O+B

THE PREDICTION OF INTERACTION BEHAVIOR INSMALL GROUPS: ZERO HISTORY VS. INTACT GROUPS

GAIL SORENSEN and JAMES C. ~IcCROSKEY

T HE conventional wisdom of the1960's was that "communication

is a process." The conventional wisdomof the present decade is that "communi-cation is transactionaL" Both of these

views emphasize the idea that one per-son's interaction behavior is, and oughtto be, highly influenced by the way otherpeople interact.

Nevertheless, it is clear that much in-teraction behavior cannot be explainedsimply by observing that given com-munication transaction. Individuals de-

velop interaction behavior patterns thathave some consistency from one com-munication encounter to the next. An

appropriate model for explaining inter-action behavior in small group com-munication, therefore, must take intoaccount both the effects attributed to theantecedent orientations of the individu-

als involved and the unique interface ofthe individuals within the communica-tion encounter. My interaction behaviorwith you is a product of what I am andwhat you do. Your interaction behaviorwith me is a product of what you areand what I do.

The present investigation was con-cerned with identifying the degree towhich particular antecedent orientationsof individuals can predict consequent in-teraction behavior in zero history and

Ms. Sorenson is an Instructor in Speech Com-munication at Salisbury State College. Mr. Mc.Croskey is Professor and Chairman of the De-partment of Speech Communication at WestVirginia University. This study is based in parton Ms. Sorensen's M.S. Thesis directed bv Mr.McCroskey. .

intact small groups. It was hoped thatthis stUdy would contribute to the un-derstanding of small group communi-cation in two ways. First. should it befound that certain antecedent orienta-

tions are significant and consistent pre-dictors of interaction behavior, then that

knowledge can be used directly in thebuilding of a theory of small group com-munication. Second, should consistent

prediction be found possible. later re-search can use the observed predictorsas control variables to increase precisionin studies designed to investigate othervariables in the communication process.

It should be stressed that the main

concern of this stUdy was to determinewhether consistent predictive relation-ships could be isolated that would applyto both zero history and intact groups.There has been considerable controversy

concerning the generalizability of resultsof studies employing zero history groupsto more real-life. intact groups. ThisstUdy sought to provide a partial resolu-tion to that controversy by studyingboth types of groups. This was accom-plished by stUdying the same groups attwo different times in their life. in their

initial meeting (zero history) and sixweeks (eighteen hours of meetings) laterafter the groups had ample opportunityto coalesce.

RATIONALE

Researchers in the area of small groupcommunication have long considered

"personality" to be an important anteced-

COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS, Volume 44, March 1977

74 CO}{~ruNICATION MONOGRAPHS

ent of communication behavior. "Person-

ality" is a global construct used to repre-sent a wide variety of orientations of theindividual. The total personality "canbe conceptualized as a group of inter.acting tendencies, each approaching asubself in complication: subselves withdifferent origins, different characters, as-sociations, value implications, behavioralmanifestations. . . ."1

A basic problem in previous researchon both the personality construct andinteraction behavior is that the concep-tualization of these variables has often

been narrowed to such a degree thatmaximum consideration has been givento a specific trait or behavior, while otherpotentially important and predictive di-mensions have been overlooked. As Cat-tell, Eber and Tatsuoka state, "The best

. way to begin research or applied workin any new domain is to take cognizanceof the total personality, in all its maindimensions.":! This is not a universal at-

tack upon the abstracting and segment-ing that has taken place in empirical re-search on small group communication.As Hall and Lindzey have stated, "It issimply a reminder that the meaning ofsmall segments of behavior can be fullyunderstood only when seen within thelarger framework of the entire function-ing organism."3 .

McGrath and Altman make a similar

observation which is specifically directedat small group researchers in the field ofcommunication. They maintain thatcommunication is a process and not astatic state of being. The authors ask for". . . more attention to analyses of the

1 Rohert F. Bales, Personality and Interper-sonal Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart, andWinstOn. 1970), p. 15.

2 Ravmond B. Cattell, H. IV. Eber, andMaurice ~L Tatsuoka, Handbook for the SixteenPersonality Factor Questionnaire (Champaign.III.: InstitUte for Personality and Ability Test-ing, 1970), pp. 5-6. .

3 Cah'in S. Hall and Gardner Lindzev, Theo-ries of Personality (New York: John Wiley,1957),p. 396. .

behavior of groups-their interactions-as opposed to the products or outcomesof that behavior."-1

Although personality in the globalsense is likely to be an important pre-dictor of interaction behavior in small

group communication, it certainly cannot be expected to account for all suchbehavior, nor even is it likely to ac-count for a majority of it. The field ofSpeech Communication has been con-cerned for decades with another variable

thought to be highly related to com-munication behavior. This variable has

been variously labeled "speech anxiety,""reticence," and "communication appre-hension." For years the primary focus ofconcern with this variable has been in

the public speaking context. More re-cently the field has become increasinglyaware that apprehension about communi-cation may influence all of a person'scommunication transactions.5 Extensive

research, predicated on the assumptionthat communication apprehension affectscommunication behavior, has led to therecommendation that extensive therapyprograms be implemented to help indi-viduals reduce their anxiety about com-municating.6 In the area of small groupcommunication, however, research indi-cating the effects of communication ap-prehension on interaction behavior hasbeen notably absent.1

HYPOTHESES

The two hypotheses for this investiga-tion were:

4 Joseph E. McGrath and Irwin Altman,Small Group Research (New York: Holt, Rine-hart, and Winston, 1966), p. 73.

5 Gerald M. PhiIlips, "Reticence: patholOfITof the Normal Speaker," SM, 35 (1968), 39-49...

6 James. C. McCroskey,' "The Implementationof :1'.Large-Scale Program of Systematic Desensi-tization for Communication Apprehension,"Speech Teacher, 21 (1972), 255-64.

1 For an exception, see J. Wells, "A Study ofthe Effects of Svstematic Desensitization on theCommunicative 'Anxietv of Individuals in Small

. Groups," Thesis San Jose State College 1970.

ZERO HISTORY VS. INTACT GROCPS 75

1. Personality variables are predictors ofinteraction behavior in zero historyand intact small groups.

2. Communication apprehension is apredictor of interaction behavior inzero history and intact small groups.

OPERATIONALIZATION AND

MEASURE:\IE:-IT

Personality

Cattell's 16 PF Test was used to mea-

sure sixteen personality traits.8The 16 PF measures sixteen person-

ality factors which are relatively uncor-related. Fifteen of the factors are re-

flected by six items each. The "intelli-gence" factor is composed of eight items.The other fifteen dimensions can be con-

veniently labeled as follows: cyclothymia,emotional maturity, dominance, surgen-cy, character, adventurousness, sensitivi-ty, trustfulness, eccentricity, sophistica-tion, confidence, radicalism, self-suffi-ciency, self-control, and general anxiety.The reader is cautioned that the labelsused above tend to over-simplify the ac-tual constructs. For a more thorough ex-planation of each dimension, the readershould consult the handbook for the 16PF measure.9 Form C was used because

the time required was suitable for a classperiod, and the reading level of the itemswas appropriate for the subject sample.

Communication Apprehension

The Personal Report of Communica-tion Apprehension for College Studentswas used to measure communication ap-prehension.l° Phillips describes an indi-vidual with communication-bound anxi-

ety as, ". . . a person for whom anxietyabout participation in oral communica-

8 Cattel!, Eber, and Tatsuoka, p. 6.9 Ibid.

10James C. McCroskey, "Measures of Com-munication.Bound Anxiety," SM, 37 (1970), 269-77.

tion outweighs his projection of gainfrom the situation."l1 This suggests, ". . .a broadly based anxiety related to oralcommunication rather than a variety of

'types' of communication-bound anxi-ety."1:) The Personal Report of Com-munication Apprehension for CollegeStudents (PRC..\.) includes not onlyitems related to public speaking butalso items on interpersonal communica-tion, small group communication, and afew extreme public speaking situations,e.g., giving a speech on television. Theseare Likert-type scales administered in afive-choice response format. Previous re-search indicates that this instrument isreliable and unidimensional.13 'While tht:

PRC..\. may be partially correlated withthe "anxiety" scale on the 16 PF, themeasures are supposed to index differ-ent, though partially related, anxieties.

Interaction Behavior

Perceived interaction behavior in a

small group situation was determined byuse of the Interaction Behavior Measure

(IBM).14 Methodological deterrents havecreated a myriad of problems in measur-ing small group communication interac-tion behaviors. Most previous research-ers have relied on Bales' Interaction Pro-cess Analysis for small group communi-cation interaction measurement.15 Thereare several limitations imposed by theuse of the IP.-\.. Gouran states two majorcriticisms of this instrument.16 First, the

11 Phillips, p. 40.12 ~IcCroskey, "Measures," p. 270.13 Ibid.14 James C. McCroskey and David W. Wright,

"The Development of an Instrument for Mea-suring Interaction Behavior in Small Groups,"SM,38 (1971), 335-40.

15 Robert F. Bales, Interaction Process Analy-sis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups(Cambridge, Mass.:. Addison-Wesley, 1950). Seealso, Bales, PersonalIty.

16 Dennis S. Gouran, "Conceptual and Meth-odological Approaches to the Study of Leader-ship," Central States Speech Journal, 21 (1970),222.

76 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

categories are mutually exclusive, whichprohibits a particular interaction frombeing rated in more than one category.Second, the frequency data generatedcan only be subjected to nonparametricsta tistical anal vsis.

I

The properties or qualities of interac-tions are a primary concern when the re-searcher addresses her or himself to the

problem of communication behaviors.Leathers d::veloped the Feedback Rat-ing Instrument which attempts to mea-sure small group interaction along ninedimensions.17 The IB;\I is an outgrowthof this earlier work by Leathers. Factoranalyses indicated the presumed nine di-mensIOns collapsed to form six dimen-SIOns.

The Interaction Behavior Measure was

designed to reflect small group interac-tion behaviors which were assumed tobe multidimensional. The six dimensionson the instrument are as follows:

1. Orientation-measured by the task-oriented, socio-emotional oriented,

and ideational-personal scales.2. Tension-defined by the tense-relaxed

and bothered-cool scales;

3. Flexibility-reflected by the flexible-inflexible and changeable-unchange-able scales.

4. Relevance-measured by the relevant-irrelevant and related-unrelatedscales.

5. Interest-defined by the interested-apathetic and involved-withdrawnscales.

6. Verbosity-defined by the wordy-shortand brief-lengthy scales.

It should be noted that the IBLY!,in

the initial study and a replication, re-quired the raters to respond to individu-al interaction behaviors on the twelve

17 Dale G. Leathers, "Process Disruption andMeasurement in Small Group Communication,"QJS,55 (1969),287-300.

scales. Larsen,ls McMurry,19 and Con-soli2Oalso used this procedure which al-lowed the raters to view the small groupon video-tape, stopping the tape whenthe raters responded to a stimulus state-ment. They all reported satisfactory raterreliability in using the IBM. In addition,both Mc~rurry and Larsen confirmed theoriginal six dimensions of the IB:\f byfactor analyses. Although the procedureemployed in this stUdy was not a precisereplication, the IBM appeared to be themost appropriate means of recording theprocess of small group interaction in thisinvestigation. It was also the most prob-able means of measuring independent,but not mutually exclusive, criteriaamenable to regression analysis.

For the purposes of this study, there-fore, the relevant constructs were opera-tionally defined as follows:

1. "Personality" traits were the rawscores on each of the sixteen factorsof the 16 PF.

2. "Communication apprehension" wasthe total score of the Personal Reportof Communication Apprehension.

3. "Interaction behavior" was the meanscore of the raters on each of the sixdimensions of the IBM: orientation,tension, flexibility, relevance, interest,and verbosity.

Method

Subjects. Subjects were ninety-two stu-dents in six classes in small group com-munication at a midwestern university.These subjects were chosen so that it

IS David C. Larsen, "The Effect of Transfer-of-Authority Leadership on Satisfaction andGroup Interaction," Thesis Illillo;s State 1971.

19 Robert 1. McMurry, "A Comparison of In-teraction Process Analysis and the InteractionBehavior Measure," paper presented at the In-ternational Communication Association Conven-tion, Atlanta, 1972.

~oJan L. Consoli, "The Effects of WaitingTime on Anxietv, Nonverbal Behavior, andVerbal Nonfluencies," Thesis Illinois State 1971.

ZERO HISTORY VS. INTACT GROUPS 77

would be possible to test the researchhypotheses with both zero history groupsand ongoing groups and, at the sametime, minimize subject variability be.tween the two types of groups. In theseclasses groups were formed randomlyand continued intact for six weeks. This

permitted observation of their interac-tion behavior during their first meeting(zero history group) and six weeks later(intact group). Twenty subjects were lostfrom the second observation as a resultof class attrition and absence.

Procedures. During the second meet-ing in each class the PRCA and Cattell's16 PF, Form C were administered. The

instructors passed out the questionnairesand explained that they were to be filledout as part of a study being done in theDepartment of Speech Communication.These forms were collected by the in-structors and retUrned to the experi-menters.

During the third week of class, an ex-perimenter was introduced to each ofthe classes as an expert in small groupinteraction measurement, specializing inthe use of the IB;\tL A video-tape wasemployed to train the stUdents in the useof the IBM rating sheets. This sessionwas designed to familiarize the stUdentswith the scales, and to determine thetime that would be used between the rat-

ings in the actual discussions. Each scalepole was defined and the students wereencouraged to ask questions during theiruse of the instrument.

Class members, the following week,were randomly assigned to groups offour to six members each (depending onclass enrollment). This was done by theinstructors with no attempt to controlthe member personalities within ~achgroup. Each subject was given IBM rat-ing sheets. This procedure was explainedas a practical application of what thestudents had learned from the class the

previous week. The groups were assigned

a problem-solving task by the instructor.The four groups were then divided intotwo groups on each side of the room.Two of the groups proceeded to discusstheir task for twenty-five minutes. Theremaining two groups rated each of thediscussants once every five minutes. Eachrater completed five ratings for each ofthe discussants in the observed group.At the end of the first discussion, the

groups reversed roles, and followed thesame procedure. The use of simulta-neous discussions was an attempt to easeany anxiety that might be caused by be-ing watched by a large number of stu-dents. The rating sheets from all fourgroups were collected by the insrruLtOrat the end of the second discussion

period.The instructors were asked to give

group assignments for the following sixweeks. The initial groups were kept in-tact, working together for approximate-ly eighteen hours of class time. After thattime, the instructors followed the same

procedure by repeating the directionsfor the discussion and rating. The IBMratings were collected and given to theexperimenters.

Data A nalyses. The data were ana-lyzed in a series of multiple regressionanalyses following the step-wise pro-cedure. Separate analyses were performedon the data representing the zero historygroups (Time 1) and on the clata repre-senting intact groups (Time 2). The pre-dictor variables were the unweightedscores on the 16 personality variablesand the PRCA. The criterion variableswere the scores on the six dimensions ofthe IBM. The IBM scores utilized in the

analyses were the means for the ratingon each dimension across the five time

periods. The rating for each time periodwas the mean of the individual ratingsgiven by the observers. These scores,therefore, typically represented 25 obser-cations of the individual's interaction be-

iH COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

havior (the exact number varying from16 to 20, depending on the number ofpeople in the observing group). The scor-ing procedure employed was believed toyield the best estimate of the subject'stypical interaction behavior in that vari-ability with regard to the time of inter-action (when. in the 25 minute discus-sion) and variability attributable to theindividual raters were held to a mini-

mum influence through this procedure.

The regression analyses were termi-nated when extraction of an additional

step increased the explained variance byless than I per cent or when an enteringva,.iable in the analysis resulted in theover-all model being nonsignificant (p

. <.05), whichever came first.

No attempt to determine the reli-ability of individual raters was made.Previous research using the IBM andstudent raters has established the reli-

ability of the obtained ratings. Thus itwas assumed that similar, satisfactory re-liability would be obtained in the pres-ent study. It should be stressed that ifthis assumption were false, the .resultwould be a reduction in the observed

relationship between the predictors andinteraction behavior in this study. Con-sequently, the results reported should beconsidered conservative estimates of the

degree of any observed relationships.

Results

Time 1. Table 1 reports the percent-age of variance, standardized betaweights, and significance levels for theregression models obtained from the an-alyses of the data obtained during thefirst observation period (zero historygroup). Inspection of these results indi-cates that both hypotheses in this inves-tigation were confirmed. Personality vari-ables and communication apprehensionwere observed to be significant predictorsof interaction behavior in small groups.

Time 2. Table 2 reports the percent-age of variance, standardized betaweights, and significance levels for theregression models obtained from theanalyses of the data obtained during thesecond observation period (intactgroup). Inspection of these results alsoindicates support for the hypotheses thatpersonality and communication appre-hension are significant predictors of in-teraction behavior in small groups.

Discussion

The most striking result of this studyis not directly related to the hypotheses..While personality and communicationapprehension were significant predictorsof interaction behavior in both the zero

history and the intact groups, there wasvery little similarity between the twoseries of analyses. Communication ap-prehension predicted Tension in bothcases, adventurousness predicted Rele-vance, and surgency and adventurous-ness predicted Interest in both. Beyondthat there was no comparability of sig-nificant predictors. Cyclothmia, intelli-gence, and dominance were never signifi-cant predictors, although they were in-cluded in models that achieved signifi-cance.

There has been considerable dis-

cussion in the literature concerning thegeneralizability of research results fromzero history groups to intact or on-goinggroups. The evidence from this investi-gation certainly suggests caution for anysuch generalizing. This is particularlyimportant because in this investigationour zero history and intact groups werethe same people, merely observed at dif-ferent points in the development of theirgroups.

Although our general hypotheses weresupported, it is clear that the relation-ships between personality /communica-

tion apprehension and interaction behav-

ZERO HLSTORYVS. INTACT GROUPS

TABLE 1

RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES FOR ZERO HISTORY GROUPS

Predictor

PRCACyclothymiaIntelligenceEmotional MaturityDominanceSurgencyCharacterAd ven tUrousnessSensitivityTrustfulnessEccentricitvSophisticationConfidenceRadicalismSelf-sufficiencySelf-controlAnxiety

Percentage ofPredicted VarianceF.ratioSignificance Level

.Significant predictors

Standardized Beta Weights on Criterion VariablesOrientation Tension Flexibility Relevance Interest

'1"*--,-.18

-.2s*

.12

.25*

-.15

.14

.18

.24*

172.11

<.05

233.57

<.05

-.15-.17

.16

.16 .29* -.H

-.27*

-.14

-.25*

.33*

.25*

.23*

-.16

.15

.25*

273.40

<.05

TABLE 2REsULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES FOR INTACT GROCPS

Predictor

PRCACvclothvmiaIntelligenceEmotional MaturityDominanceSurgencyCharacterAdventurousnessSensitivityTrustfulnessEccen trici tySophisticationConfidenceRadicalismSelf-sufficiencySelf-controlAnxiety

Percentage ofPredicted VarianceF-ratioSignificance Level

.Significant predictoIS

.22 -.20

Standardized Beta Weights on Criterion VariablesOrientation Tension Flexibility Relevance Interest

-.43*

.13

.13

-.52*.27*

-.15.13

-.26*

-.11.24*

.-.30*

.14

.29*.27*

252.61

<.05

386.56

<.05

ior in small groups are heavily inHuencedby the previous history of the group.While some personality variables influ-ence some interaction behaviors at one

point, other personality variables inHu-

.Ii

.17.27*.25*

-.17

.15

-.33*

.24*

.12

152.93

<.05

7.9

Verbosity--.39*

:'-'.10

.22

.14

.26*

.20

.17

.26*

263.61

<.05

Verbosity--.17

.12-.30*

.25*

.20

-.20

.15

192.31

<.05

ence these same as well as other interac-

tion behaviors at another point.One comment needs to be made con-

cerning the amount of variance it waspossible to predict in this study, ranging

.Ii

-.15 -.13-.17

.12 .16.11.18.17

.25*

.26*

192.85

<.05

202.05

<.05

.21 .19

-.40*

.2i*-.12

-.31*

2"*. I-.13 .10

214.41

<.05

182.91

<.05

80 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

from 15 to 38 percent. This may seem tobe comparatively little variance. How-ever, it should be taken into account thatwe should not expect our predictors toaccount for most of the variance in in-

teraction behavior, or possibly even amajority of it. Attitudes of the individ-ual on the topic, behaviors of othergroups members, and communication en-vironment should all introduce uncon-trolled variance. Further, although thereliability of the measures employed inthis study has been established in previ-ous studies by other researchers, the in-struments are not perfectly reliable. Themost reliable predictor (based on previ-ous reports) was the PRCA with esti-mated reliability of about .90 internallyand .80 over a ten-day delay. The IBMhas reported reliabilities ranging from

.60 to .80 on the various dimensions.

Thus a "perfect" relationship betweenthe most reliable predictor and the mostreliable criterion measure at the firstobservation period would only result in.72 accountable variance. At the otherobservation point the most reliable pre-dictor (PRCA, .80) and the least reli-able criterion (.60) could be expected toaccount for no more than 48 percent ofthe variance.

In sum, the results of this investiga-tion indicate that personality and com-munication apprehension are significantpredictors of interaction behavior insmall groups. What personality variablesand whether communication apprehen-sion predict(s) what interaction behav-ior(s) is heavily influenced by the pre-vious history of the group.