chapter 13
DESCRIPTION
Chapter 13. Theories of Small Group Communication. Early Research in Group Interaction. Early work descriptive and simplistic Phase models (phases of discussions) Factor models (input—process—output) More complex models of group process such as Poole’s multiple sequence model - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Chapter 13 Theories of Small Group
Communication
![Page 2: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Early Research in Group Interaction
Early work descriptive and simplistic– Phase models (phases of discussions)– Factor models (input—process—output)
More complex models of group process such as Poole’s multiple sequence model– Unitary sequence path (orientation,
problem analysis, solution, and reinforcement)
– Complex cyclic path (multiple problem-solution cycles)
– Solution-oriented path (activity centered on solution
![Page 3: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Functional Theory of Decision-Making
Gouran and HirokawaConcerned with factors that
influence the effectiveness of group decisions
Formative Influences–Groupthink (Janis) – Interaction Process Analysis (Bales)
![Page 4: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/418/masters_thesis_chatting_in_.php?page=3
![Page 7: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Functional Theory: Assumptions
Boundary conditions (p. 232, Table 13.1)
Key functions include: – Problem analysis– Establish criteria for evaluation– Generation of alternative solutions– Evaluation of Positive consequences of
solutions– Evaluation of Negative consequences of
solutions
![Page 8: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Functional Theory: Communication important in every
functional step and leads to the predictions on p. 233, Table 13.2.– Ex: Groups characterized by higher
frequencies of communication analyzing the problem/task will arrive at decisions of greater utility than groups characterized by lower frequencies.
Communication also establishes operating norms and procedures
![Page 9: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Functional Theory:Tests and Critiques
Generally supported, but some functions are found to be more important (e.g., assessing negative consequences of alternative solutions)
Research critiqued for emphasis on zero-history and ad hoc groups composed of college students
Seems to be relevant only for task-related groups and task functions
![Page 10: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Structurational Approaches Recall Structuration from Chapter 12. Duality of structure – action and
structure are intertwined– Reflexivity of human agents– Systems and institutions are enacted
across time and space, through a variety of modalities Modalities: Forms of
“knowledgeability” Operate at different levels (action,
structure, institution) Modalities “interpenetrate” by
“mediating” or contradicting one another
![Page 11: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Structuration of Group Arguments
Links two traditions:– cognitive-informational: Argument as
individual thoughts (cognitions) that group members present to each other
– social-interactional perspective: Argument is a language game (collaboratively produced in interaction) with rules and institutions
![Page 12: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Adaptive Structuration Theory Uses technology to study group
processes–GDSS (group decision support
system)Technology:
– facilitates anonymous communication– equalizes participation– removes undue influence of particular
group members
![Page 13: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Adaptive Structuration Theory
Appropriation: Group members adapt the structural features of the technology to their own group purposes–Faithful appropriation (consistent
with spirit of tech.) vs. ironic appropriation (contrary to intended use)
–There are a variety of possible “appropriation moves” (Table 13.4)
![Page 14: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Symbolic Convergence Theory:Key Concepts
Fantasy theme: A “dramatizing message” that ignites group interaction. (e.g., joke or story)
Fantasy chain: When group members “pick up” (add to) on a dramatizing message
Group fantasy (fantasy theme): Once “chaining out” has occurred, a sense of community & shared identities emerge
![Page 15: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Symbolic Convergence Theory:Key Concepts (cont.)
Fantasy type: Fantasies become linked with each other in group interaction, forming a prototype
Rhetorical vision: Fantasy types become linked at a more abstract or cultural level collection of fantasies (Master Analogues)– Righteous (right/wrong; moral/immoral)– Social (humanity, community, caring)– Pragmatic (effective, efficient, utility)
![Page 16: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Bona Fide Groups The theories considered in this
chapter have been critiqued on several grounds– Often task-related groups– Often zero-history groups (studies often
use university students to constitute the groups)
Theorists have proposed a new approach: The bona fide group perspective (e.g., church & community groups)
![Page 17: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Characteristics of Bona Fide Groups
Bona fide groups have shifting members and permeable boundaries
As a result, individuals within bona fide groups must deal with multiple group memberships
Bona fide groups are highly interdependent with their context
Embedded within larger organizational and institutional systems
![Page 18: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
12 angry men: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8trhBy2DLE&feature=related
Proexample (exercise): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyWxjNECRBE&feature=related
Reality show group discussion? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0Z_tK_kodI&feature=related
![Page 19: Chapter 13](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816521550346895dd79fdc/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Questions for Reflection What is the typical zero history or ad
hoc group among college students? Based on what you learned in this
chapter about small groups, is the classroom a small group?– If some are and some are not, what
makes them different? Can you think of any fantasy themes
(e.g., joke or story) that have emerged in your social groups or classrooms?