See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331584686

Academic motivations and group dynamics

Thesis · March 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36513.63847

CITATIONS READS
2 4,266

2 authors:

Reed Priest Lonnie Yandell

University of Minnesota Twin Cities Belmont University
14 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Reed Priest on 29 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 1

Academic Motivation and Group Dynamics

Reed Priest & Lonnie Yandell

Belmont University
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 2

Abstract

Motivation retains a strong influence in guiding human behavior. Students often experience

motivation in desires to learn or to get a grade. These learning-oriented and grade-oriented

interpretations of motivation help orchestrate student behavior. With college courses’ strong

emphasis on group work, students rarely demonstrate these academic motivations independently.

Three studies subsequently explored the role of academic motivations on group dynamics. Study

1 conceptually replicated results of Eisenkraft et al. (2017), finding that students know who like

them, but not who competes against them. It was also found that students have difficulty

perceiving what motivates their peers, be it learning or grades. Study 2 attempted to identify if a

group’s composition in terms of its members’ varying motivations to learn or earn a grade

impacted group performance, cohesion, and attraction. Results were inconclusive, and the

researchers believe this was due to a lack of experimental realism. In a more externally valid

sample, Study 3 thus reexamined if a group’s composition in terms of its members’ varying

motivations to learn or earn a grade impacted group performance, cohesion, and attraction.

Results indicated that arrangements of what motivated group members impacted group cohesion

and attraction, but not performance. These studies collectively suggest that even though group

members may not know what motivates their peers, those motivations impact how enjoyable the

group experience is.

Keywords: Motivation, learning-orientation, grade-orientation, group dynamics

MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 3

Academic Motivations and Group Dynamics

Instead of operating independently, humans often interact in dynamic and interconnected

social structures called groups. A group mixes its members’ beliefs and ideals throughout contact

and discussion to achieve its identity and goals (Van Swol, Carlson-Hill, & Lewis, 2018). Thus,

the interactions of group members’ values structure general group behaviors for goal attainment.

Because they uniquely combine people’s differing beliefs and motivations, groups remain a

dynamic topic rich for empirical investigation.

From an evolutionary perspective, groups contributed to human survival by allowing

breeding, the ability to hunt larger prey, and the flexibility of dividing tasks (Buss, 2005).

Groups are still used due to their many benefits such as social acceptance and diversity of

members’ skillsets. Groups often exist to offer social benefits of encouragement and guidance to

their members, as seen in support groups (Yalom, 1995). They also offer advantages of creativity

and differing problem-solving methods by incorporating members of different backgrounds,

abilities, and understandings (Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007). From

these benefits and more, groups have become common in work and school.

Two general interactions describe groups’ typical behaviors: task interactions and

relational interactions (Talboreno, Chambel, Curral, & Arana 2009). Some groups - such as

surgical teams or student councils - exist to complete a task; alternatively, other groups - such as

bowling clubs or friend groups - exist to nurture social relationships. This distinction of the

group’s goal orchestrates the group’s behaviors and dynamics (Forsythe, 2018). The main goal

of task interactions is group performance: how effectively and efficiently the group can complete

its task. Conversely, many goals motivate relational interactions of groups, such as group

cohesion and group attraction (Stokes, 1983). Group cohesion is a group’s unity that is produced
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 4

by interdependent bonds, whereas group attraction refers to how strongly group members enjoy

being part of the group and subsequently wish to remain in it (Forsythe, 2014). Task and

relational interactions help define the goals that motivate group members: getting ahead or

getting along.

During task and relational interactions, group members cognitively evaluate each other

(Carlson, Furr, & Vazire, 2010). To uncover how these cognitive appraisals of group members

relate to group dynamics, Eisenkraft, Elfenbein, and Kopelman (2017) explored the concept of

dyadic meta-accuracy in these evaluations of group members with regards to liking and

competition. Dyadic meta-accuracy is the ability to know what others think of oneself. Thus,

Eisenkraft et al. (2017) examined how accurately group members could assess how others liked

them and felt competitive against them. Participants answered self-report questions addressing

how much they liked/felt competitive with one another, and how much they believed others

liked/felt competitive against them. By comparing responses on these items, the researchers

found that individuals demonstrate strong dyadic meta-accuracy for liking, but not

competitiveness; group members knew who liked them, but not who felt competitive against

them.

Much like these cognitive evaluations, group members’ motivations may shape overall

group dynamics. While motivation generally refers to being called to do something, three more

specific types of motivation exist: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation

(Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivation refers to the drive to complete a behavior because it is

inherently satisfying or meaningful, such as desiring to paint because one finds it entertaining.

Extrinsic motivation relates to rewards and punishments, and involves feeling moved to

complete a behavior to achieve a reward or to avoid punishment. Examples of extrinsic

MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 5

motivation include exercising to increase one’s health and completing paperwork on time to

avoid being chastised. Alternatively, amotivation refers to a lack of motivation, describing a lack

of will to complete a behavior. Viewed holistically, these three forms of motivation represent a

general framework of human motivation which can be further broken down for more specific

settings.

One such specification of these general motivations takes place in academic

environments. Academic environments, such as colleges and universities, often create student

work groups to collectively learn and to cooperatively complete group projects (Shimazoe &

Aldrich, 2010). As previously mentioned, task and relational interactions help explain what goals

motivate group members’ behavior. Regarding task interactions, students in academic work

groups are mainly motivated to learn or to receive an acceptable grade (Goldman & Martin,

2014). These academic motivations relate to a learning-orientation (LO) and a grade-orientation

(GO). Students with a LO value intellectual competence and growth, whereas students with a GO

value grades and recognition, although these two orientations are not mutually exclusive (Eison,

Pollio & Milton, 1983). Page and Alexitch (2003) posit that LO represents an academic form of

intrinsic motivation, and GO represents an academic form of extrinsic motivation.

LO and GO are typically measured with the Learning-Orientation Grade-Orientation

Scale II (LOGO-II; Eison et al., 1983). This scale examines both LO and GO throughout

attitudinal and behavioral subscales to holistically view academic motivations. Correlates of LO

include strong academic performance (Page & Alexitch, 2003), communication with instructors

(Goldman & Martin, 2014), and emotional stability (Eison, 1982). GO is correlated with poorer

study habits, test anxiety, and less participatory learning styles (Eison, 1982). Students’ academic
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 6

success largely relate to these academic motivations, as LO students are more likely than GO

students to initiate help-seeking behaviors in difficult courses (Alexitch, 2002).

Due to such findings, desires for learning and achieving an acceptable grade retain

importance in the classroom, and subsequently deserve to be better understood from a research

standpoint. These academic motivations do not occur in isolation, however, because students are

social and often interacting in academic work groups. Despite this commonality, though, no

studies to the researchers’ knowledge have directly examined these academic motivations’

potential role in group dynamics. To investigate this lack of understanding, three studies were

conducted.

In an attempt to conceptually replicate and mirror the design of Eisenkraft et al. (2017),

Study 1 correlationally examined how accurate students were at evaluating what motivated their

group members, be it learning or grades. It was hypothesized that results would conceptually

replicate Eisenkraft et al., (2017) and that students would be accurate in their evaluations of what

motivates group members. Study 2 introduced a more controlled, experimental design examining

if perceived and actual academic motivations affected group dynamics. It was expected that

groups sharing similar perceived and actual academic motivations among members would

display better group performance, cohesion, and attraction than groups with dissimilar perceived

and actual motivations. In a more externally valid design, Study 3 similarly examined if

agreement among what actually motivates group members improves group dynamics. It was

predicted that groups with members who share predominantly similar, as compared to dissimilar,

academic motivations would have better group performance, cohesion, and attraction.

Study 1

Study 1 Participants
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 7

Participants in this study were recruited from a mid-sized, southern university and

consisted of 73 undergraduate students (77% women) between the ages of 18 and 43 with a mean

age of 21.77 (SD = 3.23). Participants were recruited from four upper-level psychology lab

courses which involve a semester-long group research project with two to six members in each

group. If participants were in more than one of the labs sampled, they could not participate more

than once, and were not considered part of the subsequent groups. There were 3 two-person

groups, 5 three-person groups, 9 four-person groups, 2 five-person groups, and 1 six-person

group. The racial composition of participants was 76.7% White/European American, 12.5%

Black/African American, 5.5% Asian, 2.8% Latino, and 2.8% other.

Study 1 Design

In this study, dependent variables included how participants felt about their group

members in terms of liking and competitiveness and similarly how they believed their group

members felt about them. Comparing these two variables assesses dyadic meta-accuracy.

Dependent variables also included how much participants believed that learning and grades

motivated their group members and how much those factors actually motivated each group

member. Comparing these variables assesses how accurate each group member is at determining

what motivates their peers, a process the researchers defined as perceived motivational accuracy.

This study compared these variables in a correlational design.

Study 1 Measures

Dyadic meta-accuracy questions. To conceptually replicate dyadic meta-accuracy of

liking and competitiveness, questions originally from Eisenkraft et al. (2017) were used and

presented in the same format. These questions were on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not

at all) to 9 (very much). An example item is, “How much do you like this group member?” To
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 8

assess dyadic meta-accuracy, this item would be compared with the following item, which a

different group member would answer: “How much does this group member like you?” For

competitiveness, questions were “How competitive are you towards this group member?” and

would similarly be compared to the following item that a different group member would answer:

“How competitive do you think this group member is towards you?” Although Eisenkraft et al.

(2017) assessed dyadic meta-accuracy using multiple questions and then averaging responses,

the present study implemented these four questions for replication purposes because they are part

of a conceptual, and not exact, replication.

LOGO-II. The Learning-Orientation Grade-Orientation Scale II (LOGO-II; Eison et al.,

1983) was used to measure levels of both LO and GO. This scale contains 32 total questions with

two subscales. One subscale measures both attitudinal and behavioral aspects of LO and the

other subscale measures both attitudinal and behavioral aspects of GO. Both attitudinal and

behavioral aspects of each subscale are combined to form a holistic representation of LO and

GO. Responses are measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree) for attitudinal items and 1 (never) to 5 (always) for behavioral items. Scores of

each orientation range from 16 to 80 with higher scores indicating higher levels of that academic

orientation. Across both attitudinal and behavioral items, inter-item reliability of the LO subscale

results in an α = .76. Similarly for GO, interitem reliability of the GO subscale results in an α =

.73. An example LO attitudinal item is, “I find the process of learning new material fun.” An

example GO behavioral item is, “I will withdraw from an interesting class rather than risk getting

a poor grade.”

Descriptions of academic orientations. Descriptions of both LO and GO academic

orientations were provided so that participants could make an informed estimation of how LO
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 9

and GO their peers were throughout the perceived motivational accuracy questions that are

detailed below. LO students were described as striving “for personal growth, the process of

learning, and intellectual competence. They are the ones to ask questions which they find

interesting.” GO students were described as “focused on grades, status, competition, and

recognition. They are the students to ask whether or not material will be on the test.” It was also

expressed that “these orientations are not mutually exclusive; someone can have levels of both

orientation.”

Perceived motivational accuracy questions. To assess perceived motivational accuracy,

two questions were asked using a similar 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much) scale, mirroring the

structure of Eisenkraft et al. (2017). These two questions were: “How learning-oriented do you

think this group member is?” and “How grade-oriented do you think this group member is?” To

evaluate how LO and GO a group perceived a member, all of a group’s responses to one

individual on these questions were averaged.

Demographics form. A short demographics questionnaire asked for sex, age, and

ethnicity.

Study 1 Procedure

Before participants were sampled, Institutional Review Board approval was attained.

After giving informed consent, participants completed the LOGO-II. Participants then read the

descriptions of both LO and GO academic motivations. With the understanding of these

academic motivations, participants next answered both the dyadic meta-accuracy and perceived

motivational accuracy questions of LO and GO, which were presented together in a

counterbalanced order. The description of academic motivations was presented after participants

took the LOGO-II to limit participant sophistication. Finally, participants completed the short
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 10

demographics form. When all participants finished, they were thanked for their time and

debriefed. The entire study took about 25 minutes, and was completed in a quiet room on a

university’s campus with 18-24 participants per session. With 73 participants in 20 groups rating

each group member, the final data set included 214 dyadic observations for dyadic meta-

accuracy. Because responses of all group members’ perceived LO and GO levels towards each

other were averaged to formulate one estimated LO and GO value that their group perceived, 73

dyadic observations for perceived motivational accuracy were produced. Collection of these data

occurred two months into a four-month long group project.

Study 1 Results

We proposed two hypotheses for Study 1: (1) results would conceptually replicate

findings of Eisenkraft et al. (2017), in that dyadic meta-accuracy will be found for liking but not

competitiveness, and (2) participants would demonstrate strong perceived motivational accuracy

by accurately assessing LO and GO levels of their group members. Regarding the first

hypothesis, a Pearson r indicated that liking was significantly associated with meta-perceptions

of liking, r(213) = .54, p < .001. Another Pearson r found that competitiveness was significantly

associated with meta-perceptions of competitiveness, r(213) = -.17, p = .01. These results

support the first hypothesis because dyadic meta-accuracy was found for liking, but not

competitiveness.

To evaluate the researchers’ second hypothesis, reliability of responses on the LOGO-II

was first calculated. Inter-item reliability on the LOGO-II’s LO subscale produced α = .67. Inter-

item reliability of the GO subscale similarly produced α = .66. Once inter-item reliability was

examined, a Pearson r indicated that LO was not significantly associated with perceived LO,

r(71) = .13, p = .28. This was evaluated by comparing total scores on the LOGO-II’s LO
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 11

subscale to the averaged responses on the LO perceived motivational accuracy question. Using a

Pearson r, it was found that GO was not significantly associated with perceived GO, r(71) = -.

01, p = .98. This was similarly evaluated by comparing total scores on the LOGO-II’s GO

subscale to the averaged responses on the GO perceived motivational accuracy question. These

results do not support the researchers’ second hypothesis because participants’ perceptions of

others’ motivations were not similar to others’ motivations, thus demonstrating poor perceived

motivational accuracy of LO and GO. The overall mean for LO (M = 52.44, SD = 6.94) and GO

(M = 44.56, SD = 7.39) were similar to previous group means (Eison et al., 1983). Correlations

for both hypotheses are summarized in Table I and Table II.

Study 1 Discussion

Supporting the first hypothesis, results conceptually replicated the research of Eisenkraft

et al. (2017) on dyadic meta-accuracy because participants demonstrated dyadic meta-accuracy

for liking, but not competitiveness. Group members were correctly able to identify who liked

them, but not who felt competitive against them. The second hypothesis was not supported,

however, because students did not display perceived motivational accuracy; they were not able to

correctly evaluate what motivated their group members, be it learning or grades.

It should be noted, though, that this lack of perceived motivational accuracy may be due

to the descriptions of academic motivations. This description mentioned that “these orientations

are not mutually exclusive; someone can have levels of both orientation.” Participants often

reported either high or low levels of both perceived LO and GO. In other words, participants

rarely thought that their group members were predominantly LO or GO, potentially because the

description of academic motivations primed them to think so.

MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 12

These findings imply a lack of understanding among group members, potentially harming

group dynamics. Gordon and Chen (2016), for example, found that perceived understanding

mitigates relational conflict. Different understandings among group members about a task can

contribute to task-related conflict (Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher 2013). Future research should

examine ways to enhance perceived motivational accuracy and if it helps prevent the

misunderstandings that lead to group conflict.

Study 1 correlationally examined academic motivations in a group context. Although this

correlational design detailed relationships evident in group dynamics, it could not establish

causal connections among variables. Thus, Study 2 aimed to experimentally explore the potential

role of perceived and actual motivations on group dynamics. In terms of learning and grades,

perceived motivation referred to what individuals were told motivates each other. This perceived

motivation was randomly assigned and could have been accurate or inaccurate. Actual

motivation referred to what in fact motivated group members, regardless of what they were told

motivated them. Because similarity among group members can reduce misunderstanding and

conflict (Gordon & Chen, 2016; Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher 2013; Evans & Jarvis, 1986), it

was hypothesized that groups with similar perceived and actual academic motivations would

display better group performance, cohesion, and attraction than groups with dissimilar perceived

and actual academic motivations.

Study 2

Study 2 Participants

Participants in this study were recruited from the same mid-sized, southern university and

consisted of 100 undergraduate students (70% women) recruited from introductory-level

psychology courses between the ages of 18 and 28 with a mean age of 19.22 (SD = 1.71). There
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 13

were 50 two-person groups. The racial composition of participants was 6.0% African

American/Black, 4.0% Asian, 3.0% Latino, 85.0% White/European American, and 2.0% Other.

Partial course credit was granted for participation.

Study 2 Design

Independent variables of this study included perceived motivation. Participants were

randomly assigned feedback that they were predominantly a learning- or grade-oriented student.

With two participants sampled at a time, three conditions existed for perceived motivation: a

group of two LO students, a group of one LO and one GO student, and a group of two GO

students. These conditions represent varying arrangements of members’ motivations in groups.

Although it was not manipulated, actual motivation was also measured to see if it related to

group dynamics. Arrangements of actual motivation also created the three conditions listed

above. Dependent variables of group performance, cohesion, and attraction were measured to

evaluate task and relational components of group dynamics. This study was a between-subjects

experimental design.

Study 2 Measures

LOGO-II. The LOGO-II was described in the Materials section of Study 1.

Descriptions of academic orientations. Descriptions of both LO and GO academic

orientations were provided so that participants could understand what their randomly assigned

bogus feedback meant (explained further in the Procedure). LO students were described as those

who “strive for personal growth, the process of learning, and intellectual competence. They are

the ones to ask questions which they find interesting.” GO students were described as those who

are “focused on grades, status, competition, and recognition. They are the students to ask

whether or not material will be on the test.” To cleanly classify participants into conditions, the
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 14

experimenter also stated that, “although students can be both learning-oriented and grade-

oriented, there is a strong negative correlation of -0.5 between learning-orientation and grade-

orientation. That means that students are usually one or the other, and are mainly motivated to

either learn in a class or to achieve a grade in a class.”

NASA Exercise: Survival on the Moon. To measure group performance, participants in

a group of two had 5 minutes to complete the NASA Exercise: Survival on the Moon (Brown &

Latham, 2002). This task involves a hypothetical situation where participants have crash landed

on the moon and must rank 15 items in terms of how important they are for allowing survival.

These items range from necessary (oxygen) to almost useless (box of matches). NASA

previously created a scoring rubric of the ideal ranking. Group performance on this task was thus

measured by comparing participants’ responses to NASA’s scoring rubric, with a greater

difference among scores indicating worse group performance.

Classroom Cohesion Scale. The Classroom Cohesion Scale (Rosenfeld & Gilbert,

1989) measured how cohesive these academic groups were. This scale has 10 items which are all

on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Scores range

from 10 to 70, with higher scores indicating higher levels of group cohesion. The scale has

sufficient reliability with a consistency coefficient of C = .44. An example item is, “The group

was composed of people who fit together.”

Group Attitude Scale. The Group Attitude Scale (Evand & Jarvis, 1986) measured how

attracted members were toward their group, or how much they enjoyed being a part of the group.

This scale has 20 items which are all on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 9

(agree). Scores range from 20 to 180, with higher scores indicating higher levels of group
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 15

attraction. The scale has sufficient reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha α = .95. An example item

is, “I look forward to coming to my group.”

Demographics form. The Demographics Form was described in the Materials section of

Study 1.

Manipulation Check. To evaluate if participants believed their bogus feedback of being

predominantly a LO or GO student, a manipulation check asked how much they believed this

evaluation. Responses were on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (did not believe) to 4

(believed).

Study 2 Procedure

Before participants were sampled, Institutional Review Board approval was attained.

After giving informed consent, participants completed the LOGO-II to measure actual academic

motivation. Afterwards, the LOGO-II was graded in front of participants. Participants then

received randomly assigned bogus feedback from the experimenter informing them that they

were predominantly either a LO or GO student. This feedback constituted perceived motivation,

and was randomly assigned without regard to their actual scores on the LOGO-II. Participants

then read the descriptions of both LO and GO academic motivations. With the understanding of

these academic motivations, participants then took five minutes to complete the cooperative

group activity in a group of 2. Afterwards, participants individually completed both the group

cohesion and group attraction measures in a counterbalanced order. Finally, participants

completed the short demographics form and the manipulation check. When all participants

finished, they were thanked for their time and debriefed. Each data sampling session took an

average of 25 minutes, and was completed in a quiet room on the university’s campus with 2

participants ran per session.

MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 16

Study 2 Results

The researchers proposed one hypothesis for Study 2: groups with similar perceived and

actual academic motivations would display better group performance, cohesion, and attraction

than groups with dissimilar perceived and actual motivations. Before this hypothesis can be

investigated, the manipulation check of perceived motivation and the reliabilities of the LOGO-

II, Classroom Cohesion Scale, and the Group Attitudes Scale must first be addressed. Results

indicated that 75% of participants either “somewhat agreed” or “agreed” with their randomly

assigned bogus feedback. This response suggests there was a believable manipulation of

perceived motivation, especially considering that participants may not have agreed with this

statement due to the question evoking general suspicion unrelated to the bogus feedback. Inter-

item reliability of the LOGO-II produced α = .78 for the LO subscale and α = .74 for the GO

subscale. Inter-item reliability of the Classroom cohesion Scale produced α = .93. Inter-item

reliability of the Group Attitudes Scale produced α = .89.

To evaluate the researchers’ hypothesis, independent variables for comparison had to first

be established for actual motivation. From the LOGO-II, participants were labeled as

predominantly LO or GO by comparing their LO and GO scores to overall means. For example,

if a person had an average LO score and an above average GO score, they were labeled as

predominantly GO in terms of actual motivation. By considering each person’s predominant

motivation in a group, groups were then labeled as one of three factors in terms of actual

motivation: predominantly LO, equally GO and LO, and predominantly GO. This procedure

resulted in 12 groups of students being predominantly LO, 27 groups of students being equally

LO and GO representation, and 11 groups of students of predominantly GO. Once these

independent variables were established, 6 one-way analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were

MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 17

conducted. Results of these tests are presented in Table III. Collectively, these results do not

support the hypothesis, and demonstrate that the arrangement of both perceived and actual

motivation in groups did not affect group performance, cohesion, or attraction. The overall

means for LO (M = 52.4, SD = 8.0) and GO (M = 45.9, SD = 8.1) were similar to previous group

means (Eison, et al., 1983). The overall means for group cohesion (M = 60.0, SD = 8.7;

Rosenfeld & Gilbert, 1989) and group attraction (M = 145.1, SD = 21.2; Evand & Jarvis, 1986),

however, were much higher than previous means.

Study 2 Discussion

They hypotheses of Study 2 were not supported; the arrangements of perceived and

actual academic motivations did not affect group performance, cohesion, or attraction. The

researchers believed that there was one major limitation explaining these results: a lack of

experimental realism. These groups were formed artificially by pairing together individuals who

had largely never met one another and were only together for a short duration of time. This lack

of exposure and unrealistic amount of time together does not directly resemble most naturally

forming groups. Due to these unrealistic conditions, it is believed that participants gave more

socially desirable responses on both the Classroom Cohesion Scale and the Group Attitudes

Scale. This is because the mean scores on those measures were near these measures’ max scores,

insinuating that groups comprised of members who mostly had little exposure to each other

consistently reported high group cohesion and group attraction. Because of this implausibility, it

is believed that social desirability was measured instead of group cohesion and group attraction.

To amend this limitation, Study 3 examined naturally formed groups in realistic group

settings. While Study 2 emphasized internal validity, Study 3 aimed to balance internal validity

with experimental realism. Because similarity can reduce misunderstanding and conflict (Gordon
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 18

& Chen, 2016; Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher 2013; Evans & Jarvis, 1986), Study 3 hypothesized

that groups with similar academic motivations would display better group performance,

cohesion, and attraction than groups with dissimilar academic motivations.

Study 3

Study 3 Participants

Participants were recruited from the same mid-sized, southern university from the

following upper-level psychology courses: Sensation and Perception, Personality Psychology,

Physiological Psychology, Health Psychology, Learning and Conditioning, and Research

Methods. Each of these courses incorporated a semester-long group research project with 4-6

students in each group. From these classes, the sample consisted of 129 undergraduate students

(76% women) between the ages of 18 and 43 with a mean age of 21.66 (SD = 3.22). There were

3 two-person groups, 10 three-person groups, 13 four-person groups, 2 five-person groups, and 5

six-person groups.The racial composition of participants was 4.7% African American/Black,

8.6% Asian, 5.5% Latino, 76.6% White/European American, and 4.7% Other. Because of

groups’ dynamic nature, one person can have completely different experiences while in one

group as compared to another, even with some similar group members (Light, Jason, Stevens,

Callahan, & Stone, 2016). Groups are a function of their members and the situation, and any

changes in that setup drastically alters the group experience. Because of this reason, participants

had the chance to be sampled more than once if they were enrolled in multiple of the

aforementioned labs. Due to this possibility, participants were only debriefed when all of the

study’s sampling concluded.

Study 3 Design
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 19

Study 3 had a similar design to Study 2 with a few notable changes. Study 3 was quasi-

experimental in design because participants’ actual motivations of learning or earning grades

were not manipulated. Study 3 also examined naturally formed groups, rather than artificial

groups that were experimentally created. To examine realistic groups, the measurement for group

performance changed. Perceived motivation was not examined in this study due to experimental

constraints.

Study 3 Measures

LOGO-II. The LOGO-II was described in the Materials section of Study 1.

Academic Motivation Scale. In an effort to assess construct validity of the LOGO-II

while also examining a more holistic form of academic motivation, the Academic Motivation

Scale (AMS; Vallerand et al., 1992) was used. This measure has seven subscales: three for

intrinsic motivation, three for extrinsic motivation, and one for amotivation. Responses capture

why students went to college, and are measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (does

not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly). Total scores range from 28 to 196 with higher

scores in each subscale indicating higher levels of that respective academic orientation. Average

inter-item reliability of the seven subscales is α = .81. An example item from the intrinsic

motivation subscale is, “[I went to college] because I experience pleasure and satisfaction in

learning new things.”

Final Paper Grades. Students in these academic work groups collectively complete a

group paper presenting their semester-long work. Grades for these final papers were included in

analyses as a realistic measure of group performance. A coding procedure was implemented to

maintain anonymity with these final paper grades, thus preventing the researcher from attaching

student names to final paper grades.

MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 20

Classroom Cohesion Questionnaire. The Classroom Cohesion Questionnaire was

described in the Materials section of Study 2..

Group Attitude Scale. The Group Attitude Scale was described in the Materials section

of Study 2.

Demographics form. The Demographics Form was described in the Materials section of

Study 1.

Study 3 Procedure

Before participants are sampled, Institutional Review Board approval was attained.

Participants in this study first gave informed consent. They then completed the LOGO-II to

measure academic motivation in terms of learning and getting a grade, the AMS to measure

general academic motivation, the CCQ to measure group cohesion, the GAS to measure group

attraction, and the short demographics form. When all participants finished, they were thanked

for their time. Debriefing did not occur until every lab had finished being sampled because

participants could be sampled more than once. Each data sampling session took an average of 25

minutes. These data sessions were completed in a quiet room on the university’s campus with up

to 24 participants per session.

Study 3 Results

One hypothesis was proposed for Study 3: groups with similar academic motivations

would display better group performance, cohesion, and attraction than groups with dissimilar

academic motivations. Before this hypothesis can be investigated, the reliabilities of the LOGO-

II, the Classroom Cohesion Scale, the Group Attitudes Scale, and the Academic Motivation

Scale must first be addressed. Inter-item reliability of the LOGO-II produced α = .72 for the LO

subscale and α = .78 for the GO subscale. Inter-item reliability of the Classroom cohesion Scale
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 21

produced α = .97. Inter-item reliability of the Group Attitudes Scale produced α = .92. Inter-item

of the Academic Motivation Scale produced an α = .94 for the intrinsic motivation subscale, an α

= .85 for the extrinsic motivation subscale, and an α = .92 for the amotivation subscale.

Collectively, these reliabilities suggest that all scales in this study demonstrated necessary levels

of reliability.

To evaluate the researchers’ hypothesis, independent variables for comparison also had to

be established for actual motivation. The same categorization process described in the Study 2

Results section was implemented. This procedure resulted in 9 groups of students being

predominantly LO, 10 groups of students being equally LO and GO representation, and 14

groups of students of predominantly GO. Once these independent variables were established, 6

one-way analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were conducted. Three ANOVAs examined group

dynamics in terms of the LOGO-II and three in terms of the AMS. Results of these tests are

presented in Table IV. Collectively, these results partially support the hypothesis, and

demonstrate that the arrangement of actual motivation in groups affected group cohesion and

attraction, but not performance. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that

the mean scores for group cohesion in the predominantly LO condition (M = 57.92, SD = 11.35)

were significantly higher than the equally LO and GO condition (M = 52.53, SD = 13.85).

However, the predominantly GO condition (M = 49.91, SD = 12.22) did not significantly differ

from the other two conditions with regards to group cohesion and attraction. Post hoc

comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean scores for group attraction in the

predominantly LO condition (M = 151.38, SD = 21.75) were significantly higher than both the

equally LO and GO condition (M = 137.02, SD = 30.05) and the predominantly GO condition

(M = 133.62, SD = 31.72).
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 22

To explain how arrangements of motivations across group members impacted group

performance when measured by the AMS but not the LOGO-II, two pearson correlations were

conducted. The first correlation examined LO and intrinsic motivation, and resulted in r = .60, p

< .000. The second correlation examined GO and extrinsic motivation, and resulted in r = .17, p

= .063. The dissimilarity between GO and extrinsic motivation helps explain how the

arrangements of individual members’ motivations showed a significant effect with performance

when measured by the AMS, but not the LOGO-II.

The overall means for LO (M = 51.9, SD = 7.7) and GO (M = 44.9, SD = 9.0) were

similar to previous group means (Eison, et al., 1983). In this study, the overall means for group

cohesion (M = 53.4, SD = 14.1; Rosenfeld & Gilbert, 1989) and group attraction (M = 140.3, SD

= 29.0; Evand & Jarvis, 1986) were similar to previous means. Overall means for the AMS’s

seven subscales were similar to previous means (Utvær, & Haugan, 2016).

Study 3 Discussion

The hypothesis of study 3 was partially supported; differing arrangements of what

actually motivated group members related to group cohesion and attraction, but not group

performance. Group members felt closest together and enjoyed their group experience most

when most of the group was similarly motivated to learn, as compared to evenly split between

motives to learn and achieve a grade. Performance, however, was unaffected by this collective

motivational preferences, suggesting that group members can work together to accomplish a task

well despite differences in what drives the group.

While LO was associated strongly with intrinsic motivation, GO was not associated with

extrinsic motivation. Although Page and Alexitch (2003) posited that GO represents an academic

form of extrinsic motivation, results of the current study suggest differently. Perhaps GO and
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 23

extrinsic motivation represent slightly different constructs, potentially explaining why significant

effects were found on performance with the AMS but not the LOGO-II. Comparing items

between the LOGO-II’s GO questions and the AMS’s extrinsic motivations supports this

possibility. The former focuses intently on grades, while the latter examines a more holistic form

of extrinsic motivation ranging from future salary to prestige. Future research should determine

in what settings group performance is affected by its group members’ differing motivations to

empirically settle this incongruity.

General Discussion

Across three studies, the role of academic motivations in group dynamics was examined.

Study 1 conceptually replicated Eisenkraft et al. (2017) with dyadic meta-accuracy, finding that

groups members know who likes them, but not who competes against them. Study 1 also found

that students demonstrate poor perceived motivational accuracy because they could not

accurately assess what motivated their group members, be it learning or grades. While Study 1

correlationally examined these variables, Study 2 incorporated an experimental design to

investigate if the arrangements of group members’ perceived and actual motivations in groups

affected group performance, cohesion, and attraction. Researchers believed that due to a lack of

experimental realism, however, findings were inconclusive and required a more realistic

investigation. Study 3 subsequently examined naturally formed groups to find that the

arrangements of group members’ academic motivations in groups related to group cohesion and

attraction, but not performance.

Taken holistically, these findings have large implications for academic work groups.

Because group members who shared similar, as compared to different, motivations to learn were

more cohesive and attracted to their groups, it is recommended to form academic work groups
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 24

based on similar motives to learn. Doing so in this research resulted in no performance

differences, but greater closeness and enjoyment in the group. It enabled students who mostly

valued learning to rally around that shared understanding, possibly experiencing reduced group

conflict, a finding consistent with Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale (1999).

This idea of rallying individuals for a common goal relates to the value of mission

statements. Mission statements express overarching passions and group norms to motivate

individuals toward achieving a common goal (Williams, 2008). They express the culture of an

organization or group, and may help align differently motivated people for the execution of a

shared objective. Mission statements might have additional merit, then, for group members with

dissimilar motivations because they help members overcome the relational difficulties evoked

from differing values (Yukelson, 1997; Martin, Cowburn, & Mac Intosh, 2017).

While each study had its own limitations, one overarching limitation is potentially

inhibited generalizability. These three studies sampled students at the same university, which

may not fairly represent other university students. As a more theoretical limitation, these studies

took place in a highly individualistic culture, which might have dulled the effects in this group

research. With a heightened emphasis on the self, as seen in individualist cultures, common

norms may lessen effects on group dynamics.

Future research should examine these dynamics of shared and differing group

motivations in a different cultural context. Because collectivist cultures value group-centered

approaches to work more often than individualist cultures (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier,

2002), researchers can examine if academic motivations affect group dynamics differently or

more profoundly in collectivist cultures.

MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 25

Furthermore, future studies could examine a similar process of how academic

orientations could affect group dynamics, not in terms of learning-orientation and grade-

orientation, but in terms of growth-mindsets and fixed-mindsets. These dichotomous mentalities

refer to how one perceives their academic potentials: improvable or stagnant (Yeager & Dweck,

2012; Claro, Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016; Yeager et al., 2016). Perhaps a learning-orientation

resembles an academic growth-mindset because they both incorporate a strong desire to learn

and subsequently improve one’s skills. Similarly, perhaps a grade-orientation resembles a fixed-

mindset because they both incorporate a focus on extrinsically motivating factors such as grades

or achievement as a test of one’s behavior. Following the current studies’ framework, perhaps a

group of students mostly motivated to grow (i.e. growth-mindset) demonstrates different group

dynamics than both a group of students mostly motivated to show what knowledge they already

possess (i.e. fixed-mindset) and a group of equally mixed motives. Because mindsets generally

help motivate behavior (Armor & Taylor, 2003), understanding these particular mindsets in a

group context could further illuminate academic motivation’s role on group dynamics.

As a whole, these studies demonstrate the value of academic motivations in a group

context. Even though group members cannot accurately assess what motivates each other, those

motivations can help create a more enjoyable group experience if a desire to learn is shared

among members. Future research examining motivation in groups could find how to craft

stronger, more enjoyable groups, thus remaining a valuable topic of investigation.

MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 26

References

Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (2003). The effects of mindset on behavior: Self-regulation in

deliberative and implemental frames of mind. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 29(1), 86-95.

Buss, D. M. (Ed.). (2005). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. John Wiley & Sons.

Carlson, E. N., Furr, R. M., & Vazire, S. (2010). Do we know the first impressions we make?

Evidence for idiographic meta-accuracy and calibration of first impressions. Social

Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 94-98.

Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of

poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

113(31), 8664-8668.

Elfenbein, H. A., Eisenkraft, N., & Ding, W. W. (2009). Do we know who values us? Dyadic

meta-accuracy in the perception of professional relationships. Psychological

Science, 20(9), 1081-1083.

Eisenkraft, N., Elfenbein, H. A., & Kopelman, S. (2017). We know who likes us, but not

who competes against us: Dyadic meta-accuracy among work

colleagues. Psychological Science, 28, 233–241.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616679440

Eison, J. A. (1982). Educational and personal dimensions of learning-and grade-oriented

students. Psychological Reports, 51(3), 867-870.

Eison, J. A., Pollio, H. R., & Milton, O. (1983). Manual for use with LOGO-II.

Evans, N. J., & Jarvis, P. A. (1986). The group attitude scale: A measure of attraction to

group. Small Group Behavior, 17(2), 203-216.

MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 27

Forsyth, D. R. (2018). Group dynamics. Cengage Learning.

Goldman, Z. W., & Martin, M. M. (2014). College students' academic beliefs and their

motives for communicating with their instructor. Communication Research

Reports, 31(4), 316-328.

Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2016). Do you get where I’m coming from?: Perceived

understanding buffers against the negative impact of conflict on relationship

satisfaction. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 110(2), 239-260.

doi:10.1037/pspi0000039

Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Bridging

faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and

performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189.

Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of

value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup

outcomes. International journal of conflict management, 8(4), 287-305.

Light, J. M., Jason, L. A., Stevens, E. B., Callahan, S., & Stone, A. (2016). A mathematical

framework for the complex system approach to group dynamics: The case of recovery

house social integration. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, And Practice, 20(1),

51-64. doi:10.1037/gdn0000040

Martin, E. M., Cowburn, I., & Mac Intosh, A. (2017). Developing a team mission statement:

Who are we? Where are we going? How are we going to get there?. Journal Of Sport

Psychology In Action, 8(3), 197-207. doi:10.1080/21520704.2017.1299060

MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 28

Page, S., & Alexitch, L. R. (2003). Learning- and grade-orientation, sex, and prediction of

self-reported academic performance. Psychological Reports, 92(1), 320-324.

doi:10.2466/PR0.92.1.320-324

Rosenfeld, L. B., & Gilbert, J. R. (1989). The measurement of cohesion and its relationship

to dimensions of self-disclosure in classroom settings. Small Group Behavior, 20(3),

291-301.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and

new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding &

overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58(2), 52-57.

Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork

work?. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 30(3), 785-791.

Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion: Intermember attraction, instrumental

value, and risk taking. Small Group Behavior, 14(2), 163-173.

doi:10.1177/104649648301400203

Tabernero, C., Chambel, M. J., Curral, L., & Arana, J. M. (2009). The role of task-oriented

versus relationship-oriented leadership on normative contract and group

performance. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 37(10),

1391-1404.

Utvær, B. K. S., & Haugan, G. (2016). The academic motivation scale: dimensionality,

reliability, and construct validity among vocational students. Nordic Journal of

Vocational Education and Training, 6(2), 17-45.

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F.
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 29

(1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and

amotivation in education. Educational and psychological measurement, 52(4),

1003-1017.

Van Swol, L. M., Carlson-Hill, C. L., & Lewis, E. A. (2018). Integrative complexity,

participation, and agreement in group discussions. Small Group Research, 49(4),

409-428. doi:10.1177/1046496418755510

Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. Basic Books (AZ).

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students

believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational psychologist,

47(4), 302-314.

Yeager, D. S., Romero, C., Paunesku, D., Hulleman, C. S., Schneider, B., Hinojosa, C., ... &

Trott, J. (2016). Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: The

case of the growth mindset during the transition to high school. Journal of educational

psychology, 108(3), 374.

Yukelson, D. (1997). Principles of effective team building interventions in sport: A direct

services approach at Penn State University. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9(1),

73-96.
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 30

Table I. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations of Dyadic Meta-Accuracy Questions

for Study 1

Correlations
_____________________
Variable M SD 1 2 3

1. A’s meta-perception 6.8 1.6

of how much B likes A

2. How much B likes A 7.2 1.8 0.543

0.000

3. A’s meta-perception of how 3.1 1.9 -0.021 -0.070

competitive B is to A 0.761 0.309

4. How competitive B is to A 3.1 2.2 0.104 0.071 -0.173

0.128 0.299 0.011

*correlation coefficient
p-value
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 31

Table II. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations of Perceived Motivational Accuracy
Questions for Study 1

Correlations
_____________________
Variable M SD 1 2 3

1. LO score 52.4 6.9

2. How LO group members 6.5 1.2 0.129

perceived this person 0.275

3. GO score 44.6 7.4 -0.503 0.002

0.000 0.984

4. How GO group members 7.0 0.9 -0.086 0.431 -0.012

perceived this person 0.469 0.000 0.920

*correlation coefficient
p-value
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 32

Table III. Results of One-Way ANOVAS of Perceived and Actual Motivation on Group
Performance, Cohesion, and Attraction for Study 2
____________________________________________________________________________
Variable F df p ηp2
____________________________________________________________________________

1. Perceived Motivation .51 2 .601 .01

on Group Performance

2. Actual Motivation on .30 2 .744 .01

Group Performance

3. Perceived Motivation .18 2 .838 .00

on Group Cohesion

4. Actual Motivation on .55 2 .580 .01

Group Cohesion

5. Perceived Motivation .15 2 .864 .00

on Group Attraction

6. Actual Motivation on 1.94 2 .150 .04

Group Attraction
____________________________________________________________________________
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 33

Table IV. Descriptive statistics in Study 2 by group classification

______________________________________________________________________________

Variable M SD n
______________________________________________________________________________

Perceived Motivation on
Group Performance
Mostly LO 45.64 12.78 36
Equally LO and GO 45.63 12.97 32
Mostly GO 43.22 5.92 32
Actual Motivation on
Group Performance
Mostly LO 46.38 14.51 24
Equally LO and GO 44.18 9.34 22
Mostly GO 44.46 10.09 54

Perceived Motivation on
Group Cohesion
Mostly LO 60.69 8.68 36
Equally LO and GO 59.78 9.77 32
Mostly GO 59.50 7.58 32
Actual Motivation on
Group Cohesion
Mostly LO 61.63 6.86 24
Equally LO and GO 59.73 8.52 22
Mostly GO 59.43 9.43 54

Perceived Motivation on
Group Attraction
Mostly LO 146.22 18.61 36
Equally LO and GO 145.41 23.13 32
Mostly GO 143.47 22.43 32
Actual Motivation on
Group Attraction
Mostly LO 151.17 17.51 24
Equally LO and GO 139.00 18.31 22
Mostly GO 144.85 23.25 54
MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 34

Table V. Results of One-Way ANOVAS of Perceived and Actual Motivation on Group

Performance, Cohesion, and Attraction for Study 3
____________________________________________________________________________
Variable F df p ηp2
____________________________________________________________________________
1. Actual Motivation on .093 2 .400 .01
LOGO Group
Performance

2. Actual Motivation on 3.15 2 .046 .05

LOGO Group Cohesion

3. Actual Motivation on 4.14 2 .020 .06

LOGO Group Attraction

4. Actual Motivation on 10.96 2 .000 .15

AMS Group
Performance

5. Perceived Motivation 4.98 2 .008 .07

on Actual Group
Cohesion

6. Actual Motivation on 2.40 2 .095 .04

Actual Group Attraction
 MOTIVATION AND GROUP DYNAMICS 35

Table VI. Descriptive statistics in Study 3 by group classification

______________________________________________________________________________

Variable M SD n
______________________________________________________________________________

Group Performance
Mostly LO 88.13 6.54 37
Equally LO and GO 86.12 6.34 34
Mostly GO 87.10 5.94 57
Mostly IM 85.53 6.42 43
Equally IM and EM 85.43 4.91 44
Mostly EM 90.61 5.94 41

Group Cohesion
Mostly LO 57.92 11.35 37
Equally LO and GO 49.91 16.23 34
Mostly GO 52.53 13.85 57
Mostly IM 48.28 14.90 43
Equally IM and EM 54.59 14.47 44
Mostly EM 57.46 11.27 41

Group Attraction
Mostly LO 151.38 21.75 37
Equally LO and GO 133.62 31.72 34
Mostly GO 137.62 30.05 57
Mostly IM 132.74 28.57 43
Equally IM and EM 142.07 29.98 44
Mostly EM 146.07 27.65 41
______________________________________________________________________________

View publication stats