GroupthinkA B C D E F G H IJKL M N O P R S T U VXYZWRupert Brown in Group Processes (Blackwell,
2000) notes as regards in-groups, ‘Since part of
our self-concept (or identity) is defi ned in terms
of group affi liation, it follows that there will be a
preference to view these groups positively rather
than negatively.’
Triandis also notes that in-groups are likely to
have much more infl uence over their members
in collectivist cultures than is the case in indi-
vidualistic cultures. In-groups and out-groups
may cooperate for mutual benefit but such
groupings may also be a source of intergroup
confl ict. Brown argues that a range of studies
reminds us that ‘the readiness for people to show
partiality for their own group (and its products)
over outgroups (and theirs) is not confi ned to
artifi cially created groups’. Th e resulting confl icts
are, arguably, much in evidence.
The performance of individuals is often
aff ected by group membership. Being in a group
can enhance or inhibit individual performance,
depending on such factors as the nature of the
task, the degree of effective leadership, the
cohesiveness of the group and the fl exibility of
its communication networks. Th ese factors also
determine the quality of group decision-making.
In certain circumstances individuals may feel
they need to make less eff ort in a group situa-
tion and become social loafers; alternatively they
may be motivated to work harder and become
social labourers. At times individuals may be
prepared to work harder to make up for their less
energetic group members and thus contribute to
social compensation.
Robert A. Baron, Donn R. Byrne and Nyla
R. Branscombe in Social Psychology (Pearson
Education, 2006) argue that ‘contrary to popular
belief, a large body of evidence indicates that
groups are actually more likely to adopt extreme
positions than are individuals making decisions
alone’ – a dynamic termed group polarization.
A small primary group particularly has the
potential to influence the perceptions of its
individual members and thus the way in which
they interpret and respond to communication
from sources both within and outside the group.
Secondary groups are not without influence
either, in the communication process. An indi-
vidual’s accent and dialect, for example, can
reflect their socio-economic background. See
groupthink.
Groupthink Cohesiveness, or the desire for
cohesiveness, in a group may produce a
tendency amongst its members to agree at all
costs. Sometimes the decisions brought about
by such unanimity turn out to be disastrous.of independent musicians and a substantial
number of enthusiasts who prefer the vinyl
sound to the ‘compression eff ects’ of its more
‘advanced’ rivals. See topic guide under media
history.
Grip Person in a fi lm crew responsible for laying
tracks, portable ‘railway lines’ for the smooth
movement of the camera mounted on a dolly.
Groups A good deal of communication takes
place within groups of one type or another.
In Group Processes (Blackwell, 2000), Rupert
Brown argues that ‘a group exists when two or
more people defi ne themselves as members of it
and when its existence is recognised by at least
one other. Th e “other” in this context is some
person or group of people who do not defi ne
themselves so’. Th e following criteria typically
denote the existence of a group: common goals,
interaction between members and a structure for
that interaction, a measure of interdependence, a
stable relationship among members, a sense of
group identity and social integration.
Robert A. Baron and Donn Byrne in Social
Psychology (Allyn & Bacon, 1994) suggest some
common characteristics of groups: allocation
of roles, generation of norms and group
ideology, cohesiveness and encouragement of
conformity, and allocated roles may often have
diff ering degrees of status within the group.
Common structures found in groups are those
based on liking, role and status.
Charles H. Cooley, one of the initiators of
research into group behaviour and communica-
tion, in his work Social Organization (Scribner,
1909) classifies groups into two main types.
Primary groups such as the family are defi ned as
groups in which there is face-to-face communi-
cation; in which norms and mores are produced;
in which roles are allocated and in which a feel-
ing of solidarity is enjoyed. Secondary groups,
such as social class groups, are much larger
aggregates. Several researchers have sought to
determine the communication processes that
take place within groups and in particular the
inter-relationship between a group’s culture,
roles, status structure, cohesiveness, size, and
type, and its communication processes.
It is also possible to classify groups as being
in-groups or out-groups, as identifi ed by Harry
C. Triandis in ‘Collectivism vs. Individualism’
in G. Verma and C. Bagley, eds, Cross-cultural
Studies of Personality, Attitudes, and Cognition
(Macmillan, 1988). In-groups are those to which
we belong and which we value, whilst out-
groups are those to which we do not belong and
we may view some of these in a negative light.