GROUP DYNAMICS

A group consists of two or more individuals who are socially connected. These connections
can be strong or weak but create a sense of belonging and shared identity among members.
Groups are usually small in size and defined by meaningful interactions, common roles, and
boundaries that separate members from non-members. Whether formed naturally (like
families) or through interaction (like strangers engaging in conversation), a group emerges
when individuals are linked through social relationships.

group dynamics: The influential actions, processes, and changes that occur within and
between groups over time; also, the scientific study of those processes.

The sociologist R.M.Williams (1989) defined group as an aggregate of some people. The
roles of the group members are inter related. The group is considered as a unit.

A sociologist, Paulus Paul defined group in the following words, “ A group consists of two or
more interacting persons who share common goals, have a stable relationship, are somehow
interdependent and perceive that they are in fact part of a group.

Groups: Their Key Components

Group structure refers to the organized pattern of roles, norms, and relationships
that develop within a group. It determines how members interact, who holds influence, and
what behaviours are expected. Roles such as leader, follower, or encourager define
responsibilities, while norms set the standards for acceptable conduct. These elements do not
form randomly; rather, they emerge naturally as the group functions over time. The structure
helps maintain order, facilitates coordination, and ensures each member knows their place
and duties. Thus, group structure is essential for the smooth functioning and stability of any
group.
Status
Groups often have status hierarchies, where members differ in rank. High-status individuals,
like leaders or long-time members, receive more respect, influence, and rewards. Status can
be based on formal roles, physical traits like height (Judge & Cable, 2004), or behaviors that
reflect group values (Haslam & Platow, 2001).

High-status members behave more freely, while low-status members tend to conform more
to fit in and avoid punishment (Jetten et al., 2006; Levine et al., 2005). Evolutionary
psychologists suggest status provides survival advantages (Buss, 1999). Overall, status
strongly affects group dynamics, behavior, and acceptance.

Roles
In groups, members typically perform different functions or roles, either assigned or naturally
developed. When people internalize these roles—seeing them as part of their identity—it
positively affects their self-perception, mood, and engagement, especially if the role aligns
with their personality (Bettencourt et al., 2006).

Studies show that identifying with a role leads to stronger group bonds and emotional
resilience, while lack of role identification results in stress and reduced effectiveness.

Norms
Groups influence individual behavior through norms—implicit or explicit rules that guide
how members are expected to act and even feel. These norms can vary widely depending on
the context and culture of the group. For instance, emotional norms may require employees in
service roles to always appear cheerful, while a funeral director is expected to display
solemnity and empathy. Cultural values further shape group norms; collectivist groups
emphasize maintaining harmony and discourage open conflict,

Whereas individualistic groups value personal expression and accept disagreement.

Additionally, the extent to which individuals identify with their group affects how strongly
they conform to its norms. Those who highly identify with the group are more likely to
follow its expectations, while those with weaker identification may ignore or even challenge
them. Thus, both cultural orientation and personal attachment to the group play a critical role
in how norms are internalized and expressed.

Cohesiveness
It refers to the forces that keep group members united. Cohesive groups are more united,
supportive, and goal-oriented, leading to better performance. However, outsiders may
struggle to fit in. Perceived threats—like cultural loss or competition—strengthen group
unity. For example, people support separation or protective measures when they fear their
group's identity is at risk, showing that threats can increase ingroup cohesion and motivate
actions to defend group distinctiveness.

Entitativity

It refers to how much a group appears to be a single, unified whole. It is based on

perception rather than actual closeness among members. For example, a family or a group of
friends may seem like real groups, while a crowd at a movie or sports event may not. It’s
about how “group-like” the people seem to an outside observer.

Types of groups

PRIMARY
SOCIAL GROUPS COLLECTIVE
GROUPS

CATEGORY

Primary groups: like your family, close friends, or tight-knit peer groups—are small
and personally meaningful. The people in these groups are deeply connected and feel like
they’re part of something bigger than just themselves. They interact often, usually face-to-
face, and know each other very well. Even when they’re not physically together, members
still feel like they belong to the group, and it remains an important part of their lives.
Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley called them "primary groups" because they are usually the
first groups people are part of and play a key role in shaping who we are. He believed that
these groups offer care, protection, and emotional support, but more importantly, they help
connect individuals to the larger society. Many people become part of these groups without
choosing—like being born into a family—while others form naturally through strong, long-
term relationships.

Social groups: These groups are larger and more formally organized than primary
groups, and memberships tend to be shorter in duration and less emotionally involving. The
boundaries of such groups are more permeable, so members can leave old groups behind and
join new ones. These groups are, in general, more instrumental ones: they are likely to stress
the performance of tasks rather than enjoying relationships. Various terms have been used to
describe this category of groups, such as secondary groups (Cooley, 1909), associations
(MacIver & Page, 1937), task groups (Lickel, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2001), and
Gesellschaften (Toennies, 1887/1963).
A collective refers to a large, loosely organized group of people who act in similar, often
spontaneous or unusual ways. Unlike tightly structured groups, collectives include crowds,
audiences, queues, mobs, or even widespread movements where individuals may not be
physically together but share common behaviors or opinions. Examples include people
watching a fire, students protesting, or large-scale shifts in public opinion.

CATEGORY: A category refers to a collection of people who share a common trait, such as
being New Yorkers, African Americans, or gamblers. On its own, a category does not mean
those individuals are a real group—it just highlights a shared feature. However, when that
shared trait influences relationships, behaviors, or how others treat someone, the category can
become more like a meaningful group. For example, if two students bond over being from the
same hometown, or someone identifies strongly as a gambler and starts gambling more, the
category becomes socially important. In such situations, the category gains entitativity (it
feels like a real, unified group) and essentialism (members are seen as sharing deep, defining
traits).

GROUP DECISION MAKING

One of the most important activities that groups perform is
D ecision making - P rocesses involved in comb ining and integrating availab le
information to choose one out of several possib le courses of action. It aims to pool
group memb ers'know led ge,skills,and insights to make w ell-informed choices that
align w ith the organization's goals. T his process often involves b rainstorming,
d iscussing,d eb ating,and analysing d ifferent options b efore d ecid ing.

A functional theory of group decision-making explains that effective groups follow certain
steps to make better decisions. These steps usually include:

1. Orientation phase – where the group defines the problem, sets goals, and makes a
plan;
2. Discussion phase – where they gather information and explore possible solutions;
3. Decision phase – where they choose the best option, often through consensus or
voting;
4. Implementation phase – where the group puts the decision into action and evaluates
the outcome.

Groups that carefully go through these steps tend to make better and more informed decisions
than those that skip or poorly handle any part of the process.

Orientation phase
Group decision-making starts when a problem or goal is noticed. In the first step, called the
orientation phase, the group makes a plan. They decide what they want to achieve, what
resources they need, what problems they might face, and how they will work together. This
helps everyone understand the task and stay organized. For example, college students
planning a recycling drive or a team starting a project first talk and plan what to do before
taking action.

 Defining the Problem

When group members work together, they may initially have different understandings of
the problem due to their varied backgrounds. However, developing a shared mental
model—a common understanding of the task, goals, and methods—helps reduce
confusion and improves teamwork. This shared perspective allows the group to make
better, unbiased decisions that reflect the group’s collective viewpoint.

 Planning

Groups often skip the planning phase because they want to get started quickly, but research
shows that careful planning—setting goals, procedures, and time limits—leads to better
performance and satisfaction. When groups take time to organize before jumping into tasks,
they coordinate better, use time more wisely, and avoid confusion.

For instance, a team of engineers working on a new software product took time during their
first meetings to define roles, timelines, and workflows. As a result, they met deadlines
efficiently and adapted well to unexpected challenges—unlike other teams that started coding
immediately and faced delays due to miscommunication and overlapping tasks.

Discussion phase
During the discussion phase of group decision-making, members gather, share, and process
relevant information—this stage is critical, like the “heart” of the decision-making process.
Over half of group conversations typically involve sharing ideas, opinions, and clarifications.
This leads to better understanding and stronger decisions.

One major benefit is collective memory—groups remember more than individuals because
they combine everyone’s unique knowledge and experiences. For example, in the Bay of Pigs
planning, different experts brought specialized knowledge—on tactics, weapons, or political
relations. Together, they knew more than any one person alone, although they still missed
some crucial details (like Castro’s familiarity with the landing site).

Similarly, students taking group exams often perform better than individuals because they
can rely on each other’s memories and knowledge. Groups also gather more information
overall because each person brings different insights based on their background. This
collective thinking improves the quality of decisions.

 INFORMATION EXCHANGE

Groups don’t just remember more because they have more people—they also share and
exchange information, making their memory stronger and more accurate. This process
strengthens group recall and understanding in two key ways:
1. Cross-cueing: Group members trigger each other’s memories by mentioning clues.
For example, if one member says, “It’s a bay,” another might remember, “Oh right,
the Bay of Pigs!” Even if no one could remember it alone, together they can retrieve
the full information. However, wrong clues (e.g., “It’s near a lagoon”) can confuse
others and block correct recall.
2. Transactive Memory (TM): In a group, members often specialize in remembering
different types of information. This division of memory makes the group more
efficient—each person becomes the “expert” in a specific area. For instance, in
Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs planning team, the CIA was relied on for all invasion-related
facts. So, others didn’t focus on storing that information themselves. But this system
fails if the “expert” misleads the group, as the CIA did by providing false optimism.

 PROCESSING INFORMATION

Groups process information more thoroughly than individuals because they engage in
active discussions where members ask questions, provide answers, challenge each
other’s ideas, and analyze different options. This back-and-forth helps them explore
all sides of a problem. Members share their viewpoints and debate alternatives, which
encourages critical thinking and leads to better decisions. They also help keep each
other focused on the task, correct mistakes, and ensure everyone is contributing. In
addition to solving the problem, group members often motivate and support each
other emotionally, creating a positive atmosphere. For example, in a student group
solving a complex puzzle, one person might remember a clue, another interprets it,
and a third challenges that interpretation—together, through discussion and analysis,
they arrive at the best solution. Such interactive discussions significantly improve
decision quality by ensuring all relevant information is shared, evaluated, and
understood.

Decision
The Decision phase is where the group turns discussion into a clear choice. It
describes various decision rules or social decision schemes—the methods by which
groups consolidate individual preferences into one group decision .

Options include:

Consensus, where everyone agrees.

Majority rule, where the most votes wins.

Averaging, where individual opinions are combined into an overall position.

Delegation, where an expert or subgroup decides for the whole group.

Random choice, though this is rarely used in serious decisions.

Each option comes with trade-offs. For example, majority voting is fast and
democratic, but those in the minority may feel overlooked. Consensus builds unity but
can be time-consuming. Delegation can speed things up but might reduce overall
 commitment .
Forsyth warns about common decision pitfalls. Group polarization can push decisions
to be more extreme—more risky or more cautious—than individual opinions were at
the start . Even worse is groupthink, where harmony is so prioritized that critical
evaluation disappears, dissent is suppressed, and flawed decisions may result. Forsyth
and Janis identify symptoms like illusion of invulnerability, rationalizing away
warnings, self-censorship, and pressure on dissenters .To prevent these issues, groups
should:

Assign a devil’s advocate to challenge assumptions,

Encourage dissenting opinions and debate, Use structured methods to ensure balanced input,
and, if necessary, separate decision making from leadership influence .

For example, during the seminar team’s decision on the venue, they use majority voting. But
one member disagrees, highlighting possible conflicts with another event. The group
welcomes this view, evaluates it fairly, and adds plans to check for any schedule overlaps—a
healthier decision-making outcome.

Implementation phase
The Implementation phase is when the group puts its decision into action. To avoid confusion
or inaction, clear roles, responsibilities, and deadlines must be assigned so that everyone
knows what they’re supposed to do. It also stresses the importance of fairness—both in how
decisions are made (procedural justice) and how outcomes are shared (distributive justice)—
to keep trust and motivation high.

The group must then monitor progress, checking in regularly to ensure things are on track
and fixing problems early. Once everything is done, a post-implementation review is held.
This helps the group reflect on what worked, what didn’t, and how to improve in the future.

Using the seminar example: after the event, the team meets to review attendance numbers,
participant feedback, and what tasks went smoothly versus those that didn’t. They note that
poster design was delayed and suggest starting that task earlier next time.

Group polarization
Groups tend to make more extreme decisions than individuals, a phenomenon called group
polarization. Contrary to the common belief that group decisions are safer or more balanced,
research shows that when people discuss issues in a group, their opinions often shift toward a
stronger version of their initial views. For example, if a group starts off slightly risky, the
final decision will likely be more risky; if they begin cautious, they become even more
cautious.

There are two key reasons for this:

 1. Social Comparison – People want to be seen as a strong supporter of the group’s
values. To fit in or stand out positively, they take on a slightly more extreme version
of what the group already prefers. So, in a liberal group, people may express even
more liberal views to be seen as a “better” group member.
2. Persuasive Arguments – During discussions, most arguments tend to support the
group’s original leaning. Hearing many similar arguments makes members feel more
confident in that view, which strengthens it further. So the group moves toward a
more extreme position because everyone hears and agrees with reinforcing arguments.

However, studies also suggest that when group members don’t know each other’s opinions
beforehand, the group considers a wider range of views, which can lead to better and more
balanced decisions.

Group think(-ve effect of group decision making)

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a highly cohesive group makes
poor or irrational decisions because the desire for harmony and agreement overrides realistic
evaluation of alternatives. While group cohesiveness usually has positive effects like
increasing unity and satisfaction, too much cohesiveness can be harmful, especially in
decision-making situations.

In groupthink, members begin to believe that their group is always right and reject outside
criticism or any dissenting opinions from within. This results in poor decision-making and a
lack of critical thinking. Historical examples include major U.S. political decisions, such as
escalating the Vietnam War or invading Iraq without strong evidence.

There are two main causes of groupthink:

1. Very high group cohesiveness, especially when the leader’s close allies dominate
decision-making.
2. Emergent group norms that suggest the group is morally superior and infallible—
leading members to shut down debate and pressure everyone to support the decision.

A key danger of groupthink is that criticism from outsiders is often dismissed, even if it's
valid. This can strengthen the group’s belief in their decision rather than lead to correction.

A study by Hornsey and Imani (2004) supports this: When Australian students read negative
comments about Australians, they reacted more negatively if the comments came from an
outsider, even if the outsider had experience living in Australia. But when ingroup
members gave the same negative feedback, it was better accepted. This shows how
groupthink also leads to rejecting criticism based on who says it, not what is said,
especially in front of outsiders.

THE FAILURE TO SHARE INFORMATION UNIQUE TO EACH

MEMBER (-ve effect of group decision making)
Groups often fail to share all the unique information and ideas each member brings. Instead
of combining everyone’s knowledge to make the best decision (called information pooling),
members tend to focus only on information that is already commonly known or agreed upon.
Research shows that this failure to pool resources is more common than rare.

This becomes a serious problem if the best decision depends on information that only one or
a few members know—because that key knowledge might never get discussed. As a result,
the group may make a poor or less effective decision simply because the most useful input
was left out.

Research shows that this failure to “pool” or combine everyone's different information is
surprisingly common. One way to improve this is through dissent—when someone
challenges the group’s thinking. Dissent encourages people to consider new perspectives and
share information that hasn't come up yet, which leads to better, more informed decisions.

Brain storming
The idea behind brainstorming is that when people work together in a group to come up
with ideas, they will be more creative than if they worked alone. But research shows that this
doesn’t always happen. In fact, groups often don’t generate more or better ideas than
individuals do on their own. Here's why that happens,and what might help:

Why brainstorming in groups often fails:

1. People hold back – Sometimes people don’t share all their ideas because they’re
afraid of being judged or they don’t want to interrupt.
2. Social comparison – If one person isn’t sharing many ideas, others might
unconsciously match that low level of effort.
3. Too much listening, not enough thinking – When people listen to others’ ideas, they
might forget or drop their own ideas before they share them.

What research found:

 Dugosh and Paulus (2005) studied whether people generate better ideas when they
think they are seeing ideas from other people vs. a computer.
When participants thought the ideas were from other people like them, they became
more motivated and creative—probably because they wanted to "keep up" or even
compete.
Also, the more ideas they were exposed to, the more ideas they produced.

What actually boosts creativity?

 Dissent and debate.

Nemeth and her team (2004) found that when people are encouraged to debate or
discuss different opinions, they generate better and more original ideas.
 This challenges the traditional rule in brainstorming that says: “Don’t criticize any
idea.”
It turns out that healthy disagreement can stimulate new thinking better than just
silently listening and accepting every idea.

In short:

While brainstorming is meant to be a creativity booster, it often doesn’t work well in its usual
form. People tend to do better when they are exposed to others’ ideas, feel motivated to
match or beat those ideas, and when they are allowed to debate and question ideas, rather
than just agreeing with everything.