Individual Task Performance Research Articles

The effects of self-esteem, success–failure, and self-consciousness on task performance.

Previous research has demonstrated that the task performance of low selfesteem individuals (low SEs) suffers in the presence of self-focusing stimuli (e.g., a mirror). The present study was designed to determine if such stimuli must inevitably have adverse effects on low SEs. It was reasoned that if low SEs were provided with success feedback from a previous task, then the nature of their self-consciousness would be altered on a subsequent task. Specifically, low SEs should attend more to positive and less anxiety-provoking aspects of themselves than would low SEs who received failure feedback from the previous task. Under the former condition, the low SEs' subsequent task performance was expected to improve. For high self-esteem individuals (high SEs), who typically perform well, previous success-failure feedback was expected to have little effect on subsequent performance. In a three-factor design, subjects high and low in chronic self-esteem received false success or failure feedback from a previous task and completed a concept formation task in either the presence or the absence of a mirror. Whereas high SEs performed equally well following success or failure, low SEs in the success condition performed significantly better than low SEs in the failure condition (and just as well as high self-esteem-success participants). This Self-Esteem X Prior Feedback interaction was significant in the presence of the mirror, but not in its absence. In the absence of the mirror, however, this interaction was observed for subjects who were high in dispositional self-consciousness, but not for those who were low. Practical and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

Group Cohesion, Task Performance, and the Experimenter Expectancy Effect

Three laboratory experiments were done to study the effects of cohesion on task fulfillment and to explore the influence of task fulfillment on the initial level of cohesion. Within four-person groups of freshmen psychology students, cohesion was manipulated successfully by a triple procedure. The level of cohesion was ascertained directly after the induction treatment and again after task fulfillment. Group and individual ability tasks were used in the first and second experiment, while individual learning tasks were used in the third experiment. The hypothesis that cohesion facilitates task performance was partly supported for both individual and group tasks. All eight comparisons of the means favoured the high-cohesion condition; only four of the differences, however, were statistically significant. Performing a group task tended to raise cohesion, whereas individual task performance lowered liking for the group. There were no indications that the findings were a function of a pretest effect of the cohesion questionnaire or the experimenter's awareness of the research hypotheses. The facilitating influence of cohesion on task fulfillment was considered a consequence of heightened drive level of group members.

Effects of group size and proximity under cooperative and competitive conditions.

Research on coaction has concentrated on the arousal-inducing properties of others while practically ignoring the possibility that others may be a source of arousal reduction. The results of the present study support the notion that other coactors can be a source of arousal reduction as well as induction, as reflected in their performance on novel tasks. One experiment varied group size (two or four) and instructional set (competition or cooperation), while a second experiment varied proximity (close or far) and instructional set (competition or cooperation). In both experiments, a significant interaction was obtained. In the first experiment, subjects in the cooperative condition performed better in groups of four than in groups of two, while the reverse was obtained in the competitive condition. In the second experiment, subjects in the cooperative condition performed better when seated close as opposed to far apart, while opposite results were obtained in the competitive condition. Past research has demonstrated that an individual's task performance can be affected by the mere presence of others (see Cottrell, 1972, for a review). This research has involved the use of two paradigms, audience and coaction. In the audience paradigm, individuals perform a task in the presence of observers, while in the coaction paradigm a group of individuals concurrently and individually perform an identical task. Zajonc (1965) has argued that the mere presence of others increases an individual's general level of arousal which in turn increases the tendency to emit dominant responses. If the dominant responses are correct (as is presumably the case for well-learned tasks), heightened arousal results in improved performance by an individual, while if the dominant responses are incorrect (as is presumably the case for tasks that are not well-learned), arousal results in impaired performance.

Individual differences in tapping performance as a function of time on the task.

A group of 187 apprentices were given two sessions on a 1-min. finger-tapping task in which output was taken as the criterion measure. Various individual difference variables changed in the degree and direction of their association with tapping performance as a function of time through the session, presumably reflecting a motivational variable such as persistence. Positive correlations between intelligence and tapping performance became progressively greater toward the end of each 1-min. period, and while high n Ach Ss and extraverts began tapping at a faster rate than low n Ach Ss and introverts, this pattern had reversed by the end of the 1-min. practice periods. It is concluded that studies of the relationship between individual difference variables and task performance must take account of changes which occur as a result of “time into the task.”

Individual Task Performance in a Changing Social Structure

Abstract : The relationship between changes in status and task performance involving simple reaction time responses is studied. Status is manipulated by assigning to group members different degrees of control over the group product and by subsequently creating conditions which require that control be reallocated. The degree of control members have over the group product defines their status rank in the group. Two experiments are presented in which performance effects deriving from status changes are examined. In the first, the highest ranked member is demoted and the lowest ranked member, promoted. In the second experiment members of intermediate ranks are shifted both up and down. Both experiments demonstrate that a member's performance improves when his status is increased and his performance suffers when his status is decreased. (Author)