Evaluating Group Processes: A Critical Analysis of Stewart et al.

This essay presents a critical evaluation of a selected journal article related to group processes in organizations, following specific guidelines and assessment criteria. The assignment requires an accurate description of the experiment reported in the article by Stewart et al. (1998), focusing on methods and results. It also involves a critical analysis of the experiment's method and results using logic, synthesis, and knowledge substantiated by citations from PsycINFO. The evaluation emphasizes both the strengths and limitations of the target article, demonstrating the ability to interpret published evidence and compare/contrast it with the target article. The essay adheres to a provided template, APA citation and referencing methods, and formatting instructions, including a maximum word count of 1,000 words excluding the reference list. The goal is to assess critical-analytical skills and meet coursework assessment objectives for the module.

ASSESSMENT BRIEF
GROUP PROCESSES IN ORGANIZATIONS 2018 COURSEWORK GUIDELINES
I. AIMS
In this assignment, you will write ONE critical evaluation of a selected journal article using the
template provided further on in this document. The purpose of this work is to enable you to
meet the learning outcomes for this module concerning critical-analytical skills, and to meet
the coursework assessment objectives for this module worth 30% of the grade for this module.
You will need to fulfil the following assessment criteria in your coursework submission.
II. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
1. Your accurate description of the experiment reported in the journal article in your own
words. That includes recounting both the methods and results in your own words.
2. Your critical evaluation of the experiment method and results presented by the journal
article using logic and demonstrating synthesis. Your critical evaluation extrapolates strengths
and/or weaknesses of the target article
3. Your critical evaluation of the experiment method and results presented by the journal
article using knowledge accompanied by citations. You are required to go beyond the textbook
and to use journal articles that you have found through the PsycINFO search parameter
stipulated within the critique template. The citations demonstrate the ability to accurately
interpret published evidence and to compare/contrast it with the target article. The PsycINFO
search parameters are stipulated in step 3 the assessment brief.
NOTE: Engaging in critical evaluation means writing about the strengths and the limitations of
a journal article. Many published experiments are excellent. The skill as a writer engaging in
critique is to demonstrate your ability to extrapolate why it is excellent, from an empirical point
of view, just as much as it is to extrapolate why the evidence it is limited (if it is).
4. Your citations were found through PsycINFO using the PsycINFO search parameter indicated
in the assessment brief later on in this document. Your citations are relevant and accompanied
by a reference list. The references must include the DOI number of the article.
5. Your ability to solve the problem (the essay question) through synthesis in an objective
manner adhering to the principles of science (see the ‘scientific method.’)
6. Your adherence to the critical evaluation template – content length (1,000 words maximum
overall, excluding the reference list) and formatting instructions.
7. Your use of American Psychological Association citation and referencing methods.
8. Clarity and precision in writing.
II. SCORING SCHEME
You will receive a mark out of 100. The scores per assessment criterion are as follows. Criteria
4, 6, 7 and 8 will be assessed on an all/none basis. All other criteria will be assessed on a
continuum from 0 up to the maximum stated below.
Assessment criteria Mark
1. There is an accurate, original, description of the published
experiment’s method and results.
= 10 marks
2. There is quality critical evaluation of the published experiment’s
method and results using logic and synthesis. The critical
evaluation extrapolates strengths and/or weaknesses of the target
article
= 20 marks
3. There is quality critical evaluation of the published experiment’s
method and results using substantiated knowledge (that is,
= 20 marks

accompanied by citations). The citations demonstrate the ability to
accurately interpret published evidence and to compare/contrast it
with the target article. The citations were selected from PsycINFO
search results; the PsycINFO search parameters were stipulated in
the original assessment brief. The critical evaluation extrapolates
strengths and/or weaknesses of the target article.
4. The citations were found through PsycINFO using the PsycINFO
search parameter indicated in the assessment brief later on in this
document. The citations are relevant and accompanied by a
reference list.
= 5 marks*
5. The work has demonstrated the writer’s ability to engage in an
intellectual debate in an objective manner that adheres to the
principles of science.
= 15 marks
6. The work adheres to the critical evaluation template provided;
the word counts, structure, content (maximum 1,000 words overall,
excluding the reference list) and other aspects follow the
formatting instructions.
= 7 marks*
7. The citations and references adhere to the American
Psychological Association (APA) format. In addition, each reference
to a journal article contains the DOI locator.
= 8 marks*
8. The writing has clarity and precision. = 5 marks*
FORMATTING INSTRUCTIONS
1. Assignments must be typed and submitted through the Turnitin link provided on Moodle
before the deadline.
2. Requests for late submissions should not be made to the module lecturer because they are
dealt with by the mitigating circumstances committee. Please ensure you are fully familiar
with the mitigating circumstances policy by checking MyBirkbeck, and ensure you enquire
about the mitigating circumstances documentation and deadline from the module
administrator, [e-mail]
3. Please use Times New Roman font 12 and double-spaced lines. In paragraphs, use first-line
indenting. Apart from the double-space, do not insert any extra space between paragraphs.
Ensure that each page has a margin of 2.54 centimetres on each side (top, left, right and
corner).
4. Use your spell-checker and use correct punctuation.
5. Please use the submission template below. Do not submit the work using a different or
alternate template.
6. Plagiarism is strictly prohibited. You must not copy any one else’s work. You must also not
use phrases or sentences or ideas used or expressed by other people (say, in a book or on
the web) without crediting them to their true authors. Plagiarism in any form will result in a
zero. Assignments must be completed independently, without help from others. Your
submission will be scanned by Turnitin software and any evidence of plagiarism will be
referred to the assessment offences committee.
7. Substantiate all claims with evidence, or else make sure you make it clear that an
unsubstantiated claim is merely an idea, possibility, or hypothesis. For example, do not
write an unsubstantiated statement like: ‘People giggle when tickled.’ You should either
provide supporting evidence: ‘Research by Comedis (1977) showed that people giggle
when tickled.’ – or else make it clear that it is an idea or mere conjecture: ‘It is possible that
people giggle when tickled’ or ‘I suggest that people giggle when tickled.’ Unsubstantiated
claims will result in loss of marks – see II.3. above.
8. A citation is the mentioning of an article or book author, along with the year that their work
was published, within the text of your answer. For example, in note-3 above, ‘Comedis
(1977)’ is a citation. Inappropriate or incomplete citation methods will count against II.3, 4
and 7 above.
9. At the end of your work, within the referencing section of the template, list the full
references for all cited authors. Full references must be in APA (American Psychological
Association) format. See the APA formatting website for examples of how to write a full
APA-formatted reference. For all references, use a hanging indent and list references in
alphabetical order. Inappropriate or incomplete referencing will result in loss of marks. Here
are some examples of references:

a) When writing the full reference for a journal article, follow the year of publication with the title of the journal
article, then the name of the journal and the volume number, followed by the pages. Italicise or underline the
name of the journal and the journal volume number.
Hamilton, V.L. (1978). Obedience and responsibility: A jury simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
36, 126-146.
Note that the volume number (36) is in italics.
b) When writing the full reference for a book chapter, follow the year of publication with the title of the chapter.
After this write the names of the editors of the book, with the initials of each editor written before his/her
surname, then in brackets write the abbreviation ‘Eds’ (short for Editors; use ‘Ed’ if there is one editor). Now
write the name of the book in italics or underlined. Follow this with the publisher’s name and location.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In G. W. Austin and S. Worchel (Eds) The
Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, California: Brookes-Cole.
c) When writing the full reference for a book, follow the year of publication with the title of the book in italics or
underlined, then write the publisher’s name and location.
Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter Effects in Behavioural Research. New York: Appleton.
If you are not sure about whether or not you have correctly formatted a reference using the
APA method, you can use EndNote software to format the reference for you.
10. References need DOI numbers for this assessment. Therefore, the reference list MUST also
include DOI numbers – these are unique identifiers associated with a journal article. An
article’s DOI number is indicated within it, within the PsycINFO search result, and/or the
article’s homepage. DOI numbers are required for this assessment and must be inserted at
the end of a reference unless they are not available (e.g., some articles published a few
decades ago do not have DOI numbers). An example:
Wittenbaum, G.M. (1998). Information sampling in decision-making groups: The impact of members' task-relevant
status. Small Group Research, 29, 57-84. DOI: 10.1177/1046496498291003
11. A scoring scheme has been provided and this should be used in planning the content of
your coursework submission. It indicates the assessment criteria and the marks that will be
awarded for each.
12. Please ensure that you provide all required information within the template. For example,
the word-count in each template box must be provided.
13. Please do NOT write your name anywhere within the coursework or within the file title. You
must upload your work using your student number and not any other information. Failure to
adhere to the anonymous marking policy will result in a loss of marks – see the assessment
criteria concerning formatting.

THE TEMPLATE TO USE
Please download GPO_critical_evaluation_template.docx The copy provided below is for
illustration within this assessment brief/ module handbook.
Please ensure you have read the formatting guidelines and assessment criteria
provided earlier on in this document before you begin.

ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE
GROUP PROCESSES IN ORGANIZATIONS 2018 COURSEWORK
Please ensure you have read the formatting guidelines and assessment criteria provided within
the assessment brief.
STEP 1
Go to the Birkbeck library. Click on ‘e library.’ Click on databases, then select PsycINFO. Login.
STEP 2
Locate the following article and download it. Read it thoroughly. It may be helpful to print it and
make notes on the printed copy as you read it.
Stewart, D. D., Billings, R. S., & Stasser, G. (1998). Accountability and the discussion of
unshared, critical information in decision-making groups. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research and Practice, 2(1), 18-23
STEP 3
Within PsycINFO’s summary page for the above article, there is a link labelled ‘times cited in
this database.’ Click on that. This will show you all the publications that have cited the above
article (Rogelberg et al. 1992) within the PsycINFO database. These are what you need to use,
to meet the assessment criteria 3 and 4 within the assessment brief.
You must not use any other search parameters or cite articles that do not appear within that
list – that is, the list of publications that cite Stewart, D. D., Billings, R. S., & Stasser, G. (1998).
Accountability and the discussion of unshared, critical information in decision-making groups. Group dynamics: Theory,
research, and practice, 2(1), 18-23 within PsycINFO.
STEP 4
Start working on your assignment using the assessment brief, taking note of the assessment
criteria.
STEP 5
Use the following template to complete each section of the critical evaluation. Please do not
submit work that does not adhere to the template below.
Describe the experiment by Stewart et al. (1998)
Accurately describe the method and results of Stewart et al. (1998) using your own words.
Type into the row below.
“Stasser created a secret profile that included nine critical clues of the three
murder suspects”. The critical clues acquitted the guiltless suspects and
convicted the guilty suspect. This reflects the various aspects of the story.

Firstly, it was found out that the groups wanted to select the guilty suspects if
the clues were shared before discussion. Secondly, the group wanted to
analyze the important ideas rather than selecting the suspects. According to
Zhou et al., (2018), accountability affects the important details . Research
reflects that accountability gives the individual information in a concise and
clear manner. However, accountability depends on whether individuals are
conscious or unconscious about the requirements and preferences of the
audiences. Accountability can be of two types named as unknown
accountability and known accountability. The members of the task force are
accountable to the various departments. However, they are unaware of the
preferences of the departments. The department has maintained secrecy to
avoid biasing its representatives. Therefore, the group members coordinate
together in finding the critical information. The group hopes to find the solution
associated with the department. In case of known accountability, the group
members are accountable to the audiences. They implement advocacy roles to
get the critical information of the audiences.
The study included 82 same sex or mixed sex 3-oerson groups (Chiba & LiCalzi,
2018). The participants went through a psychology course. One group was
eliminated because of faults in the experimental procedures. “The remaining
81 groups were assigned to 2 cells”. The study used the murder suspense task
of Stasser and Stewart. The murder suspense work included nine critical clues

and fifteen non-critical clues. The non-critical clues included six accusing clues
about suspects B and M. Suspect E consisted of the rest 3 incriminating clues.
In the beginning, all the participants were asked to read critical information
about the murder mystery. The purpose of this was to make an effective group
decision and finding out the suspect of the murder. In accountability conditions,
the participants went through a group discussion of twenty minutes and they
were asked to individually meet with a three-person interview panel. The group
members were required to sign a consent form because they were made
cautious about the fact that their voices can be recorded by the audiotape. But
to the utmost shock, there was no interview panel. Accountability is also based
on the information that was provided to every participant in the group
discussion. In the preference unknown condition, the group members were not
aware of the interview panel’s preferences. In the preference-known condition,
each group member was aware of the interview panel (Kolb & Swol, 2018). This
means that the group members 1, 2 and 3 were informed that the audience
suspected E, B and M. Participants were allotted thirty minutes to make an
ultimate decision. However, they had the freedom to shun the discussion
whenever required and when a consensus was attained . At the end of the
discussion, the participants were thanked for participating.
The study highlights that preference-known conditions are quite different from
the preference-unknown conditions. This notion was created to ascertain that

members of the group were accountable to the audience outside the group
(Hora et al., 2017). This assisted to recover any difference between the
accountable and non-accountable groups. “Therefore, analyses were
conducted to examine the contradiction that existed between the preference-
known and preference-unknown accountability conditions”. Although, the
experimentation reflected that there is negligible differences between the two.
The dependent variables were inspected in 2*2( information distribution and
accountability set).
Row 1 word count (the row above) = 589
Critically evaluate the article by Stewart et al. (1998)
Write a quality critical evaluation, following the assessment criteria stipulated within the
assessment brief. Type into the row below.
After a critical evaluation of the assignment, it can be rightly said that there is hardly any distinction
between the preference-known and preference-unknown accountability conditions. The discussion

was measured with the help of the audiotape. The discussions were longer in case of accountability
groups. On the other hand, the discussion was not much of importance in case of non-accountability
groups. After this, a basic evaluation was made to understand whether the discussion was effective.
It was examined to make a correct decision that was made by the groups in 2*2 ( Suspect E- the
guilty choice and accountable versus non-accountable). However, it was found out that there was
less improper and incorrect decision-making. Therefore, Hypothesis 7 could be analyzed
effectively. The main effects of the information were also found out. The analysis also found out the
effectiveness of the discussion. The study highlighted that the critical information discovered the
hidden secrets. A sampling focus was created to detect the hidden secrets and the profiles of the
audiences. This helped to discover the critical clues. The details and the given information at least
mentioned the suspect for once. These details were shared before the discussion began. It also
ensured that the discussions were authentic and reliable. The tape coded for critical information
measured the reliability of the information. The coders were oblivious of the hypothesis and was
unable to differentiate between critical and non-critical information (Baukens, 2017).The average of
the two coding was found out because each tape was coded for twice. Therefore, the final result was
measured by the Spearman Brown prophecy formula. The reliability also analysed the components
of the sampling. However the predicted differences between the preference known and preference
unknown conditions did not originate in the study. This is because of several reasons. First, there is
a lot of commonality between the two and the conditions were accountable to the audience for a
decision-making. Secondly, the audience were aware that the audio tape recorded their voices. This
shows that they were accountable for their actions. Thirdly, the hypothesis for the preference known
condition was estimated depending on the change in the participant’s opinions (Zheng et al., 2017).

However, it was found out that that participants did not accept the preferences of the audiences.
Only 51% of the participants agreed with the questionnaire prepared by the audience.
There is a scope for a future discussion because the research did not mention in details the findings
of the accountable and non-accountable groups.

Row 2 word count (the row above) = 413
Total number of words (row 1 + row 2) = 1002
The maximum number of words allowed (combining row 1 and 2) is 1,000 words.
References
Baukens, M. (2017). Employability: From theory to practice. Routledge.
Chiba, S., & LiCalzi, M. (2018). Hidden Profiles and Persuasion Cascades in Group Decision-
Making (No. e-18-001).
Hora, M. T., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., & Park, H. J. (2017). Data driven decision-making in the era of
accountability: Fostering faculty data cultures for learning. The Review of Higher Education, 40(3),
391-426.

Kolb, M. R., & van Swol, L. M. (2018). Manipulating a synchronous or separatist group orientation
to improve performance on a hidden profile task. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(1),
57-72.
Zheng, W., Li, B., Wang, Y., Yin, H., Li, X., Guan, D., & Qin, X. (2017, November). Group
Recommender Model Based on Preference Interaction. In International Conference on Advanced
Data Mining and Applications (pp. 132-147). Springer, Cham.
Zhou, H., Xiao, L., Liu, Y., & Chen, X. (2018). The effect of prediscussion note‐taking in hidden
profile tasks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(4), 566-577.
See the formatting guidelines. Type into the row below.
STEP 5
Declaration: Underline the following green sentences to affirm the originality of your work:
“I confirm that the above is my own work, and that I have produced it through my independent
effort. I confirm that I have not engaged in plagiarism.”
STEP 6
Ensure that the file name does not contain your name. Insert your student number as the file
name. Upload this document onto Turnitin (within the link provided on Moodle – see the Group
Processes in Organizations page) before the deadline).