Advertisement

Effects of Group Size on Performance and Member Satisfaction

  • Noriko Suzuki
  • Mayuka Imashiro
  • Haruka Shoda
  • Noriko Ito
  • Mamiko Sakata
  • Michiya Yamamoto
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10905)

Abstract

The effects of group size on performance and member satisfaction were assessed, with group size ranging from an individual to five members. Participants were 96 university students who engaged in a furniture-assembly task. Our results showed that group size had negligible effects on member satisfaction but strong effects on performance characteristics. As group size increased, performance characteristics, time-to-completion, and duration of interaction with materials decreased in an exponential manner, although member satisfaction tended to become saturated. The result for duration of interaction with materials suggested that the social loafing effect increased with the size of the group. We expect these results to be helpful in designing relationality for collaborative problem solving among people as well as between people and artifacts.

Keywords

Collaborative problem solving Group size effect Furniture-assembly task Social loafing Member satisfaction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The findings of this study are based on the second author’s graduation thesis. We thank 96 students of Doshisha University for their participation in the experiment. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP16H03225 and JP15K00219.

References

  1. 1.
    Aggarwal, P., O’Brien, C.L.: Social loafing on group projects-structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. J. Mark. Educ. 30(3), 255–264 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., Rumble, M.: Defining twenty-first century skills. In: Griffin, P., McGaw, B., Care, E. (eds.) Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills, pp. 17–66. Springer, Dordrecht (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouchard, T.J., Hare, M.: Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 54(1), 51–55 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cira, N.J., Chung, A.M., Denisin, A.K., Rensi, S., Sanchez, G.N., Quake, S.R.: A biotic game design project for integrated life science and engineering education. PLoS Biol. 13(3), e1002110 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Datteri, E., Zecca, L., Laudisa, F., Castiglioni, M.: Explaining robotic behaviors: a case study on science education. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop on Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics. Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum, pp. 134–143 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ekaputra, G., Lim, C., and Kho, I.E.: Minecraft: a game as an education and scientific learning tool. In: The Information Systems International Conference (ISICO), pp. 237–242 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fiore, S.M., Graesser, A., Greiff, S., Griffin, P., Gong, B., Kyllonen, P., Massey, C., O’Neil, H., Pellegrino, J., Rothman, R., Soule, H., and von Davier, A.: Collaborative Problem Solving: Considerations for the National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Center for Education Statistics (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hill, G.W.: Group versus individual performance: are N \(+\) 1 heads better than one? Psychol. Bull. 91(3), 517–539 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ingham, A.G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., Peckham, V.: The Ringelmann effect: studies of group size and group performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10, 371–384 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laughlin, P.R., Hatch, E.C., Silver, J.S., Boh, L.: Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90(4), 644–651 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Latane, B., Williams, K., Harkins, S.: Many hands make light the work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 822–832 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lausberg, H., Sloetjes, H.: Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-ELAN system. Behav. Res. Methods 41(3), 841–849 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lozano, S.C. and Tversky, B.: Communicative gestures benefit communicators. In: Proceedings of CogSci2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). PISA 2015 COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING FRAMEWORK (2017). https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf
  15. 15.
    Suzuki, N., Umata, I., Kamiya, T., Ito, S., Iwasawa, S., Inoue, N., Toriyama, T., Kogure, K.: Nonverbal behaviors in cooperative work: a case study of successful and unsuccessful team. In: Proceedings of CogSci2007, pp. 1527–1532 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suzuki, N., Imashiro, M., Sakata, M., Yamamoto, M.: The effects of group size in the furniture assembly task. In: Proceedings of HCII2017 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thornburg, T.H.: Group size & member diversity influence on creative performance. J. Creative Behav. 25(4), 324–333 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yamaguchi, S., Okamoto, K., Oka, T.: Effects of coactor’s presence: social loafing and social facilitation. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 27(4), 215–222 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noriko Suzuki
    • 1
  • Mayuka Imashiro
    • 2
  • Haruka Shoda
    • 3
  • Noriko Ito
    • 2
  • Mamiko Sakata
    • 2
  • Michiya Yamamoto
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Business AdministrationTezukayama UniversityNara CityJapan
  2. 2.Department of Culture and Information ScienceDoshisha UniversityKyotanabeJapan
  3. 3.Research Organization of Science and TechnologyRitsumeikan UniversityKusatsuJapan
  4. 4.School of Science and TechnologyKwansei Gakuin UniversitySandaJapan

Personalised recommendations