effect of self- and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation

This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle (Australia)]On: 29 August 2014, At: 08:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Human PerformancePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hhup20

Effect of Self- and GroupEfficacy on Group Performancein a Mixed-Motive SituationGerard H. Seijts , Gary P. Latham & Glen WhytePublished online: 13 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Gerard H. Seijts , Gary P. Latham & Glen Whyte (2000) Effect ofSelf- and Group Efficacy on Group Performance in a Mixed-Motive Situation, HumanPerformance, 13:3, 279-298, DOI: 10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_3

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hhup20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_3

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Effect of Self- and Group Efficacyon Group Performance in a

Mixed-Motive Situation

Gerard H. SeijtsFaculty of ManagementUniversity of Manitoba

Gary P. Latham and Glen WhyteJoseph L. Rotman School of Management

University of Toronto

The effect of self- and group efficacy on the performance of three-person (N= 26) andseven-person (N = 28) groups on a mixed-motive investment task was investigated.The correlations between group efficacy for making money and the actual amount ofmoney made by the groups were positive and significant. The relation between groupefficacy and the group’s performance was reciprocal. The results also indicated thatmembers of three-person groups had significantly higher perceptions of group effi-cacy than members of seven-person groups even though they faced the identicalmixed-motive investment task. The correlations between group efficacy and thegroup’s performance were significantly higher than the correlations between aggre-gated values of self-efficacy for individual performance and the group’s perfor-mance. Finally, multiple regression analyses showed that self-efficacy for individualperformance had a negative effect on the group’s performance.

Social cognitive theory indicates that human agency operates within an interdepen-dent causal structure involving triadic reciprocal causation among the individual,behavior, and the environment (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 1998). A key variable in thistheory is self-efficacy, namely, “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and exe-cute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997,

HUMAN PERFORMANCE,13(3), 279–298Copyright © 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Gerard H. Seijts, now at the Richard Ivy School of Business,University of Western Ontario, 1151 Richmond Street North, London, Ontario, N6A 3K7, Canada.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

p. 3). Self-efficacy has come to play a major role in theories of motivation and per-formance (e.g., Bandura, 1986, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Locke, 1998; Locke& Latham, 1990).

Empirical research shows that self-efficacy has both a direct (Bandura, 1986;1997) and an indirect effect on performance through goal choice and goal commit-ment (Locke, 1998; Locke & Latham, 1990). For example, Saks (1995) found thatself-efficacy moderated the relation between training and the adjustment of new-comers during their first year of employment in accounting firms. Both Eden andAviram (1993) and Millman and Latham (in press) showed that high self-efficacyaffected the job search activities of displaced managers as well as their chances forre-employment. Latham and Frayne (1989) found that training in self-regulatoryskills for unionized state government employees raised their perceivedself-efficacy that, in turn, increased their ability to manage perceived personal andsocial obstacles to job attendance.

Bandura (1997, 1998) argued that the concept of self-efficacy can be extendedto groups. Group efficacy is defined as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint ca-pabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce givenlevels of attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 477). This collective belief centers on thegroup’s operative capabilities, that is, the interactive and coordinative dynamics ofits members (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Gibson, 1999; Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas,1995; Mischel & Northcraft, 1997). Several factors contribute to the interactiveand coordinative effects including, but not limited to, the mix of knowledge andcompetencies in the group, how well the group is led, the performance strategiesthe group adopts, and whether team members interact with one another in mutuallyfacilitory or undermining ways. A group’s capability to perform as a whole canvary under different blends of interactive and coordinative dynamics. For exam-ple, the same group members can obtain different outcomes depending on howwell their skills and efforts are coordinated and guided.

The perception that group efficacy has an important role to play in a group’sperformance has led to a rapidly growing base of research. For example, in an edu-cational setting, Bandura (1993) found that the stronger the staff members’ sharedbeliefs about their efficacy to motivate and educate their students, the better theirschools performed academically. Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, and Hooker(1994) found that group efficacy correlated positively and significantly with thegroup performance of retail, public education, banking, mental health rehabilita-tion, and community service employees. Little and Madigan (1997) obtained simi-lar results with self-managed work teams in a manufacturing plant. Silver andBufanio (1996) found positive and significant correlations between group efficacyand subsequent group performance of students working on a Lego® constructiontask. Prussia and Kinicki (1996) examined the performance of groups on twobrainstorming tasks. They too found that group-efficacy beliefs correlated posi-tively and significantly with group performance. Finally, Mulvey and Klein

280 SEIJTS, LATHAM, WHYTE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

(1998) found that student groups with high group efficacy set difficult group goalson an academic task, and were committed to those goals that, in turn, led to highgroup performance.

The limitations of the aforementioned studies are threefold. First, they did notinclude multiple time intervals over which both group efficacy and group perfor-mance could be measured. That is, the studies did not examine whether shared be-liefs of efficacy change over time, and how these changes, in turn, relate to thegroup’s performance. Second, only perceptions of group efficacy were measured.It was therefore impossible to determine whether self- and group efficacy are dis-tinct concepts that contribute incrementally to the prediction of group perfor-mance. Third, the majority of these studies focused on group performance only.However, variables such as cooperation and the development of task strategiesmay affect the relation between group efficacy and a group’s performance.

The purpose of this study was to advance knowledge of group efficacy inseveral unique ways. Recent reviews of group research (e.g., Cohen & Bailey,1997; Guzzo & Dickson, 1996) have concluded that identifying the antecedentsand consequences of group efficacy is an important research area. Consequently,group performance, as both an antecedent and an outcome of group efficacy,was examined. Furthermore, the role of group size as a potential antecedent inthe development of group-efficacy beliefs was investigated. In addition, the con-tribution of self- versus group-efficacy beliefs to group performance was com-pared. For example, in judging the capabilities of their group, it is likely thatindividuals usually consider their own skills and abilities as well as those of theother group members. Thus, this study examined whether self- or group efficacyis a more influential predictor of a group’s performance. A final issue investi-gated is whether perceptions of group efficacy change over time, and whetherthese changes affect group performance.

THE EFFICACY–PERFORMANCE RELATION

Few empirical studies have explored the determinants of group-efficacy beliefs. Itis likely that the same four factors that build self-efficacy (enactive mastery, vicari-ous experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states) also af-fect group efficacy; but there may be additional factors. For example, both Bandura(1997) and Lindsley et al. (1995) suggested that perceptions of group efficacyemerge as the result of such processes as social comparison (e.g., modeling) and so-cial influence (e.g., persuasion and leadership). The common exposure of groupmembers to objective stimuli such as the mix of knowledge and competencies in thegroup, the manner in which group activities are coordinated by its members, andpast group performance may also affect the formation of group efficacy. The con-viction that the group is able to perform well may diminish if individuals learn over

EFFECTS OF EFFICACY ON GROUP PERFORMANCE 281

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

repeated occasions that a number of group members prefer to pursue theirself-interest as opposed to the interests of the group.

Although many sources of information potentially influence perceptions ofgroup efficacy, the efficacy–performance relation may be positive and cyclical(e.g., Bandura, 1997; Lindsley et al., 1995; Silver & Bufanio, 1996). This is be-cause group performance affects efficacy beliefs, which, in turn, affect perfor-mance. The relation between perceptions of efficacy and performance is thuslikely to be reciprocal. Therefore, consistent with prior research, it was hypothe-sized that:

H1: Group efficacy affects performance, and performance, in turn, affects sub-sequent group efficacy.

GROUP SIZE

An additional and obvious potential determinant of group efficacy, apart from pastgroup performance, is group size. Size is a characteristic of groups that has no ana-logue at the individual level, yet it is an important variable that may affect a group’sperformance (e.g., Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Cohen & Bailey, 1997;Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). The size of a group should be sufficient tomeet the challenges of the task while minimizing motivation and coordinationlosses. Too few or too many group members can reduce a group’s performance.

The effect of group size on perceptions of group efficacy and the group’s per-formance may depend, in part, on the task. For example, on complex or novel tasksthat require the “right answer” (e.g., “Eureka” tasks), an increase in the group’ssize may enhance the groups’ efficacy and performance. As size increases, theknowledge, experience, and resources available to the group may increase. Stateddifferently, the likelihood of at least one member discovering a correct solution in-creases as more members are added.

A limitation of working in groups is that there can be a conflict between mo-tives to cooperate versus compete with one another. In fact, a robust finding in themixed-motive literature is that competition among group members is fierce, andindividuals are inclined to place their personal interests above those of the group(e.g., Komorita & Parks, 1995; Messick & Brewer, 1983; Van Lange, Liebrand,Messick, & Wilke, 1992). Thus the focus in this study was on a mixed-motive task.

Motivation to pursue personal interests as opposed to the interests of the groupintensifies as group size increases (e.g., Komorita & Parks, 1995; Liebrand, 1984;Zander, 1994). This is because individuals may increasingly believe that othergroup members have little willingness to act on the group’s behalf. This belief isnot without foundation, because as groups increase in size, the opportunities tofree ride also increase and diffusion of responsibility is more likely to occur (e.g.,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Albanese & Van Fleet, 1985; Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Furthermore,communication among group members can increase in difficulty as groups in-crease in size, particularly in regard to discussing and evaluating strategies for ef-fective task performance. More time and effort is spent on coordinating roles andresolving differences among individuals in large than in small groups (e.g.,Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Kerr & Kaufman-Gilliland, 1994; Steiner, 1972).Thus the second hypothesis of this study was that:

H2: Given a mixed-motive task that can be performed by groups of differingsize, group efficacy is higher in small than in large groups.

SELF- AND GROUP EFFICACY AS PREDICTORS OFGROUP PERFORMANCE

Although self- and group efficacy differ in the unit of agency, both forms of effi-cacy beliefs theoretically serve similar functions and operate through similar pro-cesses. Group efficacy may therefore influence how much effort members put intotheir group endeavor, the identification of task-relevant strategies, and the vulnera-bility to discouragement when collective efforts encounter opposition or fail to pro-duce results (e.g., Bandura, 1997, 1998; Gibson, 1999; Mischel & Northcraft,1997; Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995). These processes, which sharedefficacy beliefs activate, affect how well members work together and how muchthey accomplish collectively.

Both self-efficacy, which is an individual motivational characteristic, and groupefficacy, which is a group-level variable, may contribute to the prediction of groupperformance. Group efficacy, however, should be a stronger predictor, that is, ex-plain more variance, of the group’s performance than the self-efficacy of individualgroup members under conditions of at least moderate task interdependence. Withlow task interdependence, thesumof individualefficaciesshouldpredictgroupper-formance well because group outcomes in this case are simply the pooled outcomesof individuals. In contrast, under conditions of sequential or reciprocal task interde-pendence,groupresultsdependonhowwell individualswork together. In thisstudy,group performance depended on the quantity and quality of interdependent effort.Consequently, the third hypothesis of this study was that:

H3: Given at least moderate task interdependence, group efficacy is a strongerpredictor of group performance than the average of the self-efficacy of thegroup members.

In summary, four aspects of this study make it unique: (a) the examination of thegroup efficacy–group performance relation over time, (b) the use of a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

mixed-motive task, (c) the examination of the relation between group size andgroup efficacy, and (d) the comparison of self- and group efficacy as predictorsof performance.

METHOD

Participants

Senior high school students (N = 274) were solicited to participate in this study be-cause of their lack of experience in approaching and managing tasks similar to theexperimental task. Sophistication with respect to the management of mixed-motivesituations might have obscured any effects of group efficacy.

Participants were recruited in a twostep process. First, letters were sent to socialscience and business department heads of approximately 20 secondary schools.This letter explained both the purpose and the specific procedures of the study.Second, 2 weeks after the letters were sent, department heads were contacted to in-quire about their interest in the study. If department heads and their students werewilling to participate, a time period to conduct the study was arranged.

A total of seven schools agreed to become involved with the study, which wasconducted during class time. Class duration ranged between 70 and 80 min. Be-tween 1 and 4 classrooms within each school participated in the study.1 Of the 274participants, 56% were male and 44% were female. The mean age of the partici-pants was 17.3 years (SD= 1.8 years).

Experimental Design and Materials

The participants were randomly assigned to either three-person (N = 26) orseven-person groups (N= 28). There were three-person and seven-person groups inevery class. As discussed earlier, the mixed-motive literature indicates that cooper-ation among individuals declines as groups become large. As group size increasesbeyond seven, however, the lack of cooperation is relatively unaffected (Liebrand,1984). Therefore, in this study, three-person and seven-person groups constitutedthe lower and upper bounds of group size.

The experimental task was based on a paradigm proposed by Marwell andAmes (1979) and subsequently used by other researchers (e.g., Fleishman, 1988;


1An anonymous reviewer suggested testing for school and classroom effects (e.g., to examine differ-ences in student ability level across schools and classes). This analysis could not be conducted becausedepartment heads were assured confidentiality of the results. Therefore, we did not code for school andclassroom.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Komorita, Parks, & Hulbert, 1992).2 In brief, each participant was asked to assumethe role of a division manager in a large business. Each participant made a series offinancial investments of 25 cents each. There were only two options: (a) investingthe money in a personal account, that is, one’s own division; or (b) investing themoney in a mutual research and development project, that is, a joint account sharedwith the other two or six group members. Actual monetary contributions to thepersonal account were not shared with the other group members. However, theparticipants were informed that if they invested money in the joint account, theircontribution would be doubled in value (e.g., 10 cents becomes 20 cents). More-over, they were told that each group member would receive an equal share of themoney from the joint account regardless of how much money he or she had con-tributed to it. Thus, at the end of each trial, the amount of money that each groupmember earned was the amount of money in his or her personal account plus ashare from the joint account. The total amount of money that each participantmade was his or hers to keep.

The task comprised a mixed-motive game (e.g., Komorita & Parks, 1995; VanLange et al., 1992). That is, it was potentially profitable to allocate all of one’s re-sources to one’s personal account, and to take advantage of those group memberswho contributed all or a significant amount of their resources to the joint account.If others behaved in a similarly competitive fashion, however, each participant’searnings would have been much less than if the cooperative strategy of allocatingall the money to the joint account had been pursued.

There were nine trials; Trials 1 through 3 constituted Block 1, Trials 4 through 6constituted Block 2, and Trials 7 through 9 constituted Block 3. Multiple invest-ment decisions allowed participants to form and revise perceptions of self- andgroup efficacy in making money after observing fellow group members make allo-cation decisions and experience the consequences of those decisions. The partici-pants, however, were not told at the outset that there would be nine trials becausesuch knowledge would likely have influenced their behavior (Rutte, Wilke, &Messick, 1987).

This task was chosen in part because individual and group performance was ex-pected to change over time. This is important, because the impact of efficacy be-liefs on performance is easiest to verify when the performance attainments ofgroups are undergoing change, but hard to verify when group performance is rela-tively stable (Bandura, 1997). In addition, a robust finding in the mixed-motive lit-erature is that individuals at the outset pursue their own interests rather than thoseof the group (e.g., Komorita & Parks, 1995; Van Lange et al., 1992). Over time,however, individuals in this type of situation usually discover that through cooper-ation they and their group can perform at higher levels than when they focus onmaximizing individual gain alone.


2The task is available from Gerard H. Seijts on request.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Procedure

Each of the nine trials was identical in format. All group members received a formon which to write the amount of money to be allocated to the personal and joint ac-counts. Once the contributions had been recorded, the experimenter collected theforms, announced the amount of money that had been allocated to each account,and calculated each group member’s share of the payoff from the joint account. Theamount of money made by the group (operationalized as the sum of individual earn-ings) was also announced after each trial. This feedback was expected to influenceeach group member’s subsequent allocation decisions (Schroeder, Jensen, Reid,Sullivan, & Schwab, 1983).

In their role as division managers, group members were allowed to discuss theirdecisions among themselves for up to 3 min prior to start of each block, that is,Trials 1, 4, and 7, but after they had filled out the relevant questionnaires (see Mea-sures section). Communication among group members normally occurs in real lifesettings, and has been found to promote cooperation in mixed-motive situations(e.g., Komorita & Parks, 1995; Orbell, Van de Kragt, & Dawes, 1988). For exam-ple, in the present context, some group members may realize how to maximizetheir outcomes and discuss this with the other group members. Intergroup commu-nication, however, was not allowed during the study. Participants were debriefedafter the ninth and last trial.

Measures

Group member familiarity. Two questions were included to measure howfamiliar the group members were with one another. These questions were “How of-ten do you interact socially with the others in your group?” with scale scores rang-ing from 1 (almost never) to 5 (a great deal) and “How well do you know the othersin your group?” with scale scores ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well).

Performance. Total earnings of three-person groups could range between$6.75 and $13.50. The corresponding values for seven-person groups were $15.75and $31.50. The per person earnings in three-person groups could range between$1.53 and $5.22 and the per person earning in seven-person groups could range be-tween $0.63 and $6.12.

Self-efficacy. Measures of self-efficacy magnitude and strength in makingmoney were taken three times, prior to Trials 1, 4, and 7. Measures prior to Trial 1are routinely taken in multiple-trial tasks and constitute a reference against which tocompare subsequent measures. Fifteen performance levels were assessed, rangingfrom earning $1.75 to $5.25 for three-person groups (e.g., “I feel I can make $4.75on this task”) and earning $2.75 to $6.25 for seven-person groups. Self-efficacy


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

magnitude was operationalized as the total number of “yes” responses to thesequestions. Self-efficacy strength was determined by asking people to use a 10-pointLikert-type scale to assess how confident they were in achieving the 15 perfor-mance levels with scores ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 10 (total confi-dence). Consistent with the recommendations by Bandura (1986) and Locke andLatham (1990), confidence ratings were summed across all 15 levels. Bothself-efficacy magnitude and strength were measured because both are useful in pre-dicting task performance (e.g., Lee & Bobko, 1994; Locke & Latham, 1990).

Group efficacy. Individuals were asked about their confidence regarding thegroup successfully completing the group task and making money. Lindsley,Mathieu, Heffner, and Brass (1996) argued that although group efficacy is thegroup-level analogue of individual self-efficacy, it is not simply the aggregate ofgroup members’ self-efficacies. Several ways exist to measure group efficacy.Measuring group efficacy by simply having members form a consensus view oftheir group efficacy is problematic, because social influence processes may ob-scure differences among members on this issue. In Bandura’s (1997) view, “agroup belief is best characterized by a representative value for the beliefs of itsmembers and the degree of variability or consensus around that central belief” (p.479). In this study, the method suggested by Gist (1987) and subsequently adoptedby Earley (1993) and Prussia and Kinicki (1996) was used. Participants were askedfor their individual perceptions of group efficacy (e.g., “I feel my group can make$12.00 on this task”), which were then aggregated. Measures of group-efficacymagnitude and strength in making money were conducted prior to Trials 1, 4, and 7.Fifteen levels were assessed, ranging from earning $6.75 to $13.75 for three-persongroups, and earning $18.00 to $32.00 for seven-person groups.

Although group efficacy was calculated in this study as an aggregate of individ-ual responses to questions regarding group efficacy, significant within-groupagreement must exist for this procedure to be appropriate for a group-level con-struct. A within-and-between analysis was therefore conducted to evaluate the ap-propriateness of aggregation (e.g., Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984;Yammarino & Markham, 1992; but see George & James, 1993).

RESULTS

The coefficient alpha for the two-item group member familiarity scale was .75. Themean of 3.01 (SD= 1.08) suggests that the group members were in general familiarwith one another. The correlations between group member familiarity on the onehand and group efficacy and the group’s performance on the other hand were notsignificant. The intercorrelations among the study variables are shown in Table 1.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

The minimum and maximum amounts of money earned by three-person groupswere $9.23 and $13.50, respectively. The corresponding values for seven-persongroups were $19.54 and $31.50. Table 2 shows the average amount of moneyearned by groups during each block across both group size conditions. The re-peated measures of performance allow changes over time to be examined. A re-peated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated a significantwithin-effect for time in three-person groups,F(2, 48) = 6.75,p < .01, but not inseven-person groups,F(2, 46) = 0.31,p > .05. Planned comparisons indicated thatthe amount of money made by three-person groups during Blocks 2 (Trials 4–6),t(24) = 2.61,p < .05, and 3 (Trials 7–9),t(24) = 3.48,p < .01, was significantlygreater than the amount of money made during Block 1 (Trials 1–3).

The correlations between self-efficacy magnitude and strength were .74 (p <.001), .83 (p< .001), and .82 (p< .001) for Blocks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Consis-tent with Locke and Latham’s (1990) recommendations, these two measures wereconverted toz scores (i.e., standardized), and summed to derive a total self-effi-cacy score (see Table 2). This procedure was completed for both three-person andseven-person groups. The correlations between group-efficacy magnitude andgroup-efficacy strength were .75 (p < .001), .78 (p < .001), and .79 (p < .001) forBlocks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These two measures were also converted tozscores and summed to derive a total group efficacy score (see Table 2). Positiveand significant (p< .001) correlations were found between perceptions of self- andgroup efficacy (.66, .59, and .74 for three-person groups, and .59, .65, and .77 forseven-person groups for Blocks 1, 2, and 3, respectively).

As reported earlier, sufficient within-group agreement must exist to meaning-fully aggregate the individual-level data for group efficacy. A frequently usedmeasure of the magnitude of group-level properties of individual-level data is theeta-squared value or ICC(1) calculated from a one-way random effects ANOVA.The eta-squared values corrected for group size (Bliese & Halverson, 1998) indi-cated that 61% to 92% of the variance in individual-level responses for group effi-cacy during Blocks 2 and 3 can be explained by the group-level properties of thedata.3 This result is consistent with the view that the aggregation of individ-ual-level data to determine group efficacy was appropriate. Moreover, the resultsshowed that the etasquared values increased over time, suggesting that practice asa group fosters collective perceptions of efficacy.

To test Hypothesis 1, two regression models were estimated—one forthree-person groups and one for seven-person groups. First, group performanceduring Block 2 was regressed on group efficacy during Block 2. This equationtests whether efficacy is an antecedent of performance. Second, group efficacyduring Block 3 was regressed on group efficacy during Block 2. Third, group effi-


3The results can be obtained from Gerard H. Seijts on request. The corrected ICC(1) value for Block 1was negative; a negative value suggests that there are no group-level properties of the data.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

289

TA

BLE

1In

terc

orre

latio

nsA

mon

gS

tudy

Var

iabl

es

23

45

67

89

10

11

Thr

ee-p

erso

ngr

oups

1.S

elf-

effic

acy

Blo

ck1

.73*

**.1

9.6

6***

.54*

*.1

7.3

0.0

8.3

3*.2

8.0

22.

Sel

f-ef

ficac

yB

lock

2.6

1***

.40*

.59*

**.4

4*.3

0.1

5.1

4.2

3–.

063.

Sel

f-ef

ficac

yB

lock

3.0

4.5

1**

.74*

**.3

4*.2

6–.

04.2

1–.

084.

Gro

upef

ficac

yB

lock

1.7

3***

.29

.32

.01

.33*

.22

.16

5.G

roup

effic

acy

Blo

ck2

.74*

**.5

8***

.17

.44*

.47*

*.0

76.

Gro

upef

ficac

yB

lock

3.5

8***

.51*

*.4

6*.6

0***

.03

7.G

roup

perf

orm

ance

Blo

ck1

.50*

*.6

1***

.76*

**.0

88.

Gro

uppe

rfor

man

ceB

lock

2.7

0***

.86*

**.0

59.

Gro

uppe

rfor

man

ceB

lock

3.9

0**

.20

10.

Tot

algr

oup

perf

orm

ance

.06

11.

Gro

upm

embe

rfa

mili

arity

Sev

en-p

erso

ngr

oups

1.S

elf-

effic

acy

Blo

ck1

.61*

**.3

8*.6

5***

.35*

.23

.08

–.03

–.15

.06

–.03

2.S

elf-

effic

acy

Blo

ck2

.81*

**.5

4**

.86*

**.6

7***

.51*

*.1

9.2

3.3

5*.0

53.

Sel

f-ef

ficac

yB

lock

3.4

3*.8

8***

.89*

**.6

4***

.45*

*.4

7**

.60*

**–.

034.

Gro

upef

ficac

yB

lock

1.5

0**

.40*

.36*

.33*

.24

.28

–.03

5.G

roup

effic

acy

Blo

ck2

.84*

**.6

3***

.41*

.50*

*.5

7***

.08

6.G

roup

effic

acy

Blo

ck3

.64*

**.6

2***

.65*

**.7

6***

.08

7.G

roup

perf

orm

ance

Blo

ck1

.65*

**.4

3**

.73*

**–.

058.

Gro

uppe

rfor

man

ceB

lock

2.6

9***

.85*

**–.

089.

Gro

uppe

rfor

man

ceB

lock

3.8

0***

.18

10.

Tot

algr

oup

perf

orm

ance

.04

11.

Gro

upm

embe

rfa

mili

arity

No

te.

Pai

rwis

ede

letio

nof

case

sw

asus

ed.

*p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.**

*p<

.001

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

cacy during Block 3 was regressed on group efficacy and group performance dur-ing Block 2. The third equation thus tests whether performance affects subsequentefficacy beliefs factoring in prior efficacy. Because the initial eta-squared valuesfor the aggregated individual-level responses pertaining to group efficacy werelow, the data for Block 1 were not incorporated in the analyses. The results of theregression models are shown in Table 3. Moreover, the correlations between groupefficacy during Block 3 and subsequent group performance were .46 (p < .05) forthree-person groups and .65 (p < .001) for seven-person groups. Together, theseresults support the hypothesis that group performance is both an antecedent and anoutcome of group efficacy.

To test Hypothesis 2, a repeated measures ANOVA on group efficacy inmaking money was conducted, with group size as a between-group factor andtime (blocks) as a within-group factor. The repeated measures of group efficacyallow changes over time to be investigated. The results indicated a significantinteraction effect between group size and time;F(2, 96) = 4.93,p < .01. Groupefficacy increased over time in three-person groups,F(2, 46) = 2.96,p < .06, butremained unchanged for seven-person groups,F(2, 50) = 2.00,p < .14. Thegroup-efficacy data thus parallel the findings for group performance. Group effi-cacy for three-person groups during Block 1 was lower than group efficacy dur-ing Blocks 2, t(23) = 1.90, p < .07, and 3,t(23) = 1.82, p < .08. Thesedifferences were marginally significant. In addition, a marginally significant be-tween-effect for group size was found,F(1, 48) = 3.84,p < .06. Group efficacywas significantly higher for three-person groups than for seven-person groupsduring Blocks 2,t(48) = 2.01,p < .05, and 3,t(48) = 2.63,p < .01. The latterfinding thus provides support for Hypothesis 2.


TABLE 2Means and Standard Deviations for Group Performance, Self- and Group Efficacy Scores

(Standardized) During Blocks 1, 2, and 3

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3

M SD M SD M SD

PerformanceThree-person group $3.83 $ .46 $4.06 $ .44 $4.12 .51Seven-person group $9.10 $1.17 $9.11 $1.26 $9.27 1.50

Self-efficacyThree-person group .17 1.83 .77 1.47 .89 1.49Seven-person group –.05 1.89 –.29 1.99 –.43 1.96

Group-efficacyThree-person group .16 1.25 .45 1.19 .66 1.25Seven-person group .01 .91 –.24 1.22 –.33 1.38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4


TA

BLE

3R

esul

tsof

the

Thr

ee-S

tep

Med

iate

dR

egre

ssio

nA

naly

sis

for

Gro

upE

ffica

cyan

dP

erfo

rman

ceD

urin

gB

lock

2P

redi

ctin

gG

roup

Effi

cacy

Dur

ing

Blo

ck3

Ste

pD

ep

en

de

nt

Va

ria

ble

Ind

ep

en

de

nt

Va

ria

ble

βt

R2

FD

Fs

Thr

ee-p

erso

ngr

oups

1P

erfo

rman

ce-2

Gro

upef

ficac

y-2

.17

0.80

0.03

0.63

1,22

2G

roup

effic

acy-

3G

roup

effic

acy-

2.7

45.

12**

*0.

5426

.24*

**1,

223

Gro

upef

ficac

y-3

Gro

upef

ficac

y-2

.67

5.53

***

0.70

24.5

3***

2,21

Per

form

ance

-2.4

03.

31**

Sev

en-p

erso

ngr

oups

1P

erfo

rman

ce-2

Gro

up-e

ffica

cy-2

.41

2.22

*0.

174.

93*

1,24

2G

roup

effic

acy-

3G

roup

effic

acy-

2.8

37.

43**

*0.

6955

.17*

**1,

243

Gro

upef

ficac

y-3

Gro

upef

ficac

y-2

.70

6.64

***

0.79

43.4

0***

2,23

Per

form

ance

-2.3

43.

21**

*p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.**

*p<

.001

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Two analyses were conducted to investigate Hypothesis 3. First, multiple re-gression was used to test whether perceptions of self and group efficacy in makingmoney contributed independently to the prediction of the group’s performance. Agroup-level self-efficacy measure (the average of the responses to the self-efficacyquestionnaire) was created for purposes of including self-efficacy in the regressionequation. No coefficient of within-and-between agreement was calculated forself-efficacy in making money, because self-efficacy in this regard reflects an indi-vidually held belief about what constitutes a realistic level of performance. Forcedentry was used in developing the regression equation. Group efficacy was enteredin Step 1; self-efficacy was entered in Step 2. The hierarchical regression analysisthus tested whether self-efficacy had an effect on group performance after control-ling for group efficacy.


TABLE 4Summary of the Multiple Regression Analysis for

Group- and Self-Efficacy Predicting Group Performance

β t R2 ∆R2 F

Three-person groupsBlock 2

Step 1Group efficacy .47 2.47** .22 6.09**

Step 2Group efficacy .51 2.14**Self-efficacy –.08 –0.33 .22 .00 2.97*

Block 3Step 1

Group efficacy .60 3.50*** .36 12.28***Step 2

Group efficacy .98 4.18†Self-efficacy –.51 –2.20** .48 .12 9.62†

Seven-person groupsBlock 2

Step 1Group efficacy .57 3.41*** .33 11.61***

Step 2Group efficacy 1.04 3.32†Self-efficacy –.55 –1.75* .41 .08 7.82***

Block 3Step 1

Group efficacy .76 5.79*** .58 33.49***Step 2

Group efficacy 1.13 3.96†Self-efficacy –.41 –1.43 .62 .04 18.50†

Note. *p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01. †p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Perceptions of group efficacy explained, in most cases, a significant portion ofthe variance in performance of both three-person and seven-person groups. How-ever, only during Block 3 did self-efficacy explain a significant portion of the vari-ance in the amount of money made by three-person groups (see Table 4). Althoughthe increase inR2 from Step 1 to Step 2 was significant,F(1, 24) = 4.94,p < .05,self-efficacy in making money was actually negatively associated with group per-formance. A similar pattern of results was obtained for seven-person groups. Thebeta-weight for self-efficacy in this case, however, failed to reach statistical signif-icance. In general, self-efficacy was a poor predictor of the group’s performance.

We also examined whether the correlations between self-efficacy and groupperformance versus the correlations between group efficacy and group perfor-mance were significantly different using the procedures outlined by Blalock(1960). The results indicated that the correlations between group efficacy andgroup performance (meanr = .28 for three-person groups and .47 for seven-persongroups) were significantly stronger than the correlations between self-efficacy andgroup performance (meanr = .14 for three-person groups and .25 for seven-persongroups).4

In conclusion, these two analyses, multiple regression and testing differencesbetween correlations, provide support for Hypothesis 3.

DISCUSSION

This study addressed unique areas in a rapidly growing base of research on groupefficacy. The investigation of the impact of group size on perceptions of efficacy aswell as the context, a mixed-motive task, had not been examined previously. Therepeated measures of efficacy and performance allowed changes over time to bestudied.

The results showed a corresponding pattern of changes in group efficacy andperformance of both three-person and seven-person groups. Moreover, the re-sults indicated that the relation between group efficacy and group performance isreciprocal. In a mixed motive situation, group efficacy is a significant predictor ofgroup performance, and past group performance has an effect on the formationof subsequent group-efficacy beliefs.

The efficacy beliefs of seven-person groups were significantly lower than thoseof three-person groups faced with the identical mixed-motive task. We suggest thatthroughfeedback(i.e.,monetarycontributionsto the jointaccountandtheamountofmoney made by the group), individuals in three-person groups were likely to havebeen better able to observe whether their colleagues were willing to cooperate; that


4The results can be obtained from Gerard H. Seijts on request.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

is, work together to achieve high group performance. This finding is consistent withextant research. Individuals in small groups are more likely to cooperate and worktogether on a mixed-motive task than individuals in large groups (e.g., Komorita &Parks, 1995; Liebrand, 1984). As a result, group performance increases over time,which, in turn, increases group efficacy. The conviction within the group that theycan attain a high level of performance is therefore stronger in small groups than inlarge groups. Neither the amount of money made by the seven-person groups northeir perceptions of group efficacy changed over time. This study, however, doesnot allow us to conclude whether motivational variables (e.g., the motivation tofreeride, and diffusion of responsibility), structural variables (e.g., time constraintsthat affect the discussion of task-relevant strategies), or a combination of motiva-tional and structural variables contributed to perceptions of low group efficacy andpoor performance on the part of seven-person groups.

That self-efficacy had little effect on group performance is likely due to thenonadditive nature of the task that was used to test the hypotheses. In this study, in-dividual and group performance were the product of interdependent efforts. Thatis, the amount of money that each individual (and hence the group) could makewas dependent on his or her own actions as well as the decisions of the other mem-bers. Bandura (1997) argued that the relative predictiveness of self- andgroup-efficacy beliefs depends on the degree of interdependent effort required toproduce group results. When task interdependence is low, an aggregate of individ-ual efficacies has predictive value for performance. Conversely, when task inter-dependence is high, an aggregate of individual judgments of the group’s efficacyhas predictive value.

An unexpected finding was that when efficacy in making money was signifi-cantly related to the group’s performance, the effect was negative. It would appearthat high self-efficacy for individual performance detracts from rather than bene-fits a group in mixed-motive situations. In this study, high self-efficacy may havebeen indicative of a belief in one’s ability to get money at the expense of others.Previous research has shown that to the extent that there is conflict between the de-sire for high individual performance versus the overall performance of the group,suboptimal group performance results (e.g., Crown & Rosse, 1995; Mitchell &Silver, 1990).

The limitationsof thisstudyareat least fourfold.First, the resultswerebasedona70 min simulation task. Thus, the design and procedures of this study were approxi-mationsof thecomplexitiesofgroupconflictandperformancewithinorganizations.Thestudyneeds tobereplicatedwith individualsworking inwell-established, intactgroups within departments competing for scarce resources.

A second limitation is that the decisions made by individual participants aftereach trial were made known within the group. Such information, however, maynot always be available to groups in real world settings. Subsequent studies shouldmanipulate this variable to determine its effect on behavior.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

A third limitation arose from the need to ask participants to evaluate self andgroup efficacy without having had extensive experience with the task. This mayexplain why the initial (i.e., Block 1) eta-squared values for the aggregated indi-vidual-level data for group efficacy as well as the initial correlations betweengroup efficacy and group performance were low. An important conceptual issuerequiring further investigation is whether group efficacy is a meaningfulgroup-level construct prior to members of the group having had experience work-ing together on the task.

Fourth, self-efficacy may not have as great an effect on behavior in a choicetask, as was used in this study, as it does on a skill task where each group member’sskill would affect the overall group result. This issue too needs to be addressed insubsequent research.

Additional research avenues regarding group efficacy include understandingthe sources of group efficacy and their differential impact on group performance.Such knowledge would be useful in answering questions about what managers,team leaders, and groups can do to create, restore, or increase a group’s collectivebelief that it can successfully perform various tasks. The antecedents ofself-efficacy percepts are well known; however, that is not the case for the ante-cedents of group efficacy. Additional research is therefore needed that examinesthe extent to which sources of self-efficacy, such as enactive mastery, vicariouslearning, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states, aregeneralizable to the group. It would also be useful to know what specific behav-ioral and cognitive interventions are effective in enhancing perceptions of groupefficacy. Research is also needed on the consequences of group efficacy. Do theseconsequences differ in degree or kind from those that flow from self-efficacy? Re-search that examines the effect of group efficacy on the goal setting process wouldalso be useful. The effects of self-efficacy on personal goal setting and effort, per-sistence, and the strategy development process for task accomplishment is rela-tively well understood. Much less is known about these processes at the grouplevel.

Finally, research is needed on the potential negative aspects of group efficacy.Positive efficacy perceptions are typically regarded as desirable to possess be-cause they often lead to beneficial outcomes (Gecas, 1989). There may be circum-stances in which this assumption is questionable. Both forms of efficacy beliefs,for example, may be hazardous to hold in situations where failing courses of actionhave been initiated. There is a well-documented bias toward staying the course insuch circumstances, even when such action may only make matters worse (Staw &Ross, 1987). There is emerging evidence that the tendency to escalate commitmentto a losing course of action is exacerbated, at least at the individual level of analy-sis, by strong efficacy beliefs (Whyte, Saks, & Hook, 1997).

Perceived group efficacy may also be problematic when it becomes undulyhigh, resulting in overconfidence and ultimately poor performance. Whyte (1998),


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

for example, suggested that the lack of vigilance and preference for risk that char-acterizes groups contaminated by groupthink may be attributed, in large part, toperceptions of group efficacy that unduly exceed capability. This issue too is wor-thy of further investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by a SSHRC grant to Gary P. Latham.Parts of this article were presented at the annual meeting of the American

Psychological Association, August 1998, San Francisco.

REFERENCES

Albanese, R., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1985). Rational behavior in groups: The freeriding tendency.Acad-emy of Management Review, 10,244–255.

Bandura, A. (1986).Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.EducationalPsychologist, 28,117–148.

Bandura, A. (1997).Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. In J. G. Adair, D.

Belanger, & K. Dion (Eds.),Advances in psychological science: Social, personal, and cultural as-pects(pp. 51–71). Hove, England: Psychology Press.

Blalock, H. M. (1960).Social statistics. New York: McGrawHill.Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group size and measures of group-level properties: An exami-

nation of eta-squared and ICC values.Journal of Management, 24,157–172.Campion, M. A., Papper, E. A., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics

and effectiveness: A replication and extension.Personnel Psychology, 49,429–452.Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the

shop floor to the executive suite.Journal of Management, 23,239–290.Crown, D. F., & Rosse, J. G. (1995). Yours, mine, and ours: Facilitating group productivity through the

integration of individual and group goals.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-cesses, 64,138–150.

Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984).Theory testing in organizational behavior:The variant approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets west meets mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic andindividualistic work groups.Academy of Management Journal, 36,319–348.

Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed re-employment: Helping people to helpthemselves.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,352–360.

Fleishman, J. A. (1988). The effects of decision framing and others’ behavior on cooperation in a socialdilemma.Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22,162–180.

Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy.Annual Review of Sociology, 15,291–316.George, J. M., & James, L. R. (1993). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited: Comment on

aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within and between analysis.Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78,798–804.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group-efficacy and group effectivenessacross tasks and cultures.Academy of Management Journal, 42,138–152.

Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource manage-ment.Academy of Management Review, 12,472–485.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and mal-leability. Academy of Management Review, 17,183–211.

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance andeffectiveness.Annual Review of Psychology, 47,307–338.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993).The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organi-zation. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Kerr, N. L., & Kaufman-Gilliland, C. M. (1994). Communication, commitment, and cooperation in so-cial dilemmas.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,513–529.

Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1995). Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction.Annual Re-view of Psychology, 46,183–207.

Komorita, S. S., Parks, C. D., & Hulbert, L. G. (1992). Reciprocity and the induction of cooperation insocial dilemmas.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,607–617.

Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and conse-quences of social loafing.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,822–832.

Latham, G. P., & Frayne, C. A. (1989). Self-management training for increasing job attendance: A fol-low-up and a replication.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,411–416.

Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures.Journal of AppliedPsychology, 79,364–370.

Liebrand, W. B. G. (1984). The effect of social motives, communication and group size on behavior in aNperson multiple-stage mixed-motive game.European Journal of Social Psychology, 14,239–264.

Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy–performance spirals: A multilevel per-spective.Academy of Management Review, 20,645–678.

Lindsley, D. H., Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., & Brass, D. J. (1996, April).Team efficacy, potency, andperformance: A longitudinal examination of reciprocal processes.Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.

Little, B. L., & Madigan, R. M. (1997). The relationship between collective-efficacy and performance inmanufacturing work teams.Small Group Research, 28,517–534.

Locke, E. A. (1998). The motivation to work: What we know. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.),Ad-vances in Motivation and Achievement, 10,375–412.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990).A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Marwell, G., & Ames, R. E. (1979). Experiments on the provision of public goods. I: Resources, interest,group size, and the free-rider problem.American Journal of Sociology, 84,1335–1360.

Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: A review. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver(Eds.),Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 11–44.

Millman, Z., & Latham, G. P. (in press). Increasing re-employment through training in verbal self-guidance. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, and H. Thierry (Eds.),Work motivation in the context of aglobalizing economy.San Francisco, CA: Bass.

Mischel, L. J., & Northcraft, G. B. (1997). I think we can, I think we can …: The role of efficacy beliefsin group and team effectiveness. In B. Markovsky (Ed.),Advances in Group Processes, 14,177–197. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Mitchell, T. R., & Silver, W. S. (1990). Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: Ef-fects on task strategies and performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 185–193.

Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective-efficacy in groupgoal processes and group performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,74,62–87.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Orbell, J. M., Van de Kragt, A. J. C., & Dawes, R. (1988). Explaining discussion-induced cooperation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,811–819.

Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (1996). A motivational investigation of group effectiveness usingsocialcognitive theory.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,187–198.

Riggs, M. L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. (1994). Development and validationof self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job related applications.Educational and Psy-chological Measurement, 54,793–802.

Rutte, C. G., Wilke, H. A. M., & Messick, D. (1987). Scarcity or abundance caused by people or the en-vironment as determinants of behavior in the resource dilemma.Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 23,208–216.

Saks, A. M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects ofself-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment.Journal of AppliedPsychology, 80,211–225.

Schroeder, D. A., Jensen, T. D., Reed, A. J., Sullivan, D. D., & Schwab, M. (1983). The actions of othersas determinants of behavior in social trap situations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,19,522–539.

Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2000). The effects of goal setting and group size on performance in asocial dilemma.Canadian Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32.

Silver, W. S., & Bufanio, K. M. (1996). The impact of group-efficacy and group goals on group task per-formance.Small Group Research, 27,347–359.

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1987). Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solu-tions. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),Research in Organizational Behavior, 9,39–78.

Steiner, I. D. (1972).Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic.Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness.

American Psychologist, 45,120–133.Van Lange, P. A. M., Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., & Wilke, H. A. M., (1992). Introduction and

literature review. In W. B. G. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, & H. A. M. Wilke (Eds.),Social dilemmas:Theoretical issues and research findings(pp. 3–28). New York: Pergamon.

Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis’s group-think model: The key role of collective-efficacy in decisionfiascoes.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73,185–209.

Whyte, G., Saks, A. M., & Hook, S. (1997). When success breeds failure: The role of self-efficacy in es-calating commitment to a losing course of action.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18,415–432.

Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1992). On the application of within and between analysis: Are ab-sence and affect really group-based phenomena?Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 168–176.

Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, J., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective-efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.),Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment(pp. 305–328). New York: Plenum.

Zander, A. (1994).Making groups effective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 08:

07 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

effect of self- and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation

Documents