Collective Efficacy and Group Performance in Computer-mediated Settings
Department
Psychological Science
Major
Psychology
Research Advisor
Stone, Nancy J.
Advisor's Department
Psychological Science
Funding Source
UM Research Board
Abstract
Student groups of 3 worked a maze problem to determine if types of planning methods (control, random, and guided) or planning medium (computer-mediated or face-to-face) could differentially develop collective efficacy and lead to different performance levels. Contrary to expectations, levels of collective efficacy were not significantly different across communication medium, planning type, or amount of time spent planning. The interaction between planning medium and type on collective efficacy was significant, but not as hypothesized, supporting a difference in the development of collective efficacy between media. Specifically, controlled planning led to higher pre-efficacy scores for computer-mediated compared to face-to-face planning whereas groups that planned face-to-face compared to computer-mediated had higher pre-efficacy when planning was random or guided. Post-task, but not pre-task, collective efficacy evinced predicted correlations with performance in the first two maze quadrants. Limitations and possible improvements on the current experiment are discussed in the context of future research directions.
Biography
Frank is a Psychology major with an emphasis in Personnel and Human Resources and a minor in music. He will be graduating in May 2011 and then entering a PhD program in IO Psychology.
Research Category
Social Sciences
Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Document Type
Presentation
Award
Social sciences oral presentation, First place
Location
Carver Room
Presentation Date
06 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm - 1:30 pm
Collective Efficacy and Group Performance in Computer-mediated Settings
Carver Room
Student groups of 3 worked a maze problem to determine if types of planning methods (control, random, and guided) or planning medium (computer-mediated or face-to-face) could differentially develop collective efficacy and lead to different performance levels. Contrary to expectations, levels of collective efficacy were not significantly different across communication medium, planning type, or amount of time spent planning. The interaction between planning medium and type on collective efficacy was significant, but not as hypothesized, supporting a difference in the development of collective efficacy between media. Specifically, controlled planning led to higher pre-efficacy scores for computer-mediated compared to face-to-face planning whereas groups that planned face-to-face compared to computer-mediated had higher pre-efficacy when planning was random or guided. Post-task, but not pre-task, collective efficacy evinced predicted correlations with performance in the first two maze quadrants. Limitations and possible improvements on the current experiment are discussed in the context of future research directions.
