The basic components of group dynamics as they relate to the process of decision-making and evaluates the implications of groups alongside personality choice.

Rosina Wallis Group Discussions 08/05/2007

A classroom of mature students was split into two groups, one taking part as the discussion group and the others, the observers. This essay considers the basic components of group dynamics as they relate to the process of decision-making and evaluates the implications of groups alongside personality choice.

A number of people can and will recognize how to use the persuasive plea especially if they are already dug in and ready to defend their position. A highly motivated and prepared person is very difficult to influence. This explains the most important point with credible intent. Whilst the opposite side might believe that a source is trying to alter them, they frequently react defensively. It is better to merely begin the persuasive statement without creating a big deal about it. Despite the fact that, there are important exceptions, you know that your audience will probably agree with most of what you will suggest, if you are looking for only small changes they may well begin thinking about things you want them to think about. In actual sense a "self-persuasion" procedure can begin. When you start talking, the group will hear you say things they have already considered and will subsequently; find your claims to be more familiar plus acceptable. However, I think this can only occur if you are strong minded enough and able to stand your own ground in discussions. Sometimes though this type of person can be viewed as winning by the opposition, too strong plus, not allowing other people to get their point across. Some people will use the broken record ploy to be heard moreover to get their point across, perhaps even to quieten a group down, this was the definitely the case in our class discussion, some people got louder and louder as the discussion went on.

Some of the people in the observation group were becoming anxious and angry since they cannot understand what the discussion was about considering, that the volume of noise in the group increased. Seeing that as a discussion progresses it may well get louder therefore, it is understandable that the observation group can become annoyed.

This is a preview of the whole essay

There are two sides to every issue; one-sided communications discuss only one perspective. Two-sided communication present information on both sides. Therefore someone to negotiate is a good thing because they could put forward another case to the discussion. This can make the discussion more equal and focussed. Issues in a discussion take their own route and several things said may not always be relevant to the actual issue being discussed, when there is no specific leadership for everyone’s opinion it may end up as people just wanting to have their say it is incredibly easy to lose track of the issue in hand. This occurred on numerous occasions in our group discussion. Some people in discussion groups remain quite and never voice their point of view however this could be because they don’t really have an opinion although, this is only surmising on my part. Some people in a discussion group are quite but are still able to get their point of view across in a quiet way.

Past experiences may possibly come into play for some people in a discussion group and some strong signs on an emotional level can be displayed, I believe that maybe a person should not get emotionally involved in such situations. Nevertheless a personal level is usually used on a topic of an emotional nature, a few people draw from their past experiences. This occurred several times in our group discussion.

To be most effective, using a two-sided point of view is useful, subsequently you will see people defend one side; and the opposite side attack. Different types of people can and perhaps will view stronger personalities as aggressive, this was definitely shown to be true in our group discussion. Sometimes people can appear to be aggressive but really are not of an aggressive nature; just that they perhaps are not quite as academic in getting a point across in a manner that people can understand, especially when it’s a point on an emotional level. This I believe was the case for myself. However some people’s intelligence will hinder them in understanding the point that is being made. Some people in the class can get their point across effectively. Also I have learned that contempt definitely breeds contempt. This was evident in our class group discussion.

Two sided discussions merely mention that there are competing perspectives and there is no attack on the competition, two sided messages are no more effective than one-sided messages. The question I have considered whilst writing this essay is, why are two sided discussions better? First, two sided discussions may simply appear to be more fair and balanced. Thus, for the persons who are not thinking very carefully, a two-sided debate make sources more credible. Secondly, for the people who are thinking cautiously, the combination of defence and attack makes them consider even more analytically about the issue and to start questioning the validity of the "other" side. Thus, two sided debates can provide a double-barrelled approach where the source gets more support since some people favour one side and object to the other side. Interestingly, reiteration has two diverse outcomes. First, a small amount of repetition leads to a lot of persuasion. Second, a lot of reiteration leads to irritation. There is a balance point with the handling of repetition. Using repetition up to a point is effective, but once you move past the point of balance, you get diminishing results. In the first outcome a little repetition works for an obvious reason, understanding. Since you repeat a point, over and over, then more and more people understand the message. For instance, advertisers recognize that, if a hundred people are shown a TV commercial, the majority of them won't even consider it. But if you show that same commercial lots of different times, more and more viewers will eventually begin to spot it for the first time. And yet if a meticulous viewer acknowledged that new ad the very first time, repeated viewings are still valuable. They allow the viewer to learn more about the ad and consider it more cautiously.

In conclusion, group discussions are a good thing since they give people a chance to put across their own opinions and beliefs. Also they allow people to display their knowledge what's more it can improve levels of communication moreover, enhance critical thinking. This was shown to be true seeing that generally the above points occurred within the class discussion group on numerous occasions. I believe group discussions are always necessary; many different types of personalities should be able to take part in a discussion. However I believe it would have worked better if a leader had been nominated rather than a ‘free for all’ discussion. Furthermore it may have been more effective had the observers been allowed the chance to speak. Nevertheless, if the observation group had been allowed to partake in the discussion it would possibly have led to chaos.

Communication Skills Sue Allen