GROUP AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This unit examines the concept and nature of group and public communication. This is done under the following subtitles

1. Definition of Group communication; 
2. Various kinds of theories of Group communication; 
3. Definitions and concept of Public communication 

2.0 OBJECTIVES

At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

1. give a vivid account of the concept of group communication 
2. identify the theories of group communication 
3. explain the concept of public communication. 

3.0MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Group Communication

This form of communication occurs among a small number of people for the purpose of solving a problem. The group must be small enough so that each member has a chance to interact with all the other members. The communication process in group communication is more complex than in interpersonal communication because the group members are made up of several sender-receivers. As a result, there are more chances for confusion. Messages are also more structured in small groups because the group is meeting for a specific purpose.

It uses the same channels as are used in interpersonal communication, and there is also a good deal of opportunity for feedback. It also occurs in a more formal setting than in interpersonal communication.

Robert Bales carried out the first important research study of small group communication. As a social psychologist, he published his work in a series of books and articles in the early and mid 1950s (e.g., Bales, 1950, 1953; Bales & Strodtbbeck, 1951). 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). The social psychologist 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.

The linear phase model seems to be the most influential of these discoveries made by Bales. 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 (1970) 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. 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 (Poole & Roth, 1989) examined a sample of groups without making these errors and noted substantial differences among them in the number and order of stages.

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.

Another milestone in the study of group discussion content was early 1960s work by communication researchers – Thomas Scheidel and Laura Crowell (1964) regarding the process by which groups examine individual proposed solutions to their problem. 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 favourably would emerge later in discussion, whereas those viewed unfavourably would not; the authors referred to this process as "spiralling." 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.

3.1.2 Group Communication Theories

Stephen Littlejohn (1992) in his book titled Theories of Human Communication made a categorization of such theories/models as presented below:

GENERAL ORGANIZING MODEL

According to Barry Collins and Harold Guetzkow, a task group is confronted with two types of problems. They are:

Task Obstacles - difficulties encounted by the group, such as planning an event or approving a policy and; Interpersonal Obstacles - difficulties encountered between people, making ideas clear to others, handling conflict and differences:

1. In any group discussion, members deal simultaneous with both task and interpersonal obstacles 
2. Assembly effect is when task and interpersonal work is integrated effectively 
3. Group rewards are positive (a successful event is a task reward, the fun involved in planning it the interpersonal reward) or negative (if rewards are negative the group may find it more difficult next time) 
4. Synergy is the effort expended by the group in solving tasks (effective synergy) and dealing with interpersonal obstacles (intrinsic synergy) 

GROUPTHINK THEORY

According to Irving Janis (1999:286), Groupthink is a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. The theory has the following features:

1. Groupthink occurs when cohesiveness is high 
2. Consensus-seeking tendency of close-knit groups can cause them to make inferior decisions 
3. Groups often don’t discuss all available options 
4. The solutions are often not examined 
5. Groups often fail to seek expert opinion 
6. Groups are often highly selective in the way they handle information 

Eight symptoms of groupthink

1. illusion of invulnerability 
2. belief in inherent morality of the group 
3. collective rationalization 
4. out-group stereotypes 
5. self-censorship 
6. illusion of unanimity 
7. direct pressure on dissenters 
8. self appointed mindguards 

INTERACTION PROCESS ANALYSIS

The theory aims to explain the pattern of responses in a small group and proposes four categories for interaction. They are:

1. Positive and mixed actions - seems friendly, dramatizes, agrees 
2. Attempted Answers - gives suggestions, opinions and information 
3. Questions - asks for information, opinions and suggestions 
4. Negative and mixed actions - disagrees, shows tension, unfriendly 

The theory holds that one way for group to release tension is dramatize (tell stories), called fantasy themes, which helps build common identity. The theory also believes in two classes of communication behaviour, namely, socioemotional - represented by positive and negative actions like seeming friendly, showing tension and; task behavior - represented by suggestions, opinions, and information INTERACTION ANALYSIS (Interact Model of Decision Emergence)Popularised by Aubrey Fisher upholds the following assumptions:

1. An Interact is the act of one person followed by the act of another 
2. Interacts are classified according to content (the message) and the relationship dimension (non-verbal manner of the message) 
3. Groups are systems, bound by a definable context with which the members interact 
4. Verbal interaction dictates the final outcome 
5. All groups go through similar phases or stages before consensus is reached 
6. Groups share a common life cycle 
7. Theory is based on observable behaviour not inference or speculation 

• Decision emergence is reached by a four stage process

1. orientation - clarification and agreement 
2. conflict - decline of ambiguity and increase in strong reactions 
3. emergence - unfavourable statements decrease, replaced by ambiguity (just wondering..) co-operation develops 
4. reinforcement - brief, creates group solidarity, virtual disappearance of unfavorable reactions 

• Decision modification - cyclical, several proposals are introduced, discussed and reintroduced at a later time (in a modified form perhaps)

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1

1. Synthesise the basic assumptions of the group communication theories described above in your own words.

3.2 Public Communication

Here the (sender receiver) speaker sends a message (the speech) to an audience. The speaker usually delivers a highly structured message, using the same channels as in interpersonal or small-group communication. The channels here are more exaggerated than in interpersonal communication. The voice is louder and the gestures are more expansive because the audience is bigger. Additional visual channels, such as slides or the computer programme Power Point might be used. Opportunity for verbal feedback is limited in most public communication. The setting is also formal.

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 2

The communication process in public communication is more complex than in interpersonal communication. Discuss

CONCLUSION

Group communication occurs between a number of people for the purpose of solving problem. One major challenge with group communication is the complex nature of the players, that is, the sender-receivers. This is because the players are many, which could then result in confusion. Messages are also more structured in small groups because the group is meeting for a specific purpose. Public communication is encompassing. It is not restricted to a group but ‘to whom it may concern’.

5.0 SUMMARY

The unit has been able to show the nature of group and public communication. More importantly, the unit explored the various theories in studying group communication. The theories include General Organizing Model; Groupthink Theory; Interaction Process Analysis; Interaction Analysis (Interact Model Of Decision Emergence); The theories are needed to understand the very essence of group communication.

6.0 TUTOR–MARKED ASSIGNMENT

Give a vivid description of the following theories: Groupthink Theory; Interaction Process Analysis; Interaction Analysis; Structuration Theory and Contingency Theory.