THIS CHAPTER WILL DISCUSS:

1. The characteristics of scientific theories.

2. The elements found in valid scientific theories about small groups.

3. The characteristics of scientific perspectives.

4. The relationship between scientific perspectives and definitions.

5. How definitions of what constitutes a "group" can be classified as coming from six major scientific perspectives.

INTRODUCTION

As we discussed in the Preface, the goal of this book is to broaden and deepen reader's beliefs, or implicit theories, about group discussion. To reach this goal, we will describe scientific theories about how small groups function. These theories have been proposed by scientists in the fields of communication, psychology, sociology, and business administration. Before we begin this task, however, we need to explain what we mean by two terms, "theory" and "perspective." The two are related, but we can examine each in turn.

What Theories Are

Before examining how scientists use the term "theory" in their work, let us begin by discussing how people use the term in their everyday lives. For example, suppose that Alice surprises her friends by suddenly moving to Alaska. Her friend Bernice asks her other friend Carmen, "why did she do that?" Carmen replies, "I've got a theory about that. Things were going poorly at work and she thought she was going to be fired. Also, her old boyfriend just got a good job in Alaska and moved up there. My guess is that he asked her to join him and she decided she had nothing to lose by giving it a shot."

What is this "theory" that Carmen has described? It consists of a story about Alice. The story consists of a number of features; problems at work, good fortune for her old boyfriend, and a decision on the part of Alice. The story describes how these features are related with one another; the problems at work and good fortune for her old boyfriend are what led Alice to make the decision to move. The story may or may not be true, and in fact Carmen makes it clear that her theory is a "guess." However, it is clearly plausible, and if we can accept it on face value, we are led to an understanding of why Alice suddenly moved.

What does this "theory" allow Carmen to do? First, it allows her to describe what she knows about Alice's situation. Carmen knows that Alice was having trouble at work and that Alice's old boyfriend had moved to Alaska. Second, it might have allowed her beforehand to predict that, given Alice's situation, she might move away. Third, it provides an explanation for the move, and it is this explanation that provides Carmen with an understanding of Alice's situation. Fourth, it could allow Carmen to construct a strategy about what to say if Alice calls her on the telephone.

Scientific theories have a lot in common with everyday theories such as Carmen's. Scientific theories are, like Carmen's, stories describing a number of features and how they are related with one another. Scientific theories, like Carmen's, may or may not be true; if we knew a theory were true we would call it a "fact" instead of a "theory." Good scientific theories are plausible, and can lead us to a better understanding of the world around us.

Good scientific theories also allow scientists to do things analogous to what Carmen's theory allows her. Let us talk about those four things specifically:

1 - A good scientific theory allows a scientist to describe features relevant to the scientist's concern. For example, next chapter we will be describing some theories about how small groups perform tasks. Theories might help us describe such relevant features as the types of tasks that groups can perform and what it means to succeed and fail at each of these types of tasks.

2 - A good scientific theory allows a scientist to predict the extent to which a group exhibiting certain features will exhibit other features as well. For example, one feature of a group is the number of members it has. A good theory can help us predict whether a group with, say, four members is likely to succeed at a particular task because of its size.

3 - A good scientific theory allows a scientist to explain the reasons that a group exhibiting certain features will also exhibit related features. Continuing with the same example, we might want to know why a group of four members is unable to perform some tasks successfully.

4 - A good scientific theory allows a scientist to potentially control certain features of the group in order to affect other resulting features. We may want to change the number of people in the group so that it may become successful at tasks that it could not perform with only four people.

These scientific aims are ordered one to four for a definite purpose. As one moves from the first to the fourth, achieving each aim becomes increasingly more demanding. Each step requires a greater understanding of how groups work. The better the theory, the more likely it is that we can successfully use it to achieve all four of these scientific goals.

This is what we mean by the term "theory" as we use it in this book. It does not mean something of the size and complexity of a theory such as one finds in mathematics or the physical sciences. Very few of these theories exist in the area of small groups, and even if they do, we do not need them for our purposes. What we mean by "theory" is only a common-sense analysis of how and why the various features of small groups relate to one another as they do. Scientists create such theories as they pursue the four above-stated aims.

Based on this understanding of the term "theory" we can rephrase the goal of this book as follows: To provide the reader with an introduction to theories about the manner in which the "features" of small groups relate to one another.

Variables

There are differences between everyday theories such as Carmen's and the scientific theories we will describe in this book. One difference is that scientists are very specific about the types of "features" in their theories. Two aspects of these features are important.

First, we will expand on a matter already mentioned. Any feature of a group must relate to at least one other feature for it to qualify as part of a theory. For example, consider the number of people in a group. If it were the case that the size of a group had no relationship with anything else that occurred during group meetings, then the size of a group would serve no purpose in a theory. It is however the case that group size does relate with other features. Therefore, it belongs in our theories.

Second, the feature under study must vary in order to affect another feature. In other words, the feature must have at least two possible values. For example, if for some reason all groups had exactly four members, it would be impossible for this feature to relate to what occurred during group meetings. It is only because groups can have varying numbers of members that group size can have an impact on the group.

We say that a feature must have at least two possible values. We do this because it is possible that the attribute itself comes in only one "type." However, that type may or may not be present. The options of "being" or "not being" are important. They serve as possible values. For example, whether or not a group has a leader is likely to be related with other features of a group. In other words, the feature with the values "having a leader" and "not having a leader" probably affects what occurs during group meetings.

The idea that group attributes can have different values is an important one. The technical term for features that vary is variables. From this point on we will use this technical term. You can now think of the word "variable" as equal to the word "feature," with the important difference that "variable" means "a feature that varies."

Types of Variables

Scientific theories about group discussion include three major types of variables. The first category is that of input variables. These are factors that are present when group discussion begins that affect the group's discussion. Input variables include characteristics of the group itself, such as the number and the ability of the members. They also involve the characteristics of the types of tasks the members will perform. For example, if a hospital decides to create a group, input variables might include that the group will have five members, that three of the members are nurses and two are doctors, and that one is good at organization while two are skilled at cooperation. Other input variables may be that the group exists to solve the problem of overworked staff and a tight budget.

The second category is that of process variables. These "emerge" during group discussion. They are a result of input variables. Process variables include, for example, the amount and type of communication that occurs during discussion. In the hospital group it might be that the two members who are skilled at cooperation are able to facilitate communication that is open and comfortable, while the skilled organizer helps the group work on its task. Process variables for that group would then include a comfortable environment and task-oriented communication.

The last category involves output variables. These variables result from group discussion. As such they are a consequence of both process and input variables. The three are all linked. Input variables affect process variables, and process variables in turn affect output variables. There are two major classes of output variables: task output variables and maintenance output variables.

Task Output Variables

Task output variables relate the group to the work it performs. The major task output variables are the following:

1. Productivity: The amount of work the group members perform. For example, the hospital group may create four reports about the hospital's problems.

2. Accuracy: The "correctness" of the work the members do. Accuracy is a relevant variable when there is some objective standard against which we can judge the group's work. The hospital group might total the cash reserves of the hospital to see where the budget stands. An accountant could come in and see if the group has accurately added the figures.

3. Quality: The excellence of the group's work. We cannot assess quality objectively. Instead, quality is relevant to when there is no objective standard we can use to judge the group's work. There may be experts who can judge quality reliably and whose judgment we can trust. The hospital may use a plan from the group to help overworked staff feel more relaxed, for example. There is no objective standard to measure how good their plan is. Instead, quality becomes a relevant issue. A psychological expert could be asked to judge whether the group came up with a good plan.

4. Speed: The amount of time it takes for a group to complete its task. The hospital group may meets its deadline for creating its reports or it may not.

Maintenance Output Variables

Maintenance output variables relate to the relationship and feelings of group members toward one another. The major maintenance output variables are the following:

1. Cohesiveness: The attraction of each member toward the group and toward one another. The hospital group members may hug each other and celebrate if their plans are successful. In contrast, if it is not a cohesive group, they probably wouldn't celebrate in such a fashion.

2. Satisfaction - with the group's interaction and work. The hospital group could say, "Well, we did the best that we could," when they finished their task. Or, the could instead say something like, "We should have done it another way - we got off base and made the wrong choices," if they are not satisfied with their work.

These output variables will show up continually throughout this book. They are the chief results of group discussion.

Input-Process-Output Theories of Small Group Discussion

We have discussed input, process, and output variables and how input variables affect process variables and process variables affect output variables in turn. Most scientific theories of small-group discussion include examples of these three types of variables. Their theories include explanations that help us understand how input, process, and output variables relate with one another. I will call this type of account an input-process-output theory. An input- process-output theory might look something like Figure 1.1.

FIGURE 1.1

INPUT VARIABLES-------->PROCESS VARIABLES----------->OUTPUT VARIABLES

Continuing our example of the hospital group, we can theorize that input variables, such as the size of the group and the various skills that the members have, affect process variables, such as the degree to which there is open communication and efficient

decision-making. These process variables in turn affect output variables, such as the quality of the decision and the satisfaction of the members. The theory might say that the correct number and mix of members leads to open communication and efficient decision making which in turn leads to a good decision and satisfaction.

At the beginning of this chapter, we discussed four goals that scientists have in their work: description, prediction, explanation, and potential control. Input-process-output theories can meet these four goals. Our example theory includes a description of the critical variables. It should allow us to predict that, for example, a group without the right mix of skills among its members will not have open communication and will make a bad decision. It will contain an explanation for this relationship. Without a member skilled at cooperation, there will be nobody with the skills needed to ensure that communication is open, and when communication is not open the members of the group do not exchange the information each needs to make a good decision. Finally, the theory allows for potential control over the group's process and output. If we can ensure that the group includes a member skilled at cooperation, we have increased the odds that open communication and a high quality decision will result.

Output variables play a particularly important part in input-process-output theories, from the standpoint of both the scientist interested in learning about small-group discussion and the practitioner wishing to help a small group perform its tasks better. From the standpoint of scientists, output variables are the results of group discussion. Therefore, scientists want to be able to predict how successful a group will be in reaching high levels of output variables. For example, a scientist may note that the hospital group does not include an accountant who can help solve the problem of a tight budget. The scientist would then expect that the group's discussion will not sufficiently address that problem and that the quality of their decision will suffer. In other words, the scientist would predict that an input variable (absence of necessary group member) would in turn affect process and output.

From the standpoint of the practitioner, output variables are the goals of group discussion. She or he wishes to enhance the output variable that is the most important. Therefore, the practitioner is most interested in the scientific goal of "potential control." He or she attempts to control relevant input and process variables to affect output variables. For example, the hospital group may feel that the quality of its work is the most important output variable. The small-group practitioner could analyze the group and say that the group needed an accountant, instead of one of the doctors, to tackle the budget problem. By adding the accountant, the practitioner is attempting to increase the odds that the group will adequately discuss financial matters and make a high quality decision. This change in group membership may throw other output variables, such as cohesiveness and speed, into disarray. If quality is most important, however, cohesiveness and speed might have to suffer.

As you can see, a valid small-group theory allows both the scientist to predict and the practitioner to control important output variables. It does so by stating how changes in input variables will affect process variables and how these changes will filter through to output variables. As the great social psychologist Kurt Lewin was fond of saying, "There's nothing as practical as a good theory."

There is one other type of theory about small group discussion. This type is called a functional theory. We will describe how functional theories differ from input-process-output theories later in this chapter.

Research

Earlier we said that while we cannot say whether a theory is true or false, we can judge whether it is plausible. The way we make this judgment is by performing research in order to see if the predictions made by the theory seem to be correct. If the results of our research are consistent with the theory's predictions, we have reason to believe that the theory is plausible. If in contrast research results are contrary to prediction, then we have evidence that the theory is not plausible. Thus prediction plays the major role in helping us evaluate the plausibility of theories.

There are a number of research methods that can be used to evaluate a theory's plausibility. They include the following:

Experiments

In an experiment, a researcher purposefully manipulates one or more input variables to see if this manipulation affects process and output. For example, suppose we want to see if having the proper mix of member skill is really as critical as the theory suggests. The researcher forms some groups that include a member skilled at cooperation and other groups without such a member. The theory predicts that the groups with a skilled member will have more open communication and make a higher quality decision than the groups lacking this member. If what occurs in the experiment is consistent with this prediction, than the theory appears more plausible than if the findings are inconsistent with this expectation. Thus we could have an expert evaluate the decisions the groups make to see if the groups with skilled members tend to make higher quality decisions than the groups without these members.

When conducting an experiment, it is crucial to make sure that no input variables can affect process and output other than the ones manipulated. If there are other input variables operating, then we cannot be sure whether our results are due to those other variables or to the variables we have manipulated. Thus if we think that the size of a group can also affect the openness of communication and quality of decisions, than we have to make sure that all the groups in our experiment have the same number of members.

Surveys

Most people have had the experience of being in a survey, in which they report their opinions about some issue. Surveys can be used to test theories about small group discussion. Although there is great value in performing experiments, there is perhaps even greater value in obtaining information about "real-world" groups in order to test our theories. A survey can allow us to find out, for example, if our theories predict as accurately with real groups as they do in experiments. We might hand out surveys in order to find out whether group members think their groups contain members with the necessary skills, whether their communication was open, and whether they made a good decision. We can even incorporate surveys into our experiment by asking the participants whether, for example, they are satisfied with their decision.

It should be clear that experiments and surveys have different advantages and disadvantages relative to one another. It is hard to do a good experiment using "real-world" groups," because in the real world there are so many input variables affecting group process and output that we can never be sure that the input variables we are interested in studying are actually those responsible for our findings. Surveys provide a method that can work in real-world group. However, what people fill out on surveys may not accurately reflect what actually went on during group discussion. People might, for example, rate their decision as having high quality when in fact an expert would consider it poor.

Content analysis

In order to test whether groups with skilled members make higher quality decisions than groups without such members, we can have an expert evaluate the decision. To see if "skilled group" members are more satisfied with their decision than "unskilled group" members, we can give members a survey asking them questions about their satisfaction level. But our theory specifically says that it is open communication which is responsible for linking member skill with decision quality and satisfaction. How can we evaluate process variables?

The best way to evaluate process variables is to perform a content analysis. A content analysis consists of direct studies of group process. For example, in our experiment we could videotape the group discussions and then watch the videotapes later in order to see if the content of the discussion of the "skilled member" groups contained more examples of open communication than the discussion of the "unskilled member" groups. It is critical to perform this extra step in order to test our theories. If we fail to do so, we might find that our input variables are associated with our output variables as we would expect, but from that alone we do not know why they are associated as they are. In other words, we are unsure about the role that process has played in our study. However, if we do a content analysis we will find out if process has played the part that our input-process-output theory predicts it will.

The procedures for conducting content analysis is not as widely known as the methods for performing experiments or surveys. For this reason, we have included an Appendix to this book describing the steps researchers must take and the options they can choose from when performing content analysis.

As we discuss theories in this book, we will also describe relevant research studies whenever it is feasible. We will describe not only the results of these studies, but also discuss how the study was performed. There will be times in this book that we will describe studies in which input and output have been studied but process has been ignored. Such studies are often useful. However, because they have ignored process, it often remains ambiguous how input affected output as it did in these studies.

Criticisms

In considering the goal of this book, we realize that at least some readers will consider such a theory-and-research-based approach somewhat irrelevant and impractical. We wish to respond at this point to both these criticisms.

Relevancy of research

It often seems that research studies about small group discussion are irrelevant for the practical purposes of the average small-group participant. Sometimes, this is probably the case. However, usually studies appear relevant only when they are taken at face value. The intention behind much research is not to examine obviously relevant features of small groups. What research does instead is evaluate the feasibility of a proposed theory or even compare the feasibility of two or more competing theories. True, the research itself may not be applicable for practical purposes, but the theories it evaluates or compares may be extremely relevant to small-group work. The value of the research lies in what it tells us about the trustworthiness of the theories it examines.

For example, a content analysis examining the number of times that women place qualifying tags (such as "I think" or "maybe") on their sentences may not seem relevant to the participants in the group. As we shall discuss in Chapter 5, however, some theorists believe that people who use a lot of qualifying tags when they talk tend to have little influence in group discussion. Therefore, that research may lead to important findings about how the way in which women talk decreases their influence in groups.

Practicality of theories

Second, one often hears the charge that scientific theories about people are impractical and cannot be applied to the "real world." Again, we admit that this charge is valid in some cases. However, when this is true, the intention of the scientist(s) responsible for the theory may differ from that of the practitioner. If that is the case, trying to make the scientist's research fit a practical purpose would be like trying to compare apples and oranges.

Nonetheless, we are convinced that most theories about small groups are practical when taken simply at face value. Such theories give the practitioner a way to manage the features of a group in order to increase the likelihood that the group will successfully perform its task. Theories give information on how to "control" the group's features. The best tools that a practitioner can have are a set of relevant theories about how certain variables of a small group relate to successful performances. He or she can then use the knowledge to change relevant input variables to achieve the positive output results the practitioner desires.

Before moving on, we must make one further point. In order to describe and explain successfully, a theory must simplify the complexities of the real world enough so that people can understand it. This means that by its very nature, a theory will be incomplete. There will always be a variable left out. The important thing to remember is that the fact that a variable is missing does not mean that the theory is false. Rather, it means only that the theory is incomplete. A theory will predict a relationship among variables that may be all correct if we ignore the impact of these missing variables. In other words, the theory's predictions can be correct, all things being equal. This means that whenever we make a claim about the relationship between variables it must be remembered that we claim its validity, all things being equal. There is always another variable that would place conditions on the claim if we were to consider it.

What Perspectives Are

At the beginning of this chapter, we said that there were two important terms that we needed to discuss. We have just finished discussing one of those, "theory." We will now turn to the other, "perspective." Most simply, a "perspective" is an organized sets of beliefs a person has about the world. As perspectives are composed by beliefs, let us begin by talking about them.

The Importance of Beliefs

"Once upon a time," as all good fables begin, "four blind men crossed paths with an elephant. They were curious about what the elephant was like. Since they could not see, the four men attempted to describe the elephant by sense of touch. The first blind man chanced upon one of the elephant's legs. He decided that the elephant must be like a tree trunk. The second man touched the animal's body and compared it to a brick wall. The third and fourth men, in turn, found the elephant's tail and trunk and believed that it must be like a rope and a snake."

The moral of the story, of course, is that none of the men correctly described the elephant. Each description was true, but each was incomplete without the others.

People have long used the fable of the blind men and the elephant as an analogy for science's attempts to describe reality (B. A. Fisher, 1974). Scientists are human. They base the way in which they perceive an object on their beliefs about the object and the world around it. It is an inescapable fact that humans base their perceptions as much on their beliefs as on the actual object they observe.

One can see these different beliefs in the contrasting words we use to describe things. What an employer might call "sound business practice" might be called "exploitation" by the worker. Armed groups are "freedom fighters" if they are on our side and "terrorists" if they are on the other side. Behavior that is "assertive" from an average-sized man becomes "aggressive" if performed by a woman or symptomatic of a "Napoleonic complex" if performed by a particularly short man. Such labels are very different even though they refer to what should be the "same" thing. They indicate analogous differences in beliefs about the significance and merit of the behavior. It is no wonder that women insist on not being called "ladies" or "girls." The hope is that some day women will not be viewed as "girls" if they are not so labeled.

It may not be surprising that our beliefs so strongly affect what we say. What may be surprising is the effect that these beliefs have on what we actually see and do not see, hear and do not hear. For a graphic illustration of this, try watching a sporting event played between arch-rival teams. When you do, observe the behavior of rabid fans for each team. Soon you will note how the fans of one team will "see" infractions committed by the rival team that the rival fans "miss." (For an experimental demonstration of this actual circumstance, see Hastorf & Cantril, 1954.) After you've watched such fans at work, it is best not to feel too superior. You should not think for a second that you would be any more "objective" than they if you had a strong rooting interest in one of the teams!

Sources of Beliefs

As we can see, our beliefs strongly influence the way we perceive our environment. These beliefs come from three sources. Two of the sources are basic ones, and one is secondary.

Learning

The first basic source is learning. Somewhere along the line we learn, for example, that something is "bad." We may learn that one or more "isms"-- such as communism, capitalism, fascism, Judaism, Catholicism, humanism, and so on--are bad. How do we learn this? We learn primarily from our parents, siblings, friends, and teachers. On a secondary level, we may learn from television, books, newspapers, and magazines.

Experience

The second basic source of beliefs is personal experience. Let us continue with the example of the "isms." One day we chance upon Joe Blow arguing for fascism. We come to believe that "Joe Blow likes fascism." This belief is based upon our direct experience. We saw Joe arguing for fascism.

Inference

The secondary source of beliefs--inference--now comes into play in this example. We have learned to believe that fascism is bad. We observe the "fact," which is really still a belief in practice, that "Joe Blow believes in fascism." From this "fact" we might infer that "Joe Blow is bad." In other words, fascism is bad, Joe Blow likes fascism, so Joe Blow must also be bad. Inference is the process by which we establish new beliefs based on the implications of previously held beliefs and experiences.

We call inferential beliefs "secondary" only because we wish to point out that they are based on beliefs resulting from learning and experience. We do not want to imply that they are any less important. On the contrary, inferential beliefs are often very powerful, for they can color our entire interpretation of an experience. For example, we may see Joe Blow helping an old woman cross the street. We might have learned that this is a good thing to do. However, if we think Joe Blow is bad, we may decide that he must have some bad ulterior motive in helping the woman. Our inferred belief that Joe Blow is a bad person because he likes fascism will affect our perception of everything we see him do.

Because each person has different personal experiences and learning opportunities, it follows that each person has different beliefs. In turn, every human sees the world differently. Our disagreements with one another point out this fact. However, it is a mistake to exaggerate the degree of these differences among people living within the same cultural groups. Members of the same culture will tend to have similar experiences and learning opportunities. These will lead to correspondingly similar beliefs and perceptions of the world; such a similarity is usually quite pervasive. (One of the reasons that the hippie movement disappeared was that its members began to realize that they were actually a lot more like their parents than they had thought or hoped.)

Perspectives

As we have shown, humans form their beliefs through learning and experience. In turn, these beliefs affect how people see the world. Scientists, as humans, are as much influenced by their beliefs as anyone else. In addition, their view of the world will be similar to that of others brought up in the same cultural group.

For scientists, these belief processes are further specialized. As do all skilled professionals, scientists undergo extensive training in their area of specialization. This training results in the acquisition of an additional set of beliefs. Scientists will use these beliefs to view the phenomena that they will explore while they perform their job as "scientists." These new beliefs influence the scientists in a variety of ways. For example, they will see particular research problems, and not others, as significant. They might accept certain theories as good explanations while ignoring others.

Due to unique experience, scientists will necessarily have particular views of the phenomena they study. However, again, it is a mistake to exaggerate this uniqueness. There is common ground. Training is the primary source of a scientist's set of beliefs. This training tends to come from within a few traditions or schools of thought. These traditions have proved viable in the area of study. By "viable" we mean that past scientists working within the tradition have done work that has passed the test of time. They have asked questions, performed research, and proposed theories that have proven worthy. Any field of study tends to be dominated by a few of these traditions. Each tradition is like a unique "scientific culture." These cultures each comprise a number of scientists who basically have the same beliefs. They ask similar questions and try to answer these questions in similar ways. In other words, the members of a scientific culture share a "perspective." This term is key to our understanding of how theories evolve. This discussion is influenced by the work of Kuhn, 1970, although he would not agree with everything we have or will say.

The theories described in this book all come out of various scientific perspectives. Such viewpoints organize, define, and color all scientific research. They act like our view of Joe Blow. We see him through our particular beliefs. These beliefs are our perspectives. A scientific "perspective" acts similarly. It is the scientist's point of view. The analogy that compares scientific study with the blind men who incorrectly describe the elephant is appropriate here. The scientific study of a phenomenon by any one scientist will be incomplete. The problem with this is that a complete understanding of an area of study requires asking all possible questions. It is important to conduct all relevant research and propose all viable theories. Further, in order to develop a broad and deep understanding of an area of study, it is necessary to learn about the theories that scientists from many different perspectives have proposed. Otherwise, our knowledge is incomplete, like that of the four blind men. Fortunately, there are normally only a few major perspectives within an area of study, making it possible to understand them all.

We can roughly classify scientists who study small group discussions as coming from six perspectives. We will call these perspectives the relational, interactional, structural, functional, motivational, and perceptual. The first perspective stresses the relationship among group members. The second focuses on the relationship among communicative acts occurring during group discussion. The third highlights the structure of the group. The fourth emphasizes the relationship between a group's goals and its members' actions. The fifth and sixth underscore aspects of the individual members of the group.

Definitions

As we have said above, the first job of a theory is to describe some aspect of reality. Part of describing the objects and events that exist in the real world is defining them. It is important to realize that when scientists define what an object or event is, their definition must be based on their beliefs about the world within which the object exists or the event occurs. Therefore, a scientific definition, of necessity, is a product of a scientist's perspective. To completely understand an area of study, we must understand all theories and definitions proposed to account for it. Similarly, to completely describe an object, we need to understand all the definitions proposed for it. In the following sections, we will discuss the relational, interactional, situational, functional, motivational, and perceptual perspectives. To give a first illustration of these perspectives, we will provide definitions each of these perspectives implies for the term "group." We will also discuss a seventh, or mixed, type of definition. The last type combines parts of the other six. As we shall see, there are both advantages and disadvantages of trying to propose a mixed definition for the term "group."

PERSPECTIVES TOWARD THE STUDY OF GROUPS

The Relational Perspective

The relational perspective stresses the relationships among group members. When we say that people have a relationship with one another, we mean that they are in some way interdependent. What do we mean by this term "interdependent?"

Consider the following situation: Person A and Person B are playing a game with the goal of winning as many points as possible. The game consists of a number of "trials." During each trial, the players can each make either of two moves. We will call the moves "Yes" and "No." Neither person can learn what move the other has made until after the trial is over. Further, the result of each move is dependent upon the move the other makes. In other words, no matter which move each makes, the number of points each receives is based partly on what move the other makes. There are four possible pairs of moves, as the matrix in Figure 1.2 illustrates.

Figure 1.2

Both players win 10 points if Person A moves "Yes" and Person B also moves "Yes." However, if Person A moves "Yes" and Person B moves "No," both lose five points, and so on. What are the players to do so that they both win the most points? If Person B moves "Yes," Person A should also move "Yes." Similarly, they could both move "No." Unfortunately, there is no logical solution to the problem, because each player cannot be sure what move the other player will make. The best hope is that during an early trial the players will hit upon one of their profitable options and stick to it during subsequent rounds.

The point of this illustration for our purposes is that the best move for Person A is dependent upon Person B's moves. The players cannot win points if they do not consider both their own and the other player's moves. They must watch each other and find out how to coordinate their moves correctly.

That is what interdependence is. An example of interdependence that is like the above matrix occurs when two people decide to ballroom dance, if they both genuinely want to succeed at dancing and having a good time. If the dancers move in opposite directions or step on each other's feet, each partner cannot reach his or her goal of enjoyably dancing to the music. They are dependent on each other and must coordinate their movements in order to do well.

As we wrote earlier, definitions of objects and events follow from particular perspectives. The following definition of a "group" is suggested by the relational perspective as we have just described it:

A group is a collection of individuals who have relations to one another that make them interdependent to some significant degree (Cartwright & Zander, 1968, p. 46).

The above definition, though more nearly complete, is still not enough. There are other circumstances that might arise.

The game we described above is an example of what Deutsch (1968, pp. 467-468) called a "cooperative social situation." The cooperative situation is one in which the participants have "promotively interdependent goals." This means that Person A's progress toward his or her goal makes it more likely that Person B will also reach his or her own goal. When one person dances well, for example, it makes it more likely that his or her partner will also dance well.

However, the cooperative situation is not the only interdependent circumstance that might occur. Consider the matrix in Figure 1.3.

Whatever moves the players make in this game matrix, one player's gain is the other's loss. Mutual benefit, as in the cooperative situation, is impossible. The only cooperative option is for the players to alternate winning and losing. That way both players remain even with zero points. The problem with this is that it does not get either person closer to the goal of winning points. A player can win points, and thereby fulfill the game's purpose, only at the other player's expense. Such a circumstance is an example of what Deutsch called a "competitive social situation." This means that participants have "contrient interdependent goals." The players are still interdependent. However, the progress of each makes it less likely that the other will reach his or her goal.

A baseball game is only one example of a sporting event in which such a competitive situation exists. The teams are dependent on each other to successfully play the game. One team alone cannot do it. However, one team's gain is the other side's loss.

Deutsch observed this competitive situation and decided that interdependence alone does not make an aggregate into a group. He felt that an aggregate with interdependence that is competitive is not a group. Baseball teams come together to play a game, but the two teams together are not a group. They are rivals. Each team itself, however, is a group. Thus, Deutsch further refined the relational definition of "group" and concluded:

A sociological group exists to the extent that the individuals composing it are pursuing promotively interdependent goals (1968, p. 467).

We will later discuss why Deutsch included the term "sociological." For now, let it suffice that we consider Deutsch's definition to be the most specific relational definition of the term "group."

The Interactional Perspective

Like the relational approach, the interactional perspective focuses on interdependence. However, rather than highlighting interdependence among people, as does the relational perspective, the interactional approach focuses directly on interdependence in the "interaction" among group members. Many people equate "interaction" with "communication," believing that both terms mean the exchange of messages between people. Others, however, restrict the term "communication" and say that it applies only to messages that people send intentionally. Such messages include spoken words, hand signals, and some types of "nonverbal" behavior. These people believe that "interaction" is a more encompassing term that can include both intentional and unintentional messages. Unintentional messages include unconscious movements and gestures. When we use the term "interaction," we will refer to both intentional and unintentional messages.

What does it mean for interaction to be interdependent? Let us give an example using verbal messages. Assume that, for our purposes, there are only four possible answers to the question "How are you?" These answers are "Fine," "So-so," "Lousy," and "Go to hell." Each answer has a certain probability that a person will say it as a response to the question.

Let us now consider Mark. He may meet a slight acquaintance at work who asks, "How are you, Mark?" Due to social conventions, there is a high probability that Mark would choose the answer "Fine" in that situation. But what would happen if Mark's wife asked the same question? The probabilities of the four responses would undoubtedly change. In particular, the probability that Mark would say "So-so" or "Lousy" would probably increase. In contrast, the chance that he would simply say "Fine" would go down, assuming that Mark's marriage allows him to disclose his true feelings. Finally, what if Mark met someone he disliked? The probability that Mark might answer, "Go to hell," would rise substantially. We can see that Mark's answers depend a great deal on who asks him the question.

Thus, from the interactional viewpoint, interaction occurs between people when each person's response is dependent upon what another has previously said. Dependence is necessary. Dictionary definitions of "interaction" imply this form of interdependence. They list such definitions as "reciprocal effect" and "mutual influence." Shaw (1981, p. 8) emphasized this interdependence in his definition of "group." From the viewpoint of the interactional approach, he stated:

A group is defined as two or more persons who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person influences and is influenced by each other person.

Shaw clarified his use of "influence" in an accompanying discussion. He saw it specifically in the sense of interdependence in message exchange.

A further observation is that, as people continue to interact over long periods of time, their behavior becomes patterned. In other words, the probability that one message will be followed by a particular option will increase. We are talking about the little rituals that develop between people. They may have habitual ways of saying hello and good-bye. Jokes might get a customary response, and there may be a pattern to passing the time with conversation. This is also true for rules that develop about how and how not to respond to another's questions, accusations, or commendations. These things tend to become repetitive, and they compose the bulk of conversation.

B. A. Fisher's (1974, p. 24) definition reveals the tendency for conversation to develop patterns:

A group shall be defined as a collection of individuals whose communicative behaviors . . . become interstructured and repetitive in the form of predictable patterns.

Within the interactional viewpoint, this is our most precise definition of "group."

The Structural Perspective

The structural perspective assumes that relations and interactions among group members are givens. It goes on to define a group according to its structure. From this viewpoint, the primary characteristic of a small group is its "structure." A dictionary definition of the term "structure" would be "an arrangement of parts in a complex whole." Theorists with this outlook believe that the structure of a group is a result of its member's relations and interactions. When interactions among a number of people are frequent, they become patterned. It is this pattern that forms a structure.

Structural theorists take the idea of a pattern further than do relational theorists. They believe that people in a group begin to develop expectations about how interaction will be patterned in the future. Such group members then start to make evaluations of how interactions ought to occur.

An example of this is how students sit in a classroom. On the first day of class students tend to choose seats for themselves. Their choices are usually random, although they may prefer, for example, to sit in the front or the back, or near friends. As time goes by, unless something special happens, each student tends to sit in the same general area as on the first day of class. This seating arrangement becomes "normal." In addition, each student expects to sit in his or her location and becomes mildly upset if someone else has taken it. A scientist who has the structural perspective would look at this situation and say that the class members were becoming a "group." It is at the point where behavioral patterns that were once random, and then "normal," become "correct" that a group has formed.

A definition by Merton (1957, pp. 285-286) referred to this progression. His explanation, however, straddled the fence between the relational and the structural viewpoints:

The sociological concept of a group refers to a number of people who interact with one another in accord with established patterns.

This definition is similar to Fisher's. The similarity ends, though, when Merton began to discuss what he called the "objective criteria" that groups possess. One of these is that group members

. . . have patterned expectations of forms of interaction which are morally binding [only] on them and on other "members."

A scientist with an interactional perspective, such as Fisher, would not include this criterion. In contrast, Merton believed it is an obligatory group characteristic.

Scientists have given a label to the shared expectations and evaluations that a group develops over time. They are called norms. Norms are the first of two group "structures" that the structural perspective emphasizes.

The second structure is called a role. Each group member has a role. You are probably familiar with the way the term "role" is used in theater. Every actor has his or her role to play. Social scientists use the term in a similar way. Structural theorists say that a role is a part played by a member that interlocks with the parts played by other members. For example, the "task leadership" role is present in all successful groups. Other members adopt other, complementary roles. These may include "social leadership," "follower," and so on.

Roles and norms interlock. The person who adopts a role is expected to take on certain "normative" behaviors. For example, the person who adopts the "task leadership" role performs a certain set of "leadership" behaviors (see Chapter 11, "Leadership: Communication Approaches"). There is an important difference between the way that the social scientist uses the term "role" and the way it is used in theater. With norms, group members expect that once a member has adopted a role he or she will continue to perform that role. He or she should use the behaviors that define the role. This expectation has a seemingly moral obligation. People do not ask an actor to always play the same part. In a group this is different.

Thus, roles and norms work together. A group member takes a role. This role has normative behaviors, or norms, that characterize and define it. The jokester (role) should tell jokes (norm). The group expects and obligates the member who takes a role to follow the correct norms. Newcomb's (1951, p. 38) definition of "group" stressed these considerations:

The distinctive thing about a group is that its members share norms about . . . whatever it is that is distinctive about the common interests of the group members . . . They also include, necessarily, norms conceming the roles of the group members--roles which are interlocking, being defined in reciprocal terms.

The Functionalist Perspective

The functionalist perspective is a unique way of looking at a roup. A functionalist believes that a small group is an example of a "social system."

A social system has three major characteristics. First, it has a set of goals toward which its actions are directed. The primary goal of any social system is to survive and maintain itself. Specific social systems will also have other goals that are particular to them. For example, a small group may have a decision to make. Its goal is to follow through with that task.

Second, a social system must perform a set of necessary functions, or operations. It must do this to survive and reach its other goals. The small group that must make a decision, for example, should have members propose alternative courses of action. They should then evaluate them and choose the best alternative. These are functions for the group.

Third, a social system must have a set of properties. These properties serve to perform the functions. In small groups, roles and norms act as properties. They are properties that allow a group to perform the integral functions that it needs to in order to survive as a group. They also help the group reach other goals, such as making a decision. For example, the leader of a group might help the members organize themselves. This will help them make a decision. The norms of the leadership role allow the leader to say something such as, "Let's each propose a plan." Group members will listen because it is the leader talking. In this way the leadership role is a "property" that helps the group function.

McDavid and Harari (1968, p. 237) have proposed a functionalist definition of a group:

A social psychological group is an organized system of two or more individuals who are interrelated so that the system performs some function, has a standard set of role relationships among its members, and has a set of norms that regulate the function of the group and each of its members.

One can see both the similarities and the differences between this definition and the earlier definition from Newcomb. Both revolve around the concepts of "role" and "norm." However, McDavid and Harari considered a group a "system" with a "function." They also implied that it has a "standard" set of roles. These are conditions that, outside of the "leadership" role common to every group, other structural approaches do not require.

Earlier in the chapter we said that most theories about small group discussion follow the input-process-output model. There are however a few that follow a functional format instead. Input-process-output theories describe and explain how input and process lead to certain outputs. In contrast, functional theories describe and explain why, given a particular output variable as a goal, a certain type of process occurs rather than another. To continue the example of the hospital group used at that time, given the goal of a high quality decision, a functional theory might account for why the function of keeping a group organized is more likely to occur than its opposite. Functional theories will be particularly prevalent when we turn to the study of group process in Chapter 8.

The Motivational Perspective

The first four perspectives we described all focus on aspects of entire groups. The last two we will discuss are based on aspects of the individual members of a group. The motivational perspective takes a particular view of why it is that people act the way they do. According to advocates of the motivational approach, it is because something activates or prompts them to act that way.

There are several different versions of the motivational approach, each of which implies slightly different conceptions of what a group is. The most general version of the motivational approach is "cost-reward theory." Cost-reward theory holds that people are attracted to objects that are rewarding, or that bring pleasure, to them. In contrast, they are repelled by objects that are costly, or that bring pain. The definition implies that people form groups when the formation brings them pleasure. Examples of this might be an association with valued others (such as a club for privileged, popular people) or participation in pleasant activities. In addition, people form groups that help them avoid pain. This is, in its own way, also a reward. For example, a group might help solve a common problem. You could join a group to help your neighborhood clean up a nearby park. Bass (1960, p. 39) offered a definition that is relevant to this idea:

We define "group" as a collection of individuals whose existence as a collection is rewarding to the individuals.

People have different "motives" for joining groups. The motives are sources of cost or reward. Theorists contrast these motives according to the degree to which the motive is temporary or permanent. For example, your temporary motive for joining the neighborhood group might be to get a job done. This motive rewards you by making you feel useful or giving you other pleasurable feelings, but costs you because you must spend time picking up garbage at your nearby park. When you join the prestigious club, you may have a more permanent motive, for example, the need to fit in with a wealthy crowd. Cattell (1951, p. 169) stressed the importance of relatively permanent motives:

A group is a collection of organisms in which the existence of all is necessary to the satisfaction of certain individual needs in each.

The crucial term is "needs." Cattell assumed that people are motivated by strong desires. These needs are relatively permanent motives. McClelland (1961) hypothesized that three needs are particularly important in motivating people: Nach (need for achievement), Naff (need for affiliation), and Nepo (need for power). Although everyone has some amount of each need, one of the three predominates in each person. A person who is a "high Nach" desires to meet high standards for excellence and to succeed at tasks. A person who is a "high Naff" wishes to establish friendly relationships with others for emotional support. A person who is a "high Nepo" wants to control and dominate other people.

Group membership can fulfill these needs. If Lorraine is a high Nach, her need would be fulfilled if group membership gave her the opportunity to contribute to the successful completion of the group's tasks. If Jerry is a high Naff, his need would be satisfied if group membership made it easy for him to make new friends. If Ann is a high Nepo, her need would be fulfilled if she were able to gain power over the other members of her group.

Other theorists do not feel that a motive needs to be permanent to be significant. Mills (1967, p. 2), for example, gave a definition that contrasts with Cattell's. Mills wrote that groups are

units composed of two or more persons who come into contact with a purpose.

As we have discussed, needs are usually considered permanent motives. As such they require constant or periodic fulfillment. In contrast, scientists usually see purposes as temporary motives. They can be fulfilled once and satisfied.

Let's take the neighborhood group meeting to clean up a nearby park as an example. The implications of each approach for this group differ substantially. For example, if we believe that the group is meeting for a purpose (to clean up the park), we would expect the group to disband after it cleans up the park. However, we may believe instead that the group is meeting because of its members' needs. The neighbors want to be together because each has needs, such as the need to control or the need to associate, that the group can satisfy. If that is the case, we can expect that the group will try to stay together even after the park is clean so that the members can continue to fulfill their recurring desires.

The Perceptual Perspective

As with the motivational perspective, the perceptual point of view concentrates on the individual members of the group. In general, perceptual definitions are concerned with the way in which people view the world around them. This viewpoint holds that an aggregate of people is a group if, quite simply, its members perceive themselves as being a group. Smith (1945, p. 227) saw a group as

a unit consisting of a plural number of separate organisms who have a collective perception of their unity.

A second perceptual definition comes from Bales (1950, p. 33). We have edited it as follows:

A small group is defined as any number of persons engaged in interaction with one another in a single [or series of face-to-face meeting[s] in which each member can . . . give some reaction to each of the others as an individual person, even though it be only to recall that the other was present.

This definition diverges from other perceptual viewpoints such as Smith's. Other perceptual theorists state that group members perceive either their unity or some group characteristic. Bales's group members perceive one another instead.

This view has become very influential. Some scientists have adopted it to distinguish large human groups from small ones. Theorists who do not use Bales's definition might set an arbitrary numerical boundary to distinguish a large group. They may say that any group that has, for example, more than 10 people is large. However, Bales's proposal leads to a more useful way to define a large group. Using Bales's idea, scientists claim that a large group consists of members who do not have specific impressions of one another and, therefore, treat one another impersonally.

Mixed Definitions

Some theorists have proposed what we can call "mixed" definitions for groups. In a mixed definition, the author lists a set of characteristics that groups possess. Mixed definitions usually combines group characteristics along with the idea of the perception of

these characteristics. Usually the definition will include one or more relational or structural characteristics. In addition, it will include the group members' perception that they possess these characteristics.

Undoubtedly ideal examples of human groups will combine these ideas. A decision-making committee in an organization will both possess the necessary characteristics and perceive that it possesses them.

The mixed type of definition supplies a more complete description of what a group is than the other definitions. This is an advantage. However, this strength is offset by a corresponding weakness. The individual parts of a mixed definition come from different perspectives. This means that they will tend to contradict one another in some ways. This could happen because an aggregate might fulfill one criterion but not another. Thus, it would be a group according to part of the mixed definition, but not according to all of it.

An example of a mixed definition comes from the structuralist Merton. Earlier, we described his definition of groups as being established and morally binding patterns of interaction. He also believed that to be a group interacting persons must define themselves as a group. He stated further that others should define them as a group also (1957, p. 286). The combination of these two ideas creates problems. One can imagine aggregates of people who meet one criterion but not both. Merton should not have accepted these aggregates as groups if he were consistent with his criteria. In many examples this might be problematic.

For example, in the Washington, D.C., area commuters from Virginia can drive in special express lanes on the highway if there are three or more people in the car. Virginia has set up facilities where drivers can pick up passengers going in the same direction in order to reach the express lane limit. The people in the cars look like groups. They have a common goal. They perhaps even come to interact interdependently. Others would probably define them as groups. In this way they meet Merton's first idea about groups. However, would they consider themselves groups? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Conversely, one can conceive of some clandestine political aggregate. It sees itself as a group. It meets Merton's first criterion. However, it may successfully conceal its association from anyone else. Therefore, others do not see it as a group. Merton would not have accepted either of these examples as a group, according to his criteria.

As a consequence, when a theorist proposes a mixed definition, there will always a significant ambiguous area consisting of aggregates of people that meet one part of the definition but not the other. Merton's description has a particularly large "gray" area. He attempted to mix the three "pure" types of definition--relational, structural, and psychological. In doing so he created problems, as we have shown with our examples. Merton saw these difficulties himself, as he subsequently discussed (1957, pp. 286-288).

Deutsch (1968, pp. 467-468) attempted to work around these difficulties in his complete definition of a "group." In his definition of a group (see p. 10) he used the term "sociological group." Deutsch's second definition is perceptual and relates to a "psychological group":

A psychological group exists to the extent that the individuals composing it perceive themselves as pursuing promotively interdependent goals [our emphasis].

We have emphasized the part of the definition that shows the difference between sociological (relational) groups and psychological (perceptual) ones.

Deutsch took his two definitions and defined three types of groups. The first type includes what he called purely sociological groups. The members behave interdependently but do not perceive themselves that way. The second type involves purely psychological groups. The members believe that they act interdependently, but others do not see this behavior. Deutsch called his final type "ideal" groups. These meet both conditions. The members perceive themselves as a group, and others see them that way also. As we have seen, Merton's definition had problems. Deutsch's definition appears to escape similar problems by distinguishing among three types of groups.

Final Remarks About Perspectives

We have spent quite a few pages describing the diversity of definitions that exist for the term "group." More important, we have discussed the perspectives from which these definitions come. It is crucial that the reader understand the claims that each of these perspectives makes. Many of these will reappear throughout the rest of the book. For example, we will refer to the "structural" perspective when we discuss "conformity." It is important to understand the basics of this point of view, such as the idea that patterns of behavior create norms and roles in groups, to understand how conformity is studied. Scientists who have this viewpoint will create theories about conformity in small groups that reflect the structural way of thinking.

Each perspective raises certain questions. Each also implies certain methods and theories for answering these queries. As the book progresses we will deal with many of these concerns. We will usually do so from the perspectives that can best deal with them. For example, although we discuss the problem of group conformity from only the structural perspective, we use the relational and motivational viewpoints to examine the question of cohesiveness.

In this chapter we have described several perspectives, or points of view, from which scientists can examine small groups. Each perspective has its own definition of "group." In order to create a theory a scientist chooses a perspective and its definition. He or she then attempts to answer a question about small-group functioning that the perspective suggests. Valid theories take either the input-process-output or functional form. Our task now is to begin to ask and answer some of the more important questions that scientists examine. As we do so, we will see how scientists work and also discuss the most important theories that they have created. The first question, and most important, that we will discuss is "Are groups or individuals better at performing tasks?" We will examine this question in the next chapter.

SUMMARY

The most important goal of scientists is to propose theories relevant to the objects and events in the "real world." Theories are stories discussing how and why various features of the world relate to one another as they do. Theories have the functions of describing, predicting, explaining, and allowing potential control over these objects and events.

In order to be of value in a scientific theory, features must take on at least two values. In other words, they must vary, or be variables. Valid theories about small groups consider three kinds of variables. These variables are called input, process, and output. Input variables are present when group discussion begins. Process variables emerge during group discussion. Output variables are the products of group discussion.

There are six major output variables. Four concern the group's task. They are the group's productivity, accuracy, quality, and speed. The two remaining output variables relate to the relationships and feelings among the group members. These latter two are called maintenance variables. They are cohesiveness and satisfaction.

Most theories about small groups are input-process-output theories. These theories discuss how input variables affect process variables and process variables affect output variables in turn. Output variables are particular important for group practitioners. This is because output variables are goals that group members want to reach. An understanding of input-process-output theories tells the practitioner how to manipulate input so as to get the type of process and in turn output that group members want.

Research is performed to evaluate the value of theories. Experiments occur when a scientist manipulates input variables to see how process and output variables are affected. Surveys are questionnaires asking group members what they think about input and process variables. Content analyses are precise measurements of group process.

Perspectives are the sets of beliefs that scientists have about what is important in the real world. Scientists gain perspectives as part of their training. Perspectives influence how scientists do their work and how they view relevant phenomena. Any definition that a scientist proposes will be a product of a perspective.

A few major perspectives usually dominate an area of study, such as the study of small groups. As a result, we can generally classify definitions for objects under study into one or another of these perspectives. There are six major perspectives toward the study of the group. These are the relational, interactional, structural, functional, motivational, and perceptual viewpoints.

The relational perspective stresses the interdependence that develops among group members. The interactional perspective stresses the interdependence that develops in group members' normal patterns of communication. The structural approach emphasizes the shared expectations for, and the rules governing, the behavior of group members. The functionalist perspective stresses the organizational patterns and operations that a group must have in order to reach its goals. The motivational approach views group members as behaving in response to some form of activation or prompting. The perceptual viewpoint sees group members' behavior as a result of their view of the world. In addition, theorists using this perspective believe that a small group exists when each member gains an impression of each other member of the group. This is in contrast to a large group in which this does not happen. Finally, some theorists have proposed mixed definitions of the term "group." They tend to include both perceptual and either relational or structural characteristics. Although they are more complete than definitions coming from individual perspectives, they also tend to be ambiguous.