GROUP COMMUNICATION, DYNAMICS OF

The study of group dynamics is a search for the social influences that affect the way people behave in groups. "Dynamics" is a term used to refer to the factors that often lie just outside one's awareness but that have an effect on how people behave. Social influence in small groups includes factors such as power, developmental phases, conformity, deviance, networks, and norms.

Importance of Understanding Dynamics

In one of the earliest known social science experiments, a researcher named M. Ringlemann tested whether individuals were more productive in groups. He had people pull a rope and measured the force each person exerted while pulling compared with how much the whole group pulled. He discovered that the group exerted more total force with each person added to the group. Yet, even though the group exerted more total force as members were added, each individual actually exerted less force while pulling. The Ringlemann effect, as it is known, still highlights the central issues in group dynamics research. It shows the advantages and disadvantages of groups, but it also suggests that people have a social influence on each other that may go unnoticed by the group members.

Muzafer Sherif's experiments in the 1930s dramatically demonstrated that individuals in groups can be significantly influenced by forces that are beyond the awareness of the individuals within the groups. He created a novel experiment using a stationary pinpoint of light in a completely darkened room. In such conditions, the light appears to move even though it does not. Sherif recorded individual's estimates of how much the stationary light in the darkened room moved. He then recorded the estimates that groups of people made about the movement of light. Sherif found that individual estimates varied a great deal. When in groups, however, individual estimates slowly converged toward a group consensus. For example, one subject individually estimated that the light moved as much as seven inches while two other subjects individually estimated that there was one to two inches of movement. When these subjects viewed the light as a group, they ultimately judged the light movement to be a little more than two inches. The group members mutually influenced each other as they all tried to develop a better estimate of the light movement. The experiment demonstrated that groups develop norms that influence the behavior and judgment of the individual members.

One goal of group dynamics research is to identify social influences and then design techniques or procedures to counteract the negative aspects of social influence and optimize the positive aspects. The Ringlemann effect, for example, suggests that to improve overall group performance, it may be helpful to let groups know both their group performance and their individual performance on a task. This would allow the individual to see what happens to his or her individual performance relative to the group performance. Sherif's light experiment suggests that groups need to develop "anchors" for their judgments. Group members can use decision criteria, for example, to counteract the pressure to conform in groups.

Power

Power is an ambiguous concept. It refers to resources and force possessed by an individual to influence other people. One person may be able to take and give rewards from others and thus make others act as he or she wishes. Thus, power is a characteristic of an individual. On the other hand, power refers to the mutual influence people hold over each other. The ability to give and take rewards is only powerful to the extent that others value those rewards. Thus, power is a feature of the relationship between people.

The earliest discussion of power focused on individual characteristics. John French and Bertram Raven, in 1959, proposed five bases of power: (1) reward, (2) coercive, (3) legitimate, (4) referent, and (5) expert. Reward power is the capacity of one person to control access to things that others value. Friends influence each other by giving out or holding back compliments, time together, and access to other people. Coercive power is the capacity of an individual to threaten and punish another. A friend can coerce another to do something by threatening to gossip and divulge personal information, in which case, the friendship itself comes into question. Legitimate power is the capacity of one individual to demand something from another on a rightful basis. A parent can impose a curfew, and a boss can demand that an employee show up for work on time. Referent power is the capacity of one person to get others to do things due to respect, attractiveness, and admiration. A child obeys a curfew not simply because a parent can impose curfews but because the child respects his or her parents. An employee puts out an extra effort not because the boss has the right to ask but because the employee likes and admires his or her boss as a person. Expert power results from a person's superior skills and abilities. Players may obey their coach because he or she played the game in the past and was an excellent and successful athlete.

It is clear in these definitions that power is possessed by individuals but that power depends on the relationship between the "powerful" and the "powerless." As French and Raven put it, power is the difference between the maximum force that one person can bring to bear and the maximum resistance that another person can bring to bear. Thus, someone may be incredibly charming and successful but unable to make referent power work on someone who is resistant to charm.

The power concept draws attention to the "nonrational" ways in which people influence each other. Group members do not always take action based on evidence and information; instead, they act because of the influence of reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert power. Power has both positive and negative consequences for decision making. For example, a group can act on the referent power of a group member who has significant and relevant accomplishments and experience with a certain issue rather than treating that member's opinion as being no more informed than those of the other members. This contributes to decision-making efficiency for the whole group. If, however, that member's referent power on a particular issue is extended to other issues where the member's opinion is in fact no more informed than those of the rest of the group, it may result in quicker decision making but the decision quality would likely be lower.

Group Development Phases

All groups go through phases where their member's interaction is dominated by certain topics and issues. The research of Robert Bales (1953) suggests that groups tack back and forth over task and relational issues. For example, a group may exert such an enormous effort to solve a task that frustration builds up between various members. The group may then almost abandon the task and concentrated instead on repairing the relationships among the group members. This means that what a group is supposed to do and talk about may be significantly influenced by the phase of development that the group is going through. A coach may want a team to focus on preparation for a tournament but team members may be in a phase where they are trying to repair their relationships with each other after conflicts from a previous game. Thus, it may be difficult for the team to focus on the task when relational issues dominate their concerns.

Bruce Tuckman (1965) proposed that development phases actually occur in a typical order or pattern. He developed a scheme to describe the issues and topics that dominate groups in particular stages of development: (1) forming, (2) storming, (3) norming, (4) performing, and (4) adjourning. Forming is the initial formation of a group. In this phase, group members are exchanging information, orienting themselves toward each other, and creating attraction to the group. It is likely that talk is overly polite and tentative. Storming is the struggle to come together as a group. In this phase, participants are testing each other, vying for various roles in the group, expressing dissatisfaction, and arguing about procedures. It is likely that overt disagreement and criticism mark talk in the group. Members may actively avoid group meetings. Norming is the coming together of group members. In this phase, groups become more cohesive, members better understand their roles and status in the group, and shared goals and values emerge. It is likely that talk is more harmonious and supportive and marked by phrases of inclusion such as "we" and "us." Performing is a phase of high productivity of group members. The group members are cooperating to achieve tasks and abide by the norms and standards of behavior that they have agreed on. It is likely that the talk is focused on decision making and problem solving and not on conflict and relationships. Adjourning is when the group completes its tasks. In this phase, the group members reduce their dependence on each other and renegotiate their obligations. Emotion and regret mark the talk in this phase.

Conformity

Conformity means that a person accepts a course of action because the majority has agreed on it or because it is socially acceptable. There are two types of conformity: compliance and private acceptance. Compliance occurs when someone goes along with the group without accepting the group's norms or point of view. A person might change his or her style of dress to impress people in the majority (or to avoid criticism) but not to become like those people. Private acceptance, on the other hand, refers to the personal adoption of the majority opinion. Thus, compliance occurs when a person publicly agrees with the majority but privately disagrees. Private acceptance occurs when a person publicly and privately agrees with the majority.

Solomon Asch (1955) demonstrated conformity through an experiment. He was interested in the conditions that led an individual to conform to the majority's judgment. In his experiment, participants viewed two cards. One line was printed on the first card, while three lines of different length were printed on the second card. The participants were asked to report which line on the second card matched the line on the first card. The subject of the experiment was always the last person in the group to report. All of the other participants were secretly given directions to report wrong answers. This was repeated several times. Because the task was so simple, the subject most likely knew that the participants were reporting wrong answers. Yet, three-fourths of the subjects reported at least one conforming answer during the experiment. About one-third of all the responses by all the subjects were conforming. These results created a great deal of interest because the experiment demonstrated that people will conform to a majority. It was less clear, however, why people conformed.

The number of group members who express the majority opinion can influence conformity. It seems that when more group members are in agreement with each other, it is more likely that conformity will occur among the other members. While the number of people in a majority influences conformity, an individual is more likely to be influenced to conform by how the majority came to hold an opinion. There is more pressure to conform when an individual believes that each person in the majority has individually developed an opinion that is consistent with the majority. There is less pressure to conform when an individual thinks that the members of the majority are simply complying themselves.

The number of potential allies influences conformity. When another person disagrees with the majority, the amount of a subject's conformity decreases. This is especially true when the potential ally consistently rejected the majority or converted from the majority to the minority. If a potential ally began by disagreeing with the majority and then shifted to the majority, it did not help the subject resist conformity.

Deviance

There are many forms of deviance. It is typical to understand deviance as something bad, such as when someone drops out of a group, rebels against a group, or sabotages a group. While such forms of deviance are not always bad, other forms of deviance, such as innovation, are very likely to be good; that is, innovative deviance can help a group solve problems or adapt to new situations. A "devil's advocate" in a group can prevent a group from making an unwise, ill thought-out decision. Deviance is a way that group members show their independence or anticonformity.

Deviant behavior and the deviants themselves are likely to be negatively judged by group members. Deviants, however, can be judged positively. Groups tolerate deviants who have group-centered motives. Members who deviate only after careful conformity to group norms during the early formation of the group are judged positively. Group members who have high status also have more latitude to deviate.

While groups do not always like deviants, expression of a minority opinion can weaken the influence of a majority. In particular, when a minority consistently expresses a dissenting opinion, it can have a long-term effect. Research by Serge Moscovici (1985) and others has shown that majority influence leads to compliance while minority influence leads to private acceptance. Thus, someone might be persuaded by a minority opinion and yet still comply in public with the majority view. The influence of a minority opinion may not be seen in an immediate decision, but it may be seen in a later decision.

Networks

The concept of a network refers to the patterns of message exchange among group members. The patterns of message exchange suggest different roles for group members. When one group member tends to be the recipient and sender of most of the messages in the group, that person is considered central to the group network. The pattern of message exchange might resemble a wheel—in which case, the other group members may exchange nearly all of their messages through one person (the hub) while exchanging few if any messages with each other (the spokes). An example of the wheel might be evident in a family where the children have grown up and moved out of the house. If the children primarily speak to their mother to find out what is going on in the family, while speaking little to each other, then they would have formed a wheel pattern of communication. It is important to notice that where one is in the network helps define the role one plays in the group.

There are numerous network patterns that can emerge in groups. Five patterns have received a great deal of attention: (1) wheel, (2) chain, (3) Y, (4) circle, and (5) comcon. The wheel pattern was described above, in the example where siblings speak primarily to their mother and not to each other. Groups with wheel patterns tend to make decisions quicker than groups that have other patterns. Groups with wheel patterns also gain clarity because one member handles all the messages, leaving less room for misinterpretation.

The chain pattern means that each group member primarily speaks to only two other people in the group. For example, Bill, Jill, Stan, and Jan work on the "complaint project team" in a company's service department. Their job is to investigate complaints. Bill's job is to take complaints from customers and get an accurate description. He informs Jill of the complaint. Jill organizes the complaints and transmits them to Stan. Stan investigates the complaints and creates alternative ways to handle the complaints. Stan hands off the alternatives to Jan. Jan decides on a course of action to take on each complaint and implements it. In the chain, Jill exchanges messages with Bill and Stan but not Jan. Jill is connected to Jan through Stan. Likewise, Bill is connected to Stan through Jill, and so on. The chain pattern in small groups tends to be a slower way to make decisions than the other patterns. The people in the middle of the chain tend to be seen as leaders because they have the most control of message flow in the network.

The Y pattern is a combination of the wheel and the chain. The preceding example of the "complaint project team" can be used to show a Y. The team could be organized so that both Bill and Jill take complaints and then hand the complaints to Stan, who then sends recommendations to Jan. In this Y pattern, Stan would be the most central position in the network. The Y pattern is not quite as efficient as the wheel.

The circle pattern is like an "unbroken" chain. There is no one central person in a circle pattern, although each person still only exchanges messages with two other people. The hypothetical project team could be organized in a circle: Bill takes complaints, Jill compiles and categorizes complaints, Stan investigates and recommends courses of action, Jan decides which course of action, and then Jan directs Bill on how to handle the customer. Circle patterns are similar to chains in terms of efficiency.

The comcon (completely connected) pattern or all-channel pattern exists when all group members exchange messages with all of the other members. To reflect the comcon pattern, the complaint team could be organized as follows: Bill specializes in taking complaints, Jill specializes in compiling and categorizing complaints, Stan specializes in investigating complaints, and Jan specializes in choosing and implementing a course of action. The group might generally follow a chain pattern, but the members meet regularly to discuss how to improve the complaint handling process. They actively share insights and frustrations with each other. The comcon pattern is likely to have a higher degree of satisfaction because no member is isolated from the rest.

Norms

Norms define what is appropriate and inappropriate. Norms are standards that group members use to judge actions and positively or negatively sanction behavior. Norms are generally understood by group members (but often only on an implicit basis). Group members tend to learn norms indirectly, as in Sherif's experiment with the stationary light described earlier. Norms are involved in conformity and deviance, are what groups create as they develop, and are represented in the patterns of communication of group members.

See also:Group Communication; Group Communication, Conflict and; Group Communication, Decision Making and; Group Communication, Roles and Responsibilities in.

Bibliography

Asch, Solomon. (1955). "Opinions and Social Pressures." Scientific American 193(5):31-55.

Bales, Robert F. (1953). Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Forsyth, Donelson. (1983). An Introduction to Group Dynamics. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

French, John R. P., Jr., and Raven, Bertram. (1959). "The Bases for Social Power." In Studies in Social Power, ed. Dawn Cartwright. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Moscovici, Serge. (1985). "Social Influence and Conformity." In The Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd edition, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson. New York: Random House.

Pavitt, Charles, and Curtis, Ellen. (1994). Small Group Discussion: A Theoretical Approach, 2nd edition. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Sherif, Muzafer. (1935). "A Study of Some Social Factors in Perception." Archives of Psychology 27 (187):1-60.

Tuckman, Bruce. (1965). "Developmental Sequence in Small Groups." Psychological Bulletin 63:382-399.

Mark Aakhus