A Three-Dimensional Theory of Group Process in Adolescent Dyads
A Three-Dimensional Theory of Group Process in Adolescent Dyads
Loading...
Files
Publication or External Link
Date
1974
Authors
Armstrong, Stephen H.
Advisor
Hatfield, Agnes
Citation
DRUM DOI
Abstract
This dissertation tests a three-dimensional theory
of group process originally proposed by William Schutz
(1958) . His theory is that three process variables can
account for group interaction: Inclusion, the degree to
which persons in a group feel "in," "a part of" the group;
Control, the degree to which persons can command and direct
the group's resources, means, and goals; and Affection,
the degree of relatedness that persons in the group feel
for one another.
Eighty-nine tenth grade suburban high school students
completed a sociometric rating of their intact homeroom
classes, and twenty-four pairs of students were randomly
selected to participate in the experimental portion of
the study. The dyads were selected along the Inclusion
and Affection dimensions, each at two levels. Each pair
played eight ten-choice games of "Prisoner's Dilemma, "
a two-person, two-choice nonzero sum game, under an experimental
instruction set of "trust and cooperation." The eight payoff matrices were systematically varied to provide
two levels of Asymmetry and two levels of Fate Control,
which are taken as the operational equivalent of the Control
dimension. The matrices were randomly ordered for each pair.
The design is a 2^4 factorial with repeated measures
over two dimensions, analyzed as analysis of variance.
The data is analyzed only for those matrices which give
less payoff ("go against") the first player in the dyad
to make a choice, since these matrices alone offer an
incentive to trust the partner.
There are six dependent variables in this study:
(1) one's own number of trusting choices in each ten-choice
game; (2) the partner's number of trusting choices; (3) one's
total estimate of the partner's trustworthiness; (4) one's
total number of years in jail; (5) the partner's total
number of years in jail; and (6) the combined number
of years in jail for both players.
The results show a significant effect only for
Fate Control, and only on three dependent variables: (1) total
estimate of the partner's trustworthiness; (2) one's total
number of years in jail, and (3) the partner's total number
of years in jail. In general, the level of trusting
behavior was high across all experimental conditions. The results are only partial support for the theory
of group interaction. Fate Control is the one operational
dimension most clearly linked with the experimental task
demands, and therefore cannot be seen as strong support of
Schutz's theory, especially in view of the lack of significant
results on any other dimension. Affection, Inclusion,
and Asymmetry of the payoff matrix were not significantly
associated with any dependent variable.
Second, factors beyond the experimenter's control
may have contributed to the null results. For instance,
students may have been "loyally" trusting to other students
at a very high level perhaps because of their role vis a vis
adult authority as manifested by the experimenter. Moreover,
an overall lack of interpersonal interaction in the homeroom
setting may have attenuated the results.
Third, there is wide variance for each of the
dependent variables, small effect size, and, consequently,
the heightened chance of a Type II error. Moreover, the
dependent variables are highly correlated, further limiting
the potency of this experimental test.
Finally, Schultz's theory is one of process, and the
variables used in this study can capture this process only
insofar as the dyad's structure reflects the process. To
the extent that the structural measurements used in this
study may not fully reflect palpable interpersonal process, the experiment, not the theory, may be held deficient.
In summary, this attempt to empirically assess
this three-dimensional theory of group process is not
wholely successful. The experimental analogue situation
(the Prisoner's Dilemma) gives only partial support to
the theory.