Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 215–237 | Cite as

A Longitudinal Analysis of Satisfaction with Group Work

  • Bruce A. Reinig
  • Ira Horowitz
  • G. E. Whittenburg


Satisfaction with group work is an important and frequently studied phenomenon that often determines whether a new tool, technology, or method is successfully implemented in an organization. We report on a longitudinal study of small groups which used regression to model how satisfaction with the process, outcome, and group evolves over multiple sessions as a function of performance measures and prior satisfaction levels. The results indicated that current performance contributed less to satisfaction as the study proceeded and by the end of the study period satisfaction with the process and outcomes were determined almost exclusively by prior satisfaction levels. In general, the conclusions were dependent on the point in time at which the analysis was conducted and on the object of satisfaction under consideration. The results highlight the importance of longitudinal studies, rather than one-shot approaches, for understanding individual satisfaction with group work.


Longitudinal analysis Satisfaction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson CM, Martin MM, Riddle BL (2001) Small group relational satisfaction scale: development, reliability, and validity. Commun Stud 52(3): 220–233Google Scholar
  2. Bargal D (2008) Group process to reduce intergroup conflict: an additional example of a workshop for Arab and Jewish Youth. Small Group Res 39(1): 42–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandt SA, Briggs RO (1995) Exploring the use of EMS in the classroom: two field studies. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, vol 3, pp 533–542Google Scholar
  4. Castore CH (1973) Diversity of group member preferences and commitment to group decisions. Ann N Y Acad Sci 219: 125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castore CH, Murnighan JK (1978) Determinants of support for group decisions. Organ Behav Hum Perform 22(1): 75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chidambaram L (1996) Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Q 20(2): 143–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chidambaram L, Bostrom RP, Wynne BE (1991) A longitudinal study of the impact of group decision support systems on group development. J Manag Inform Sys 7(3): 7–25Google Scholar
  8. DeSanctis G, Poole MS (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organ Sci 5(2): 121–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeStephen RS, Hirokawa RY (1988) Small group consensus: stability of group support of the decision, task process, and group relationships. Small Group Behav 19(2): 227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Easton AC, Vogel DR, Nunamaker JF (1992) Interactive versus stand-along group decision support systems for stakeholder identification and assumption surfacing in small groups. Decis Support Sys 8(2): 159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans NJ, Jarvis PA (1986) The group attitude scale: a measure of attraction to group. Small Group Behav 17(2): 203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fjermestad J, Hiltz SR (1999) An assessment of group support systems experimental research: methodology and results. J Manag Inform Sys 15(3): 7–149Google Scholar
  13. George JF (2007) The gap between small group theory and group support system research. In: Haake J, Ochoa SF, Cechich A (eds) Groupware: design, implementation, and use, 13th international workshop, CRIWG, Bariloche, Argentina, 16–20 Sep, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  14. Gersick CJG (1988) Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. Acad Manage J 31(1): 9–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Green SG, Taber TD (1980) The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process. Organ Behav Hum Perform 25(1): 97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  17. Henry KB (2000) Perceptions of cooperation in a longitudinal social dilemma. Small Group Res 31(5): 507–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jessup LM, Egbert JL, Connolly T (1996) Understanding computer-supported group work: the effects of interaction frequency on group process and outcome. J Res Comput Educ 28(2): 266–279Google Scholar
  19. Kerr DS, Murthy US (1994) Group decision support systems and cooperative learning in auditing: an experimental investigation. Journal of Information Systems 18(2): 85–96Google Scholar
  20. McGrath JE (1993) Introduction: the JEMCO workshop—description of a longitudinal study. Small Group Res 24(3): 285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGrath JE, Arrow H, Gruenfeld DH, Hollingshead AB, O’Connor KM (1993) Group tasks and technology: the effects of experience and change. Small Group Res 24(3): 406–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Michaelsen LK (1992) Team learning: a comprehensive approach for harnessing the power of small groups in higher eduction. In: Wulff DH, Nyquist JD (eds) To improve the academy: resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development. Vol. 11. New Forums Press, Stillwater, pp 107–122Google Scholar
  23. Michaelsen LK, Fink LD, Knight A (1997) Designing effective group activities: lessons for classroom teaching and faculty development. In: De Zure D (ed) To improve the academy: resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development. New Forums Press, Stillwater, pp 373–398Google Scholar
  24. Mullen B, Brown R, Smith C (1992) In-group bias a function of salience, relevance, and status: an integration. Eur J Soc Psychol 22: 103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niederman F, Bryson J (1998) Influence of computer-based meeting support on process and outcomes for a divisional coordinating group. Group Decis Negot 7: 293–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Niederman F, Beise CM, Beranek PM (1996) Issues and concerns about computer supported meetings: the facilitator’s perspective. MIS Q 20(1): 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ocker RJ, Yaverbaum GY (1999) Asychronous computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face collaboration: results on student learning, quality, and satisfaction. Group Decis Negot 8: 427–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plous S (1993) The psychology of judgment and decision making. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  29. Pruitt DG, Syna S (1983) Successful problem solving. In: Tjosvold D, Johnson DW(eds) Productive conflict management: perspectives for organizations. Irvington, New York, pp 62–81Google Scholar
  30. Reinig BA (2003) Toward an understanding of satisfaction with the process and outcomes of teamwork. J Manage Inform Sys 19(4): 65–84Google Scholar
  31. Reinig BA, Mejias RJ (2004) The effects of national culture and anonymity on flaming and criticalness in GSS supported discussions. Small Group Res 35(6): 698–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reinig BA, Shin B (2002) The dynamic effects of group support systems on group meetings. J Manage Inform Sys 19(2): 303–325Google Scholar
  33. Reinig BA, Briggs RO, Shepherd MM, Yen J, Nunamaker JF (1996) Affective reward and the adoption of group support systems: productivity is not always enough. J Manage Inform Sys 12(3): 171–185Google Scholar
  34. Reinig BA, Whittenberg GE, Horowitz I (in press) Modelling performance improvement and switching behavior in team learning. Acc EducGoogle Scholar
  35. Shaw ME (1981) Group dynamics: the psychology of small group behavior, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Staples DS, Zhao L (2006) The effects of cultural diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-face teams. Group Decis Negot 15: 389–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tajfel H, Turner J (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, William G, Worchel S (eds) The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks-Cole, Monterey, pp 94–109Google Scholar
  38. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 27: 1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walther JB (1992) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Commun Res 19(1): 52–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yamaguchi R, Maehr ML (2004) Children’s emergent leadership: the relationships with group characteristics and outcomes. Small Group Res 35(4): 388–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zigurs I, Reitsma R, Clayton L, Hubscher R, Hayes C (1999) Accessibility of computer-based simulation models in inherently conflict-laden negotiations. Group Decis Negot 8: 511–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zigurs I (1993) Methodological and measurement issues in group support systems research. In: Jessup L, Valacich JS (eds) Group support systems: new perspectives. Macmillan, New York, pp 112–122Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce A. Reinig
    • 1
  • Ira Horowitz
    • 1
    • 2
  • G. E. Whittenburg
    • 3
  1. 1.Information and Decision SystemsSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Warrington College of BusinessUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Charles W. Lamden School of AccountingSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations