{"id":28,"date":"2019-07-23T17:39:54","date_gmt":"2019-07-23T17:39:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/introductiontogroupcommunicationv2\/chapter\/group-communication-theory\/"},"modified":"2023-03-24T14:45:58","modified_gmt":"2023-03-24T14:45:58","slug":"group-communication-theory","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/introductiontogroupcommunicationv2\/chapter\/group-communication-theory\/","title":{"raw":"Group Communication Theory","rendered":"Group Communication Theory"},"content":{"raw":"
\n
\n
\n
\n

\u201cTeamwork is the ability to work together toward a common vision. The ability to direct individual accomplishments toward organizational objectives. It is the fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon results.\u201d<\/p>\n

Andrew Carnegie<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

\n

Getting Started<\/h2>\n

As humans, we are social beings. We naturally form relationships with others. In fact, relationships are often noted as one of the most important aspects of a person\u2019s life, and they exist in many forms. Interpersonal communication occurs between two people, but group communication may involve two or more individuals. Groups are a primary context for interaction within the business community. Groups may have heroes and enemies, sages alongside new members. Groups overlap, and may share common goals, but may also engage in conflict. Groups can be supportive or coercive, and can exert powerful influences over individuals.<\/p>\n

Within a group, individuals may behave in distinct ways, use unique or specialized terms, or display symbols that have meaning to that group. Those same terms or symbols may be confusing, meaningless, or even unacceptable to another group. An individual may belong to both groups, adapting his or her communication patterns to meet group normative expectations. Groups are increasingly important across social media venues, and there are many examples of successful business ventures on the web that value and promote group interaction.<\/p>\n

Groups use words to exchange meaning, establish territory, and identify who is a stranger versus who is a trusted member. Are you familiar with the term \u201ctroll\u201d? It is often used to identify someone who is not a member of an online group or community, who does not share the values and beliefs of the group, and who posts a message in an online discussion board to initiate flame wars, cause disruption, or otherwise challenge the group members. Members often use words to respond to the challenge that are not otherwise common in the discussions, and the less than flattering descriptions of the troll are a rallying point.<\/p>\n

Groups have existed throughout human history, and continue to follow familiar patterns across emerging venues as we adapt to technology, computer-mediated interaction, suburban sprawl, and modern life. We need groups, and groups need us. Our relationship with groups warrants attention on this interdependence as we come to know ourselves, our communities, and our world.<\/p>\n\n

\n
\n

2.1<\/span> What Is a Group?<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
    \n \t
  1. Define groups and teams.<\/li>\n \t
  2. Discuss how primary and secondary groups meet our interpersonal needs.<\/li>\n \t
  3. Discuss how groups tend to limit their own size and create group norms.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n

    Let\u2019s get into a time machine and travel way, way back to join early humans in prehistoric times. Their needs are like ours today: they cannot exist or thrive without air, food, and water\u2014and a sense of belonging. How did they meet these needs? Through cooperation and competition. If food scarcity was an issue, who got more and who got less? This serves as our first introduction to roles, status and power, and hierarchy within a group. When food scarcity becomes an issue, who gets to keep their spoon? In some Latin American cultures, having a job or earning a living is referred to by the slang term \u201ccuchara<\/em>,\u201d which literally means \u201cspoon\u201d and figuratively implies food, safety, and security.<\/p>\n

    Now let\u2019s return to the present and enter a modern office. Cubicles define territories, and corner offices denote status. In times of economic recession or slumping sales for the company, there is a greater need for cooperation, and there is competition for scarce resources. The loss of a \u201cspoon\u201d\u2014or of one\u2019s cubicle\u2014may now come in the form of a pink slip of paper instead of no food around the fire, but it is no less devastating.<\/p>\n

    We form self-identities through our communication with others, and much of that interaction occurs in a group context. A group may be defined as three or more individuals who affiliate, interact or cooperate in a familial, social, or work context. Group communication<\/a><\/span><\/em> may be defined as the exchange of information with those who are alike culturally, linguistically, and\/or geographically. Group members may be known by their symbols, such as patches and insignia on a military uniform. They may be known by their use of specialized language or jargon; for example, someone in information technology may use the term \u201cserver\u201d in reference to the internet, whereas someone in the food service industry may use \u201cserver\u201d to refer to the worker who takes customer orders in a restaurant. Group members may also be known by their proximity, as in gated communities. Regardless of how the group defines itself, and regardless of the extent to which its borders are porous or permeable, a group recognizes itself as a group. Humans naturally make groups a part of their context or environment.<\/p>\n\n

    \n

    Types of Groups in the Workplace<\/h2>\n

    As a skilled communicator, learning more about groups, group dynamics, management, and leadership will serve you well. Mergers, forced sales, downsizing, and entering new markets all call upon individuals within a business or organization to become members of groups. Groups can also be discussed in terms of their relationship to the individual, and the degree to which they meet interpersonal needs.<\/p>\n

    Some groups may be assembled at work to solve problems, and once the challenge has been resolved, they dissolve into previous or yet to be determined groups. Functional groups like this may be immediately familiar to you. You take a class in sociology from a professor of sociology, who is a member of the discipline of sociology. To be a member of a discipline is to be a disciple, and adhere to a common framework for viewing the world. Disciplines involve a common set of theories that explain the world around us, terms to explain those theories, and have grown to reflect the advance of human knowledge. Compared to your sociology instructor, your physics instructor may see the world from a completely different perspective. Still, both may be members of divisions or schools, dedicated to teaching or research, and come together under the large group heading we know as the university.<\/p>\n

    In business, we may have marketing experts who are members of the marketing department, who perceive their tasks differently from a member of the sales staff or someone in accounting. You may work in the mailroom, and the mailroom staff is a group in itself, both distinct from and interconnected with the larger organization.<\/p>\n\n

    \n

    Relationships are part of any group, and can be described in terms of status, power, control, as well as role, function, or viewpoint. Within a family, for example, the ties that bind you together may be common experiences, collaborative efforts, and even pain and suffering. The birth process may forge a relationship between mother and daughter, but it also may not. An adoption may transform a family. Relationships are formed through communication interaction across time, and often share a common history, values, and beliefs about the world around us.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

    In business, an idea may bring professionals together, and they may even refer to the new product or service as their \u201cbaby,\u201d speaking in reverent tones about a project they have taken from the drawing board and \u201cbirthed\u201d into the real world. As in family communication, work groups or teams may have challenges, rivalries, and even \u201cbirthing pains\u201d as a product is adjusted, adapted, and transformed. Struggles are a part of relationships, both in families and business, and form a common history of shared challenged overcome through effort and hard work.<\/p>\n

    Through conversations and a shared sense that you and your co-workers belong together, you meet many of your basic human needs, such as the need to feel included, the need for affection, and the need for control.Schutz, W. (1966). The Interpersonal Underworld<\/em>. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.<\/span> In a work context, \u201caffection\u201d may sound odd, but we all experience affection at work in the form of friendly comments like \u201cgood morning,\u201d \u201chave a nice weekend,\u201d and \u201cgood job!\u201d Our professional lives also fulfill more basic needs such as air, food, and water, as well as safety. While your workgroup may be gathered together with common goals, such as to deliver the mail in a timely fashion to the corresponding departments and individuals, your daily interactions may well go beyond this functional perspective.<\/p>\n

    In the same way, your family may provide a place for you at the table and meet your basic needs, but they also may not meet other needs. If you grow to understand yourself and your place in a way that challenges group norms, you will be able to choose which parts of your life to share and to withhold in different groups, and to choose where to seek acceptance, affection, and control.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

    \n

    Primary and Secondary Groups<\/h2>\n

    There are fundamentally two types of groups that can be observed in many contexts, from church, to school, from family to work: primary and secondary groups. The hierarchy denotes the degree to which the group(s) meet your interpersonal needs. Primary groups<\/a> <\/span><\/em>meet most, if not all, of one\u2019s needs. Groups that meet some, but not all, needs are called secondary groups<\/a><\/span><\/em>. Secondary groups often include work groups, where the goal is to complete a task or solve a problem. If you are a member of the sales department, your purpose is to sell.<\/p>\n

    In terms of problem-solving, work groups can accomplish more than individuals. People, each of whom have specialized skills, talents, experience, or education come together in new combinations with new challenges, find new perspectives to create unique approaches that they themselves would not have formulated alone.<\/p>\n

    Secondary groups may meet your need for professional acceptance, and celebrate your success, but may not meet your need for understanding and sharing on a personal level. Family members may understand you in ways that your co-workers cannot, and vice versa.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

    \n

    If Two\u2019s Company and Three\u2019s a Crowd, What Is a Group?<\/h2>\n

    This old clich\u00e9 refers to the human tendency to form pairs. Pairing is the most basic form of relationship formation; it applies to childhood \u201cbest friends,\u201d college roommates, romantic couples, business partners, and many other dyads (two-person relationships). A group<\/a><\/span><\/em>, by definition, includes at least three people. We can categorize groups in terms of their size and complexity.<\/p>\n

    When we discuss demographic groups as part of a market study, we may focus on large numbers of individuals that share common characteristics. If you are the producer of an ecologically innovative car such as the Smart For Two, and know your customers have an average of four members in their family, you may discuss developing a new model with additional seats. While the target audience is a group, car customers don\u2019t relate to each other as a unified whole. Even if they form car clubs and have regional gatherings, a newsletter, and competitions at their local race tracks each year, they still subdivide the overall community of car owners into smaller groups.<\/p>\n

    The larger the group grows, the more likely it is to subdivide. Analysis of these smaller, or microgroups, is increasingly a point of study as the internet allows individuals to join people of similar mind or habit to share across time and distance. A microgroup<\/a><\/span><\/em> is a small, independent group that has a link, affiliation, or association with a larger group. With each additional group member the number of possible interactions increases.Harris, T., & Sherblom, J. (1999). Small Group and Team Communication<\/em>. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.<\/span>,<\/sup>McLean, S. (2003). The Basics Of Speech Communication<\/em>. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.<\/span><\/p>\n\n

    \n

    Table 2.1<\/span> Possible Interaction in Groups<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Number of Group Members<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Number of Possible Interactions<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n75<\/td>\n186<\/td>\n441<\/td>\n1,056<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

    Small groups normally contain between three and eight people. One person may involve intrapersonal communication, while two may constitute interpersonal communication, and both may be present within a group communication context. You may think to yourself before taking a speech turn or writing your next post, and you may turn to your neighbor or co-worker and have a side conversation, but a group relationship normally involves three to eight people.<\/p>\n

    In Table 2.1 \"Possible Interaction in Groups\", you can quickly see how the number of possible interactions grows according to how many people are in the group. At some point we all find the possible and actual interactions overwhelming, and subdivide into smaller groups. Forums may have hundreds or thousands of members, and you may have hundreds of friends on FaceBook, but how many do you regularly communicate with? You may be tempted to provide a number well north of eight, but if you exclude the \u201call to one\u201d messages, such as a general Twitter to everyone (but no one person in particular), you\u2019ll find the group norms will appear.<\/p>\n

    Group norms<\/a><\/span><\/em> are customs, standards, and behavioral expectations that emerge as a group forms. If you blog everyday on your FaceBook page, and your friends stop by to post on your wall and comment, and then stop for a week, you\u2019ll violate a group norm. They will wonder if you are sick or in the hospital where you can\u2019t access a computer to keep them updated. If, however, you only post once a week, the group will come to naturally expect your customary post. Norms involve expectations, self and group imposed, that often arise as groups form and develop.<\/p>\n

    If there are more than eight members, it becomes a challenge to have equal participation, where everyone has a chance to speak, be heard, listen, and respond. Some will dominate, others will recede, and smaller groups will form. Finding a natural balance within a group can also be a challenge. Small groups need to have enough members to generate a rich and stimulating exchange of ideas, information, and interaction, but not so many people that what each brings cannot be shared.Galanes, G., Adams, K., & Brilhart, J. (2000). Communication in Groups: Applications and Skills<\/em> (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.<\/span><\/p>\n\n

    \n

    Key Takeaway<\/h3>\n

    Forming groups fulfills many human needs, such as the need for affiliation, affection, and control; individuals also need to cooperate in groups to fulfill basic survival needs.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

    \n

    Exercises<\/h3>\n
      \n \t
    1. Think of the online groups you participate in. Forums may have hundreds or thousands of members, and you may have hundreds of friends on FaceBook, but how many do you regularly communicate with? Exclude the \u201call-to-one\u201d messages, such as a general Twitter to everyone (but no one person in particular). Do you find that you gravitate toward the group norm of eight or fewer group members? Discuss your answer with your classmates.<\/li>\n \t
    2. What are some of the primary groups in your life? How do they compare with the secondary groups in your life? Write a 2\u20133 paragraph description of these groups and compare it with a classmate\u2019s description.<\/li>\n \t
    3. What group is most important to people? Create a survey with at least two questions, identify a target sample size, and conduct your survey. Report how you completed the activity and your findings. Compare the results with those of your classmates.<\/li>\n \t
    4. Are there times when it is better to work alone rather than in a group? Why or why not? Discuss your opinion with a classmate.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
      \n
      \n
      \n
      \n
      \n

      2.2<\/span> Group Life Cycles and Member Roles<\/span><\/h2>\n
      \n

      Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
        \n \t
      1. Identify the typical stages in the life cycle of a group.<\/li>\n \t
      2. Describe different types of group members and group member roles.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n

        Groups are dynamic systems, in constant change. Groups grow together and eventually come apart. People join groups and others leave. This dynamic changes and transforms the very nature of the group. Group socialization<\/a><\/span><\/em> involves how the group members interact with one another and form relationships. Just as you were once born, and changed your family, they changed you. You came to know a language and culture, a value system and set of beliefs that influences you to this day. You came to be socialized<\/a><\/span><\/em>, to experience the process of learning to associate, communicate, or interact within a group. A group you belong to this year\u2014perhaps a soccer team or the cast of a play\u2014may not be part of your life next year. And those who are in leadership positions may ascend or descend the leadership hierarchy as the needs of the group, and other circumstances, change over time.<\/p>\n\n

        <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\"\"\n
        2.2<\/span> Why Communicate in Groups?<\/span><\/div>\n
        \n
        \n
        \n

        Learning Objective<\/h3>\n
          \n \t
        1. Understand the role of interpersonal needs in group communication.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n
          \n

          \u201cI love mankind. It\u2019s people I can\u2019t stand.\u201d<\/p>\n

          Charles M. Schulz (through Charlie Brown)<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          \u201cCommunication is a continual balancing act, juggling the conflicting needs for intimacy and independence.\u201d<\/p>\n

          Deborah Tannen<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          Munro Leaf wrote and illustrated a classic children\u2019s book in 1936 called Manners Can Be Fun<\/em>. Here are the drawings and text from its first few pages:<\/p>\n\n

          \n\n\"image\"\n

          If you lived all by yourself out on a desert island, others would not care whether you had good manners or not. It wouldn\u2019t bother them. But if someone else lived there with you, you would both have to learn to get along together pleasantly.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          \n\n\"image\"\n

          If you did not, you would probably quarrel and fight all the time, or<\/em>\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          \n\n\"image\"\n

          stay apart and be lonesome because you could not have a good time together. Neither would be much fun.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          Although Leaf\u2019s drawings and text are simple and plain, they convey important truths about human beings: we need to get along with other people, and to get along we need to communicate in groups.<\/p>\n

          If we ask ourselves, then, \u201cWhat\u2019s the point of communicating in groups instead of just sitting at home or in a workplace alone?\u201d we\u2019ll conclude that our group interactions and relationships help us meet basic human needs. We may also recognize that not all our needs are met by any one person, job, experience, or context; instead, we need to diversify our communication interactions in order to meet our needs.McLean, S. (2010). Business Communication for Success<\/em>. Irvington, NY: Flat World Knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

          At first, you may be skeptical of the idea that we communicate to meet our basic needs. Let\u2019s consider two theories on the subject, however, and see how well they predict, describe, and anticipate our tendency to interact.<\/p>\n

          Abraham Maslow\u2019s Hierarchy of Needs<\/a><\/span><\/em>, represented in Figure 2.1 may be familiar to you. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality<\/em> (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.<\/span> We need the resources listed in level one (e.g., air, food, and water) to survive. If we have met those basic needs, we move to level two: safety. A job may represent this level of safety at its most basic level. Regardless of how much satisfaction you may receive from a job well done, a paycheck ultimately represents meeting basic needs for many.<\/p>\n

          If we feel safe and secure, we are more likely to seek the companionship of others. Human beings tend to form groups naturally, and if basic needs are met, love and belonging occur in level three. Perhaps you\u2019ve been new to a class, or a club, or at work and didn\u2019t understand the first thing about what was going on. Conflict may have been part of that experience, but you were probably still eager to interact with the other people in the group rather than staying by yourself like the miserable stick figure in Leaf\u2019s final drawing of the desert island.<\/p>\n

          As you came to know what was what and who was who, you learned how to negotiate the landscape and avoid landmines. Your self-esteem (level four) improved as you perceived that you belonged as part of the group.<\/p>\n

          Over time, you may have learned your job tasks and the strategies for succeeding in your class, your club, or your job. Perhaps you even came to be known as a reliable resource for others, as someone who would know how to respond helpfully if someone came to you with a problem. People may eventually have looked up to you within your role and have been impressed with your ability to make a difference. Maslow called this \u201cself-actualization\u201d (level five) and discussed how people come to perceive a sense of control or empowerment over their context and environment.<\/p>\n

          Beyond self-actualization, Maslow recognized our innate need to know (level six) that drives us to grow and learn, explore our environment, or engage in new experiences. We come to appreciate a sense of self that extends beyond our immediate experiences, beyond the function, and into the community and the representational. We can take in beauty for its own sake, and value aesthetics (level seven) that we previously ignored or had little time to consider.<\/p>\n\n

          \n

          Figure 2.1<\/span><\/p>\n\"Diagram\n

          Maslow\u2019s Hierarchy of Needs<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          Maslow\u2019s theory is individualistic, focusing primarily on how one person at a time may meet his or her basic needs. The theory has been criticized in light of the fact that many cultures are not centered on the individual. It\u2019s also been pointed out that even people whose physical resources are severely limited can enjoy rich interpersonal relationships and experience cultural, intellectual, and social treasures. Nevertheless, Maslow\u2019s hierarchy serves as a good place from which to begin our discussion about group communication.<\/p>\n

          What do we need from our environment? Why do we communicate in groups? The answers to both questions are often related.<\/p>\n

          William Schutz\u2019s Interpersonal Needs offered an alternate version of human interaction.Schutz, W. (1966). The Interpersonal Underworld<\/em>. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.<\/span> Like Maslow, he considered the universal aspects of our needs, but he contended that they operate within a range or continuum for each person.McLean, S. (2010). Business Communication for Success<\/em>. Irvington, NY: Flat World Knowledge.<\/span> According to Schutz, the need for affection, or appreciation, is basic to all humans. We all need to be recognized and feel like we belong, but some people need more interaction with groups than others. Schutz describes underpersonals<\/a><\/em>\u00a0<\/span><\/span> as people who seek limited interaction. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you may know people in school or at work who continually seek attention and affirmation. Schutz refers to these people as overpersonals<\/a><\/span><\/em>. The individual who strikes a healthy balance between meeting needs through solitary action and group interaction is referred to as a personal individual.<\/p>\n

          Humans also have a need for control, or the ability to influence people and events. But that need may vary according to the context, environment, and sense of security. If you act primarily autonomously to plan and organize your affairs as part of a group, Schutz would describe your efforts to control your situation as autocratic<\/a><\/span>,<\/em> or self-directed. Abdicrats<\/a><\/span><\/em>, on the other hand, are people who according to Schutz shift the burden of responsibility from themselves to others and rely upon others for a sense of control. Democrats<\/a><\/span><\/em>, finally, balance individual and group and are apt to gather and share information on the road to group progress.<\/p>\n

          Finally, Schutz echoed Maslow in his assertion that belonging is a basic interpersonal need, but he noted that it exists within a range or continuum and that some people need more and others less. Undersocials<\/a><\/span> <\/em>may be less likely to seek interaction, may prefer smaller groups, and will generally not be found on center stage. Oversocials<\/a><\/em><\/span>, by contrast, crave attention and are highly motivated to seek belonging. A social<\/a><\/em> <\/span>person is one who strikes a healthy balance between being withdrawn and being the constant center of attention.<\/p>\n

          Schutz described these three interpersonal needs<\/a><\/span><\/em> of affection, control, and belonging as interdependent and variable. In one context, an individual may have a high need for control, while in others he or she may not perceive the same level of motivation or compulsion to meet that need. Maslow and Schutz offer us two related versions of interpersonal needs that begin to address the central question: why communicate in groups?<\/p>\n

          We communicate with each other to meet our needs, regardless of how we define those needs. From the time you are a newborn infant crying for food or the time you are a toddler learning to say \u201cplease\u201d when requesting a cup of milk, to the time you are an adult learning the rituals of a college classroom or a job interview, you learn to communicate in groups to gain a sense of self within the group or community, meeting your basic needs as you grow and learn.<\/p>\n\n

          \n

          Key Takeaway<\/h3>\n

          Human beings communicate in groups in order to meet some of their most important basic needs.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          Exercises<\/h3>\n
            \n \t
          1. Review the types of individuals from Schutz\u2019s theory described in this section. Which types do you think fit you? Which types fit some of your coworkers or classmates? Why? Share your opinions with your classmates and compare your self-assessment with the types they believe describe you.<\/li>\n \t
          2. Think of two or more different situations and how you might express your personal needs differently from one situation to the other. Have you observed similar variations in personal needs in other people from one situation to another? Discuss your thoughts with a classmate.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
            \n
            \n
            \n

            2.3<\/span> What Is a Theory?<\/span><\/h2>\n
            \n

            Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
              \n \t
            1. Define \u201ctheory.\u201d<\/li>\n \t
            2. Identify the functions of theories.<\/li>\n \t
            3. Evaluate the practicality of using theories.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n
              \n

              \u201cThere is nothing so practical as a good theory.\u201d<\/p>\n

              Kurt Lewin<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

              \n

              \u201cReality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.\u201d<\/p>\n

              Philip K. Dick<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

              \u201cCan I make it through that intersection before the light turns red?\u201d \u201cWill I have enough money left at the end of the month to take my honey out to dinner at a nice restaurant?\u201d \u201cCan I trust my office mate to keep a secret?\u201d Every day we apply conceptions of how the world works to make decisions and answer questions like these.<\/p>\n

              Many of these conceptions are based on our own past experiences, what other people have told us, what we\u2019ve read or viewed on line, and so on. Sometimes the conceptions are clearly present in our minds as we act; other times they lie beneath our awareness. In reality, the conceptions may represent a hodge-podge of fact, fiction, hunches, conjectures, wishes, and assumptions. And they may change over time for reasons we may or may not even be able to identify.<\/p>\n

              We may informally refer to these kinds of conceptions as \u201ctheories.\u201d For instance, we might say, \u201cHe made a big mistake when he did that. My theory is that he was under a lot of stress because of getting laid off from his job.\u201d In studying communication, however, we make use of a more refined definition of the term \u201ctheory\u201d which is anything but a hodge-podge.<\/p>\n\n

              \n

              Defining \u201cTheory\u201d<\/h2>\n

              HooverHoover, K. R. (1984). The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking<\/em> (3rd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press, p. 38.<\/span> straightforwardly defined a theory<\/a> <\/span><\/em>as \u201ca set of inter-related propositions that suggest why events occur in the manner that they do.\u201d According to the National Academy of Sciences,Boss, J. (2010). Think; Critical Thinking for Everyday Life.<\/em> New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 379.<\/span> a scientific theory is \u201ca well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.\u201d Similar definitions have been put forth by other authorities. All the definitions, however, describe theories as the product of intellectual activity and as a source of insight into interpreting phenomena.<\/p>\n

              Some theories are solid and universally accepted. Examples include the heliocentric theory and germ theory. It\u2019s assumed that these theories require no further testing or evidence to continue to be accepted.<\/p>\n

              Other more provisional theories, such as string theory in physics or self-efficacy theory in psychology, require continual exploration and testing in order to be supported and retained. Theories are never to be regarded as factual, but rather as models which conform to facts as closely as possible.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

              \n

              Functions of Theory<\/h2>\n

              So\u2014what can theories do for us? Their main function is to help us make sense of phenomena, including human behavior. They help us answer \u201cwhy\u201d and \u201chow\u201d questions about the world. More specifically, they can fulfill three major functions.<\/p>\n

              The first function is explanation. Theories can help us understand why entities\u2014physical objects, processes, or people\u2014behave the way they do, individually or in interactions with each other.<\/p>\n

              The second function is \u201cpostdiction<\/a><\/span><\/em>.\u201d Theories can help us interpret specific past incidents and events and account for why they would be expected to happen as they did. Thus, they give us assurance that order exists in at least part of the world.<\/p>\n

              The final function is prediction, whereby theories help us gain confidence in describing what is likely to take place in the future. Many physical phenomena occur with a degree of stability and consistency over time. Although human beings often surprise each other, psychologists have contended that someone\u2019s past behavior is the best predictor of that person\u2019s future behavior. Thus, if our theories have properly and accurately postdicted the way someone has acted, they should lead us to a clear picture of what future behavior that person will exhibit.<\/p>\n

              Before they had reasonable theories regarding physical science, our ancestors found events like eclipses and earthquakes to be inexplicable. They responded to such phenomena with dread or superstitious speculation. The same was true with respect to complex bodily functions and the spread of disease. Having theories about our natural world and our place in it gives us as human beings a comfortable, reliable foundation upon which to strengthen and enlarge our knowledge. Theories, in short, free us to spread our mental wings and fly into new territory.<\/p>\n

              Three other characteristics are associated with good theories. First, they exhibit parsimony<\/a><\/span><\/em>; that is, they are as simple as possible. Second, they should be consistent with previous theories. Third, they also need to be deniable.<\/p>\n

              Deniability<\/a><\/span> <\/em>means that those who hold a theory should be able to describe evidence which would cause them to abandon it. If this weren\u2019t the case, choosing among competing theories would be a matter only of who spoke loudest or fought hardest on behalf of their opinions.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

              \n

              What Theories Are Not<\/h2>\n

              Many ingredients make up human inquiry. We\u2019ve established that theories rank among the most important. Several others, however, are part of the landscape and need to be differentiated from theories.<\/p>\n

              First of all, theories are not laws<\/a><\/span><\/em>. Laws specify uniform cause-and-effect relationships which hold true under limited, defined circumstances. Unlike theories, which are broader, they do not claim to explain why the relationships exist. Consider Newton\u2019s First Law of Motion, for instance: \u201cEvery object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.\u201d The theory of gravity, in contrast, more broadly states that any two or more objects exert a force of attraction on one another.<\/p>\n

              Second, theories are not claims. Claims are contentions based on belief or opinion. They do not necessarily rely on empirical evidence\u2014i.e., evidence acquired through conventional sense perceptions and assessed through scientific processes. Individuals and groups may continue to maintain their claims without regard to investigations and discoveries which counter their beliefs. Theories, in contrast, are developed\u2014and modified, if contrary evidence arises\u2014by careful, systematic observation and testing among members of a community.<\/p>\n

              Finally, theories are not arguments. In everyday language, an argument is simply a reason someone offers for accepting or stating a particular claim. More formally, a logician would say that an argument comprises a premise and a conclusion. A premise might be \u201cWe all know that gray clouds sometimes produce rain. I see gray clouds in the sky.\u201d This would be followed with a conclusion, such as \u201cThere\u2019s a possibility that it\u2019s going to rain.\u201d A theory about weather, beyond its relevance to specific conditions in the sky at a particular time, encompasses all sorts of meteorological phenomena and is meant to apply universally.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

              \n

              Are Theories Practical?<\/h2>\n

              There may be more than meets the eye to Kurt Lewin\u2019s statement at the beginning of this section concerning theory and practice. Obviously, not all theories will be equally practical. Some can be applied with more assurance to broader domains than others, some occupy a tenuous place among many other competing theories, and some are simply bad. Whether theories successfully guide action depends on whether they\u2019re properly developed, whether they correspond well to reality, and whether they\u2019re sufficiently flexible to evolve as circumstances change and new information becomes available.<\/p>\n

              Furthermore, it\u2019s been pointed out Sandelands, L.E. (1990). \u201cWhat Is So Practical about Theory? Lewin Revisited<\/em>.\u201d Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior<\/em>, 20 (3): 235\u2013262.<\/span> that knowing theories does not necessarily mean that we will act according to them. And other forms of communication can sometimes be as provocative and valuable to us as theory. Good poetry, essays, and fiction all may inspire us and help instill the kind of confidence we need to make decisions and cover new intellectual ground.<\/p>\n

              Still, it\u2019s clear that theory can serve as an important contextual factor as individuals and groups refine and elaborate upon the practices they follow. As we\u2019ll see in the next section, group communication theory constitutes just such a valuable contextual factor for us.<\/p>\n\n

              \n

              Key Takeaway<\/h3>\n

              A good theory can help us explain and predict phenomena.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

              \n

              Exercises<\/h3>\n
                \n \t
              1. The theory of gravity tells us that all objects, in all situations and at all times, exert an attractive force upon each other. Can you think of any statements about human interaction which applies in all situations and at all times? What makes you confident of your answer?<\/li>\n \t
              2. What are one or two major assumptions you make about people in groups which guide your own behavior as part of those groups?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
                \n
                \n

                2.4<\/span> Group Communication Theory<\/span><\/h2>\n
                \n

                Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
                  \n \t
                1. Identify ways in which group communication theory can help groups.<\/li>\n \t
                2. Understand how theories are properly developed.<\/li>\n \t
                3. Identify prominent theoretical paradigms regarding communication.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n
                  \n

                  \u201c[C]reating a new theory is not like destroying an old barn and erecting a skyscraper in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting point and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out still exists, and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on our adventurous way up.\u201d<\/p>\n

                  Albert Einstein<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

                  \n

                  \u201cIn making theories, always keep a window open so that you can throw one out if necessary.\u201dEinstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The Evolution of Physics<\/em>. New York: Simon and Schuster.<\/span><\/p>\n

                  B\u00e9la Schick<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

                  \n

                  Functions of Group Communication Theory<\/h2>\n
                  \n

                  Theory helps us to bear our ignorance of facts.<\/p>\n

                  George Santayana in The Sense of Beauty<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

                  What can theories about group communication do for us? Like all theories, they can help us explain, postdict, and predict behavior. Specifically, theory can help us deal with group communication (Hahn, L.K., Lipper, L., & Paynton, S.T. (2011). Survey of Communication Study<\/em>. http:\/\/bit.ly\/ImokVO<\/a>.) <\/span>in four ways.<\/p>\n

                  First, these theories can help us interpret and understand what happens when we communicate in groups. For example, a person from a culture such as Japan\u2019s may be taken by surprise when someone from mainstream US culture expresses anger openly in a formal meeting. If we\u2019re familiar with a theory which describes and identifies \u201chigh\u201d versus \u201clow-context\u201d cultures, we can make better sense of interactions like this with people from cultures other than our own.<\/p>\n

                  Second, the theories can help us choose what elements of our experience in groups to pay attention to. As Einstein wrote, \u201cIt is theory that decides what can be observed.\u201d If we know that cultures can be \u201chigh-\u201d or \u201clow-context,\u201d then when we interact with people from diverse cultural backgrounds we\u2019ll watch for behaviors which we believe are associated with each of those categories. For example, if people are from high-context cultures they may tend to avoid explicit explanations and questions.<\/p>\n

                  Third, the theories can enlarge our understanding. Theories strengthen as they\u2019re examined and tested in the light of people\u2019s experience. Students, scholars, and citizens can all broaden their knowledge by discussing and explaining theories. Reflecting on questions and other reactions they receive in response can also refine theories and make them more useful.<\/p>\n

                  Fourth, the theories may impel us to challenge prevailing cultural, social, and political practices. Most of the ways that people behave in groups are products of habit, custom, and learning. They aren\u2019t, in other words, innate. By applying theoretical perspectives to how groups operate, we may be able to identify fairer and more just approaches.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

                  \n

                  Where Group Communication Theories Come From<\/h2>\n
                  \n

                  \u201cIt is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.\u201d<\/p>\n

                  Arthur Conan Doyle (via Sherlock Holmes in \u201cA Scandal in Bohemia,\u201d 1891)<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

                  To develop group communication theories, people generally follow a three-step process which parallels what Western science calls \u201cthe scientific method.\u201dLittlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theories of Human Communication<\/em> (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.<\/span><\/p>\n\n

                    \n \t
                  1. Ask important questions. What stages should most groups expect to pass through as they form and adopt goals? How does the size of a group affect its ability to pursue its goals? What methods of group decision-making work best with which kinds of people? Which blend of individual personalities contributes most to the satisfaction of a group? All these questions are meaningful and significant to groups, and all of them have served as the foundation of theories about group communication.<\/li>\n \t
                  2. Observe people\u2019s behavior in groups. To be productive, this observation should proceed on the basis of well-defined terms and within clear boundaries. To find out which blend of individual personalities contributes most to group satisfaction, for instance, it\u2019s necessary first to define \u201cpersonality\u201d and \u201csatisfaction.\u201d It is also important to decide which kinds of groups to observe under which circumstances.<\/li>\n \t
                  3. Analyze the results of the observation process and base new theories upon them. The theories should fit the results of the observations as closely as possible.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    You may want to go on line and look at a journal devoted to group communication topics, such as \u201cSmall Group Research.\u201d If you do, you\u2019ll see that the titles of its articles refer often to existing theories and that the articles themselves describe experiments with groups which have tested and elaborated upon those theories.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

                    \n

                    Theoretical Paradigms for Group Communication<\/h2>\n

                    Groups of theories may compose theoretical paradigms<\/a><\/span><\/em>, which are collections of concepts, values, assumptions, and practices that constitute a way of viewing reality for a community that shares them.Hahn, L.K., Lipper, L., & Paynton, S.T. (2011). Survey of Communication Study<\/em>. http:\/\/bit.ly\/ImokVO<\/a><\/span> Group communication theories tend to cluster around the following five paradigms:<\/p>\n\n