“At times our own light goes out and is rekindled by a spark
from another person. Each of us has cause to think with deep gratitude of
those who have lighted the flame within us” Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965). The influence others have on one’s life can
be profound; however, the influences of a group take on many forms because of
the dynamics within the group. Groups
are an important part of life; they help to establish a shared sense of
identity and build important skills, which can be crucial for the success of a group’s
ideals and goals; although too much so can create groupthink. Thus it is important for any group to have a
varied composition of members to exchange ideas and opinions that become
essential to its mission or goals.
Whether these goals are to deliver important information or training
within a company or to provide support within a study group the interaction
within the group are paramount and influence individual attitudes and the
group’s effectiveness.
Following a Woman’s
Study Group
Group Dynamics
To experience the effects that a group can have on
individual attitudes one must identify the dynamics at play within a group; thus
it is essential to look within the group to its members. In choosing a small woman’s study group, it
is easy to identify with each person and how the interplay takes place. Every Wednesday for the past five years, a
group of women have been meeting to support one another in their spiritual
growth while learning Gods word about marriage and family unity. This is in essence their mission. Rotating who brings dinner, they begin each
meeting with a prayer and a meal; thus allowing each the time to bring forth
any marital challenges or triumphs she has had over the preceding week that she
wants to share. As the group is small,
only four women, each take her spot at the oval table in the hostesses dining
area. The facilitator (also the hostess)
for the group sits on the North side of the table with the audio and video equipment,
while two others (the eldest and the youngest members) sit opposite her to the
South, with the final member of the group sitting at the head of the table. The median age of these women is 49. Each member has a Bible and a workbook
designed to guide her through the study.
It is apparent that they have just begun a new study in Daniel as they express their excitement
about beginning the new book.
Conformity
Conformity
Identifying what brings a group together can encompass many
things. The members of this study group share
a sense of identity; as they are close in age, marital status, interests, and
life philosophy. Furthermore, the groups
shared personal conflicts and group mission appear to bring them even closer
together. One may think that conformity
would be an issue with such a small group; however, each member is encouraged
to pre-read and answer the study questions independently, thus conformity is
less likely to occur because each has already placed considerable effort in
securing their own opinions. As
indicated by Nemeth and Goncalo (2004), expressing an opinion different from
the majority reduces the presences of conformity. Furthermore, consistence of the minority can
influence the majority, while majority opinions induce critical thinking; even
if slanted (Wood, et. al., 1994, as restated by Nemeth & Goncalo, 2004). However, changing ones opinion based on
pressures rather than belief creates conformity and sets the stage for
Groupthink.
Groupthink
Giving in to the pressures to come to quick, expedient
decisions most often comes with severe consequences; for example, collective
rationalization, as members begin to discount warnings and do not consider
their assumptions, or the illusion of unanimity, as only the majority opinion
is regarded as right. As related to this
study group, the cohesion of the group obviously provides increased morale and diminished
anxiety, thus limiting Groupthink; however, there is plenty of research to
indicate that authority figures are able to persuade people into keeping silent
about his or her misgivings (pressuring the dissenter). Other inequalities such as attitudes, context
of intergroup relations, in-group perspectives, and social structure can also
create Groupthink as suggested by Schmitt, Branscombe, and Kappen (2003); although,
they attribute the most important contribution of social dominance perspective
to
“[I]ts acknowledgement of the reality of structural inequality and the differential power held by privileged and disadvantaged groups. However, by placing theoretical weight on individual differences, SDT [Social Dominance Theory] obscures the group-based nature of social reality and the politics of intergroup relations. A fully developed social psychological theory of structural inequality must take into account the differential power held by privileged and disadvantaged groups and the different psychological issues that arise from disadvantaged and privileged groups interpreting and responding to the social context from the in-group's unique perspective” (p. 18).
SDT is not the case with this group, where each member is
equally empowered to speak and make insightful decisions. Although each woman has her own distinct
personality (e.g., reserved, outgoing, social, humorous, etc.) and
psychological issues, they all tend to encourage personal growth and ways of
peacefully resolving marital discord.
Social Influence
Social identity issues from in-group perspectives are
precisely what researchers are trying to identify. Are the group’s norms, roles, and status,
hierarchy, and communication patterns relevant to the influence they have with
the group’s dynamics and effectiveness?
In this study group example, each woman can contribute equally; however,
there is one person assigned to be the facilitator. Thus, according to Spitzer and Davis (1978), her
effect on the group would be modestly more influential than the others, but
only because the members assigned group hierarchy. Thus group composition does affect a group’s
perspective, but to what extent depends on the relative confidences of its
members. In data proved by Spitzer and
Davis (1978) it was shown that the greatest advantage in relative confidence was
supported by those with a strong-preference to a specific subject and that they
possess the greatest amount of influence within a group (p. 30). Jerome Frank (1974, 1982) as restated by
Myers (2010), notes that psychotherapy settings, such as the study group,
provide supportive, confiding social relationships along with expertise, and
hope. Furthermore, these types of groups
can include rationale or myth revolving around a new perspective as-well-as a
set of rituals and learning experiences to provide a renewed sense of peace and
happiness; much like cults and zealous self-help groups. Although research has indicated that randomly
assigned groups have less positive attitudes and inferior group dynamics, they can
overcome these challenges and have a positive experience (Kenneth, Meuter, Toy,
& Wright, 2006).
The ebb and flow of this group’s communication and
interaction progressed throughout the two hours of their meeting; there was a
sense of fluency and effectiveness to their gathering. While there was equality to their dynamics,
each taking a turn to listen and be heard, discuss, and debate, their
individual differences provided fresh perspective on each topic throughout the
meeting. One might think that a group of
women so similar in composition (age, race, sex, marital status, etc.) might
have issues with conformity, but the underlying structure of their meeting
discourages such behaviors by encouraging independent thought and
expression. Thereby, making it easier to
follow the commentator and accompanying workbook. Although the facilitator for the group was
empowered to keep the movements of the discussions going forward, there were
not pressures to overlook anyone’s input even if they were differing in opinion,
thus avoiding the pitfalls of groupthink, which tend to happen in groups
isolated from outside opinions. Although
in-group social influences can change the dynamics of a small group, each of
this group’s members specifically contributes to the collective power of the group’s
mission. Regarding specific influences,
those with the highest relative confidence to a specific subject have the
greatest influence on the members of the group.
In this study group survey the effectiveness of their mission, to
support one another in spiritual growth while learning Gods word about marriage
and family unity was well supported and obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment