Social Interaction: Group Dynamics

The term group dynamics implies that individual behaviours may differ depending on individuals' current or prospective connections to a sociological group. Group dynamics is the field of study within the social sciences that focuses on the nature of groups. Urges to belong or to identify may make for distinctly different attitudes (recognized or unrecognized), and the influence of a group may rapidly become strong, influencing or overwhelming individual proclivities and actions. The group dynamics may also include changes in behaviour of a person when he is represented before a group, the behavioural pattern of a person vis-a-vis group.

Interests in group problem-solving and management have stimulated the study of group dynamics, the ways in which group members work together. Findings have yielded new insights into such processes as group polarization, groupthink, and minority influence.

Group Polarization
When group members talk together, their opinions provide a sense of the group norm. Research has shown that such discussion enhances a group's preexisting opinions, an effect known as group polarization. For example, if most people on a jury are already feeling somewhat pro-conviction before they begin deliberations, their discussion will probably polarize their opinions more extremely in favour of conviction . Knowing this tendency, it is sometimes useful to have group members consider their opinions more carefully before group discussion, to avoid becoming caught up in group momentum.

Groupthink
Groupthink is the term given to the tendency of group members to give higher priority to a sense of cohesiveness than to the quality of their work. If a group is assembled to work on a task or solve a problem, they will first develop a sense of group membership and purpose. If they become very cohesive, they may fear the disruption that would be caused by disagreeing about how to solve the problem. As a result they may distort their true opinions, pressure each other to conform, and nurture illusions about their abilities in an effort to stay friendly. When this effort becomes more important than the task at hand, a group is capable of making extremely confident but very bad decisions.

Prescriptions for avoiding groupthink include the following : agreeing to take turns chairing the meeting so a single leader does not emerge; appointing some members to officially question every group recommendation; breaking the group into smaller subgroups that work in parallel; and encouraging members to make their opinions known anonymously so that no one feels "on the spot" about saying something unpopular.

Minority Influence
Given the pressures of conformity, authority, norms and groupthink, can a majority ever be persuaded by a minority? Democratic systems are based on the assumption that minorities will at least influence the rest of the group, even though they may not win a debate.

Research on the role of minorities in group discussion(ie. individuals who disagree with majority opinion) suggests that three characteristics can make a minority both effective and influential. First, a minority must be confident. This demonstartes to the majority that other points of view deserve respect. Secondly, a minority must be consistent. By not wavering, a minority will not invite inroads or persuasive criticism. Finally, a minority should try to win defections from the majority. Because a defector cannot gain popularity by joining the minority, the implication is that he or she is motivated by the truth and rightness of the minority posititon.

Group dynamics form a basis for Group therapy. Politicians and salesmen may make practical exploitations of principles of group dynamics for their own ends. Increasingly, group dynamics are becoming of particular interest because of online, social interaction made possible by the internet.

William Schutz (1958, 1966) looked at interpersonal relations from the perspective of three dimensions: Inclusion, control, and affection. This became the basis for a theory of group behavior that see groups as resolving issues in each of these stages in order to be able to develop to the next stage. Conversely, a group may also devolve to an earlier stage if unable to resolve outstanding issues in a particular stage.

Wilfred Bion(1961) studied group dynamics from a psychoanalytic perspective. Many of his findings were reported in his published books, especially Experiences in Groups. The Tavistock Institute has further developed and applied the theory and practices developed by Bion.

Bruce Tuckman (1965) proposed the 4-stage model called Tuckman's Stages for a group. Tuckman's model states that the ideal group decision making process should occur in four stages:

• Forming (pretending to get on or get along with others);
• Storming (letting down the politeness barrier and trying to get down to the issues even if tempers flare up );
• Norming (getting used to each other and developing trust and productivity);
• Performing (working in a group to a common goal on a highly efficient and cooperative basis).

It should be noted that this model refers to the overall pattern of the group, but of course individuals within a group work in different ways. If distrust persists, a group may never even get to the norming stage.

Looked at for larger-scale groups, Tuckman's stages of group development are similar to those developed by M. Scott Peck and set out in his (1987) book, The Different Drum: Community-Making and Peace. Peck describes the stages of a community as:

• Pseudo-community
• Chaos
• Emptiness
• True Community

Communities may be distinguished from other types of groups, in Peck's view, by the need for members to eliminate barriers to communication in order to be able to form true community. Examples of common barriers are: expectations and preconceptions; prejudices; ideology, theology and solutions; the need to heal, convert, fix or solve and the need to control. A community is born when its members reach a stage of "emptiness" or peace (Peck: 95-103).