small group research

n. A small group may be defined as 3 to 12 persons who interact with each other and influence each other in order to achieve an objective or goal. We set the minimal size at 3 because pairs (dyads) are typically considered apart from small group research in areas such as negotiation and bargaining, and the maximal size at 12 because groups larger than 12 tend to divide or be divided into subgroups.

Small groups serve many purposes. Perhaps the most important, and clearly the most researched, is task performance, such as a scientific research team solving a problem, a jury making a decision, or a football team running a play. Small groups are settings for member learning, such as elementary students in classroom groups or college students in discussion groups. Small groups distribute resources, such as a team of middle managers determining salary raises, or figure skating judges rating the performance of the skaters. Small groups legitimize decisions, behavior, and language usage, such as a jury acting for society in determining guilt or innocence, middle school students deciding what clothing styles are “cool” or unspeakably “retro,” or the United States Supreme Court determining the meaning of “equal protection under the laws.” Small groups are a source of pleasure and enjoyment, in games, music, family reunions, dinner table conversations, and the countless interactions of small groups at home, school, work, and play. However, the majority of experimental research on small groups has studied group performance.

Theory and research on small groups distinguishes (a) the group task, (b) group structure, (c) group process, and (d) group product. The group task is what the group is attempting to do, such as solve a problem, make a decision, play a game, or operate a complex machine. Group structure includes member characteristics such as beliefs, competences, interests, and preferences; roles, such as leader or ordinary member; and norms, the assumed beliefs and expected behavior of the group members, such as norms of courtesy and considering the pros and cons of proposed alternatives. Group processes basically entail who says what when how to whom with what effect, as in both classical rhetoric and the lead paragraph of a contemporary newspaper article. The group product is the collective output or performance of the group on the task, which achieves or fails to achieve the group goal or objective to some degree.

Four dimensions have been distinguished in small group theory and research. The first dimension is cooperative, mixed-motive, and competitive interaction. In cooperative interaction all group members share the same goal or objective and share equally in the rewards and punishments of achieving or failing to achieve the goal, such as a small scientific research team conducting a successful or unsuccessful experiment, or the three Apollo 13 astronauts attempting to return safely to Earth after the explosion of an oxygen tank in their spacecraft. In competitive interaction one group desires to defeat the other, such as two football or basketball teams. Such groups and teams engage in cooperative interaction within the group and competitive interaction between the groups. In mixed-motive interaction the group members are motivated both to cooperate with each other and to compete with each other for differential rewards, as in the social dilemmas we consider later.

A second dimension distinguishes cognitive versus physical group tasks. Cognitive tasks include group memory, problem solving, and decision making. Physical tasks include digging a ditch, pulling a rope, or participating in athletics. Although all group tasks entail both cognitive and physical elements, such as three engineering students building a robot, a string quartet, or a basketball team, the majority of research on small group performance has used tasks whose requirements and objectives are primarily cognitive.

A third dimension distinguishes intellective and judgmental tasks. Intellective tasks have a correct solution within some mathematical, logical, or verbal conceptual system, such as mathematical problems, logical reasoning problems, or crossword puzzles. On intellective tasks one or more group members who know a correct answer may demonstrate it to the incorrect members, who have sufficient understanding of the conceptual system to recognize and accept a correct answer. Judgmental tasks are evaluative, behavioral, or aesthetic judgments and preferences for which no objectively correct demonstrable answer exists, such as whether George Washington or Abraham Lincoln was a greater president, Mozart or Beethoven a greater composer, blackberry or raspberry a tastier jam, or the defendant innocent or guilty in a jury trial. On intellective tasks the objective for the group is to obtain the correct answer, whereas on judgmental tasks the objective for the group is to achieve consensus on some response (a hung jury that fails to render a verdict has failed to achieve the objective of a jury). Again this is a continuous dimension rather than a dichotomy, but the tasks used in experimental research tend to fall at either the intellective or judgmental end of the dimension.

A fourth dimension distinguishes the number of group members that are necessary for a collective response. On conjunctive tasks all group members must succeed for the group to succeed, such as a team of mountain climbers roped together, The Great Wallendas performing a human pyramid on a high wire, or a team of neurological surgeons removing an extensive cranial tumor. On disjunctive tasks only one group member needs to succeed for the group to succeed, such as three students attempting to solve a high school geometry problem or a family at dinner trying to recall the name of a distant relative. Conjunctive and disjunctive tasks define the end points of a dimension of the number of members that is necessary for a group decision. This is often formalized by constitutions and bylaws, such as unanimity in jury decisions for capital cases or simple majority to pass a motion in Robert's Rules of Order for Parliamentary Procedure. – PRL