Chapter 10 Working Groups In Mass Communication PDF

Chapter 10 WORKING GROUPS IN MASS COMMUNICATION 10.1. Decision-making process in virtual groups A group decision is the result совместноиof team members working together. It has \"individual\" and \"group\" components. On the onehand, participants independently analyze the information and offer th...

Chapter 10 WORKING GROUPS IN MASS COMMUNICATION 10.1. Decision-making process in virtual groups A group decision is the result совместноиof team members working together. It has \"individual\" and \"group\" components. On the onehand, participants independently analyze the information and offer their own solutions. On the otherhand, they discuss different alternatives and adjust their preferences under the influence of their classmates. Interestingly, in both cases, people use only part of the availableinformation. This happens because psychological \"filters\" work when making a group decision. At the individual level, the selection of information is related to the assessments and ideas that participants have, as well as the strategyfor analyzing the material. On the one hand, people attach more importance to information that corresponds to their already formed estimates and ideas.одной стороны, люди придают большее значение сведениям, которые соответствуют уже сформировавшим On the otherhand, they can perform a systematic систематическииor heuristic analysisof the message. Participants with strongmotivation мотивациеиand large cognitive resources are more likely to choose a systematic strategy, while participants with weak motivation̆ andsmall cognitive resources are more likely to choose a heuristic strategy. At the group level, the selection of information is associated with the \"dispersion\" of responsibility, information influence, social comparison and regulatory influence: 1\) \" dispersion \"(diffusion) of responsibility is the rejection of personalresponsibility for the group групповоиresult, its transfer to classmates, 2\) informational influence is the perception of classmates as a source of reliableinformation about what is happening; 3\) social comparison - this is a comparison of yourself with classmates, in order to assess the degree of yoursuccess; 4\) normative influence is the perception of classmates as a source of social norms, the fulfillment of which is rewarded, and the violation of which is punished. The main differences in the groupdiscussion are as follows. 1\. Members of virtual groups exchange less informationwith each other than members of direct communication groups. They outperform face --- to-face groups in only one dimension: sharing informationthat котороиonly some members of the group have. We will discuss this difference in more detail when we talk about the effect of preference for sharedinformation. 2\. Members of virtual groups focus more on problem solving and less on forming personal relationships than members of direct communication groups. For example, they are less likely to express their emotions and attitudes towards other group members, but they are more likely to make statements about a possible solution. (We are not talking about the number, but the frequency of business and personal statements in different groups.) 3\. Members of virtual groups communicate with each собоиother less kindly than members of direct communication groups: they are less likely to express agreement and more likely to disagree with each other (primarily on the decision --- making procedure), less likely to make positive and more likely to make negative statements about each other. According to some reports, these differences are more pronounced on the firstday of work, but disappear later.. 4\. Members of direct communication groups are more likely to use positive conflict resolution strategies than members of virtual communities: present logical arguments in defense of theirposition; encourage opponents to share information информациеиon which котороиtheir arguments are based; formulate additional ideas; offer alternatives that may be acceptable to both parties to the conflict; avoid making quick decisions and resist non-documented actions.pressure. At the same time, members of virtual communities are more likely to use negative conflict resolution strategies than members of direct communication groups: express their position, but do not argue for it; insist on the correctness of theirposition; try to suppress differences in opinions; encourage participants to reach an agreement as quickly as possible, without trying to understand what different opinions are based onI; insist on an immediate vote; change their mind just to avoid conflict and achieve harmony in the relationship. прийти к согласию, не пытаясь понять, на чем основаны разные мнения; настаивают на немедленном голосовании; меняют свое мнение, только чтобы избежать конфликта и достичь гармонии в отношениях. The discussion process influences the decisions that group members make. A meta-analysis of studies conducted more than 15 years ago showed that virtual groups where participants communicate with each other in writing lose out to direct communication groups. In particular, they take longer to make decisions, are less satisfied with their activities, and show lower productivity (the quality and quantity of alternatives offered) than people who communicate face-to-face. 10.2. Factors influencing decisions in virtual groups At firstglance, the conclusion made сделанныиin the early 2000s indicated that virtual groups were unproductive and encouraged people людеиto abandon them. However, today such communities operate in many organizations and solve important issues. Moreover, if the virtual groups discussed at the end of the twentieth century most often consisted of a small number of people, then modern virtual teams include dozens of people who communicate with each other every day.̆. Why did this happen? The fact is that virtual working groups allow you to bring together experts working in different cities, countries, and even on different continents. They accumulate the knowledge and experience of specialists who find it difficult to communicate with each собоиother in any other way. Therefore, professionals working in organizations continued to create virtual communities. To ensure that your knowledge and experience are not wasted, additional factors are taken into account when creating virtual groups. Trust between members of a virtualgroup. Interpersonal trust is an importantfactor оказывающииinfluencing the quality of group decisions. This was demonstrated by a recentmeta-analysis of research on teams in organizations. He showed that the more members of the workinggroup trust each other, the more actively they work (share knowledge and learn), the more they are included in the working group and satisfied with their своеиwork,and the better they perform the tasks assigned to them. However, trust is more strongly associated with the effectiveness of working in virtual groups than in direct communication groups. This probably explains the results of the first studies that demonstrated relatively low efficiency of virtual groups. They were attended bystrangers who did not know each other and worked together for a short time. Under these conditions, peoplehad neither the opportunity nor the motivation to form trusting relationships. Low mutual trust led to low work efficiency. Virtuality of communication. Modern technologies allow you to organize a variety of options for groupdiscussion. They can be arranged on a continuum: fully written communication mediated by a computer (the maximum degree of virtuality, the poorest information environment), - audio broadcasting of the discussion --- video broadcasting of the discussion --- direct face-to-face communication (the minimum degree of virtuality, the richest information environment). If the group works for a long time, then different forms of discussion can be combined. The degree of virtuality affects the quality of group decisions. For example, a recentmeta-analysis of research on organizational teams has shown that the richer the information environment, the more often employees communicate with each other,the more they share information, theless they conflict about the task, the more satisfied they are with their work̆ , and thebetter decisions they make However, the impact of virtuality depends on the characteristics особенностеиof the group members and the organization of teamwork. In particular, the richness of the informationenvironment does not affect people людеиwith a cooperative orientation̆ , it hasa positive impact on people with an indeterminatĕ с orientation̆ , and a negativeimpact on people with a non --- cooperativĕ с orientation̆. In addition, this factor has a more positive impact on teams that work for a short time (less than one day) than on teams that work for a long time. Anonymity of communication. Anonymity has two aspects: the ability to see a person and determine who they are --- find out their name, gender, professional affiliation, and so on.Participants in group discussions can remain completely anonymous (both aspects are present), partially anonymous (one aspect is present), or be fully known (both aspects of anonymity are absent). It turns out that the degree of anonymity of participants affects the benevolence of communication and the quality of group decisions. The less anonymous the members of a virtualgroup are, the more friendly they will be in a group групповоиdiscussion. For example, participants in one study had to solve a discussion problem-choose 15 thingsto take on a trip to the moon. Some people corresponded in a chat, others participated in a video conference, and still others discussed the decision face-to-face. The results showed that people who exchanged text messages made negative statements about their partner much more often than participants in a video conference. However, the relationship between anonymity and the quality of groupwork is more complex. A meta-analysis of studies on virtual groups has shown that members of completely anonymous groups (who do not see each other and do not provide information about themselves) perform just as well as members of direct communication groups, and better than members of partially anonymous virtual groups (who do not see each other, but provide information about themselves). However, members of non-anonymous groups are more satisfied with groupwork работоиthan members of anonymous virtual communities Time limits. The time available for members of the virtualgroup to make a decision may or may not be limited. A meta-analysis of studies has shown that virtual groups that operate without time constraints perform just as well as direct communication groups, and better than virtual groups that operate under time constraints. In addition, members of groups that work without a time limit are more satisfied with theiractivities than participants who work under a time limit.. Duration of work. Virtual groups can last from a few hours to many months. Some studies suggest that long-term work can compensate for the shortcomings of virtualcommunication. For example, over time, members of virtual groups begin to communicate with each other as kindly and cooperatively, and work as well as members of direct communication groups. In other words, virtual groups need time to \"warm up\". Feedback. The effectiveness of virtual communities can be enhanced by feedback on the interim results of work, which includes a polite description of the advantages and disadvantages of the group\'s activities. This happens because feedback increases the motivation and satisfaction of team members, who begin to work more intensively. Moreoverобратнои, people who initially had low motivation get a lot of benefit from feedbackнизкой.̆. Thus, virtual communities whose members trust each other, work in a richinformation информационноиenvironment, have time for the initial \"warming up\" and subsequent completion of tasks, and also receive constructive feedback, can work as effectively as direct communication groups. To meet these conditions, specialists involved in organizingvirtual groups use additional features: they combine various forms of online communication-(correspondence, audio and video conferences) with face-to-face communication, train managers, andso on. 10.3. Effects of groupdiscussion in virtual groups Social laziness is the tendency of a person to work less strenuously on a task if they think that неиother people are working on it at the same time. Initially, the effect was found when solving simple motor tasks --- tug-of-war, shouting, and cheering. Studies have shown that, on average, a person puts less effort into tug-of-war, makes quieter noises, and applauds less intensely if there are other people around them who are performing the same actions,, Probably, the main role in demotivating participants is played by the dispersion of responsibility and social comparison. On the onehand, a person removes responsibility for achieving results and \"passes\" it to other members of the group, hoping that they will do most of the work. On the otherhand, they compare their own contribution to the problem with that of other participants and think that they are working as well as other people. Inthe early twentieth century, researchers tried to understand how the virtual environment affects social laziness. Research participants were asked to complete a task --- analyze information and suggest a solution-in oral устноиcommunication face-to-face or in written communicationvia computer. Studies have yielded conflicting results. Some showed that members of different discussion groups put in the same effort. Others have shown that members of virtual groups put in less effort than members of direct communication groups. Preference for shared(well-known)information --- greater use in making decisions of the information that котороиall members of the group have, compared to information that̆, котороиonly some participants in the discussion have. This effect was found when solving problems in which people had to choose the correct solution from several suggested alternatives (for example, a candidate for a position or a possible criminal). The information was chosen in such a way that publicly available information spoke in favor of the wrongone, and unique information spoke in favor of the correct правильноиalternative. По-видимому, предпочтение общеизвестноиSocial comparison and normative influence seem to favor well-known information. On the onehand, drawing conclusions based on information that is known (and trusted) to all participants, a person wants to demonstrate their competence. On the otherhand, using well-known information, he follows the social социальноиnorm that is common inthe group. The virtuality of communication has a big impact on the use of uniqueinformation. A meta-analysis conductedseveral years ago showed that members of virtual groups are more likely to share unique уникальноиinformation информациеиthat котороиonly some participants possess than members of direct communication groups. The higher the degree of virtuality of communication (i.e., the poorer the information environment and the lower the synchronicity of communication), the more pronounced this difference is. However, a more thoroughanalysis shows that virtual groups are more likely to use unique information and, as a result, are more likely to choose the right alternative if there are additional conditions. For example, such tasks are best handled by virtual communities that work in an unlimited time environment and solve the problem of choosing an alternative (\"It is definitely known that one of the described characters committed a crime; choose the one who did it\"), rather than the task of making a judgment Conformism --- a person\'s change in their ideas, assessments, and behavior under the influence of the majority of group members. This effect was demonstrated when performing a variety of tasks --- determining the length of lines, answering quiz questions, determining the person who committed the crime, etc. In simple cases, the person changed their position after listening to the opinions of other participants in the study; in complex cases, they did it after a groupdiscussion after explaining their own собственноиposition and the arguments of their opponents. Conformism is caused by two psychological mechanisms-informational and normative influence. On the onehand, a person agrees with other people when they don\'t know the right answer and considers other members of the group to be a reliable source of information. On the otherhand, they do this because they perceive the opinion of the majority of group members as a social norm, for which compliance котороиcan be rewarded (for example, sympathy of classmates), and for violation --- punishment (for example, dislike of classmates). The level of conformity depends on the anonymity of communication. Two main positions compete to explain this effect. Some scientists believe that participants in anonymouscommunication think less about how they look from the outside, are less afraid of punishment for violating norms, and, as a result, behave less conformally. For example, some studies have shown that people who express their opinions anonymously in online communicationshow lower низкииlevels of conformity than those who express their opinions face-to-face Other scientists believe that anonymity actualizes a person\'s social identity associated with their belonging to a socialgroup. A person who seeshimself as a member of a group follows group norms more --- demonstrates higher высокииconformity. Thisposition is supported by a recent проведенныиmetaвкотором-analysis that reviewed thirteen studies. He showed that in general, the more anonymous the communication, the higher the participants \' conformity, although the impact of anonymity depends on the specific study. This contradiction is taken into account in the socialidentity model, which explains объясняющеиthe effect of depersonalization. Its proponents believe that the impact of anonymity in online communication depends on the actualized актуализированноиidentity. People who have updated their personal identity действиемbecome less conformal under the influence of anonymity. At the same time, people who have an updated social identity действиемbecome more conformal under the influence of anonymity. Group polarization is a person\'s support for a more extremeposition after a group групповоиdiscussion than before it began. In the classic version of grouppolarization, the discussion group is gradually divided into two factions that support two opposing positions. However, there are situations when the community moves to one of the \"poles\": in this case, they talk about a shift to risk or a shift to caution. A vividexample of group групповоиpolarization is Internet discussions, in which participants are gradually divided into several camps лагереиthat support different positions. Apparently, group polarization is generated by informational and normative influences. On the onehand, when making a decision, a person takes into account the arguments that were expressed in the group групповоиdiscussion. At the same time, he pays more attention to the information that corresponds to his point of view. If classmates offer new arguments to replace thisposition, the person\'s preferences become more extreme. On the otherhand, an extreme position is clearly visible and demonstrates what exactly the group members value. In an effort to gain supporters, a person changes his point of view. Psychological studies do not provide an answer to the question of the comparativeintensity of group групповоиpolarization in virtual groups and groups of direct communication. However, they show that the intensity of grouppolarization in anonymous and non-anonymous неанонимномcommunication depends on the actualized актуализированноиidentity. When updating personalidentity, anonymity reduces group polarization, and when updating social социальноиidentity, it increases it.. 10.4. Improving groupdiscussion Special procedures have been established to help members of the discussion groups thoroughly discuss the problem and consider all possible solutions. The most widely known is the soназываемый -called brainstorming session. His idea boils down to the following. The decision-making process is divided into two parts. In the firstphase, participants offer various (even the most paradoxical) solutions to the поставленноиproblem. All alternatives are recorded and added to the generallist. In the secondphase, people evaluate each proposed alternative and choose the best options. Today, there are different options for brainstorming. This procedure is performed in direct communication groups and in virtual groups. In both cases, participants come up with their own alternatives and see the ideas suggested by other members of the discussiongroup. However, in the first case, people see and hear each other, while in the second case, they work mostly anonymously and in writing. Anonymity allows people to temporarily forget about the rules of etiquette and reduces the fear of evaluation. As a result, the quality of work changes. In particular, a meta-analysis conductedsome time ago showed that virtual виртуальный brainstorming ismore effective мозговоиthan face-to-face brainstorming. We are talking about the firstphase of the procedure - generating ideas. Members of virtual groups offer more original ideas and are more satisfied with their work работоиthan members of direct communication groups. According to some reports, large virtual groups have an advantage: a large number of participants increases the likelihood of original ideas appearing. In this way, virtual workgroups can help people living in different places communicate with each other, discuss working together, and come up with effective solutions. It is likely that the number of such groups will grow as people become more and more accustomed to virtual communication and perceive it as a naturalway of communication. The features of online communicationthat prevent us from building relationships today will lose their significance, and the opportunities that open up virtual groups will increase.