The topic involving small group communication that I have picked and will analyze is group polarization stemming from choice shifts. In an article called Choice Shift and Group Polarization by Noah E. Friedkin, choice shift is “said to occur when, after a group’s interaction on an issue, the mean final opinion of group members differs from the members’ mean initial opinion.” (857) This means that members of a group each have an individual opinion about a topic, thing, person, decision, etc. There is a general feeling about that certain topic and a choice shift occurs when the group decision in the end is different from what the general feelings of each individual’s opinion originally was. Thus, individuals and ultimately the group choice changed or shifted. Though distinct, through the articles I have analyzed it seems as though group polarization goes hand-in-hand with choice shifts. Group polarization …show more content…
Before discussing with each other our living plans, most of us had a mean individual preference to live with each other. As we discussed it further, we realized that coop would get in the way and everyone would be split up and each person had different ideas on how far away from campus they wanted to live and how much they were willing to pay. After our group had a discussion, a choice shift occurred as the mean group preference was to not live together anymore, different than the original mean individual preference. Our group framed the situation negatively, therefore taking more risk and splitting up. In other words, we viewed our losses as how far the distance was and how much each person was willing to pay overruling living together, thus taking the risk to split up. The more we talked about our plans for the next year and what each of us wanted, the more our group polarized and our feelings about splitting up
For that reason, our group struggled to continue a conversation. Certain people in my group did not take part in the conversation, and I believe myself and two others controlled the entire discussion. Additionally, one other member contributed little and did not present any statements to completely answer a question. Other groups struggled with the same situation. Instead of debating over a certain topic, we tended to agree with each other and then exhaust our concepts that related to the specific question that was asked.
From the Velasquez excerpt he explains Janis definition of Group think which refers to the susceptibility of groups of people to get increasingly out of touch with reality (Janis 84). Velasquez believes the main cause of groupthink is socials pressures within the group due to the group wanting to get along and keep harmony (Janis 84). When a group really wants to have a good standing relationship with each other they could possibly just agree on something to not upset the others, or to make them not like them for their beliefs and not agreeing resulting in them not evaluating the situation. This negatively affects ones decision making outcome. Groupthink as any other problem has symptoms and we will go over each of these.
To remind people in an organization why they belong takes continued focus on a common goal or common belief. By having one main function, a group is generally more effective than if everyone has different ideas and outlooks on specific topics. However, to keep everyone on the same page, the members of a group need to accurately know where they stand in reference to their goal. One way to do this is through social facilitation. This is the concern of self image through the presence of other people. It's a concept that allows members to know the acceptable opinions of the group. Someone who agrees to the ideas set out from the organization. "Group polarization is the concept of changing personal opinions to extremities after a group discussion.(Johnson 13)" This concept eliminates members who aren't sure what they think of the group's purpose. They decide that either they agree completely or they disagree completely. Either way it means they decide if they are in or out after the group discussion. A common goal is one way to distinguish and separate the devoted members from the questionable individuals in a group.
John Chambers of the University of Florida measures the difference between "actual" and "perceived" polarizat...
In today’s society individuals/groups tend to behave, respond, adapt or become ineffectual depending on their surrounding environment. Individuals find it less tedious to conform to the majority vote than to stand out and speak their truth. Conformance has become a norm amongst individuals; we are pressured to conform to the majority vote just to feel socially appropriate. How can individuals grow and develop their own personality without voicing their opinions? Larger organizations tend to construe people into thinking they’re correct and what they are preaching is appropriate. When a group becomes institutionalized as an organization, it evolves shared beliefs, values, and assumptions (page 226). Formed by spontaneously developed relationships, formal groups are created by larger organizations. It is very important for formal groups to focus their attention on a set of beliefs, values, and composition. Introduced by Irving Janis, the phenomenon of “groupthink” was introduced to correlate group conformance on a higher level. Obtaining group dominance is crucial to many high-level decision makers in the government. This phenomenon has led to incompetent and disastrous decisions.
Our behavior is an obvious effect of how groups affect us. Social facilitation for example occurs when an indivisual changes their performance because others are around (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2014). When Dap and Half-Pint where in the library, Half- Pint acted in a calm relatable matter, yet around the Gamma recruits he conformed to the dumb things they did. Social loafing also affects people within a group. Social loafing is the reduced motivation and effort shown by individuals working in a group as opposed to working alone (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2014). An example of social loafing would be when Dap’s group decided to march in the parade, the people supporting him wouldn’t need to apply as much effort to protest together than they would alone. School Daze also conveys the message of being lost in the crowd, which is Deindividuation. Deindividuation is the lost of personal identity within the crowd (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2014). Sororities and fraternities have the idea that all members are one. Last, but not least a group can affect one’s attitude, or the way you feel about something. The common attitudes of the sororities and fraternities lead to prejudice. Prejudice is a prejudgment, usually negative, of another person on the basis of his or her membership in a group. In School Daze, Rachael and Jane had a rivalry because they had two different points of view on hair, causing the entire group to dislike each other because they were apart of a separate group. As the saying goes, you are the company you
Turman, P. (October 13, 2000b). Group Decision Making & Problem Solving: Group Communication [Lecture] Cedar Falls, IA. University of Northern Iowa, Communication Studies Department.
We worked together and completed our task with ease while also strengthening the bond we share as friends. According to the article, “Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships.” The group I befriended “will continue to deliver the correct response to the given situation” (Clark, Mills: 1979). Although we share different opinions and the language barrier may get in the way of some aspects of overall communication we persevere as a group and as a team. We do not let our differences define us as we do not allow them to influence the bonds we develop, instead we deal with them and accept each other as is. One instance was when we discussed the presidential race and the wellbeing of our country. A member of our group supported Donald Trump while I and another member supported Hillary Clinton. Through a very long and gut wrenching conversation we settled our differences and opinions and agreed that we are all in for a nasty and unsatisfactory victory regardless of who wins the race. Which in my opinion was taking the highroad of our
Other influential experiments in social influence include majority and minority influence. In majority influence, individuals compare personal responses with the sources, without considering their own judgement; this then leads them to comply with the viewpoint of the majority of those around them. This can also be known as group pressure and is similar to Herd behaviour (Doms and Avermaet, 1979; Latané & Wolf, 1981). However, in minority influence the individual attempts to validify an opposing response, meaning that as they do so, they consider their judgement and unlike in majority influence they instinctively convert to the viewpoint of the minority (Doms and Avermaet, 1979; Moscovici, 1980). Martin et al. (2006) later examined the effects of majority and minority influence and concluded that, when attitudes are changed by minority influences they are more likely to have a consistent behavioural intention, compared to if the attitudes were changed by majority influence. Suggesting minority influence produces behaviour that is easier to predict than majority influence.
Groupthink is the psychological phenomenon in which groups working on a task think along the same lines which could have drastic results. It is the result of group polarization where discussions are enhance or exaggerate the initial leanings of the group. Therefore, if a group leans towards risky situation at the beginning of the discussion on average they will move toward an even riskier position. (Marks, 2015). The idea when everyone think the same no one is really thinking. The drastic outcomes result from people trying to avoid conflict with one another, being highly cohesive, and results is questionable decision making (Oliver, 2013). Houghton Mifflin publication of Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
According to Toseland and Rivas (2005), group dynamics are “the forces that result from the interactions of group members” (p. 64). These forces refer to either the negative or positive influences towards meeting members’ socioemotional needs as well as goal attainment within a group (Toseland & Rivas, 2005), like within my class work group experience. Some of dynamics that continue to emerge and develop in my group is the effective interaction patterns and strong group cohesion, which has generated positive outcomes and group achievement thus far.
Dynamics are the forces at play that influence the behavior of a group. The feelings of inclusion or exclusion and who is responsible for what or how happy they are with it are some of the dynamics. How the meeting place or office is laid out, openly or as cubicles can affect how a team communicates. The enabling of hidden or side communication verses open group communication can adversely affect a team and the attitude. Rewards and recognition for great ideas and jobs well done should be given fairly and equally. No one should seem to be getting more privileges than others in a team. This could harbor feelings of resentment with the other members of that team. The way in which a team goes about solving problems, company policies or, the "status quo" can also affect the performance of a team (Team 2013).
I’m tired, a little stressed and disappointed with some of the group members this week. This has been the most challenging time in group so far. Everything is usually fine, but something is off this week. Although, we have group chats, our group cohesion is off. After, deciding to do the outline one way, we ended up doing it another way. That was cool until individuals brought the confusion. One person thought this way, the other thought that way. It was a mess. Our group dynamics were all over the place. The impact this had on me was very negative. With your help Mrs. Evans, we eventually decided to keep the outline simple. The other group members picked their duties, while mine were assigned to me. It did not bother me that I was assigned duties. Actually, my absence from the meeting helped to decide what I was to do. When it comes to the norming and forming of this group, I find myself at a loss for words. The norming process is off. There is less cohesion than usual; we have not been as effect this week. Also, relationships do not seem to be strengthening. This makes me angry because it affects us all. Unlike the norming stage, the forming stage is pretty solid. All of us are comfortable (in my opinion) giving our opinions, and we understand what is required of us. There is no need to form rules they are already in place. In my opinion, some of the members did not follow the rules. I for one broke a rule.
We believe this was the moment our group began to transition into the Norming Stage. During this part of the assignment it was crucial for us to communicate effectively in order to ensure that everyone had an understanding of what was required from each perspective. Thus, once we began the research, everyone did a great job of keeping the group goal in mind by finding sources that could be used for every perspective. Additionally, each member kept their personal goals in mind and submitted the required research to our shared document at the agreed upon time. This was a perfect example of how we dealt with a group dialectic. Another dialectic arose when it came time to finalizing who would present each perspective. Some of the group members did not want certain perspectives because they did not have as much knowledge in that subject area as other members did. Furthermore, some group members did not want a certain perspective because their personal opinion might have had an effect on the assignment. In the end, we were able to balance the heterogeneous and homogeneous characteristics of our group members by asking questions, having trust and exhibiting strong communication