American Degree Transfer Program

Course: General Psychology

Course Code: PSY 1400

Assignment Number & Title: Assignment 2 – Design a Study in Psychology

Name of Lecturer: Ms Jolyn Hong Su Rong

Name: Student ID Number:

Chang Yee Yen Shannon ADTP2401013
Suk Yena ADTP2401009

I/We declare that this is my/our own original work and any contributions made by others
have been properly acknowledged and/or referenced.

Signature:

Suk Yena
Date of Submission: 21/4/2024
 Introduction
“Too many cooks spoil the broth” refers to a situation where an overabundance of people
working on a singular project could lead to less than optimal results. In a world where group
work is a common practice, we should strive to put together a group that can achieve the
greatest possible outcome. As silly as it sounds, the success of a group project can be affected
by something as simple as the number of group members in the project. Even though having
more members might seem like a good thing, sometimes having fewer members can be more
effective. This is because it is easier to allocate responsibilities and there is less chance for
groupthink and social loafing. Our research is important as it allows students and lecturers to
understand how the size of the group can affect the project’s outcome and allows members to
optimise their performance and enhance inter-collaboration within the group

In this paper, we will observe the type of behaviour exhibited by members in smaller groups as
opposed to members in larger groups and how it affects the results of the project.
Furthermore, we will test the hypothesis that the effectiveness of group projects is largely
dependent on the amount of members in said group. For example, a smaller group consisting of
two members is more productive than larger groups with eight members. Our experiment will
include the control variable of time, the independent variable of size of the group and the
dependent variable of the effectiveness and time taken by each group.
 Literature Review/Background
We chose the term “Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth” as it is very relevant in our lives this very
second as the authors are typing this. As college students, it is inevitable to encounter group
projects within the syllabus of some classes such as General Psychology and Penghayatan Etika
dan Peradaban 3. As there are only two members in a group for the project in General
Psychology, communication and allocation of group work is easier; if, admittedly, the amount of
time taken to complete said project is longer. On the other hand, there are eight members in a
Penghayatan Etika dan Peradaban 3 group, leading to miscommunication, groupthink and even
social loafing. Due to this, we became interested in studying the connection between the
effectiveness of a group of two versus a group of eight within a certain time period and the
dynamics within the group.

Bolton (2016) found that public sector companies in the United Kingdom may not perform as
effectively as private sector companies as their employees struggle to reach a sense of “flow”.
Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi described flow as the state of being actively engaged in a
difficult task that pushes one's limits to the max. In this state, the awareness of time, space, and
self is diminished because one is so focused on the task. Public sector company employees find
it difficult to find flow when their organisation has more than five or six levels of hierarchy and
too many employees are assigned to tasks that do not directly contribute to the organisation's
mission. According to a comprehensive analysis of the problem, if these companies cut down
the number of levels in these government organisations, kicking unnecessary cooks out of the
kitchen so to speak, it could drive up their productivity by improving their employees' sense of
flow.

Using mathematical modelling and simulations, Almaatouq et al. (2021) found that the
complexity of a task influences group synergy. Group synergy is when the combined effort of a
group exceeds the expected outcome of individual efforts. Positive synergy is noted when
simple tasks are given. On the flip side, the amount of group synergy decreases when faced
with complex tasks. Additionally, complex tasks have the potential to increase process losses
such as social loafing, groupthink, and interpersonal conflict. This is because complex tasks put
more pressure on each member of the team and provide more chances for the group to get
trapped in less-than-ideal solutions, which increases stress and lowers performance levels
compared to nominal groups. Then again, it is possible for the group to perform better on
complex tasks because they can distribute effort, share information about solutions, or correct
errors.

Groysberg et al. (2011) explores how the presence of high-status individuals within groups and
the dynamics of said groups can negatively impact group effectiveness. They suggest that when
high-status individuals are present, group members may become less motivated to contribute,
leading to a decrease in overall group performance. This phenomenon is known as social loafing
and can be attributed to a diffusion of responsibility among group members and a reduced
sense of accountability due to the presence of the high-status individual. They also questioned
the assumption that “more is better” when it comes to assembling groups with high-status
individuals. They discovered that having a higher percentage of high-status individuals in a
group was beneficial up to a certain extent. For example, groups that had a higher number of
high-status individuals with similar expertise focused solely on a small section of the research,
leading to a dysfunctional group dynamic. A strategy to mitigate these negative effects is to
implement structured decision-making processes to lessen the challenges brought on by having
a large number of high-status individuals in a singular group.
 Methodology

Participants of study: Interested American Degree Transfer Program (ADTP) students across all
cohorts. 20 participants in total.

Sampling Process: Any ADTP student who is interested can participate. They will be divided into
groups based on the closeness to the other participants. Close friends or strangers will not be
paired together. This selection will ensure the members of the group are not too comfortable
or too uncomfortable with the others. Acquaintances or cohort-mates who are not close are
the most optimal.

Collection of Data:

1. Record the process: Be physically present for the process in which all the groups carry
out their process of making the project come together and rate their effectiveness as a
group on a scale of 1-10 with the perspective of an impartial examiner.
2. Peer review: Have the group members do a survey at the end to see how they feel the
other members of the group contributed to the final result. See if there are any
contradictions in the different accounts and how they relate to impartial examiner’s
notes on the experiment. At the end, make them rate their effectiveness on a scale of 1-
10.

Experiment:

a) How it work:

i) Four Groups: Group A (2 people), Group B (4 people), Group C (6 people)

and Group D (8 people)
ii) All groups must work on an entire project within 30 minutes, including
finding credible resources, making an entire PowerPoint presentation and
making it engaging.
iii) No need to present the PPT slides.
b) Hypothesis:

i) Group A will be the fastest and most effective group because there is less
opportunity for Groupthink or social loafing with only two members in
the group.
ii) Group B will follow, then Group C and Group D.
iii) Group D will be the least effective due to more conflicting opinions.
Moreover, Group D may present the attributes for Groupthink because
less influential members may not want to rock the boat. It will also be
easier for Group D to get sidetracked more often due to the diverse
characters in play

c) Controlled Variable: Time (30 minutes)

d) Independent Variable:

i) Size of group

(1) Group A has 2 members.

(2) Group B has 4 members.
(3) Group C has 6 members.
(4) Group D has 8 members.

ii) Sample of group: 20 ADTP students

e) Dependent Variable:

i) Time Taken by Each Group to Complete the Project (Minutes)

ii) Effectiveness of Group as rated by Impartial Examiner and Individual
Group Members (Scale of 1-10)

(1) Note: The two of us will act as the impartial examiners to the best
of our abilities
 Results/Conclusion

Results of Experiment:

Controlled Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Variable

Time Given Group Amount of Time Taken Effectiveness Effectiveness

Members by Each of Group as of Group as
(Person(s)) Group to rated by rated by
Complete the Impartial Group
Project Examiner Members
(Minutes) (Scale of 1- (Scale of 1-
10) 10)

30 minutes A 2 29/30 8/10 7/10

B 4 23/30 10/10 9/10

C 6 26/30 5/10 7/10

D 8 28/30 2/10 3/10

Notes by impartial examiners:

1. Group A is effective in dividing responsibilities and reaching their goal in time. However,
Group A finished last, proving the hypothesis false.
2. Group B is the most effective, striking a perfect balance of just enough group members
to complete the project in record time without any groupthink or social loafing. As they
finished with seven minutes to spare, they could even check over their work for
mistakes.
3. Group C is the second group to finish the project, even though some members present
the characteristics of groupthink and social loafing. Nevertheless, they could skim
through their work in the remaining four minutes for mistakes.
4. Group D is the most chaotic group due to more conflicting opinions, groupthink and
social loafing. It is also easier for Group D to get sidetracked more often due to the
diverse characters in play.
Criticisms of this Methodology:

1. Division of Group Members:

a. While it is stated that acquaintances or cohort-mates who are not close are the
most optimal and most likely to be paired in a group, the number of ADTP
students is less than 50. Students interested in participating in our study would
probably not amount to any high numbers and we must be careful in dividing
them into groups. Still, there is a possibility that we cannot fairly separate the 20
participants so that there are not any close friends or strangers in a group.
b. If, worse comes to worse, we have to pair close friends together, or near
strangers in a group, it will affect the results of this study.

2. “Impartial Examiners”:

a. With slim pickings for interested participants, we will likely have unconscious
bias when observing groups which contain our friends and cohort mates.
b. The participants will also be affected by our presence as “impartial examiners”,
maybe asking for tips and tricks to help them succeed.
c. This can lead to the results of a compromised study and our results will not
accurately reflect how the size of a group can affect the effectiveness of the
group.
d. The results will then not be applicable to the general population.

3. Validity and Reliability of Data Collection Methods:

a. 25% of the results depend on ratings by the “impartial examiners” who may have
personal relationships with the participants, unfairly giving a group higher marks
simply because the “impartial examiners” are close to them.
b. Another 25% of results depend on inter ranking of the group by the group
members themselves before turning into an average. Humans are fickle and
ranking things on a scale of 1 to 10 is not a reliable system.
 c. Biases by both the “impartial examiners” and group members can contribute to
an unreliable study.

4. Alternative Methodology:

a. Conduct this research over the course of several months to see how the group
members can change over time.
b. Have a larger sample size of participants to get more accurate and varied results.
Conduct this research against students of other programs at MCKL such as
Cambridge A-levels, Australian Matriculation (AUSMAT), ACCA and more.
c. By bringing in students from different programs, the examiners can truly be
impartial by observing groups from different programs, limiting the biasness.
d. Assign groups of 1 member, 2 members, 3 members, 4 members and so on to
have a more cohesive study.

To calculate the effectiveness of each group, we will divide the time taken by each group to
complete the project against 30, then multiply it by 50. Then, minus the result of the previous
equation against 50. This will count as 50%. For the other 50%, we will divide the effectiveness
of each group as rated by an impartial examiner and also the effectiveness of each group as
rated by the group members. Then, we will add the two numbers together, divide it by two and
multiply it by 50. After that, we will add the two final numbers to find out how effective each
group is.

Effectiveness of the Groups (100%)

Group Time Taken (First 50%) Effectiveness as Rated Total (100%)

(Second 50%)

A 50-(29/30 x 50) = 1.67% [(8/10)+(7/10)] x 50/2 = 37.5% 1.67%+37.5% = 39.17%

B 50-(23/30 x 50) = 11.67% [(10/10)+(9/10)] x 50/2 = 47.5% 11.67%+47.5% = 59.17%

C 50-(26/30 x 50) = 6.67% [(5/10)+(7/10)] x 50/2 = 30% 6.67%+30% = 36.67%

D 50-(28/30 x 50) = 3.34% [(2/10)+(3/10)] x 50/2 = 12.5% 3.34%+12.5% = 15.84%

Conclusion: Our hypothesis is proven false. It is not two people in a group that is most optimal,
but four people in a group as evident by Group A and Group B. However, we were correct in
thinking too many people in a group would negatively affect the project as evidenced by Group
C and Group D. the impartial examiners observed cases of groupthink and social loafing
between the latter two groups. Our new hypothesis is that four to five members is the optimal
amount for a group project.

The results of this study is beneficial to lecturers, project managers and more who are looking
to assign a group of people to work on a project with a close deadline. After all, too many cooks
spoil the broth, but two heads are still better than one.

[2336 words]
 References

Almaatouq, A., Alsobay, M., Yin, M., & Watts, D. J. (2021). Task complexity moderates

group synergy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America, 118(36). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101062118

Bolton, R. (2016, January 12). Too many cooks spoil the broth": Undermining ‘flow’ in

U.K. Public Services. The Systems Thinker. https://thesystemsthinker.com/too-

many-cooks-spoil-the-broth-undermining-flow-in-uk-public-services/

Groysberg, B., Polzer, J. T. & Elfenbein, H. A. (2011). Too many cooks spoil the broth: how

high-status individuals decrease group effectiveness. Organization Science, 22(3),

722–737. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0547