- Email: [email protected]
Group Dynamics
Group Dynamics P B Paulus and J Kenworthy, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA H Coskun, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Golkoy Bolu, Turkey ã 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Glossary Additive task A group task in which the contributions of individual members are added together to form a group product. Compensatory task A group task in which the contributions of individuals are averaged to form a group product. Conjunctive task A group task in which all of the group members must complete a specific action before it is finished. The worst performing group member determines group performance. Deindividuation A state of decreased self-awareness and a lowering of self-control that can occur when individuals are actively, and typically anonymously, involved in groups or crowds. Disjunctive task A group task in which there is one correct solution. As soon as it is discovered by one member and accepted by the group, the task is solved. The best performing group member determines group performance. Group Two or more individuals having some common bond, goal, or task, and exerting influence on one another. Group brainstorming Generating as many ideas in groups as possible without concern for quality or evaluation. Group norms Consensual expectations for what is correct or appropriate group behavior. Group polarization The tendency of group members to become more extreme in their attitudes or opinions after
Group dynamics is the study of the forces or processes that are responsible for various group phenomena (e.g., the formation, development, interaction processes, social influence, and performance of groups). Groups influence individual behavior in many ways, but individuals can also have an impact on groups. Groups appear to satisfy many needs, but they often lead to performance or decision-making that is less than optimal. Several processes that underlie group behavior and ways of improving group functioning are discussed.
Major Characteristics of Groups Groups come in many forms and have many different reasons for existing. Some groups are merely short-term aggregations of people with no strong interrelationship, such as groups at spectator events, at bus stations, and in elevators. Other groups such as clubs, churches, peers, friends, and families have strong bonds and maintain long-term relationships. Some groups develop simply to have a good time, while others are concerned with accomplishing specific tasks. Other groups are based on large-scale identities, such as gender, ethnicity, or
276
discussions with individuals who have similar attitudes or opinions. Group socialization The process by which individuals become full-fledged members of groups. Groupthink Defective decision-making in groups that results from in-group pressure to reach consensus. In-group identification The degree to which group members self-identify with and place subjective value on membership social group or category. Intellective task Verbal or mathematical tasks for which there is a demonstrably correct solution. Judgmental task Tasks for which demonstrably correct answers do not exist. Media richness The extent to which the means of communication involves multiple channels such as video and audio. Mixed motive Situations in which group members are confronted with the choice of whether to cooperate or compete with other group members or other groups. Social comparison The tendency to compare our opinions and abilities with those of others when we are uncertain about them. Social facilitation A term describing the tendency for easy or dominant tasks to be enhanced in the presence of others. Social loafing Reduction in effort by individuals in groups when their individual performances are not easily identified or evaluated.
nationality. It is difficult to use a single description for all types of groups, but most would agree that groups consist of two or more individuals who have some similarity, common bond, goal, or task and who exert influence on one another.
Reasons for Joining Groups There are many different reasons (i.e., instrumental, personal– emotional, identity, group’s resources, and knowledge-related reasons) why people join groups. Instrumental reasons refer to choosing a group because one shares with other members a desire to reach a certain goal (e.g., a political party), to perform a particular task (e.g., play basketball), or to have social connections. The decision to join a particular group may also be motivated by a variety of personal or emotional needs, such as needs for belonging, self-esteem, attention, affection, approval, support, and the reduction of uncertainty about the social world. Individuals who are motivated by such needs are likely to seek groups that consist of individuals who have similar values and beliefs. By involvement in groups, individuals can also establish an identity as in the case of joining a fraternity, sorority, or a political activist group. Individuals may join
Group Dynamics
groups for other needs such as achievement and influence, to make money, to obtain information, or to learn a skill. They may also join groups for resources such as power, status, and personal recognition. Finally, they may join groups because they want to learn new ideas or perspectives that they cannot obtain by themselves alone.
Group Socialization Groups differ greatly in the process by which individuals join and become full-fledged members of the group. Some groups have stringent entrance requirements while others have few if any (e.g., political parties). Most individuals who join groups appear to go through some sort of socialization process. At first, the prospective member and the group will investigate each other to determine whether group membership should be considered. Once someone joins a group, groups typically have various procedures and programs to help the newcomer learn group norms and fill social roles. Once this socialization process is complete, full acceptance as a member of the group occurs. At this point, the new member typically feels a strong commitment to and identification with the group. This commitment may wane over time because of conflicts, boredom, or competing interests. The group may attempt to resocialize the individual, but if these efforts are not successful, the individual may exit the group.
Group Development Groups go through various stages during their existence. In the forming or inclusion stage, individuals get to know each other and the various group rules. At this stage, behavioral patterns in groups lead to the formation of expectations about task, group rules, and interaction processes. Expectation states theory suggests that interactions in groups may follow expectations group members have about other group members on the basis of their personal characteristics, such as gender or age, and relevant skills or experiences. As a result of such expectations, this stage is often followed by a storming or control stage in which members compete for positions, roles, and leadership. Some members tend to take on mostly task related roles whereas others may focus more on socioemotional issues. If the conflicts associated with this stage are resolved effectively, the group enters the norming or affection stage in which there is the development of a deeper emotional bond and common perspective about how the group should function. At this point, the group can focus on the achievement of its goals and tasks in the performing stage. As long as groups function satisfactorily in pursuit of various goals or tasks, they should be able maintain their existence rather easily. However, if the major goals for tasks are achieved or if the group is having difficulties in achieving its goals, the group may adjourn or disband.
Influence Processes in Groups Arousal Although groups differ along many dimensions, there are certain forces that play an important role in most groups. One of
277
the most basic impacts is that of degree of arousal. When others are observing us or working with us and we do know how they will react to us, we may experience a state of heightened arousal or motivation. This may be in part because of a concern with how others might react to or judge our behavior. This enhanced arousal may increase our ability to do simple tasks or behaviors but it may hinder the performance of more difficult tasks or behaviors. When the presence of audiences or coworkers enhances performance, it is termed social facilitation. By contrast, when the presence of others hinders performance, it is called social inhibition. However, when group members face some external stress, the presence of group members can have a calming effect.
Diffusion of Responsibility When one becomes immersed in group activities in which one’s individual actions or unique contributions are difficult to separate from those of the other group members, group members may experience a diffusion of responsibility. That is individuals may not feel personably accountable for their actions. In extreme cases, this may take the form of deindividuation in which the person loses a sense of self-awareness or experiences a lowering of self-control. In this state, the individual may be very susceptible to the influence of others in the group. Therefore, if others are exhibiting antisocial behaviors or behave ambiguously in a helping situation, the individual may be prone to act in similar ways. However, prosocial norms in groups can increase individual prosocial behavior as well. Diffusion of responsibility can also take its toll on group task performance. When individuals work on a task as a group, especially if the task is an additive or compensatory one (see section ‘Working in Groups’), they may not feel individually accountable for their performance. The larger the group, the less is the accountability and it is more likely that individuals will demonstrate social loafing or reduced efforts. By contrast, group members tend to increase their collective effort when they feel accountable or responsible to the overall group product and value the group task. Diffusion of responsibility in groups is not inevitable. It is most likely to occur when it is difficult to identify individual group members, there is no individual or external evaluation of performance, the task being performed is easy or boring, and members of the group are all doing the same task. Alternatively, it can be reduced or eliminated by increasing individual evaluation or identifiability, by using tasks that are difficult or interesting, and by having individuals in the group doing different tasks.
Social Comparison Comparison of opinions Groups perform a variety of activities. They make decisions, solve problems, perform tasks, set goals, make plans, or engage in social activities. Each of these activities provides opportunities for individuals in groups to compare themselves with others. This tendency or drive toward social comparison is seen as one of the basic social influence processes in group situations. It is motivated by one’s uncertainty about the accuracy of one’s beliefs or opinions and a desire to evaluate one’s adequacy or ability along a variety of dimensions. Individuals can
278
Group Dynamics
use this social comparison process to evaluate their opinions, attitudes, personal characteristics, and abilities. For opinions and attitudes, the tendency is to compare oneself with individuals who are generally similar to oneself in a variety of characteristics that are salient to the group members such as age, gender, religion, values, and other opinions or attitudes. This implies that individuals will seek out groups consisting of individuals who already appear to be similar to them on a number of dimensions. As a result, many groups form on the basis of similarity of interests, attitudes, and characteristics. Such formation or homogeneity, then, creates a pressure for an individual or newcomer to conform to the majority of group or group norm. Moreover, interaction among such group members should increase the extent to which the members receive support for their existing opinions or ideas. Thus, groups should increase the confidence of individual group members in their collectively shared ideas, opinions, and values.
Comparison of abilities Comparison of abilities among group members involves a slightly different type of process. Comparing one’s ability or characteristics with those of others has potential implications for one’s self-esteem. If one compares favorably, one’s selfesteem is likely to be enhanced. If one compares unfavorably, one’s self-esteem may be reduced. One way to increase the probability of a favorable outcome is to use someone who is slightly superior to oneself as a basis of comparison. If as a result of this upward comparison process (e.g., a game of tennis, a sales contest) this other person is indeed superior to oneself, the negative impact on one’s self-esteem should be minimal. That outcome should have been expected. Yet if one actually performs in a way superior to that of the comparison person, one’s self-esteem should receive a strong boost. Group members can engage in upward comparison processes if there is a strong tendency for competition among group members and incentives to show a high performance. Sometimes, individuals engage in downward comparison. This involves comparing with someone of less ability, or lower status, or who is less fortunate than oneself. This is most likely among people of low self-esteem or people who have low expectations or self-confidence. Because these people do not expect to compare favorably with others of superior ability or status, this can be seen as a way in which they can ensure maintenance of their self-esteem or positive perceptions of their performance or situation. In group situations, group members tend to display downward comparison even in performance if contribution to the overall group product is costly, motivation of group members is low, and proportion of least productive individuals in groups is high. Comparison processes often occur between groups as well as within them. Intergroup comparisons can produce higher in-group identification among group members, and consequently greater cooperation and group performance, in an effort to compare favorably to another group.
Conformity and Independence Individuals in groups have a variety of social needs. Most have a need to be accepted by others and to be seen in a favorable light. People also have a strong desire to have certainty about
different aspects of their social world. Although certain physical features of our world are subject to little disagreement (e.g., color, shape, and size of objects), there is potential for significant disagreement about issues for which there are no objective or commonly accepted answers (e.g., religion, values, and politics). Our social needs are often met in groups. Other group members can provide acceptance and approval or help increase one’s certainty about subjective issues. This fact is the basis for power of group members over the behavior of other members. This power may be exerted to make group members adhere to social norms of the group. Norms are strong expectations for behavior that develop and exist in groups. Groups may expect certain types of dress, manners, and beliefs. Individuals who do not adhere to the group norms may face disapproval or possible rejection. To the extent that individuals are concerned with maintaining positive acceptance by other group members, the group has normative influence over the individual. The degree to which the individual depends on the group as a basis for deciding subjective or social issues (e.g., how to vote) is the extent to which the group has informational influence. As a result of the social and informational influence processes, group members often adhere closely to arbitrary social norms and share a high degree of similarity in opinions and attitudes. When individuals deviate from the group norms, other group members may exert pressure to have the individuals change their behavior or opinions to match those of the group more closely. The degree to which individuals match the standards of the group as a result of such pressure is known as conformity. If they do not change their behavior, they may be rejected or ignored by the group. Ostracism or exclusion from groups may have serious detrimental individual consequences, such as low self-esteem, embarrassment, sadness, anxiety, and helplessness.
Communication in Groups Communication involves the exchange of information in groups. Most groups or organizations have both formal and informal means of communication. Formal communication networks can vary in degree of centralization. In centralized networks, information from all group members goes through one individual. This is an effective structure when transmission of information is the primary group task. These networks are associated with less satisfaction for peripheral members but may be very efficient for relatively simple tasks. In decentralized networks group members freely communicate with one another. Decentralized networks are best when the group is confronted with complex problems that require full exchange of information. Downward communication in an organization or group goes from the top to the bottom of the organizational hierarchy and typically involves directives and information related to performance of tasks. Upward communication goes from the lower levels of the hierarchy to higher ones and often is used to provide feedback about performance and effectiveness of procedures or policies. Lateral communication is the exchange of information among members or subgroups at a similar level of the hierarchy. Effective functioning of groups requires accurate and efficient communication throughout the organization using all available channels.
Group Dynamics
Groups also have various informal means of communication. For example, grapevines are informal communication networks based on interpersonal relationships. They are often involved in the transmission of rumors. Informal communication can take various forms such as verbal, nonverbal, written, or electronic. Communication appears to be most effective if multiple channels are employed. Verbal messages followed up by written ones may optimize both impact and clarity. When messages are delivered in person, the receivers have access to nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, eye contact, and bodily movements. These may allow individuals to look for hidden meanings in the verbal message. For example, bodily cues may be helpful in assessing whether someone’s verbal message reflects this person’s true feelings. Electronic communication is becoming increasingly important in many organizations. It can be very efficient and may facilitate high levels of communication across different levels of the group hierarchy. Such communication can vary in media richness, which is the extent to which it involves multiple channels (e.g., audio only vs. audio and visual). As tasks become more complex or subject to differing interpretations, richer media may be required.
Working in Groups Types of Group Tasks Many of our daily tasks are done in group situations. We may prepare meals at home with family members, fix a car with a friend, play basketball with our neighbors, and work in an office with our coworkers. While some tasks can be done only with groups, in other cases individuals can do them in isolation. One interest has been to determine to what extent groups are a help or hindrance to the solution of problems or performance of various tasks. This, of course, depends on the type of task or activity. Much research has investigated tasks that simply involve the addition of individual products such as counting money or generating ideas. These are additive tasks. Although groups obviously will produce more than any single individual, they may not out-produce a similar number of individuals performing alone. On the other hand, if the group members are in competition with one another or there is evaluation of individual performance, individuals in groups may outperform solitary individuals. These patterns of results hold only for relatively simple tasks in which motivation is closely related to performance level. On relatively complex, learning, or conjunctive tasks, the individuals in groups may perform more poorly than solitary individuals because of increased anxiety associated with accountability or evaluation in groups. Some tasks involve averaging the contributions of group members, such as estimating the number of beans in a jar. These are called compensatory tasks because the biases in judgment of a specific member can compensate for the biases of the other members. Disjunctive tasks require members of a group to discover a correct solution to a problem. As soon as one member comes up with a correct solution that is accepted by the group, the task is complete. However, unless the solution is fairly obvious, groups may sometimes not accept correct solutions and therefore function more poorly than comparable groups of individuals working alone. On a conjunctive task, all
279
of the members must complete a certain action before that task is completed. This is exemplified by a mountain-climbing team. Here, the performance of the group is determined by its least able member. Group tasks can also vary in the extent to which it is possible to demonstrate that there is a correct answer. There are no demonstrably correct answers for judgmental tasks that involve evaluations such as the attractiveness of art or the appropriateness of social positions. Intellective tasks involve verbal or mathematical problems for which demonstrably correct solutions do exist. On judgmental tasks, group consensus is the main determinant of the group judgment. For intellective tasks, the correct answer will be chosen if it is recognized by one or more of the group members. In fact, groups appear to be quite good at detecting errors or wrong solutions in the process of determining the correct answers on such problems.
Group Brainstorming Perception of group performance Although groups may excel in some situations, they often perform below expectations. Individuals seem to believe that groups will be quite productive, as in the case of group brainstorming. This involves the generation of ideas in groups under a set of rules designed to encourage free exchange of novel ideas. Group members are encouraged to generate as many ideas as possible and instructed not to criticize or evaluate the ideas of others in the group. While most individuals expect this to be an effective procedure, brainstorming groups actually generate fewer ideas than do a comparable group of solitary individuals (nominal groups).
Processes in group brainstorming The relatively poor performance of brainstorming groups is caused in part by the blocking or interfering effects of the activity of other group members that occurs when one is trying to generate ideas in a group. In addition, group members may be concerned about others’ reactions and inhibit the number of ideas they contribute. Because the task is additive, group members may also reduce their efforts or loaf in the group because they typically are not held accountable for individual ideas. All of these factors tend to inhibit performance of individuals in groups. Furthermore, group members may be inclined to match their level of performance to that of the less productive members.
Procedures for effective brainstorming Various techniques may help counteract and overcome some of the problems of brainstorming groups. Group brainstorming should be used only with individuals who are comfortable working in groups. The group should be given a challenging goal and held accountable for it. Moreover, some procedural techniques can greatly facilitate performance. When groups exchange ideas on pieces of paper without talking (brainwriting) or by means of computers, the performance of groups can exceed the performance of nominal groups. It is also useful to have an incubation session immediately after group brainstorming in which participants can reflect on the shared ideas and build on those ideas.
280
Group Dynamics
Group Decision-Making The Nature of the Process Much decision-making occurs in groups. Committees, task forces, legislatures, and social organizations are just a few examples of groups that often have to make group decisions. The advantage of group decisions is the opportunity for input from a wide variety of members. This also helps distribute responsibility for the decision among the group members. Unless formal procedures are in place, groups often do not effectively organize their decision-making process. For example, groups tend to go along with the first plausible idea. Also, when the majority of the group has accepted a particular idea or solution, the group consensus rarely changes. The direction of the group decision in juries and other similar groups can be predicted quite well from a knowledge of the prior support for a position among group members. The direction of influence typically goes in the direction of the largest faction. So, if a plurality of a group initially favors a particular position, the final group decision is likely to be consistent with that position. This strength-in-numbers effect may reflect both normative and informational influence processes. Of course, this effect is most likely to occur on judgmental tasks where there is no objective right or wrong decision.
Group Polarization Groups often come together to discuss issues or opinions. Although there is typically a wide range of opinions among individuals, sometimes group members have similar attitudes or opinions about a topic. This is particularly true in the case of groups that form on the basis of that agreement (special interest groups, political groups). When groups of individuals who are biased to a particular side of an issue discuss the issue, they tend to move their opinions further in the already-favored direction after the group discussion. This shift toward more extreme opinions in groups is termed group polarization. It appears to be caused by three different processes – social comparison, information exchange, and intergroup social categorization. Individuals in a group who perceive themselves as favoring a particular side of an issue may discover during the group discussion that others more strongly endorse that position than they do. As a result, they may feel some pressure to change their opinions to more strongly reflect the valued direction. In addition, most of the ideas exchanged in such a group would tend to support the favored direction, especially in the absence of input from outsiders. Moreover, polarization can be due to group members’ conforming to in-group norms in contrast to out-group norms. When an out-group or intergroup relationship is made salient, in-group members are likely to take more extreme positions as to be more clearly differentiated from out-group norms, which provides additional support for the individual taking a more extreme position. The group polarization phenomenon applies to groups that have a fair degree of homogeneity of opinions, attitudes, or values. Because people tend to select groups on the basis of similarity of interests and beliefs, many groups are fairly homogeneous. The social comparison, information exchange, and categorization processes in such a group tend to move the
group’s attitudes in more extreme directions. It is therefore not surprising that there is so much conflict between groups that are divided along political, religious, and ethnic lines or any other dimension that is related to strong differences in values (e.g., management vs. labor, environmentalist vs. developer). To minimize such polarization tendencies, it may be useful to increase interaction in cooperative activities among members of the different groups.
Groupthink The nature of groupthink Even if members in a group have a broad range of opinions, it does not guarantee that these will be carefully examined in a group discussion. Sometimes decision-making groups have strong pressures to come to agreement. This pressure may come from competitors, from crises that demand quick solutions, or from arbitrary deadlines. Groups that are under such pressures may come to decisions without carefully evaluating alternative courses of actions. The processes related to such defective decision-making are known as groupthink.
Characteristics of groupthink There are a number of features that appear to facilitate the occurrence of groupthink. Consistent with the polarization effect, groupthink is most likely to occur if the group is fairly homogeneous in member characteristics and is insulated from other groups. In addition, a directive leader who champions a particular point of view and exerts pressures for consensus is likely to lead to groupthink. Moreover, groupthink is most likely to occur in groups where conformity to group norms are desired or expected. In groups that are prone to groupthink there is pressure toward uniformity of opinion, with direct pressure being applied on dissenters. Group members may also rationalize away information inconsistent with their decision. In such groups, members are unlikely to make well-informed decisions and to carefully examine a broad range of alternatives or information. They will tend to overlook the risks of the favored alternative or fail to develop contingency plans. Information in support of the impending decision will be given more weight than information inconsistent with it. Decisions approached in this fashion may be disastrous for businesses and governments. The Bay of Pigs invasion under the direction of president Kennedy, the decision to escalate the war in Vietnam, and the Challenger disaster are among some of the highly publicized instances of groupthink. Detailed analyses of the decision-making involved in these events have revealed much evidence for symptoms of groupthink and the related defective decision-making process. Both experimental and field studies have demonstrated that leadership style is one of the strongest predictors of groupthink.
Preventing groupthink A number of procedures may minimize or eliminate the occurrence of groupthink. The group should set a goal of making the best possible decision rather than simply developing consensus quickly with a minimum of conflict. Group leaders can play an important role by promoting this goal and not pressuring the group in a particular direction or plan early in
Group Dynamics
discussion. They may make their groups and their members more openly accountable or responsible for their role (e.g., devil’s advocate) in the decision. Procedures should be developed to assure a wide-ranging and full discussion of the alternatives. Breaking the group into small subgroups at various points in the decision-making process may increase the chances of diverse perspectives being carefully considered. If these groups come to similar decisions, confidence in the correctness of the decision is increased. Groups should have ‘second chance’ meetings in order to reconsider the wisdom of the initial decision. Input from knowledgeable outsiders or experts who are not subject to the pressures of the groups may also be helpful in providing some assessment of the reasonableness of the decision.
Influence of Individuals on Groups Minority Influence There are many forces within the group that constrain or limit the behavior of its members. Groups generally do not respond favorably to those who disagree with the majority consensus or position. This fact often inhibits individuals from expressing deviant opinions. When individuals have the courage to deviate, other group members typically attempt to persuade them that they are wrong and to move them in the direction of the majority. If these attempts are unsuccessful, opinion deviants are often rejected or ignored. While opinion deviants are not liked, they do have some potential positive impact on groups. Because of their distinctive position, they gain the attention of group members and may stimulate them to rethink the issue, if not publicly. The fact that someone is willing to dissent may give them some additional credibility and influence because of their low perceived self-interest in the issue. This is particularly true if this person persists forcefully and consistently in the face of attempts by the majority faction to produce compliance with their position. As a result, majority members may actually change their opinion on the main issue or related ones in the direction of the minority position. This change tends to be genuine, in the sense that it is an actual change in their personal opinions that may not be expressed during group interaction but is evident in anonymous measures of beliefs taken after exposure to minority influence. In contrast, individuals who change their position in response to majority influence typically are only complying publicly with the group norm. Assessments of private beliefs often indicate little personal change. The ability of minority factions to stimulate cognitive reevaluation on the part of members of the majority may be one reason that exposure to minority positions in groups can produce subsequent increased creativity in individual problem solving. Exposure to minority perspectives can also increase the subsequent generation of novel ideas or divergent thinking in groups, especially if group members are able to fully participate in the group interaction process.
Leadership in Groups Characteristics of leaders Most groups have leaders. As discussed earlier, these are individuals who have the capability or responsibility of directing
281
the group’s activities. They may be informal or temporary leaders who derive their status from actively contributing to the welfare of the group. Those who dominate the discussion in a group are often seen as leaders. Leaders may also attain more formal positions of leadership by means of election or appointment. The types of skills, traits, and interpersonal styles required of leaders will depend greatly on the type of group. Certainly, military units and research teams require different types of leaders. However, there are some characteristics that appear to be generally important for successful leadership. Leaders must desire to have influence over others, need to be motivated to achieve goals, and should have the determination to persist in this process. Successful leaders tend to be self-confident, honest, and flexible. Intelligence, creativity, and relevant knowledge are also important. Although it makes a great deal of sense that leaders should be motivated and capable, these characteristics do not ensure attainment of positions of leadership or leadership effectiveness. The behavioral style of leaders and situational factors often appear to be more influential than personal characteristics.
Behavioral style Analyses of leadership behavior have revealed the existence of two distinct styles. Some leaders are consideration- or personoriented. They are concerned primarily with maintaining good relationships among group members. Their approach to group members is one of interpersonal warmth and trust and involves open communication between leader and followers. A second type of leader is known as production or structure oriented. Their main concern is structuring the situation so that the task is done well and efficiently. This involves developing ways for the group members to function more effectively without concern for developing positive interpersonal relationships. It is possible for leaders to exhibit a wide variety of combinations of degree of concern for people and concern for productivity. A hybrid leader or team manager who is able to exhibit both a concern for people and who has the ability to structure the work environment for productivity may be ideal.
Situational factors The effectiveness of a particular style of leadership appears to depend on characteristics of the situation such as follower support of the leader, degree of task structure or clarity, and leader power over followers. These features influence the degree of control the leader has over the situation. With low degrees of situational control, production-oriented leadership may be required for effective group performance. Under these conditions, group members need direction and structure, and attempts at improving interpersonal relations may have little impact. With moderate degrees of situational control, a personoriented style may yield more positive group relations and motivation to perform. A task-oriented leader may alienate group members by using a directive or autocratic approach and as a result further weaken the situational control. With high degrees of interpersonal control, a person-oriented style is not necessary and the group may respond positively to the task- or production-oriented behaviors of the leader. Group member satisfaction and performance tend to be highest in groups with the appropriate match of situation with leadership style.
282
Group Dynamics
Transformational leaders Sometimes, leaders excite the imaginations of their followers and are able to motivate them to perform at high levels or make extreme sacrifices. Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Martin Luther King, Jr. are examples of leaders who fall into this category. These types of leaders have a vision, act in a confident manner, and are good communicators who have a dynamic personal style. They are also skilled in judging others and manipulating their own attractiveness and appeal to their followers. Transformational leaders tend to emerge when groups face crisis situations and need both a strong and visionary leadership and an emotional commitment to a cause by the followers. These types of leaders are not necessary and probably not useful when groups are focused primarily on routine activities.
Summary We have learned much about group dynamics. Groups are subject to a wide range of processes as they go about their various tasks. Our present state of knowledge can aid us in getting the most out of these groups. However, there is still much to learn and there are many interesting new issues on the horizon. Electronic technology allows for new ways of organizing group interaction and structuring group tasks. These interactions and tasks will be mostly cognitive or informational in nature. New developments in cognitive psychology may allow for the development of more sophisticated understanding of such cognitive interactions among group members. However, it seems likely that many of the principles of group dynamics discovered with face to face interacting groups will be applicable to understanding the interactions of electronic groups.
See also: Conformity and Obedience; Creativity; Decision Making (Individuals); Interpersonal Perception and Communication; Leadership; Social Comparison; Social Values (Influence on Behavior).
Further Reading Abrams D, Hogg MA, and Marques JM (eds.) (2005) The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion. New York: Psychology Press. Arrow H, Poole MS, Henry KB, Wheelan S, and Moreland RL (2004) Time, change, and development: Temporal perspectives on groups. Small Group Research 35: 73–105. Baron RS and Kerr RL (2003) Group Processes, Group Decision, Group Action, 2nd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Brown R (2000) Group Processes, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell. De Dreu KW and West MA (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision-making teams. The Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 1191–1201. Fisek MH, Berger J, and Norman RZ (1991) Participation in heteregenous and homogenous groups: A theoretical integration. The American Journal of Sociology 97: 114–142. Forsyth DR (2010) Group Dynamics. Belmonth, CA: Wadworth/Cengage. Hogg MA (2007) Uncertainty-identity theory. In: Zanna MP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. vol. 39, pp. 69–126. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hogg MA and Tindale S (eds.) (2001) Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Janis IL (1982) Groupthink, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Moreland RL and Levine JM (1989) Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In: Paulus PB (ed.) Psychology of Group Influence, pp. 143–186. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nemeth CJ and Nemeth-Brown B (2003) Better than individuals? The potential of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In: Paulus PB and Nijstad BA (eds.) Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration, pp. 63–84. New York: Oxford University Press. Nijstad BA (2009) Group Performance. New York: Psychology Press. Paulus PB (2008) Fostering creativity in groups and teams. In: Zhou J and Shalley CE (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Creativity, pp. 165–188. New York: Taylor & Francis. Paulus PB (ed.) (1989) Psychology of Group Influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Paulus PB and Nijstad BA (eds.) (2003) Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press. Suls J, Martin R, and Wheeler L (2002) Social comparison: Why, with whom and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science 11: 159–163. Van Knippenberg D and Hogg MA (eds.) (2005) Leadership and Power: Identity Processes in Groups and Organizations. London: Sage Publications. Williams KD, Cheung CKT, and Choi W (2000) Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 746–762.
Glossary Additive task A group task in which the contributions of individual members are added together to form a group product. Compensatory task A group task in which the contributions of individuals are averaged to form a group product. Conjunctive task A group task in which all of the group members must complete a specific action before it is finished. The worst performing group member determines group performance. Deindividuation A state of decreased self-awareness and a lowering of self-control that can occur when individuals are actively, and typically anonymously, involved in groups or crowds. Disjunctive task A group task in which there is one correct solution. As soon as it is discovered by one member and accepted by the group, the task is solved. The best performing group member determines group performance. Group Two or more individuals having some common bond, goal, or task, and exerting influence on one another. Group brainstorming Generating as many ideas in groups as possible without concern for quality or evaluation. Group norms Consensual expectations for what is correct or appropriate group behavior. Group polarization The tendency of group members to become more extreme in their attitudes or opinions after
Group dynamics is the study of the forces or processes that are responsible for various group phenomena (e.g., the formation, development, interaction processes, social influence, and performance of groups). Groups influence individual behavior in many ways, but individuals can also have an impact on groups. Groups appear to satisfy many needs, but they often lead to performance or decision-making that is less than optimal. Several processes that underlie group behavior and ways of improving group functioning are discussed.
Major Characteristics of Groups Groups come in many forms and have many different reasons for existing. Some groups are merely short-term aggregations of people with no strong interrelationship, such as groups at spectator events, at bus stations, and in elevators. Other groups such as clubs, churches, peers, friends, and families have strong bonds and maintain long-term relationships. Some groups develop simply to have a good time, while others are concerned with accomplishing specific tasks. Other groups are based on large-scale identities, such as gender, ethnicity, or
276
discussions with individuals who have similar attitudes or opinions. Group socialization The process by which individuals become full-fledged members of groups. Groupthink Defective decision-making in groups that results from in-group pressure to reach consensus. In-group identification The degree to which group members self-identify with and place subjective value on membership social group or category. Intellective task Verbal or mathematical tasks for which there is a demonstrably correct solution. Judgmental task Tasks for which demonstrably correct answers do not exist. Media richness The extent to which the means of communication involves multiple channels such as video and audio. Mixed motive Situations in which group members are confronted with the choice of whether to cooperate or compete with other group members or other groups. Social comparison The tendency to compare our opinions and abilities with those of others when we are uncertain about them. Social facilitation A term describing the tendency for easy or dominant tasks to be enhanced in the presence of others. Social loafing Reduction in effort by individuals in groups when their individual performances are not easily identified or evaluated.
nationality. It is difficult to use a single description for all types of groups, but most would agree that groups consist of two or more individuals who have some similarity, common bond, goal, or task and who exert influence on one another.
Reasons for Joining Groups There are many different reasons (i.e., instrumental, personal– emotional, identity, group’s resources, and knowledge-related reasons) why people join groups. Instrumental reasons refer to choosing a group because one shares with other members a desire to reach a certain goal (e.g., a political party), to perform a particular task (e.g., play basketball), or to have social connections. The decision to join a particular group may also be motivated by a variety of personal or emotional needs, such as needs for belonging, self-esteem, attention, affection, approval, support, and the reduction of uncertainty about the social world. Individuals who are motivated by such needs are likely to seek groups that consist of individuals who have similar values and beliefs. By involvement in groups, individuals can also establish an identity as in the case of joining a fraternity, sorority, or a political activist group. Individuals may join
Group Dynamics
groups for other needs such as achievement and influence, to make money, to obtain information, or to learn a skill. They may also join groups for resources such as power, status, and personal recognition. Finally, they may join groups because they want to learn new ideas or perspectives that they cannot obtain by themselves alone.
Group Socialization Groups differ greatly in the process by which individuals join and become full-fledged members of the group. Some groups have stringent entrance requirements while others have few if any (e.g., political parties). Most individuals who join groups appear to go through some sort of socialization process. At first, the prospective member and the group will investigate each other to determine whether group membership should be considered. Once someone joins a group, groups typically have various procedures and programs to help the newcomer learn group norms and fill social roles. Once this socialization process is complete, full acceptance as a member of the group occurs. At this point, the new member typically feels a strong commitment to and identification with the group. This commitment may wane over time because of conflicts, boredom, or competing interests. The group may attempt to resocialize the individual, but if these efforts are not successful, the individual may exit the group.
Group Development Groups go through various stages during their existence. In the forming or inclusion stage, individuals get to know each other and the various group rules. At this stage, behavioral patterns in groups lead to the formation of expectations about task, group rules, and interaction processes. Expectation states theory suggests that interactions in groups may follow expectations group members have about other group members on the basis of their personal characteristics, such as gender or age, and relevant skills or experiences. As a result of such expectations, this stage is often followed by a storming or control stage in which members compete for positions, roles, and leadership. Some members tend to take on mostly task related roles whereas others may focus more on socioemotional issues. If the conflicts associated with this stage are resolved effectively, the group enters the norming or affection stage in which there is the development of a deeper emotional bond and common perspective about how the group should function. At this point, the group can focus on the achievement of its goals and tasks in the performing stage. As long as groups function satisfactorily in pursuit of various goals or tasks, they should be able maintain their existence rather easily. However, if the major goals for tasks are achieved or if the group is having difficulties in achieving its goals, the group may adjourn or disband.
Influence Processes in Groups Arousal Although groups differ along many dimensions, there are certain forces that play an important role in most groups. One of
277
the most basic impacts is that of degree of arousal. When others are observing us or working with us and we do know how they will react to us, we may experience a state of heightened arousal or motivation. This may be in part because of a concern with how others might react to or judge our behavior. This enhanced arousal may increase our ability to do simple tasks or behaviors but it may hinder the performance of more difficult tasks or behaviors. When the presence of audiences or coworkers enhances performance, it is termed social facilitation. By contrast, when the presence of others hinders performance, it is called social inhibition. However, when group members face some external stress, the presence of group members can have a calming effect.
Diffusion of Responsibility When one becomes immersed in group activities in which one’s individual actions or unique contributions are difficult to separate from those of the other group members, group members may experience a diffusion of responsibility. That is individuals may not feel personably accountable for their actions. In extreme cases, this may take the form of deindividuation in which the person loses a sense of self-awareness or experiences a lowering of self-control. In this state, the individual may be very susceptible to the influence of others in the group. Therefore, if others are exhibiting antisocial behaviors or behave ambiguously in a helping situation, the individual may be prone to act in similar ways. However, prosocial norms in groups can increase individual prosocial behavior as well. Diffusion of responsibility can also take its toll on group task performance. When individuals work on a task as a group, especially if the task is an additive or compensatory one (see section ‘Working in Groups’), they may not feel individually accountable for their performance. The larger the group, the less is the accountability and it is more likely that individuals will demonstrate social loafing or reduced efforts. By contrast, group members tend to increase their collective effort when they feel accountable or responsible to the overall group product and value the group task. Diffusion of responsibility in groups is not inevitable. It is most likely to occur when it is difficult to identify individual group members, there is no individual or external evaluation of performance, the task being performed is easy or boring, and members of the group are all doing the same task. Alternatively, it can be reduced or eliminated by increasing individual evaluation or identifiability, by using tasks that are difficult or interesting, and by having individuals in the group doing different tasks.
Social Comparison Comparison of opinions Groups perform a variety of activities. They make decisions, solve problems, perform tasks, set goals, make plans, or engage in social activities. Each of these activities provides opportunities for individuals in groups to compare themselves with others. This tendency or drive toward social comparison is seen as one of the basic social influence processes in group situations. It is motivated by one’s uncertainty about the accuracy of one’s beliefs or opinions and a desire to evaluate one’s adequacy or ability along a variety of dimensions. Individuals can
278
Group Dynamics
use this social comparison process to evaluate their opinions, attitudes, personal characteristics, and abilities. For opinions and attitudes, the tendency is to compare oneself with individuals who are generally similar to oneself in a variety of characteristics that are salient to the group members such as age, gender, religion, values, and other opinions or attitudes. This implies that individuals will seek out groups consisting of individuals who already appear to be similar to them on a number of dimensions. As a result, many groups form on the basis of similarity of interests, attitudes, and characteristics. Such formation or homogeneity, then, creates a pressure for an individual or newcomer to conform to the majority of group or group norm. Moreover, interaction among such group members should increase the extent to which the members receive support for their existing opinions or ideas. Thus, groups should increase the confidence of individual group members in their collectively shared ideas, opinions, and values.
Comparison of abilities Comparison of abilities among group members involves a slightly different type of process. Comparing one’s ability or characteristics with those of others has potential implications for one’s self-esteem. If one compares favorably, one’s selfesteem is likely to be enhanced. If one compares unfavorably, one’s self-esteem may be reduced. One way to increase the probability of a favorable outcome is to use someone who is slightly superior to oneself as a basis of comparison. If as a result of this upward comparison process (e.g., a game of tennis, a sales contest) this other person is indeed superior to oneself, the negative impact on one’s self-esteem should be minimal. That outcome should have been expected. Yet if one actually performs in a way superior to that of the comparison person, one’s self-esteem should receive a strong boost. Group members can engage in upward comparison processes if there is a strong tendency for competition among group members and incentives to show a high performance. Sometimes, individuals engage in downward comparison. This involves comparing with someone of less ability, or lower status, or who is less fortunate than oneself. This is most likely among people of low self-esteem or people who have low expectations or self-confidence. Because these people do not expect to compare favorably with others of superior ability or status, this can be seen as a way in which they can ensure maintenance of their self-esteem or positive perceptions of their performance or situation. In group situations, group members tend to display downward comparison even in performance if contribution to the overall group product is costly, motivation of group members is low, and proportion of least productive individuals in groups is high. Comparison processes often occur between groups as well as within them. Intergroup comparisons can produce higher in-group identification among group members, and consequently greater cooperation and group performance, in an effort to compare favorably to another group.
Conformity and Independence Individuals in groups have a variety of social needs. Most have a need to be accepted by others and to be seen in a favorable light. People also have a strong desire to have certainty about
different aspects of their social world. Although certain physical features of our world are subject to little disagreement (e.g., color, shape, and size of objects), there is potential for significant disagreement about issues for which there are no objective or commonly accepted answers (e.g., religion, values, and politics). Our social needs are often met in groups. Other group members can provide acceptance and approval or help increase one’s certainty about subjective issues. This fact is the basis for power of group members over the behavior of other members. This power may be exerted to make group members adhere to social norms of the group. Norms are strong expectations for behavior that develop and exist in groups. Groups may expect certain types of dress, manners, and beliefs. Individuals who do not adhere to the group norms may face disapproval or possible rejection. To the extent that individuals are concerned with maintaining positive acceptance by other group members, the group has normative influence over the individual. The degree to which the individual depends on the group as a basis for deciding subjective or social issues (e.g., how to vote) is the extent to which the group has informational influence. As a result of the social and informational influence processes, group members often adhere closely to arbitrary social norms and share a high degree of similarity in opinions and attitudes. When individuals deviate from the group norms, other group members may exert pressure to have the individuals change their behavior or opinions to match those of the group more closely. The degree to which individuals match the standards of the group as a result of such pressure is known as conformity. If they do not change their behavior, they may be rejected or ignored by the group. Ostracism or exclusion from groups may have serious detrimental individual consequences, such as low self-esteem, embarrassment, sadness, anxiety, and helplessness.
Communication in Groups Communication involves the exchange of information in groups. Most groups or organizations have both formal and informal means of communication. Formal communication networks can vary in degree of centralization. In centralized networks, information from all group members goes through one individual. This is an effective structure when transmission of information is the primary group task. These networks are associated with less satisfaction for peripheral members but may be very efficient for relatively simple tasks. In decentralized networks group members freely communicate with one another. Decentralized networks are best when the group is confronted with complex problems that require full exchange of information. Downward communication in an organization or group goes from the top to the bottom of the organizational hierarchy and typically involves directives and information related to performance of tasks. Upward communication goes from the lower levels of the hierarchy to higher ones and often is used to provide feedback about performance and effectiveness of procedures or policies. Lateral communication is the exchange of information among members or subgroups at a similar level of the hierarchy. Effective functioning of groups requires accurate and efficient communication throughout the organization using all available channels.
Group Dynamics
Groups also have various informal means of communication. For example, grapevines are informal communication networks based on interpersonal relationships. They are often involved in the transmission of rumors. Informal communication can take various forms such as verbal, nonverbal, written, or electronic. Communication appears to be most effective if multiple channels are employed. Verbal messages followed up by written ones may optimize both impact and clarity. When messages are delivered in person, the receivers have access to nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, eye contact, and bodily movements. These may allow individuals to look for hidden meanings in the verbal message. For example, bodily cues may be helpful in assessing whether someone’s verbal message reflects this person’s true feelings. Electronic communication is becoming increasingly important in many organizations. It can be very efficient and may facilitate high levels of communication across different levels of the group hierarchy. Such communication can vary in media richness, which is the extent to which it involves multiple channels (e.g., audio only vs. audio and visual). As tasks become more complex or subject to differing interpretations, richer media may be required.
Working in Groups Types of Group Tasks Many of our daily tasks are done in group situations. We may prepare meals at home with family members, fix a car with a friend, play basketball with our neighbors, and work in an office with our coworkers. While some tasks can be done only with groups, in other cases individuals can do them in isolation. One interest has been to determine to what extent groups are a help or hindrance to the solution of problems or performance of various tasks. This, of course, depends on the type of task or activity. Much research has investigated tasks that simply involve the addition of individual products such as counting money or generating ideas. These are additive tasks. Although groups obviously will produce more than any single individual, they may not out-produce a similar number of individuals performing alone. On the other hand, if the group members are in competition with one another or there is evaluation of individual performance, individuals in groups may outperform solitary individuals. These patterns of results hold only for relatively simple tasks in which motivation is closely related to performance level. On relatively complex, learning, or conjunctive tasks, the individuals in groups may perform more poorly than solitary individuals because of increased anxiety associated with accountability or evaluation in groups. Some tasks involve averaging the contributions of group members, such as estimating the number of beans in a jar. These are called compensatory tasks because the biases in judgment of a specific member can compensate for the biases of the other members. Disjunctive tasks require members of a group to discover a correct solution to a problem. As soon as one member comes up with a correct solution that is accepted by the group, the task is complete. However, unless the solution is fairly obvious, groups may sometimes not accept correct solutions and therefore function more poorly than comparable groups of individuals working alone. On a conjunctive task, all
279
of the members must complete a certain action before that task is completed. This is exemplified by a mountain-climbing team. Here, the performance of the group is determined by its least able member. Group tasks can also vary in the extent to which it is possible to demonstrate that there is a correct answer. There are no demonstrably correct answers for judgmental tasks that involve evaluations such as the attractiveness of art or the appropriateness of social positions. Intellective tasks involve verbal or mathematical problems for which demonstrably correct solutions do exist. On judgmental tasks, group consensus is the main determinant of the group judgment. For intellective tasks, the correct answer will be chosen if it is recognized by one or more of the group members. In fact, groups appear to be quite good at detecting errors or wrong solutions in the process of determining the correct answers on such problems.
Group Brainstorming Perception of group performance Although groups may excel in some situations, they often perform below expectations. Individuals seem to believe that groups will be quite productive, as in the case of group brainstorming. This involves the generation of ideas in groups under a set of rules designed to encourage free exchange of novel ideas. Group members are encouraged to generate as many ideas as possible and instructed not to criticize or evaluate the ideas of others in the group. While most individuals expect this to be an effective procedure, brainstorming groups actually generate fewer ideas than do a comparable group of solitary individuals (nominal groups).
Processes in group brainstorming The relatively poor performance of brainstorming groups is caused in part by the blocking or interfering effects of the activity of other group members that occurs when one is trying to generate ideas in a group. In addition, group members may be concerned about others’ reactions and inhibit the number of ideas they contribute. Because the task is additive, group members may also reduce their efforts or loaf in the group because they typically are not held accountable for individual ideas. All of these factors tend to inhibit performance of individuals in groups. Furthermore, group members may be inclined to match their level of performance to that of the less productive members.
Procedures for effective brainstorming Various techniques may help counteract and overcome some of the problems of brainstorming groups. Group brainstorming should be used only with individuals who are comfortable working in groups. The group should be given a challenging goal and held accountable for it. Moreover, some procedural techniques can greatly facilitate performance. When groups exchange ideas on pieces of paper without talking (brainwriting) or by means of computers, the performance of groups can exceed the performance of nominal groups. It is also useful to have an incubation session immediately after group brainstorming in which participants can reflect on the shared ideas and build on those ideas.
280
Group Dynamics
Group Decision-Making The Nature of the Process Much decision-making occurs in groups. Committees, task forces, legislatures, and social organizations are just a few examples of groups that often have to make group decisions. The advantage of group decisions is the opportunity for input from a wide variety of members. This also helps distribute responsibility for the decision among the group members. Unless formal procedures are in place, groups often do not effectively organize their decision-making process. For example, groups tend to go along with the first plausible idea. Also, when the majority of the group has accepted a particular idea or solution, the group consensus rarely changes. The direction of the group decision in juries and other similar groups can be predicted quite well from a knowledge of the prior support for a position among group members. The direction of influence typically goes in the direction of the largest faction. So, if a plurality of a group initially favors a particular position, the final group decision is likely to be consistent with that position. This strength-in-numbers effect may reflect both normative and informational influence processes. Of course, this effect is most likely to occur on judgmental tasks where there is no objective right or wrong decision.
Group Polarization Groups often come together to discuss issues or opinions. Although there is typically a wide range of opinions among individuals, sometimes group members have similar attitudes or opinions about a topic. This is particularly true in the case of groups that form on the basis of that agreement (special interest groups, political groups). When groups of individuals who are biased to a particular side of an issue discuss the issue, they tend to move their opinions further in the already-favored direction after the group discussion. This shift toward more extreme opinions in groups is termed group polarization. It appears to be caused by three different processes – social comparison, information exchange, and intergroup social categorization. Individuals in a group who perceive themselves as favoring a particular side of an issue may discover during the group discussion that others more strongly endorse that position than they do. As a result, they may feel some pressure to change their opinions to more strongly reflect the valued direction. In addition, most of the ideas exchanged in such a group would tend to support the favored direction, especially in the absence of input from outsiders. Moreover, polarization can be due to group members’ conforming to in-group norms in contrast to out-group norms. When an out-group or intergroup relationship is made salient, in-group members are likely to take more extreme positions as to be more clearly differentiated from out-group norms, which provides additional support for the individual taking a more extreme position. The group polarization phenomenon applies to groups that have a fair degree of homogeneity of opinions, attitudes, or values. Because people tend to select groups on the basis of similarity of interests and beliefs, many groups are fairly homogeneous. The social comparison, information exchange, and categorization processes in such a group tend to move the
group’s attitudes in more extreme directions. It is therefore not surprising that there is so much conflict between groups that are divided along political, religious, and ethnic lines or any other dimension that is related to strong differences in values (e.g., management vs. labor, environmentalist vs. developer). To minimize such polarization tendencies, it may be useful to increase interaction in cooperative activities among members of the different groups.
Groupthink The nature of groupthink Even if members in a group have a broad range of opinions, it does not guarantee that these will be carefully examined in a group discussion. Sometimes decision-making groups have strong pressures to come to agreement. This pressure may come from competitors, from crises that demand quick solutions, or from arbitrary deadlines. Groups that are under such pressures may come to decisions without carefully evaluating alternative courses of actions. The processes related to such defective decision-making are known as groupthink.
Characteristics of groupthink There are a number of features that appear to facilitate the occurrence of groupthink. Consistent with the polarization effect, groupthink is most likely to occur if the group is fairly homogeneous in member characteristics and is insulated from other groups. In addition, a directive leader who champions a particular point of view and exerts pressures for consensus is likely to lead to groupthink. Moreover, groupthink is most likely to occur in groups where conformity to group norms are desired or expected. In groups that are prone to groupthink there is pressure toward uniformity of opinion, with direct pressure being applied on dissenters. Group members may also rationalize away information inconsistent with their decision. In such groups, members are unlikely to make well-informed decisions and to carefully examine a broad range of alternatives or information. They will tend to overlook the risks of the favored alternative or fail to develop contingency plans. Information in support of the impending decision will be given more weight than information inconsistent with it. Decisions approached in this fashion may be disastrous for businesses and governments. The Bay of Pigs invasion under the direction of president Kennedy, the decision to escalate the war in Vietnam, and the Challenger disaster are among some of the highly publicized instances of groupthink. Detailed analyses of the decision-making involved in these events have revealed much evidence for symptoms of groupthink and the related defective decision-making process. Both experimental and field studies have demonstrated that leadership style is one of the strongest predictors of groupthink.
Preventing groupthink A number of procedures may minimize or eliminate the occurrence of groupthink. The group should set a goal of making the best possible decision rather than simply developing consensus quickly with a minimum of conflict. Group leaders can play an important role by promoting this goal and not pressuring the group in a particular direction or plan early in
Group Dynamics
discussion. They may make their groups and their members more openly accountable or responsible for their role (e.g., devil’s advocate) in the decision. Procedures should be developed to assure a wide-ranging and full discussion of the alternatives. Breaking the group into small subgroups at various points in the decision-making process may increase the chances of diverse perspectives being carefully considered. If these groups come to similar decisions, confidence in the correctness of the decision is increased. Groups should have ‘second chance’ meetings in order to reconsider the wisdom of the initial decision. Input from knowledgeable outsiders or experts who are not subject to the pressures of the groups may also be helpful in providing some assessment of the reasonableness of the decision.
Influence of Individuals on Groups Minority Influence There are many forces within the group that constrain or limit the behavior of its members. Groups generally do not respond favorably to those who disagree with the majority consensus or position. This fact often inhibits individuals from expressing deviant opinions. When individuals have the courage to deviate, other group members typically attempt to persuade them that they are wrong and to move them in the direction of the majority. If these attempts are unsuccessful, opinion deviants are often rejected or ignored. While opinion deviants are not liked, they do have some potential positive impact on groups. Because of their distinctive position, they gain the attention of group members and may stimulate them to rethink the issue, if not publicly. The fact that someone is willing to dissent may give them some additional credibility and influence because of their low perceived self-interest in the issue. This is particularly true if this person persists forcefully and consistently in the face of attempts by the majority faction to produce compliance with their position. As a result, majority members may actually change their opinion on the main issue or related ones in the direction of the minority position. This change tends to be genuine, in the sense that it is an actual change in their personal opinions that may not be expressed during group interaction but is evident in anonymous measures of beliefs taken after exposure to minority influence. In contrast, individuals who change their position in response to majority influence typically are only complying publicly with the group norm. Assessments of private beliefs often indicate little personal change. The ability of minority factions to stimulate cognitive reevaluation on the part of members of the majority may be one reason that exposure to minority positions in groups can produce subsequent increased creativity in individual problem solving. Exposure to minority perspectives can also increase the subsequent generation of novel ideas or divergent thinking in groups, especially if group members are able to fully participate in the group interaction process.
Leadership in Groups Characteristics of leaders Most groups have leaders. As discussed earlier, these are individuals who have the capability or responsibility of directing
281
the group’s activities. They may be informal or temporary leaders who derive their status from actively contributing to the welfare of the group. Those who dominate the discussion in a group are often seen as leaders. Leaders may also attain more formal positions of leadership by means of election or appointment. The types of skills, traits, and interpersonal styles required of leaders will depend greatly on the type of group. Certainly, military units and research teams require different types of leaders. However, there are some characteristics that appear to be generally important for successful leadership. Leaders must desire to have influence over others, need to be motivated to achieve goals, and should have the determination to persist in this process. Successful leaders tend to be self-confident, honest, and flexible. Intelligence, creativity, and relevant knowledge are also important. Although it makes a great deal of sense that leaders should be motivated and capable, these characteristics do not ensure attainment of positions of leadership or leadership effectiveness. The behavioral style of leaders and situational factors often appear to be more influential than personal characteristics.
Behavioral style Analyses of leadership behavior have revealed the existence of two distinct styles. Some leaders are consideration- or personoriented. They are concerned primarily with maintaining good relationships among group members. Their approach to group members is one of interpersonal warmth and trust and involves open communication between leader and followers. A second type of leader is known as production or structure oriented. Their main concern is structuring the situation so that the task is done well and efficiently. This involves developing ways for the group members to function more effectively without concern for developing positive interpersonal relationships. It is possible for leaders to exhibit a wide variety of combinations of degree of concern for people and concern for productivity. A hybrid leader or team manager who is able to exhibit both a concern for people and who has the ability to structure the work environment for productivity may be ideal.
Situational factors The effectiveness of a particular style of leadership appears to depend on characteristics of the situation such as follower support of the leader, degree of task structure or clarity, and leader power over followers. These features influence the degree of control the leader has over the situation. With low degrees of situational control, production-oriented leadership may be required for effective group performance. Under these conditions, group members need direction and structure, and attempts at improving interpersonal relations may have little impact. With moderate degrees of situational control, a personoriented style may yield more positive group relations and motivation to perform. A task-oriented leader may alienate group members by using a directive or autocratic approach and as a result further weaken the situational control. With high degrees of interpersonal control, a person-oriented style is not necessary and the group may respond positively to the task- or production-oriented behaviors of the leader. Group member satisfaction and performance tend to be highest in groups with the appropriate match of situation with leadership style.
282
Group Dynamics
Transformational leaders Sometimes, leaders excite the imaginations of their followers and are able to motivate them to perform at high levels or make extreme sacrifices. Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Martin Luther King, Jr. are examples of leaders who fall into this category. These types of leaders have a vision, act in a confident manner, and are good communicators who have a dynamic personal style. They are also skilled in judging others and manipulating their own attractiveness and appeal to their followers. Transformational leaders tend to emerge when groups face crisis situations and need both a strong and visionary leadership and an emotional commitment to a cause by the followers. These types of leaders are not necessary and probably not useful when groups are focused primarily on routine activities.
Summary We have learned much about group dynamics. Groups are subject to a wide range of processes as they go about their various tasks. Our present state of knowledge can aid us in getting the most out of these groups. However, there is still much to learn and there are many interesting new issues on the horizon. Electronic technology allows for new ways of organizing group interaction and structuring group tasks. These interactions and tasks will be mostly cognitive or informational in nature. New developments in cognitive psychology may allow for the development of more sophisticated understanding of such cognitive interactions among group members. However, it seems likely that many of the principles of group dynamics discovered with face to face interacting groups will be applicable to understanding the interactions of electronic groups.
See also: Conformity and Obedience; Creativity; Decision Making (Individuals); Interpersonal Perception and Communication; Leadership; Social Comparison; Social Values (Influence on Behavior).
Further Reading Abrams D, Hogg MA, and Marques JM (eds.) (2005) The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion. New York: Psychology Press. Arrow H, Poole MS, Henry KB, Wheelan S, and Moreland RL (2004) Time, change, and development: Temporal perspectives on groups. Small Group Research 35: 73–105. Baron RS and Kerr RL (2003) Group Processes, Group Decision, Group Action, 2nd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Brown R (2000) Group Processes, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell. De Dreu KW and West MA (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision-making teams. The Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 1191–1201. Fisek MH, Berger J, and Norman RZ (1991) Participation in heteregenous and homogenous groups: A theoretical integration. The American Journal of Sociology 97: 114–142. Forsyth DR (2010) Group Dynamics. Belmonth, CA: Wadworth/Cengage. Hogg MA (2007) Uncertainty-identity theory. In: Zanna MP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. vol. 39, pp. 69–126. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hogg MA and Tindale S (eds.) (2001) Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Janis IL (1982) Groupthink, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Moreland RL and Levine JM (1989) Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In: Paulus PB (ed.) Psychology of Group Influence, pp. 143–186. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nemeth CJ and Nemeth-Brown B (2003) Better than individuals? The potential of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In: Paulus PB and Nijstad BA (eds.) Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration, pp. 63–84. New York: Oxford University Press. Nijstad BA (2009) Group Performance. New York: Psychology Press. Paulus PB (2008) Fostering creativity in groups and teams. In: Zhou J and Shalley CE (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Creativity, pp. 165–188. New York: Taylor & Francis. Paulus PB (ed.) (1989) Psychology of Group Influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Paulus PB and Nijstad BA (eds.) (2003) Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press. Suls J, Martin R, and Wheeler L (2002) Social comparison: Why, with whom and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science 11: 159–163. Van Knippenberg D and Hogg MA (eds.) (2005) Leadership and Power: Identity Processes in Groups and Organizations. London: Sage Publications. Williams KD, Cheung CKT, and Choi W (2000) Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 746–762.