Interaction Patterns in Established and Ad Hoc Groups: An Experimental Comparison.

This study observed the communication behavior within ad hoc and established groups c,d compared the two types of groups on several indexes of interaction patterns. Ad hoc groups were individuals who had no in-group activity with each other prior to the experiment. Established groups were individuals who had nine 50-minute sessions of ingroup activity with each other prior to the experiment. The subjects were 80 college students randomly divided into 16 five-meAber groups. At the conclusion of three weeks of group activities, 6 of the 16 groups were randomly selected to serve as the established groups for the experiment. The six ad hoc groups were systematically created from the students who were not divided into established groups. Each group participated in a videotaped decision-making discussion. Each group member was first giver four choice dilemma problems, and the group was than told to discuss each problem and attempt to arrive at a consensus on each problem. The results indicated that the six established groups were not significantly different from the six ad hoc groups for feedback responses sent, person to group contributions, total contributions, receive-send ratio, selectivity ratio, and centrality index. (NR) INTERACTION PATTERNS IN ESTABLISHED AND AD HOC GROUPS: AN EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON U S DEPARTMENT OR HEALTH EDUCATION & WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF Terrence R. Radcliffe toucATiot. The Problem TH S DO( .N'T Ri IN REPRO f *A. v A, kr .E LED ; ROM tml PEN w KG ZA r'ls ORIGIN AT NG N' ofq JP N.ONS The Use of Ad Hoc Groups in Research sTAff Not Ak ka PRE """". 4 0. NA' 01f. Pv1tTuTE CIF A',NI (. In their review of "time" as a methodological problem, McGrath and Altman (1966) felt there was confusion among the results of many small group studies because "we so frequently use newly formed, experimentally created groups, with 'no' past history, in laboratory studies of small groups (pp. 73-74). " McGrath and Altman felt this confusion was attributable to the fact that various experimenters have observed the impact of the same variable at different stages of group development, yet assumed that all groups studied were at the same stage of development. In other words, McGrath and Altman imply that groups with "zero" development (i.e., no history) will differ from groups with some form of development in reaction to a variable. Previous researchers, according to McGrath and Altman, have assumed that groups with no development and groups with development will react to the impact of a variable in the same manner. McGrath and Altman state this is a weak assumption; yet if we are to achieve comparability among studies and the ability to pool information in an accumulative fashion, we must have some appreciation of the developmental stage at which a group is functioning (p. 73). Lorge, Fox,Davitz and Brenner (1958) recognized this same methodological problem in small group experiments, but viewed the problem as one of distinguishing between "ad hoc" and "established" groups. They concluded that 1) Ad hoc and established groups are qualitatively and quantitatively different; and 2) Principles valid for ad hoc groups should not be generalized to established groups. Despite the agreement of McGrath and Altman and of Lorge, et. al., that generalizations from experiments with ad hoc groups may have questionable validity for established groups, many group communication researchers have employed ad hoc groups in their studies, and have attempted to generalize their data to established groups (e.g., Utterback, 1964; Giffin and Ehrlich, 1963; Bavelas, Hastorf, Gross and Kite, 1965; Wallach and Kogan, 1965; Scheidel and Crowell, 1966; Berg, 1967; Bayless, 1967; Hackman, 1968; Wallach, Kogan and Burt, 1968; Miller, Butler, and McMarten, 1969; Leathers, 1969, 1970, 1972; Bostrom, 1970; Stech, 1970; Burgoon, 1971; Dion and Miller, 1971; Williams and Clark, 1971; McCrosky and Wright, 1971; Knutson, 1972; Ogawa and Welden, 1972; McCrosky, Young and Scott, 1972). The groups studied by group communication scholars were ad hoc in nature because the researchers typically used randomly assigned subjects who had no in-group experience; the subjects did not know each other well; and the subjects interacted one time only as a group for data gathering purposes. In addition, these researchers usually attempted to generalize their findings to other groups that had the possiblity of being established. For example, PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEr'i GRANTED BY Terrence R. Radcliffe TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE NATIONAL IN STITUTE OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRO DUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM RE QUIRES PERMISSION OE THE COPYRIGHT OWNER 1