![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
This study investigates the way in which and the extent to which students engage in social categorization during the process of self-selecting team members for a team assignment. The discovery-oriented method of grounded theory was used. Data were gathered from a sample of 38 undergraduate marketing and management students using the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique. Results indicate that, when faced with having too little information about classmates, students use a variety of social cues to cognitively categorize classmates, and then make a series of inferences about their personality, values, and trustworthiness based on the category in which they are placed. In addition, students use the inferences to help make decisions about who to approach and who to avoid during the self-selection process. Making inferences about classmates based on the social category in which they are placed, rather than on individual merit, is stereotyping. Behaving differently toward classmates based on the social category in which they are placed is discrimination. All 38 students who participated in this study reported that they have used social cues to help decide who to approach and who to avoid during team formation, and 13 reported doing so every time they have self-selected team members.
Keywords team, assignment, self-selection, team formation, negative, unintended, consequences
References
Section:
|
Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., Anderson, E. S. (2001). Methods of assigning players to teams: A review and novel approach. Simulation & Gaming, 32(1), 6-17. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., Stewart-Belle, S. (1998). Exploring predictors of student team project performance. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(1) 63-71. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Batra, M. M., Walvoord, B. E., Krishnan, L. S. (1997). Effective pedagogy for student-team projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 19(1), 26-42. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Beheshtian-Ardekani, M., Mahmood, M. A. (1986). Development and validation of a tool for assigning students to groups for class projects. Decision Sciences, 17, 92-113. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Blowers, P. (2003). Using student skill self-assessment to get balanced groups for group projects. College Teaching, 50(3), 106-110. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Buchar, R. D. (2015). Diversity consciousness: Opening our minds to people, cultures, and opportunities. New York, NY: Pearson. Google Scholar | |
|
Butterfield, J., Pendegraft, N. (1996). Gaming techniques to improve the team-formation process. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 2(4), 11-20. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Chapman, K., Meuter, M., Toy, D., Wright, L. (2006). Can’t we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 30, 557-569. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Connerley, M. L., Mael, F. A. (2001). The importance and invasiveness of student team selection criteria. Journal of Management Education, 25, 471-494. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Crosby, F., Bromley, S., Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of black and white discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546-563. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Kennedy, K. N., Ramsey, R. P. (2002). Enriching our understanding of student team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 114-124. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Dommeyer, C. J. (2007). Using the diary method to deal with social loafers on the group project: Its effects on peer evaluations, group behavior, and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 175-188. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Driscell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 249-271. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Feichtner, S. B., Davis, E. A. (1985). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences with learning groups. Journal of Management Education, 9(4), 77-88. Google Scholar | |
|
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine. Google Scholar | |
|
Gosenpud, J. (1989). The prediction of simulation performance as it is affected by time. Simulation & Gaming, 20, 319-350. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 11-19. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Huxham, M., Land, R. (2000). Assigning students in group work projects: Can we do better than random? Innovation in Education and Training International, 37(1), 17-22. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Jalajas, D. S., Sutton, R. I. (1984-1985). Feuds in student groups, coping with whiners, martyrs, saboteurs, bullies, and deadbeats. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9, 217-227. Google Scholar | |
|
John, O. P., Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin, L. A., John, O. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guildford. Google Scholar | |
|
Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., Moore, D. D. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 505-524. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Mahenthiran, S., Rouse, P. J. (2000). The impact of group selection on student performance and satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Management, 14, 255-264. Google Scholar | |
|
Matta, V., Luce, T., Ciavarro, G. (2010). Exploring impact of self-selected student teams and academic potential satisfaction. Proceedings of the Information Systems Educators Conference, 27(1304), 1-10. Google Scholar | |
|
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., Schoorman, D. F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
McCorkle, D. E., Reardon, J., Alexander, J. F., Kling, N. D., Harris, R. C., Iyer, R. V. (1999). Undergraduate marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: The good, the bad, and the ugly? Journal of Marketing Education, 21, 106-117. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Medin, D. L. (1988). Social categorization: Structures, process, and purposes. In Srull, T. K., Wyer, R. S. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 119-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
Mello, J. A. (1993). Improving individual member accountability in small work group settings. Journal of Management Education, 17, 253-259. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Muller, T. E. (1989). Assigning students to groups for class projects: An exploratory test of two methods. Decisions Sciences Journal, 4, 623-634. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Neu, W. A. (2012). Unintended cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences of group graded assignments. Journal of Marketing Education, 34(1), 67-81. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Potosky, D., Duck, J. (2007). Forming teams for classroom projects. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 34, 144-148. Google Scholar | |
|
Rosenbaum, M. S., Moraru, I., Labrecque, L. I. (2014). A multicultural service sensitivity exercise for marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education, 35(1), 5-17. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Schneider, D. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Scott, T. J., Bisland, R. B., Tichenor, L. H., Cross, J. H. (1994), Team dynamics in student programming projects. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth SIGCSE Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 26(1), 111-115. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Seethamraju, R., Borman, M. (2009). Influence of group formation choices on academic performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 31-40. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W. (1993). Cognition and affect in stereotyping: Parallel interactive networks. In Mackie, D. M., Hamilton, D. L. (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive process in group processes (pp. 111-136). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Strauss, A. L., Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Taylor, S. E. (1981). A categorizing approach to stereotyping. In Hamilton, D. L. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 83-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
Thorndike, E. L. (1906). Introduction. In The principles of teaching: Based on psychology (pp. 1-11). New York, NY: A. G. Seiler. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Williams, D. L., Beard, J. D., Rymer, J. (1991). Team projects: Achieving their full potential. Journal of Marketing Education, 13(1), 45-53. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Wood, C. M. (2003). The effects of creating psychological ownership among students in group projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 241-249. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Zaltman, G., Coulter, R. H. (1995). Seeing the voice of the customer: Metaphor-based advertising research. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(4), 35-51. Google Scholar | ISI |
