Communication in small groups consists of three or more people who share a common goal and communicate collectively to achieve it. During small group communication, interdependent participants analyze data, evaluate the nature of the problem(s), decide and provide a possible solution or procedure. Additionally, small group communication provides strong feedback, unique contributions to the group as well as a critical thinking analysis and self-disclosure from each member. Small groups communicate through an interpersonal exchange process of information, feelings and active listening in both two types of small groups: primary groups and secondary groups. Furthermore, small group communication can be interpreted as a systems perspective, indicating that individuals may interpret the same message differently. For example, in a group project, individuals might have different perspectives of their own goal. These interactions are dynamic because members are continuously sharing ideas, emotion, receiving and sending messages, making small group communication an evolving process. Communication grows, and with it, roles develop. These roles fall into three categories: task roles, social roles, and anti-group roles. Research has indicated that understanding these roles and how they are connected to the group's dynamic will have a positive impact on group collaboration .
Group communication The first important research study of small group communication was performed in front of a live studio audience in Hollywood California by social psychologist Robert Bales and published in a series of books and articles in the early and mid 1950s .Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Page 33. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Bales, R. F., and Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485-495. This research entailed the content analysis of discussions within groups making decisions about "human relations" problems (i.e., vignettes about relationship difficulties within families or organizations). Bales made a series of important discoveries. First, group discussion tends to shift back and forth relatively quickly between the discussion of the group task and discussion relevant to the relationship among the members. He believed that this shifting was the product of an implicit attempt to balance the demands of task completion and group cohesion, under the presumption that conflict generated during task discussion causes stress among members, which must be released through positive relational talk. Second, task group discussion shifts from an emphasis on opinion exchange, through an attentiveness to values underlying the decision, to making the decision. This implication that group discussion goes through the same series of stages in the same order for any decision-making group is known as the linear phase model. Third, the most talkative member of a group tends to make between 40 and 50 percent of the comments and the second most talkative member between 25 and 30, no matter the size of the group. As a consequence, large groups tend to be dominated by one or two members to the detriment of the others.
Linear phase model The most influential of these discoveries has been the latter; the linear phase model. The idea that all groups performing a given type of task go through the same series of stages in the same order was replicated through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s; with most finding four phases of discussion. For example, communication researcher B. Aubrey Fisher showed groups going sequentially through an orientation stage, a conflict stage, a stage in which a decision emerges and a stage in which that decision is reinforced.Fisher, B. A. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision making. Speech Monographs, 37, 53-66. Much of this research (although not necessarily Fisher's) had two fundamental flaws. First, all group data was combined before analysis, making it impossible to determine whether there were differences among groups in their sequence of discussion. Second, group discussion content was compared across the same number of stages as the researcher hypothesized, such that if the researcher believed there were four stages to discussion, there was no way to find out if there actually were five or more. In the 1980s, communication researcher Marshall Scott Poole examined a sample of groups without making these errors and noted substantial differences among them in the number and order of stages.Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989). Decision development in small groups IV: A typology of group decision paths. Human Communication Research, 15, 323-356. He hypothesized that groups finding themselves in some difficulty due to task complexity, an unclear leadership structure or poor cohesion act as if they feel the need to conduct a "complete" discussion and thus are more likely to pass through all stages as the linear phase model implies, whereas groups feeling confident due to task simplicity, a clear leadership structure and cohesion are more likely to skip stages apparently deemed unnecessary.
Idea development Another milestone in the study of group discussion content was early 1960s work by communication researchers Thomas Scheidel and Laura Crowell regarding the process by which groups examine individual proposed solutions to their problem.Scheidel, T. M., & Crowell, L. (1964). Idea development in small discussion groups. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50, 140-145. They concluded that after a proposal is made, groups discuss it in an implied attempt to determine their "comfort level" with it and then drop it in lieu of a different proposal. In a procedure akin to the survival of the fittest, proposals viewed favorably would emerge later in discussion, whereas those viewed unfavorably would not; the authors referred to this process as "spiraling." Although there are serious methodological problems with this work, other studies have led to similar conclusions. For example, in the 1970s, social psychologist L. Richard Hoffman noted that odds of a proposal's acceptance is strongly associated with the arithmetical difference between the number of utterances supporting versus rejecting that proposal. More recent work has shown that groups differ substantially in the extent to which they spiral.Hoffman, L. R. (1979). The group problem-solving process. New York: Praeger. Additional developments have taken place within group communication theory as researchers move away from conducting research on zero-history groups, and toward a "bona fide" groups perspective. The bona fide group, as described by Linda L. Putnam and Cynthia Stohl in 1990, fosters a sense of interdependence among the members of the group, along with specific boundaries that have been agreed upon by members over time.Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 3, 248-265. This provides researchers with model of group behavior that stays true to the characteristics displayed by most naturally occurring groups.
Social influence in groups Work relevant to social influence in groups has a long history. Two early examples of social psychological research have been particularly influential. The first of these was by Muzafer Sherif in 1935 using the autokinetic effect. Sherif asked participants to voice their judgments of light movement in the presence of others and noted that these judgments tended to converge.Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27(187). The second of these was a series of studies by Solomon Asch, in which naive participants were asked to voice their judgments of the similarity of the length of lines after hearing the "judgments" of several confederates (research assistants posing as participants) who purposely voiced the same obviously wrong judgment. On about 1/3 of the cases, participants voiced the obviously wrong judgment. When asked why, many of these participants reported that they had originally made the correct judgment but after hearing the confederates, decided the judgments of several others (the confederates) should be trusted over theirs.Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: 1. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), Whole #416. As a consequence of these and other studies, social psychologists have come to distinguish between two types of social influence; informational and normative (see conformity). Informational influence occurs when group members are persuaded by the content of what they read or hear to accept an opinion; Sherif's study appears to be an example. Normative influence occurs when group members are persuaded by the knowledge that a majority of group members have a view. Normative influence should not be confused with compliance, which occurs when group members are not persuaded but voice the opinions of the group majority. Although some of the participants in the Asch studies who conformed admitted that they had complied, the ones mentioned above who believed the majority to be correct are best considered to have been persuaded through normative influence.
Culture Culture affects the entire communication of a person. Within small groups there are three specific factors that affect communication. The first factor covers whether a person prioritizes their needs as more or less important than the group's necessities. The second important factor is power distance, the degree at which people accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. In high-power distance cultures, an individual of low power would not disagree with an individual with more power than him. On the contrary, in low-power distance cultures everyone's input and opinions are taking into account in certain decisions. The third factor that affects communication in small groups is uncertainty avoidance. The degree of tolerance people have for risk. In high uncertainty cultures individuals expect and prefer rules and structurized systems. In those low uncertainty avoidance cultures, individuals prefer and are comfortable with constant change and scarce rules.
Stages of Group Development
Understanding how small group communication develops over time is of great significance to understand changes of communication patterns. This is often explained through Tuckman's stages of group development.
In 1965, Tuckman presented the four stages. Starting off with the Forming stage, which is the orientation phase, where the group clarifies their purpose. Individuals tend to be polite and show signs of anxiety because of the uncertainty of what will occur. The next stage is Storming. Disagreement comes up. Members of the group will state their perspectives, possibly causing conflict to arise. During this stage, confusion can be created over roles, goals and expectations. After this phase, the Norming stage occurs. In this phase the group will start to collaborate, set norms and expectations for each of the individuals. Members will develop trust as they start to feel as part of the group. Research indicates that trust helps to improve communication, teammates resolve conflicts and work together to achieve their goals. The next stage would be the Performing one., where individuals have already developed a strong bond, conflicts are resolved, and they are able to work more independently. The group communicates and coordinates to effectively accomplish their goal.