Abstract
Educators are continuing to investigate ways to improve student learning through collaboration. This study examined one avenue of increasing student group effectiveness: trust. A model of trust in student workgroups was proposed, where trust mediates the relationships between perceived similarity and individual outcomes (grades and satisfaction). Participants in this study included 252 psychology students at a Midwestern university who participated in semester-long group work in the classroom. The findings indicated that students who perceived themselves as similar to their group members were more likely to trust the group. For the outcome measures, trust was positively related to grades; students who had higher levels of trust towards their group members received higher grades than those with lower levels of trust. In addition, trust was strongly and positively related to satisfaction with one’s group and motivation to work in groups in the future. Additionally, trust emerged as a mediator between perceived similarity and satisfaction, but trust did not mediate links between perceived similarity and academic performance. Finally, an exploratory analysis comparing group environments indicated that face-to-face groups may have higher levels of trust than virtual groups. This study adds to current literature by examining an antecedent of trust (i.e., perceived similarity), by linking trust to a performance-based outcome in student groups (i.e., grades), and by supporting previous lab-based findings linking trust to satisfaction and motivation using actual student learning groups.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of team potency in software development projects. Information & Management, 44, 646–656.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2012). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Report of the Babson Survey Research Group.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Report of the Babson Survey Research Group.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 332–345.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1969). Rewards others provide: Similarity. Interpersonal Attraction (pp. 69–91). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Chang, H. M. (2009). Students’ trust building in a collaborative learning team. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3449630).
Clark, M. A. (2001). Perceived relational diversity: A fit conceptualization. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3031447).
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, R. S., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95–104.
Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. (2011). Measuring trust in teams: Development and validation of a multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team trust. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 119–154.
De Hoyos Guevara, M. (2004). Assessment of teamwork in higher education collaborative learning teams: A validation study. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3150570).
Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239.
Gaudet, A. D., Ramer, L. M., Nakonechny, J., Cragg, J. J., & Ramer, M. S. (2010). Small-group learning in an upper-level university biology class enhances academic performance and student attitudes toward group work. Plos One, 5(12), 1–10.
Goodman, R. A., & Goodman, L. P. (1976). Some management issues in temporary systems: A study of professional development and manpower—The theatre case. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 494–501.
Graves, L. M., & Elsass, P. M. (2005). Sex and sex dissimilarity effects in ongoing teams: Some surprising findings. Human Relations, 58, 191–221.
Halphen, T. L. (2005). You must be just like me! Effects of perceived similarity on trust in dispersed teams. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Mankato, MN: Minnesota State University- Mankato.
Harney, O., Hogan, M. J., & Broome, B. J. (2012). Collaborative learning: The effects of trust and open and closed dynamics on consensus and efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 15(4), 517–532.
Hsiung, C. (2012). The effectiveness of cooperative learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 119–137.
Huff, L. C., Cooper, J., & Jones, W. (2002). The development and consequences of trust in student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 24–34.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In Roderick M. Kramer & Tom R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newman, C. J. (2006). Exploring categorical information and influences on perceived similarity and trust. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Mankato, MN: Minnesota State University-Mankato.
Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (2000). Face-to-face: Making network organizations work. In D. Preece, I. McLoughlin, & P. Dawsom (Eds.), Technology, organizations and innovation: Critical perspectives on business and management (pp. 1659–1681). New York, NY: Routledge.
Park, G., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). A multilevel model of minority opinion expression and team decision-making effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 824–833.
Peterson, S. E., & Miller, J. A. (2004). Comparing the quality of students’ experiences during cooperative learning and large-group instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 123–133.
Robert, L., Dennis, A., & Hung, Y. (2009). Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 241–279.
Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. (2002). How similarity to peers and supervisor influences organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1120–1136.
Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. A. (1992). Group processes in the classroom (6th ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.
Serva, M. A., & Fuller, M. A. (2004). The effects of trustworthiness perceptions on the formation of initial trust: Implications for MIS student teams. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 383–395.
Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 617–640.
Woller, A. H. (2007). Trust formation across multiple levels of virtuality. Journal of Undergraduate Research, 7. Retrieved from http://www.mnsu.edu/urc/journal/2007/woller.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ennen, N.L., Stark, E. & Lassiter, A. The importance of trust for satisfaction, motivation, and academic performance in student learning groups. Soc Psychol Educ 18, 615–633 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9306-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9306-x