Title

Collective Efficacy and Group Performance in Computer-mediated Settings

Presenter Information

Frank Keehn

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

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 6th, 1:00 PM Apr 6th, 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.