LESSON I

BCU MAGC 206 – GROUP PROCESS AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Warm Welcome to our MAGC class!

 
I. INTRODUCTION
 WHY GROUPS?
1. Groups are sources of MEANING and BELONGING
- we need frequent personal contacts e.g. family

2. Groups are sources of IDENTITY

- social identity

3. Groups are sources of INFORMATION

- information about ourselves and the world

4. Groups help us to ACCOMPLISH THINGS

5. Groups are CHANGE AGENTS

- e.g. Alcoholics Anonymous (people who are in the same ordeal/challenge)

6. Groups help us to SURVIVE

 WHAT IS A GROUP?
o Definitions of a GROUP
 A small group is defined as any number of persons engaged in interaction
with one another in a single face-to-face meeting or series of such meetings,
in which each member receives some impression or perception of each other
member distinct enough so that he can, either at the time or in later
questioning, give some reaction to each of the others as individual person,
even though it be only to recall that the other was present. (BALES)

 Group is a collection of individuals whose existence as a collection is

rewarding to the individuals. (BASS)

 Just what are these small groups we are referring to: To put it simply, they
are units composed of two or more persons who come into contact for a
purpose and who consider the contact meaningful. (MILLS)

 By this term (group), we generally mean a set of individuals who share a

common fate, that is, who are interdependent in the sense that an event
which affects one member is likely to affect all. (FIEDLER)

 A comprehensive definition of a “group” can be formulated in terms of the

following properties: interaction between individuals, perceptions of other
members and the development of shared perceptions, the development of
affective ties, and the development of interdependence for roles.
(DELAMATER)
 1

o What are GROUPS?

 Members of Group INTERACT
 SHAW (1981) – A group is defined as 2 or more persons who are
interacting with one another in such a manner that each person
influences and is influenced by each other person.

 HOMANS (1950) – We mean by a group a number of persons who

communicate with one another over a span of time, and who are few
enough so that each person is able to communicate with all the others,
not secondhand, through other people, but face-to-face.

 3 Criteria of “Groupness” :
(1) Size
(2) Interdependence
(3) Temporal pattern

 Groups have STRUCTURE

 3 Critical Aspects of Structure:
(1) Norms
(2) Roles
(3) Status Systems

 Groups have GOALS

 4 Basic Tasks Goals of Groups:
(1) Generating
(2) Choosing
(3) Negotiating
(4) Executing

 BALES – People’s actions in a group are geared toward the

accomplishment of the group goals but a TENSION exists/arises
between TASK ACCOMPLISHMENT vs. GROUP MEMBERS’
SOCIOEMOTIONAL NEEDS.

 Members identify themselves as a GROUP

 Groups have 2 or MORE MEMBERS

 Group vs. Dyad

 Interpersonal vs. Group Processes

o The Value of Groups

 A controversy about groups was precipitated by a proposal that humans
would do better without groups (Buys, 1978). This proposal was based upon
research in Social Psychology, which shows that in some instances, groups
have socially undesirable consequences. Buys cited the following “unpleasant
and unhealthful” consequences.
 Deindividuation, a presumed state of affairs in which group members
lose their identity and are not attended to as individuals, produces
negative effects.
 2

 The anonymity resulting from deindividuation leads to increased

roydyish behavior, shocking behavior, and stealing.

 Another consequence of deindividuation, diffusion of responsibility has

been related to the failure of many persons to help those in need. Buys
noted that small tips have also been attributed no diffusion of
responsibility, although whether this effect is positive or negative may
be debatable.

 Modeling the uninhibited behavior of others in groups where members

feel anonymous encourages impulsive and antisocial behavior.

 People often make riskier decisions in groups than when alone.

 Highly cohesive groups may become victims of ‘group think’, a process

in which critical thinking is suspended and decisions are made without
adequate information or consideration of alternatives.

 Group contagion may result in collective panic.

 Social Movements may engulf millions of people who become victims of

the distorted visions of political leaders.

 Pressures toward uniformity lead to conformity in groups and may

have undesirable consequences.

 Group leadership often results from appointment, communication

networks, type and amount of communication, and the leader’s
similarity to other group members. Bus implies that leadership should
be based upon positive personal characteristics of leaders but fails to
explain why leadership based upon the determinants listed by
Freedman et al is necessarily bad.

 The proposal of Buys described above stimulated numerous

counterarguments. The most detailed rebuttal (Anderson, 1978) noted several
weaknesses of the Buy’s Analysis.

 The article by Buys fails to review the literature on the behavior of

humans who are alone. It is likely that the same people are not in
groups, or perhaps difference but equally negative behavior may be
engaged in by individuals. This particular view is presented forcefully
by Kravits, Coheni, Martin, Sweeny, McCarty, Elliot, and Goldstein
(1978) who suggest that the trouble is not in groups as such but in
other individuals in situations. All we need to do, they maintain, is just
eliminate the individuals and groups will not be a problem. Buys
omitted from his review the literature which shows enhancement
effects due to group membership. This omission was also noted by
Green and Mach (1978).
 3

 Buys failed to consider the new developments in role theory (Srabin &
Allen, 1968), systems theory (Berrien, 1976), and tasks analysis which
make it possible to design a near-perfect group by relating role
prescriptions, task dimensions, and desired outcomes.

 Many of the consequences of group behavior cited by Buys as evidence

of the negative effects of groups may often be desirable. Both
Anderson (1978) and Green and Mach (1978) noted that risky
decisions are better than conservative decisions in many situations.
Green and Mach also pointed out that modeling of desirable behaviors
such as cooperative behavior in juvenile groups, leads to desirable
prosocial behavior.