Editing Communication in small groups (section)

== 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.<ref>Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. ''Archives of Psychology, 27''(187).</ref> 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 When asked why, many of these participants reported that they had originally made the correct judgment but after hearing the confederates, decided the judgments of several others (the confederates) should be trusted over theirs.<ref>Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: 1. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. ''Psychological Monographs, 70''(9), Whole #416.</ref> 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. <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gorrell|first=Michael Gorrell|date=2011|title=E-books on EBSCOhost: Combining NetLibrary E-books with the EBSCOhost Platform|journal=Information Standards Quarterly|volume=23|issue=2|pages=31|doi=10.3789/isqv23n2.2011.07|issn=1041-0031}}</ref> 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 [[Power distance|high-power]] distance cultures, an individual of low power would not disagree with an individual with more power than him. On the contrary, in [[Power distance|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 [[Uncertainty avoidance|high uncertainty]] cultures individuals expect and prefer rules and structurized systems. In those [[Uncertainty avoidance|low uncertainty]] avoidance cultures, individuals prefer and are comfortable with constant change and scarce rules. <ref>{{Cite book|title=Choices & Connections|last=McCornack|first=Steve|publisher=Macmillan learning|year=2017|pages=281}}</ref>

===Conflict resolution===
Any group has conflicts, topics that people do not agree on, different points of view on how to move forward with a task and so on. As a result, to be able to overcome any conflict that might arise, a six step conflict resolution will help to overcome the problem.<ref name="Guffey, Mary E. 2010">Guffey, Mary E., Kathleen Rhodes and Patricia Rogin. ''Business Communication: Process and Product''. 3rd ed. Toronto: Thomson South-Western, 2010. 32. Print.</ref>
* All the group members have to listen carefully to each other
* Understand the different points of view that were discussed
* Be respectful and show interest in maintaining a good relationship with the group members regardless of their opinions
* Try to find a common ground
* Come up with new solutions to the problem or situation
* Finally, reach on a fair agreement that will benefit everyone

===Group decisions===
{{main|group decision-making}}
During a small group decision the process can be more open, vulnerable and  can rely on several decision techniques.<ref>{{cite book|title=Creating Effective Groups|last1=Fujishin|first1=Randy|date=2013|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers INC.|edition= Third|pages=83–87}}</ref> A common process that small groups incorporate in decision making situations starts by a orientation where each member starts to familiarize or socialize with other members. Secondly, small group members face conflict, where each person shares ideas or possible solutions to a problem. This session is also known as brainstorming. During the conflict stage, subgroups or stronger personalities can emerge. Then, small group members advance to a consensus, where after evaluating several ideas the group agrees to advance. Lastly is closure, where small group team members agree completely on an idea and start taking action.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sheposh|first1=Richard|date=2019|title=Tubbs' Theory of Small Group Communication|journal=Salem Press Encyclopedia, 2019. 1p.}}</ref>

By the end of the 1950s, studies such as Sherif's led to the reasonable conclusion that social influence in groups leads group members to converge on the average judgment of the individual members. As a consequence, it was a surprise to many social psychologists when in the early 1960s, evidence appeared that group decisions often became more extreme than the average of the individual predisposed judgment.<ref>Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1962). Group influence on individual risk taking. ''Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65,'' 75-86.</ref> This was originally thought to be a tendency for groups to be riskier than their members would be alone (the [[risky shift]]), but later found to be a tendency for extremity in any direction based on which way the members individually tended to lean before discussion ([[group polarization]]). Research has clearly demonstrated that group polarization is primarily a product of persuasion not compliance. Two theoretical explanations for group polarization have come to predominate. One is based on [[social comparison theory]], claiming that members look to one another for the "socially correct" side of the issue and if they find themselves deviant in this regard, shift their opinion toward the extreme of the socially correct position.<ref>Baron, R. S., Dion, K. L., Baron, P. H., & Miller, N. (1971). Group consensus and cultural values as determinants of risk taking. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20,'' 446-455.</ref> This would be an example of normative influence. The other 'persuasive arguments theory' (PAT), begins with the notion that each group member enters discussion aware of a set of items of information favoring both sides of the issue but lean toward that side that boasts the greater amount of information. Some of these items are shared among the members (all are aware of them), others are unshared (only one member is aware of each). Assuming most or all group members lean in the same direction, during discussion, items of unshared information supporting that direction are voiced, giving members previously unaware of them more reason to lean in that direction.<ref>Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1974). Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group induced shifts: A group problem-solving approach. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29,'' 305-315.</ref> PAT is an example of informational influence. Although PAT has strong empirical support, it would imply that unshared items of information on the opposite side of the favored position would also come up in discussion, canceling the tendency to polarize. Research has shown that when group members all lean in one direction, discussion content is biased toward the side favored by the group, inconsistent with PAT. This finding is consistent with social comparison notions; upon discovering where the group stands, members only voice items of information on the socially correct side. It follows that an explanation for group polarization must include information influence and normative influence.

The possibility exists that the majority of information known to all group members combined, supports one side of an issue but that the majority of information known to each member individually, supports the other side of the issue. For example, imagine that each member of a 4-person group was aware of 3 items of information supporting job candidate A that were only known to that member and 6 items of information supporting job candidate B that were known to all members. There would be 12 items of information supporting candidate A and 6 supporting candidate B but each member would be aware of more information supporting B. Persuasive arguments theory implies that the items of information favoring A should also come up, leading to each member changing their mind but research has indicated that this does not occur. Rather, as predicted by the merging of PAT and social comparison theory, each member would come into discussion favoring B, that discussion would be heavily biased toward B and that the group would choose B for the job. This circumstance, first studied by Stasser and Titus, is known as a "[[hidden profile]]" and is more likely to occur as group size increases and as the proportion of shared versus unshared items of information increases.<ref>Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,'' 81-93.</ref>

Many methods may be used in reaching group decisions. The most popular method in Western culture is by majority, but other ways to make team decisions are available. Firstly, voting by majority brings quick decision making, and that is one of the reasons why it is the most widely used. A second method is by consensus. Reaching decisions by consensus is time consuming, but it allows everyone to bring forward their opinion. A third method is by averaging. This method requires all teammates to reach a decision by compromising. Reaching decisions by minority decision calls for a subcommittee getting together and reaching decisions without the whole groupe being involved. A final method is by authority rule. In this method, the group leader listens to individual group member's ideas, and has final say on a decision.<ref name="Guffey, Mary E. 2010"/>

=== Nonverbal communication ===
{{Main|Nonverbal communication}}
'''Body language''' is a form of nonverbal communication, consisting of body pose, gestures, eye movements and paralinguistic cues (i.e. tone of voice and rate of speech). Humans send and interpret such signals unconsciously.
It is often said that human communication consists of 93% body language and paralinguistic cues, while only 7% of communication consists of words themselves<ref>Borg, John. Body Language: 7 Easy Lessons to Master the Silent Language. Prentice Hall life, 2008</ref> - however, [[Albert Mehrabian]], the researcher whose 1960s work is the source of these statistics, has stated that this is a misunderstanding of the findings<ref>{{cite episode
| series        = More or Less
| title = 14/08/2009
| url  = http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lyvz9
| network      = [[BBC Radio 4]]
| airdate      = 2009-08-14
| time        = 13:30–14:00
}}</ref> (see [[Albert Mehrabian#Misinterpretation|Misinterpretation of Mehrabian's rule]]).

=== Physical expression ===

Physical expressions like waving, pointing, touching and slouching are all forms of nonverbal communication.  The study of body movement and expression is known as [[kinesics]].  Humans move their bodies when communicating because as research has shown, it helps "ease the mental effort when communication is difficult."  Physical expressions reveal many things about the person using them for example, gestures can emphasize a point or relay a message, posture can reveal boredom or great interest, and touch can convey encouragement or caution.<ref>Engleberg, Isa N. Working in Groups: Communication Principles and Strategies.  My Communication Kit Series, 2006. page 137</ref>

=== Examples list ===

*''Hands on knees'': indicates readiness.<ref name="McKayMessages">Matthew McKay, Martha Davis, Patrick Fanning [1983] (1995) ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=bUDNZkqUt0AC Messages: The Communication Skills Book]'', Second Edition, New Harbinger Publications, {{ISBN|1-57224-592-1}}, {{ISBN|978-1-57224-592-1}}, pp.56-57</ref>
*''Hands on hips'': indicates impatience.<ref name="McKayMessages"/>
*''Lock your hands behind your back'': indicates self-control.<ref name="McKayMessages"/>
*''Locked hands behind head'': states confidence.<ref name="McKayMessages"/>
*''Sitting with a leg over the arm of the chair'': suggests indifference.<ref name="McKayMessages"/>
*''Legs and feet pointed in a particular direction'': the direction where more interest is felt<ref name="McKayMessages"/>
*''Crossed arms'': indicates submissiveness.<ref>Tarnow, E. (2005)</ref>

Body language is a form of non-verbal communication involving the use of stylized gestures, postures, and physiologic signs which act as cues to other people. Humans, sometimes unconsciously, send and receive non-verbal signals all the time.