Concepto y Características Generales de la Evaluación de los Aprendizajes

This study was designed to investigate the same issues as the previous study, but this time in a controlled laboratory setting. The intention was to create a group setting in the context of an isolated, extreme environment scenario, in which group diversity and the group norm or culture could be manipulated. By using a computer program that was specifically designed for this study, it was hoped that an immersive scenario could be

created, in which realistic group processes could be observed. As this was a laboratory study, a much larger sample could be utilised than in the previous study and more conventional statistical techniques could be used to explore the relationships of interest. The two central variables under investigation where the group norms (pro-diversity or pro- uniformity) and the existence of explicit diversity within the group on a dimensions relevant to the group task (homogeneous or heterogenous).

The following predictions were made in this study:

H1: Ingroup identification will be higher under conditions in which there is a “value in diversity” group norm.

H2: Group functioning will be best when there is there a “value in diversity” norm and lowest when there is there is a “value in homogeneity norm”. This will be assessed using a range of measures of different aspects of group functioning.

H3. The existence of diversity within the group will interact with the norm manipulation to affect group functioning. More specifically, diversity in the group will have the most negative impact in groups that do not value diversity.

6.3.1 Method

Participants As part of a course requirement 74 first year psychology students from the Australian National University participated in this experiment. Of these participants 34 were male and 40 were female with ages ranging from 17 to 40 years with a mean of 19.7 years. Between three and five participants took part in the study during each testing session and all were led to believe that they were interacting with four other participants besides themselves.

Design This study followed a 2(Group Diversity, present or absent) X 2(Diversity Norm, pro or anti diversity) independent factors design. ANOVA analyses were conducted for each of the dependent variables in turn to test the hypotheses. The first independent variable was the manipulation of actual diversity within the group and the second was the manipulation of the group’s culture; in this case the extent to which they

had a pro-diversity norm or not. The four dependent variables were “Alienation”, “Identification”, “General Group Functioning” and the score on the Survival in an Extreme Winter Environment task (“SEWE score”).

Materials and Procedure Participants completed this exercise on a computer, using a program written for the purposes of this experiment. The program was written using Macromedia Authorware version 7.01. The program consisted of a linear progression through screens which provided the participants with information and asked them to make responses to questions. In this way participants worked their way through the experiment by reading information, clicking “continue” once the information had been read, and making selections when presented with multiple options. The content of this program and the procedure of the experiment will now be discussed in more detail.

When the participants arrived for the experiment they were led to believe that they were in a group of five people. Where one or more participants did not turn up a confederate was used in order to lead the other participants to believe that they were still in a group of five people. Once each participant had been given a short explanation about the experiment and provided their informed consent (by signing a form), they were led to individual cubicles where they could not hear or see the other participants. They were told at this point that their only means of communication with the other participants would be by way of unidirectional email. In the cubicle they had a computer terminal with which they completed the experiment.

Before entering the cubical the experimenter set the program up for the appropriate experimental condition. Participants were randomly assigned to these conditions. Once seated the computer program welcomed the participants and gave them a more detailed account of what they would be doing in the study. They were then asked to enter their own unique codename. This was a name that they were led to believe would identify themselves to the other group members. In reality, the computers from the different participants were not connected. This was done so that they were led to think that they had an identity within the group, but were able to remain anonymous from their co-participants. They were then allocated a colour, which would be associated with their name. The participant’s colour was always blue. After this they were told what the other group members’ codenames and colours were. All participants received the same information at this point (i.e. they were all

told their team members were called “Corsica”, “retrocious”, “Crusty Burger” and “muppet”).

After this, participants were told that they would need to do a thinking style task, and that this would be used to characterise their group. They were told that this method was based on Gorham, Kissinger, & Lichstien (1991)’s, Inductive/Deductive Thinking Style Scale (IDTSS). In actual fact this scale was completely made up and simply used as a way of leading participants into thinking that they shared a social category with their fellow participants.

Participants were then told that they had to wait for their other team members to complete that part of the study and for the data to be analysed, so that scores for the whole group could be presented. During this time they were given the opportunity to play a rudimentary computer game of “snake”. This was designed to give the illusion of multiple interacting team members. After a few minutes their game was interrupted and they were told that all data had been collected and analysed.

Participants were then presented with a “double bell curve”, which was explained to show the supposed distribution of people as either “deductive” or “inductive” thinkers. In this way it was made explicit that there were two “types of people”. It was also explained that the closer a person was to the peak of the distribution the more similar they were to other people of that thinking style. They were then presented with the scores for each of their supposed team members. It was at this point that the manipulation of “Diversity” was introduced. In all conditions, the participant and three of the other team members were presented as being very similar to one another, with scores around the centre of the “inductive thinker” distribution. In the conditions where there was meant to be genuine diversity of views, one team member was shown to be away from the other team members, with a score which was almost but not quite in the “deductive thinker” distribution. The other condition showed all group members clustered together on the distribution. The distribution presented to participants in the conditions with diversity can be seen in Figure 6.1. An explanation was presented with the figure which informed participant in the diversity conditions that while their group was made up of inductive thinkers, there was one member whose thinking style was different to the rest. In the no diversity conditions, participants were told that they were all inductive thinkers. After this, participants in all conditions were told about some advantages and disadvantages of being an inductive thinker.

Figure 6.1. Snap Shot of Screen: Double bell curve demonstrating different thinking style of group member “muppet”.

The next component of the experiment introduced the manipulation of “Diversity Norm”. This was done by suggesting to the participants that a certain kind of “decision making culture” would allow their group to perform well in the group problem solving exercise. At this point one of two passages were displayed to participants, dependant on which condition they were in. The passages were as follows:

Pro-Uniformity Group Norm

Some groups do much better at exercises like the “Survival in an Extreme Winter

Environment” problem, because they value making quick and efficient consensus decisions. These groups tend to be good at exercises like this because they avoid wasting time figuring out each individual’s point of view. Groups that don’t use the “uniformity and consensus model of decision making” often waste vital time and energy trying to understand everybody’s viewpoint. These groups can be thought of as valuing diversity over consensus and they often have trouble reaching any kind of decision at all. In life threatening situations like this one, it is absolutely vital that people are able to cooperate effectively with one another, so being in a group where everybody can quickly reach consensus, is very important. For problems like this one, diversity gets in the way. What is needed is uniformity and consensus.

Pro-Diversity Group Norm

Some groups do much better at exercises like the “Survival in an Extreme Winter

Environment” problem, because they value the inputs of all group members, no matter how diverse. These groups tend to be good at exercises like this because they avoid making bad decisions that fail to take everything into account. Groups that don’t use a “value in diversity model of decision making” often get stuck on certain elements of a problem, or fail to see flaws in their solutions. These groups can be thought of as valuing consensus over diversity and they often make flawed decisions because they fail to take advantage of the varied inputs of all group members. In life threatening situations like this one, it is absolutely vital that people are able to see a problem from many angles, so being in a group which values the unique contribution of each member is very important. For problems like this one, too much agreement and early consensus will just lead to bad decisions. What is needed is an acceptance of differences and diversity.

Participants were then asked on a 7 point Likert scale the extent to which they thought their group should implement a “uniformity and consensus model of decision making” as opposed to a “value in diversity model of decision making”. This was used as a manipulation check and to measure the degree to which the participant endorsed their given group norm. Scores closer to 1 indicated endorsement of the pro-uniformity group norm while those closer to 7 indicated endorsement of the pro-diversity group norm.

After this, participants were then asked to wait while the other participants’ responses to this question were gathered. They were kept waiting for a couple of minutes. They were then told that their group favoured either a “uniformity and consensus model of decision making” or a “value in diversity model of decision making” dependant on which condition they were in.

The next phase of the experiment involved the completion of supposed group exercise (actually completed individually) “Survival in an Extreme Winter Environment” (SEWE). A number of information screens introduced this exercise to the participants and they were told of a scenario where they and their other team members had been survivors of a plane crash in snow covered mountains. Their task was to decide which six items (out of a possible fifteen items) to salvage from the plane wreck, in order to survive their situation. This problem was adapted from Kagan (1992) and the situation is supposed to act as a realistic survival scenario, with each item ranked by a survival expert on its importance.

After reading all the information on the problem, participants were then told that their group would be completing this exercise using unidirectional communication. They were told that the decision maker would not be able to communicate with the other group members, but that the other group members would be able to send them an email. They

were then instructed that a decision maker would be chosen at random, but first they needed to wait for the other participants to reach this part of the experiment. After waiting for a few minutes, they were then shown a graphical display of the decision maker being chosen at random. All participants saw themselves being selected as decision maker. They were then told that their role as decision maker would be to receive emails from their fellow group members and then to make a final decision as to which six items their group would salvage from the plane wreck.

The email system was then introduced and participants were instructed that their group members could send as many emails as they liked, but that they had been instructed on how they should write their emails and that they were not allowed to give reasons for their choices. They were then told that their group had 5 minutes to complete this part of the exercise. Participants were then presented with a screen which was designed to look like an email program. They then waited to receive emails from their team members. Graphics were used to give the participant the impression that they were then receiving emails from their group members. They then had the ability to read the emails in whichever order they liked. Each email once opened was bordered by the group member’s respective colour. The items suggested by each confederate participant were determined by the experimenter however to create a specific pattern of responses. To begin with items were balanced between participants so that they all shared an equal number of items with each other. This was done to prevent participants simply going with the most popular items and making a simple majority based judgement. Secondly, the group member “muppet” who was indicated as being different in the “diversity” conditions, provided the most useful items. This was done so that if this person was alienated, the SEWE score would be affected negatively. After 5 minutes had elapsed, participants were told their time was up and the email program closed down.

Representing their group, participants were then asked to make a selection of the six items to salvage. They were also given the option of reviewing the scenario. Once they had made their selection, they submitted their responses. After this they were told they would be given their results after answering a number of questions.

They were then asked to answer a series of questions, which related to how they felt about their group. They were instructed to consider their group as “the people you have been working with to complete the Survival in an Extreme Winter Environment problem”. Participants were then asked to rate on a 7 point Likert Scale, the degree to which they

agreed or disagreed with a series of 17 statements. Scores closer to 1 represented stronger disagreement, while scores closer to 7 indicated high agreement. How each of the statements related to the dependent variables can be seen in Table 6.6. While all participants answered the items in the same order, this order was randomised so that no particular variables were measured before the others and also so that the items for specific variables were non-sequential.

Table 6.6. Variables and Items used in Study Three

Variables and Manipulation Checks

Items

Identification - “I see myself as a member of this group”

- “I am pleased to be a member of this group” - “I feel strong ties with members of this group” - “I identify with other members of this group”

(Items adapted from Doosje, Ellemers & Spears (1995))

Alienation - “One person in this group doesn’t belong with the rest of us”

- “There is one person from this group who is not really one of us” - “I did not value the opinion of a particular member of this group”

Group Functioning - “The people in this study would best be described as being part of a group rather than just a collection of individuals”

- “This group is very important to all its members”

- “Compared to other groups, there is a high degree of interaction between members of this group”

-“The people in this group all share common goals”

- “There is a high degree of similarity between members of this group” - “In this group, all members either succeed or fail together, whereas in other groups, individual members may succeed or fail independently of the other members”

Diversity Manipulation Check

- “There was one person in this group who was different to everybody else” - “Our group is very homogenous” (Reverse Coded)

Group Norm Manipulation Check

- “I thought that it would be better if our group were more “Diverse” and less “Unified”

- “Our group thought it was best if we were very “Unified” and not very “Diverse”” (Reverse Coded)

Once participants had completed answering the series of questions they were presented with results of the SEWE exercise. They were also presented with the correct answers as suggested by Kagan (1992). Once they had finished reading these they were given the option of playing another computer game, while they waited to be collected by the experimenter. Once all participants had reached this stage, the experimenter opened the door then debriefed them on the experiment. Participants were then thanked for their time and given a detailed information sheet on the study.

6.3.2 Results

Scale Reliability In order to measure the construct of ‘Alienation’ a composite scale was constructed by averaging responses from the three alienation Likert measures. This was found to be a reliable scale with a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .84. An ingroup identification composite scale ‘Identification’ was also constructed by averaging the four Likert scale measures of identification. This scale was also found to have good reliability with a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .85. The composite scale for ‘Group Functioning’ was constructed by averaging scores from the six Likert scale items which measured general group functioning. This scale was also found to be reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .80. Scale reliability can be seen in Table 6.7

Two scales were developed as manipulation checks of the two independent variables. In order to see if the manipulation of diversity worked the corresoponding items, were averaged to form a scale of ‘Perceived Diversity’. These two items had a very low Cronbach’s alpha of α = -.19 however so it was deemed necessary to only use only one of the items. The second item was thought to better reflect the concept of diversity and so was