Small http://sgr.sagepub.

com/
Group Research

Task-Focused Self-Disclosure: Effects on Group Cohesiveness,

Commitment to Task, and Productivity
Frederick G. Elias, Mark E. Johnson and Jay B. Fortman
Small Group Research 1989 20: 87
DOI: 10.1177/104649648902000107
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/20/1/87

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Small Group Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/20/1/87.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 1, 1989

What is This?

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on March 29, 2014

A total of 144 college undergraduates were randomly assigned to groups offour and received

either

self-disclosure or a placebo treatment. All groups completed a simple puzzle task

of productivcty and questionnaires assessing cohesiveness and commitment to
task. Results indicate that the self-disclosure intervention resulted in significantly higher
group cohesiveness, commitment to task, and productivity. Additionally, it was shown that
females demonstratedgreater cohesiveness and commitment to task than did males. Possible
benefits and implications of incorporating task-focused self-disclosure into participatory
decision-making procedures among management and workers are presented.
a

as a measure

TASK-FOCUSED SELF-DISCLOSURE
Effects on Group Cohesiveness,
Commitment to Task, and Productivity
FREDERICK G. ELIAS
Organizational Designs in Communication
Santa Barbara, California

MARK E. JOHNSON
Oklahoma State University

JAY B. FORTMAN
University of California, Santa Barbara

Small group research, originally inspired by Kurt Lewin (1948),

has been of interest to social psychologists, group dynamic theorists, and organization development specialists for the past three
decades (Berkowitz, 1962; Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Festinger,
1950; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Tannenbaum, 1962). One area of special
interest to researches has been self-disclosure and its effect on
various aspects of group functioning (Cozby, 1972; Jourard,

1964, 1971).
AUTHORS NOTE. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Mark E. Johnson,
Department of Applied Behavioral Studies, 323 N. Murray Hall, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078.
SMALL GROUP BEHAVIOR, Vol 20 No 1,
@ 1989 Sage Publications, Inc.

February

1989 87-96

87

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on March 29, 2014

88

Self-disclosure, the exchange of information between individuals, has been shown to be of paramount importance in understanding group dynamics (Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland,
1969; Katz & Kahn, 1978). In the context of task performance,
self-disclosure has been demonstrated to be an influential factor in
the response of individuals to other members in group settings
(Argyris, 1976; Fox, 1974; Schein, 1965). Argyris (1962), for
example, found that without such interpersonal discourse, an organization may become a breeding ground for mistrust, intragroup
conflict, and rigidity, leading to a decrease in efficiency and effectiveness.
In recent years, interest in the effects of self-disclosure and other
modes of communication has received growing attention with an
increased focus on its implications for the business community
(Argyle, 1969; Gibson, Invancevich, & Donnelly, 1976; Schmuck
& Schmuck, 1979). One application of self-disclosure in the busi-

community has been within &dquo;quality circles.&dquo; Quality circles,

adaption from the Japanese model (Ouchi, 1981), are being
increasingly used by management as a method to increase face-toface communication and participatory decision making. Research
into the effects of quality circles has indicated that they can lead to
increased productivity, decreased absenteeism, and cost-effective
innovations (McGarrah, 1983; Ouchi, 1981).
To date, little empirical data has been reported on the effects of
task-focused self-disclosure on group functioning. Within the conness
an

text of a task-oriented group,

this form of communication is defined

verbal communication that offers information (cognitive and/or
effective) concerning individuals responses to the task, task environment, and other group members. Based on the research regarding quality circles, it seems reasonable to expect that task-focused
self-disclosure should enhance intragroup cooperation and task
as

performance.
The primary

purpose of the present study was to examine the

relative effects of a task-focused self-disclosure intervention on
group cohesiveness, commitment to task, and group productivity.
In addition, group gender composition was also examined relative
to each of these dependent variables. It was hypothesized that such

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on March 29, 2014

89

an intervention would lead to greater group cohesiveness, commitment to task, and group productivity. The potential value of
this study lies in its implications for improving the quality of the
work environment and the efficiency and effectiveness of group
members.

METHOD

SUBJECTS

This study involved 144 undergraduate college students (72

male and 72 female) enrolled at a major West Coast university in
an Introduction to Psychology course. These subjects ranged in age
from 18 to 24 years and received partial course credit for their

participation.
DESIGN

Two independent variables, group (self-disclosure and control)

and group gender composition (male, female, and mixed), were
examined in relation to three dependent variables, group cohesiveness, commitment to task, and group productivity, in a 2 x 3
factorial design.
DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Commitment to task: Group members commitment to task was

measured by a modified version of the Organization Commitment
Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). This instrument consists of 15 items scored on a seven-point Likert scale
(from strongly agree to strongly disagree). Mowday et al. (1979)
reported a coefficient alpha of .90 with a test-retest reliability of .72
for the original instrument. For the purposes of the present investigation, the scale was modified by substituting the word task in place
of the word organization.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on March 29, 2014

90

Cohesiveness: Group cohesiveness was measured by a modified

version of the Gross Cohesiveness Questionnaire (Gross & Martin,
1952). The original instrument consists of seven items, scored on
a five-point Likert scale. In modifying this instrument, one item
was eliminated due to its inherent bias against time-limited groups,
and two items, assessing respondents affective reactions to the
group, were added.
Productivity: To measure productivity, a simple puzzle task was
utilized (adapted from Bavelas, 1950). This task consisted of providing each group with four packets of unrelated puzzle pieces that,
when put together, form four separate squares. Productivity was
defined as the amount of time taken for group members to complete
all four squares. Less time for completion indicated greater productivity ; more time for completion indicated less productivity. A
stopwatch was utilized to determine the amount of time required.
PROCEDURES

The subjects were randomly assigned to one of 36 groups of four

members each. Of these 36 groups, 12 were males only, 12 were
females only, and 12 were mixed (two male and two female group
members). Six groups from each category (male, female, and
mixed) were then randomly assigned to either the experimental
condition (self-disclosure) or the control condition (no self-dis-

closure).
For both experimental and control conditions, each group of four
members was seated at a round table with one of the four separate
packets containing the unrelated puzzle pieces placed in front of
each member. Prior to beginning the experimental session, subjects
in all groups were given a copy of the same preliminary instructions
with an explanation that the experiment was concerned with assessing problem-solving techniques from an educational standpoint.
These instructions stated that there was a packet of unrelated puzzle
pieces in front of each member that when put together with pieces
from other members packets formed four squares. The subjects

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on March 29, 2014

91

instructed that there was to be no verbal communication

between the group members, although the subjects were told that
they were allowed to give puzzle pieces to other members. An
experimenter remained in the room at all times to ensure that these
rules were followed. When all the members had a completed square
in front of them, the time was recorded.
Self-disclosure groups: After completion of the first puzzle task,
the self-disclosure group members participated in a group discussion that lasted 20 minutes, focusing on the facts and feelings that
were relevant to the puzzle task just completed. To facilitate this
discussion, a set of cues, adapted from S. Jourards (1971) 40-item
self-disclosure questionnaire was utilized. These self-disclosure
cues were typed onto 3 x 5 cards, randomly arranged into a deck,
and placed face downward in the middle of the table.
Control group: For the control groups, in place of the self-disclosure discussion, a 20-minute videotape of nature scenes was
shown to the subjects after completion of the first puzzle task. The
subjects were again instructed not to communicate with each other.
The experimenter was present throughout the videotape to ensure
that there was no communication between group members.
For both groups, after 20-minute interval had elapsed, each
member was then presented with another similar puzzle task with
the same general instructions as given before the first task. When
all four squares were completed in the group, the time was recorded.
Each group member then individually completed the questionnaires assessing cohesiveness and commitment to task.
were

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of taskfocused self-disclosure on (a) group cohesiveness, (b) group
members commitment to task, and (c) group productivity. In
addition, each of these variables also was examined relative to
group gender composition.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on March 29, 2014

92

TABLE 1

Mean Scores

on

Group Cohesiveness, Commitment to Task,

and Productivity

(1 ) Lower numbers indicate higher cohesiveness

GROUP COHESIVENESS

The mean cohesiveness scores are provided in Table 1. Results

of the 2 (Group) x 3 (Group Gender Composition) ANOVA indicate a significant main effect for group F(l, 30) = 8.84, p .01. An
examination of the cell means reveals that the combined mean for
the self-disclosure groups was 15.25, while the combined mean for
the control groups was 17.58. Since lower scores indicate greater
cohesiveness, this shows that the experimental groups demonstrated significantly higher group cohesiveness than did the

control groups.

Additionally, there was a significant main effect for group

gender composition F (2, 30) 3.43, p .05. The combined mean for
=

females was 15.06, the combined mean for males was 17.52, and
the combined mean for mixed was 16.68. These results reveal that
female groups reported significantly higher group cohesiveness
than either the male or the mixed control groups. The interaction

between groups and group

gender composition
nonsignificant F(2, 30) = .29, p .75.

was

statistically

COMMITMENT TO TASK

commitment to task scores of the various treatment

groups are presented in Table 1. Results of a 2 x 3 ANOVA indicate
The

mean

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on March 29, 2014

93

significant main effect for group F(l, 30)

22.20, p .0001. An
examination of the obtained cell means shows that the self-disclosure group mean was 73.60, while the combined mean for the
control group was 68.68. These findings indicate the experimental
groups demonstrated significantly higher commitment to task than
did the control groups.
Additionally, there was a significant main effect for group
gender composition F(2, 30) = 11.74, p .0002. The combined
means for the three groupings were male, 68.85; female, 74.60; and
mixed, 70.17. These results indicate the female groups reported
significantly higher commitment to task than did either the male or
the mixed control groups. There was, however, no significant
interaction between groups and group gender composition
F (2, 30) = .64, p .53.
a

GROUP PRODUCTIVITY

The

posttime scores (in seconds) of the various treatment

groups are provided in Table 1. Results indicate that there was a
significant main effect for group, F(l, 30) 7.18, p .01. The
mean

combined mean for the self-disclosure groups was 121.00, while

the combined mean for the control group was 240.11. These findings indicate the experimental group demonstrated significantly
lower posttime scores than did the control group. There was,
however, no significant main effect for group gender composition,
F(2, 30) 1.19, p .32, nor a significant interaction between the
group and gender, F(2, 30) = .74,p .49.
=

DISCUSSION

The results of the present study indicate that task-focused selfdisclosure significantly increases group cohesiveness, group
members commitment to task, and group productivity. Additionally, group gender composition differences were revealed to affect
the degree of group cohesiveness and commitment to task. These
results suggest that task-focused self-disclosure, as one specific

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on March 29, 2014

94

form of

communication, may help

to focus

group attention

on

problem-solving strategies, leading to greater enhancement of the

group and completion of a task.
These findings support the assertions of Bavelas (1950) and
Schachter, Ellertson, McBride, and Gregory (1951) that communication structures may be the optimal tool for effectively influencing and coordinating effort among group members. Indeed,
previous research has shown that coordination of task can be
optimized through enhanced communication patterns (Bateson,
1969; Watzlawick, Jackson, & Beavin, 1967). However, the
present study is the first to investigate the effects of task-focused
self-disclosure per se on group process.
The present findings of a positive relationship between taskfocused self-disclosure and productivity, cohesiveness, and commitment to task holds considerable implications for management.
The development and utilization of such an intervention by
employers may serve to enhance the effectiveness of intraorganizational communication and thus increase employees overall job
satisfaction and productivity.
Another application of such an intervention may be within the
context of quality circles (Ouchi, 1981). A primary component of
quality circles is self-disclosure. However, it is a more general,
all-inclusive self-disclosure that is used in these quality circles. It
may be that the incorporation of specific, task-focused self-disclosure into the format of quality circles increases the effectiveness
and productivity of employees within such organizations. The
advantage of such an application is that the task-focused self-disclosure intervention can be implemented within the existing structure of quality circles, resulting in a change in content rather than
a change in structure. It is important to note, however, that such an
intervention need not be limited to quality circles, but rather can be
implemented within any work situation.
The additional findings of group gender compositions differential responses to cohesiveness and commitment to task must be
considered with caution, as they may be spurious at best. Since no
pretesting was conducted on the variables of group cohesiveness
and commitment to task, it can not be established whether or not

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on March 29, 2014

95

the self-disclosure intervention had a differential effect relative to

group gender composition. All that can be established is that
females report more group cohesiveness and commitment to task,
a phenomenon that may have existed prior to the intervention.
In extending these results to other situations, one must consider
three major limitations of the present study. First, the study used a
simple puzzle task to assess productivity. The findings, therefore,
may not extrapolate to more complex tasks such as those found in
the work environment. Next, the relationship between commitment
to task and group cohesiveness to working and personal relations
was not considered in this investigation. Future research in this area
needs to be performed using tasks that vary in complexity and
should be conducted in an actual work environment. Last, due to
the inherent limitations of college undergraduate subject pool,
extending the results to other populations needs to be done with
caution.
In summary, the results of the present investigation suggest that
task-focused self-disclosure has a positive influence on a groups
cohesiveness, commitment to task, and group productivity. Such
an intervention may be sufficient to evoke cooperative behavior in
task-oriented groups, thus assisting in the resolution of problems,
reduction of stressful conflict, and enhancement of positive communication between individuals in work groups. The present study
suggests that ultimately such an intervention may well lead to
increased productivity.

REFERENCES
. New York: Atherton Press.
Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction
Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organization effectiveness
. Homewood,
IL: Irwin-Dorsey.
Argyris, C. (1976). Increasing leadership effectiveness. New York: John Wiley.
Bateson, G. (1969). Steps to an ecology .
of mind San Francisco: Chandler.
Bateson, G., Jackson, D , Haley, J., & Weakland, D. (1969). Toward a theory of
schizophrenia. In G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco Chandler
Bavelas, A. (1950) Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 22, 725-730.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on March 29, 2014

96

L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York:

McGraw-Hill.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory. New York:
Harper & Row.
Cozby, P. C. (1972). Self-disclosure, reciprocity and liking. Sociometry, 35, 151-160.
Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 73-91.
,271-282.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57
Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract: Work, power, and trust relationships. London: Farber.
Gibson, J., Ivancevich, J., & Donnelly, J. (1976). Organization: Behavior, structure,
processes. Dallas: Business Publications.
American Journal of Sociology,
Gross, N., & Martin, W. E. (1952). On group cohesiveness.

Berkowitz,

, 546-564.
57
Jourard, S. (1964). The transparent self. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Jourard, S. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self.

New
York: John Wiley.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The socialpsychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
John Wiley.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper.
McGarrah, R. E. (1983). Remedying stagnating productivity. Advanced Management

Journal, 4
, 40-50.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14
, 224-247.
Ouchi, W G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schachter, S., Ellertson, N., McBride, D., & Gregory, D. (1951). An experimental study of
cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 4, 229-238.
Schein, E. H. (1965). .
Organizational psychology Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. (1979). Group processes in the classroom. Dubuque, IA:
Wm. C. Brown.

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1962). Control in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill

.
Watzlawick, P., Jackson, D., & Beavin, J. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication
New York: Norton.

Fredenck G. Elias is Director of Organizational Designs in

Communication, Santa

Barbara, California.
Mark E. Johnson is an Assistant Professor in Applied Behavioral Studies at Oklahoma State Umversity, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Jay B. Fortman is a doctoral candidate in Educational Psychology at the University

of Califorma at Santa Barbara.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on March 29, 2014