as occupations, chemicals, and different behaviors. Inthe success condition, after completing the two tasks, groups were told that the num-ber of items ranked correctly by the group indicated that they had performed extremelywell (95th and 97th percentile, respectively). After completing each task, groups in thefailure condition were told that the number of items ranked correctly by the groupindicated that they had performed very poorly (8th and 10th percentile, respectively).In the control condition Ps received no performance feedback. Two different tasks were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Feedback, Cohesion and Perceived Loafing - 17

used so that group members would have the perception that their group performs wellor poorly together.

ProcedureAn experimenter (£) greeted the Ps when they arrived at the laboratory, and ran-

domly assigned them to groups. Groups were assigned to laboratory rooms, and con-sent forms were distributed. When all forms were completed, the Ps read the instruc-tions for the experiment. The first group problem-solving task (the Winter SurvivalProblem) was then distributed. Group members were informed that the problem hadcorrect answers, and they were given 5 minutes to reach consensus on what they be-lieved to be those correct answers. In the success and the failure conditions, upon comple-tion of this task the E returned and provided performance feedback. In the controlcondition, the £ returned but provided no performance feedback. Next, the secondgroup problem-solving task (the Hazards Problem) was distributed, and the proce-dure repeated. After this iteration, Ps completed a questionnaire that included mea-sures for all the dependent variables, were then debriefed, pledged to silence about thenature of the experiment, and dismissed.

InstrumentationThe content validity of the measures were examined using confirmatory factor

analysis (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). Items that did not meet the tests for face validity,internal consistency, and parallelism were eliminated. Descriptive information for allitems is located in the Appendix. The perceived task competence scale (a = .73) con-tained five items and was taken from McCroskey and McCain's (1974) InterpersonalAttraction Scale. The perceived prestige measure contained four items (a = .90), andthe perceived group belonging measure contained six items (a = .81) and both wereused in the Boster et al. (2002) study. The measure for perceived loafing (Mulvey &Klein, 1998) was comprised of 7 items (oc= .87). One of the induction check items askedparticipants to report how well their group performed on the tasks. Responses for themeasures were based on a 5-point scale with a " 1 " reflecting "strongly disagree" and a"5" reflecting "strongly agree." The lone exception was a second induction check ask-ing Ps to report the percentage in which they scored.

RESULTSThe number of correct answers from the two tasks used for the experimental in-

duction were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance using the positive, control,and negative feedback conditions. For both the Winter Survival (F(2,27) = 2.65, ns, 7? =.16) and Hazards problems (F(2, 27) = 1.17, ns, rj = .08), there were no significantdifferences between experimental conditions. The two induction check items demon-strated that the inductions were successful. One item asked Ps to report the percentilein which their group scored. The correlation between the experimental conditions andthe percent the Ps believed they scored in was very large and significant (r = .94, p <.05), indicating that the Ps tended to be perceptive as to how well they were told theyperformed. The second item asked the Ps how well they did on the task and a one-wayanalysis of variance indicated a significant effect (F(2,120) = 321.95, p < .05) such thatPs in the success condition reported doing well on the tasks (M = 4.82) compared to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

11

Oct

ober

201

4

18 - Communication Research Reports/Winter 2003

those in the control condition (M = 3.64) who, in turn, reported doing better on thetasks than those in the failure condition (M = 1.26).

Inspection of Table 1 demonstrates that the one-way analysis of variance per-formed to test the hypotheses indicates that perceived task competencies (HI), per-ceived prestige (H2), perceived group belonging (H3), and perceived loafing (H4) re-sulted in significant differences. To test for linear trends, contrast analyses (Rosenthal& Rosnow, 1985) were performed with the pertinent weights assigned to conditions.Inspection of Table 2 indicates linear trends for each variable, with the exception ofperceived group belonging. Although the contrast analysis to test for a linear trend forperceived group belonging was statistically significant (F(l, 120) = 11.16, p < .05, i\ =.08), with 78% of the explained sum of squares attributable to this trend, a secondcontrast analysis was performed with assigned contrast coefficients of-1 (failure con-dition), -1 (control condition), and +2 (success condition). These data also were consis-tent with this contrast analysis (F(l, 120) = 13.88, p < .05,7? = .10); however, 96% of theexplained sum of squares was attributable to this model. Thus, the results from thesecond contrast analysis indicated that perceived group belonging increased as a re-sult of succeeding at the task, but failing the task brought about no less cohesion thanif a group received no performance feedback.

PerceivedtaskcompetenciesPerceivedprestige

PerceivedgroupbelongingPerceivedloafing

TABLE 1Dependent Variables Broken Down by Experimental Conditions

ConditionFailure (N = 43) Control (N = 36) Success (N = 44) ANOVAMean SD Mean SD Mean SD F-test

19.6 1.71 21.44 1.81 23.10 .83

8.76 1.91 13.22 1.58 16.1 1.20

23.65 2.74 23.77 2.86 26.72 1.22

14.67 2.06 13.55 2.2 10.86 1.47

(F(2, 120) =17.76, p < .05,T? =.23)(F(2,120) =66.82, p < .05,7? =.53)(F(2,120) =6.99, p<. 05,/j=.10)(F(2,120) =7.27, p<. 05,i? =.11)

CAUSAL MODELThe correlation matrix for all variables included in the causal model (Figure 1) is

presented in Table 3. The model indicates that performance sets a causal chain intomotion with a causal order among the different dimensions of cohesion and perceivedloafing. Inspection of the correlations among the paths (Figure 2) reveals that they aresubstantial and testing the proposed model for goodness of fit revealed no significantdeviations (%2(6) = 9.39, p > .05). Thus, the data fit the model as predicted. Alternativecausal models using the variables in this study with the restriction that performancefeedback constantly be the exogenous variable because it was the independent vari-able in the experiment were also tested. The paths for the alternative models resulted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Feedback, Cohesion and Perceived Loafing -19

in large errors (p. < .05); thus, no support was found for any of the alternative causalmodels.

PerceivedtaskcompetenciesPerceivedprestige

Perceivedgroupbelonging

Perceivedloafing

TABLE 2Contrast Analyses Broken Down by Experimental Conditions

ConditionFailure (N = 43) Control (N = 36) Success (N = 44) ANOVAMean Weight Mean Weight Mean Weight F-test

19.6

8.76

23.65

14.67

-1 21.44 0

-1 -1

23.10

-1 13.22 0 . 16.1

-1 23.77 0 26.72

1

1 13.55 0 10.86 -1

(F(l, 120) =35.34, p < .05,?j= .21) (96%)(F(l, 120) =132.06, p<. 05,?j = .49) (93%)

, p ,7} = .08) (78%)(F(l, 120) =13.88, p<. 05,7} =.10) (96%)(F(l, 120) =13.82, p<. 05,T) = .10) (90%)

TABLE 3Correlation Matrix for Variables

1. Condition**2. Perceived Prestige3. Perceived Task Competence4. Perceived Loafing5. Perceived Group Belonging

1

1.00.72*.47*

-.32*.33*

2

1.00.64*

-.50*.47*

3

1.00-.56*.55*

4

1.00-.68*

5

1.00

* Denotes significance at p < .05.**Conditions were coded as follows: positive performance feedback = 3,no feedback = 2, negative performance feedback = 1.N=123

.72* .64* -.56* -.68*performance -^perceived -^perceived -^perceived -^ perceivedfeedback prestige task loafing group

competence belonging

*p<.05

FIGURE 2 Results of the Path model for the effect of performance feedback on the different forces ofcohesion and perceived loafing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

11

Oct

ober

201

4

20 - Communication Research Reports/Winter 2003

DISCUSSIONThe data were consistent with the hypothesized linear trends for perceived pres-

tige, perceived task competence, and perceived loafing. Specifically, positive perfor-mance feedback resulted in group members perceiving their group to be prestigiousand other group members to be competent at the task. In contrast, when the groupreceived negative feedback, group members reported higher ratings of perceived loaf-ing. Thus, when groups were told they failed, group members attributed the failure toother group members' lack of effort and contribution.

Positive performance feedback led to higher ratings of group cohesion comparedto both the control and negative feedback conditions. The means for the control andnegative feedback condition, however, were identical. This stands in contrast to theBoster et al. (2002) study, which, reported that the control condition and the successcondition were similar to one another and different from the failure condition. Bothstudies, thus, demonstrate that success increases group cohesion whereas failure pro-duces lower cohesion. Nonetheless, in the absence of performance feedback, groupmembers can only guess as to how well they performed and based on their guess, agroup's overall cohesiveness will fluctuate. Based on available evidence, that fluctua-tion will be somewhere between members' ratings in the success and failure condi-tions.

The proposed causal model was also found to be a good fit for the data. Addingperceived loafing to the original causal model identified by Boster et al. (2002) provedfruitful. Perceptions of task competencies affected perceptions of loafing, which, inturn, affected group belonging. Overall, the causal model indicates that a group's per-formance has a strong causal impact on how group members perceive both the group,and individuals. Group members attribute poor performance to others lack of contri-bution and task competencies and do not feel very positive about the group as a whole.This might lead group member to want to' disassociate themselves form the group.Conversely, performing well leads group members to make positive attributions aboutthe group and other group members' work habits, leading to the desire to remain inthe group.

Results from this study promote the idea that to build cohesive groups, give groupstasks during their training or on the job at which they will be successful. The resultshould be positive perceptions toward the group and group members, or a more cohe-sive group, which, in turn, should lead to an increase in performance. This assertion isconsistent with past findings that have demonstrated a link between cohesion andperformance (Evans & Dion, 1991; Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995; Mullen & Copper,1994). Future research can examine if increasing a group's cohesion by providing situ-ations for it to be successful, such as during training, will result in increased perfor-mance.

A limitation of this study was the use of zero-history groups. Future research mightexamine work groups in an organization to identify if the variables examined herefunction in the same manner as they did with the lab groups. Additionally, actual taskcompetencies and social loafing were not assessed for this study. Although the goal ofthis study was to investigate perceptions, future research can look at the actual contri-butions group members make to complete the task, and actual loafing, and how thismight affect cohesion.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Feedback, Cohesion and Perceived Loafing - 21

NOTE1 The differences in group size produced the concern that size could interact with the perfor-

mance feedback induction and affect the dependent variables. To test this possibility, a seriesof 3 X 3 analysis of variance were performed and no statistically significant effects of any kindemerged. Thus, group size was not considered for the analyses reported here.

REFERENCESBack, K.W. (1951). Influence through social communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-

chology, 46, 9-23.Bakeman, R. & Helmreich, R. (1975). Cohesiveness and performance: Covariation and causality

in an undersea environment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 9-23.Boster, F. J., Limon, M. S., Johnson, A. J. (2002). The effect of performance feedback on small group

cohesiveness. Manuscript submitted for publication.Bowen, D.D. & Siegel, J.P. (1973). Process and performance: A longitudinal study of the reac-

tions of small task groups to periodic performance feedback. Human Relations, 26, 433-448.Comer, D. R. (1995). A model of social loafing in real work groups. Human Relations, 48, 647-

667.Cusella, L. P., (1987). Feedback, Motivation, and Performance. In F. M. Jablin, L L. Putnam, K.

H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), The handbook of organizational communication: An interdisci-plinary perspective (pp.624-678). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. SmallGroup Research, 22, 175-186.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of humanfactors in housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Geddes, D., & Linnehan, F. (1996). Exploring the dimensionality of positive and negative per-formance feedback. Communication Quarterly, 44, 326-344.

Greene, C. N. (1989). Cohesion and productivity in work groups. Small Group Behavior, 20, 70-86.

Gully, S.M., Devine, D.J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance:Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497-520.

Guzzo, R. A., Jette, R. D., & Katzell, R. A. (1985). The effects of psychologically based interven-tion programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 275-291.

Hunter, J.E., & Gerbing, D.W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analy-sis and causal models. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behav-ior (Vol. 4, pp. 267-320). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behav-ior in organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F.P. (1994). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (5th ed.).Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Kluger, A. V. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: Ahistorical review, a meta-analysis, and preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 119, 254-284.

McCroskey, J.C., & McCain, T.A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. SpeechMonographs, 41, 261-266.

Mullen, B. & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: Anintegration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

11

Oct

ober

201

4

22 - Communication Research Reports/Winter 2003

Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy ongroup goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 74, 62-87.

Mulvey, P. W., Bowes-Sperry, L., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The effects of perceived loafing anddefensive impression management on group effectiveness. Small Group Research, 29, 394-415.

Nadler, N. A. (1979). The effects of feedback on task and group behavior: A review of theexperimental research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 309-338.

Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. L., & Ekberg, S.E., (1988). Effects of groupfeedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 73, 337-358.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L., (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparison in the analysis ofvariance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Turner, P.J., & Smith, P.M. (1984). Failure and defeat as determinantsof group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 97-11.

Williams, J.M.& Hacker, C.M. (1982). Causal relationships among cohesion, satisfaction, andperformance in women's intercollegiate field hockey teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4,324-337.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Feedback, Cohesion and Perceived Loafing - 23

APPENDIX

Item Mean SD

What percentile did your group perform in? (Induction check) 52.07 43.56Our group did very well on these tasks. (Induction check) 3.22 1.66The people in this group goofed-off when working on these problems. 4.51 .76

(perceived task competence)*I have confidence that the members of this group can do things well. 4.10 .99

(perceived task competence)If I wanted to get things done, I could depend on the members of this group. 3.91 .96

(perceived task competence)I could NOT get anything accomplished working with the people in this group. 4.52 .71

(perceived task competence)*The members of this group are poor problem solvers, (perceived task competence)* 4.30 .95I expect that this group is likely to be one of the most prestigious to participate in this 3.02 1.32

experiment, (perceived prestige)I believe that most people would think that this group was a model group. 3.05 1.30

(perceived prestige)I believe that most people my age would be honored to work in a group like this one. 3.22 1.12

(perceived prestige)Working with this group on a consistent basis would reflect well on me. 3.41 1.10

(perceived prestige)Compared to other groups I know of, I feel this group is better than most. 3.36 1.01

(perceived group belonging)I did not feel a part of the group's activities, (perceived group belonging)* 4.41 .96I feel that it would make a difference to the group if I were not here.

(perceived group belonging)I feel distant from this group, (perceived group belonging)*I feel my absence would not matter to the group, (perceived group belonging)*I feel the members of my group are trying as hard as they can.(perceived loafing)*I feel the members of my group are "free-loaders, (perceived loafing)I feel the members of my group are contributing less than I anticipated.

(perceived loafing)Given their abilities, my group members are doing the best they can. (perceived loafing)* 1.99I feel the members of my group could have worked harder at this (these) task(s).

(perceived loafing)I feel the members of this group are not contributing as much as they could. 1.82 1.05

(perceived loafing)I feel the other group members were being a little lazy, (perceived loafing) 1.55 .77

N=\23* Denotes reverse coded items

2.844.413.532.171.681.62

1.992.12

1.18.83

1.081.00.79.79

1.061.18

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:29

11

Oct

ober

201

4