This theory explains
that how people’s conception of social reality are influenced according to
exposure to television.
During 1960’s, interest in media ran very high. Many groups and organization do research to examine media (especially on TV) and their impact (especially the effect of aggression and violence). A social scientist, George Gerbner (the founder of this theory) was involved in this efforts. His task was to produce an annual Violence Index. Their annual counting demonstrated that violence appeared on prime-time television at levels unmatched in the real world.
First: Television is essentially and fundamentally different from other form of mass media.
The first assumption of
this theory underscores the uniqueness of television.
It requires no literacy, as do print media.
Unlike the movies, it can be free.
Unlike radio, it combines pictures and sound.
It requires no mobility as do church attendance and going to the
movies or the theater.
Television is the only medium ever invented that is ageless. Which
is people can use it at the earliest and latest years of life, as well as all
those years in between.
Television draws
together dissimilar groups and show their similarities. It can make people
forget their differences for a time by providing them a common experience.
For example, in 2012,
four billion people around the globe watches the Olympics in London. Regardless
of their nationality, ethnicity, gender, politics or other potentially divisive
identities, these people had a common experience.
In other word,
television is the culture’s primary storyteller and has the ability to gather
together different groups.
Two: Television shapes our society’s way of thinking and relating
Based on this
assumption, Cultivation Theory supplies an alternative way of thinking about TV
violence. The theory does not speak to what we will do based on watching
violent television. Instead, it assumes that watching violent TV makes we feel
afraid because it cultivates within us the image of mean and dangerous world.
Three: The influence of Television is limited
Cultivation
Theory stated that TV’s effects are limited. This may sound strange, given the
fact that TV is so pervasive. Yet, the observable, measurable and independent
contributions of TV to the culture are relatively small.
Gerbner
uses an ICE AGE ANALOGY to distance Cultivation Theory from limited effects.
“Just
as an average temperature shift of a few degrees can lead to an ice age or the
outcomes of elections can be determined by slight margins. It’s can be relatively small by pervasive.
Influence make crucial difference”
Gerbner
argue that it is not the case that watching a specific TV program causes a
specific behavior, but rather that watching TV in general has a cumulative and
pervasive impact on our vision of the world.
For example: The perception of beauty among the women is flawless and fair skin, high nose bridge, V-shape, round big eye and fuller lips.
Occurs when television’s symbols dominate
other sources of information and ideas about the worlds (especially for heavier
viewer).
Heavy viewer tend to believe the
mainstreamed realities that the world is a more dangerous place than it really
is. For example: All politicians are corrupt, the teen crime is at record high
levels, all poor families are all on welfare etc.
Two: Resonance
Occurs when thigs on television are
congruent with viewers’ actual everyday realities. In other word, people’s
objective external reality resonates with that of television.
For example, some urban dwellers may see
the violent world of television resonated in their deteriorating neighborhoods.
Three: First Order Effect
Refer to the learning of facts from the
media.
For example: how many employed males are
involves in law enforcement or what proportion of marriages end in divorce.
Four: Second Order Effect
Refers to learning values and assumptions
from the media.
For example: Question like” Do you think
people are basically honest? Are aimed
at these second order effects.
Five: Mean World Index
Consist of a series of three statements:
Most people are just
looking out for themselves
You can’t be too careful
in dealing with people
Most people would take
advantage of you if they got the chance
The
study showed that heavy viewers were much more likely to see the world as a
mean place than were light viewers.
Mean
World Syndrome – the perception based on media violence that the world is a
dangerous and unforgiving place.
The Spiral of Silence
founded by Noelle-Neumann suggested that
People who believes that they hold minority viewpoint on a public
issue will remain in the background where their communication will be restrained.
People who believes that they hold majority viewpoint will be move
encouraged to speak.
Because of this, she
contends that media will focus more on the majority view. At the same time,
they will underestimating the minority views.
Those in the minority will be less assertive in communicating
their opinions. It will leading to a downward spiral of communication
Those in the majority will overestimate their influence. The media
will report on their opinions and activities.
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann
believes that
Those in majority have the confidence to speak out
Holders of minority views usually cautions and silent
THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION
The spiral of silence is a theory that explains the growth and spread of public opinion.
The founder (Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann) defines public opinion as “attitudes one can express without running the danger of isolating oneself”.
The term Spiral of Silence refers to the increasing pressure people feel to conceal their views when they think they are in the minority.
Figure: Public Opinion as Communication by the Media
THREE ASSUMPTION OF SPIRAL OF SILENCE THEORY
One: Society Threatens Deviant Individuals with Isolation – Fear of Isolation Is Pervasive
Noelle-Neumann believes that the very essence of our society
depends on people commonly recognizing and endorsing a set of values.
It is public opinion that determines whether these values have
equal conviction across the population.
When people agree on a common set of values, then their fear of
isolation decrease.
For example: Freedom to
smoke was (and continues to be) an issue. In the presence of non-smokers, many
smokers were less willing to support smokers’ right.
Two: The Fear of Isolation Causes Individuals to Try To Assess the Climate of Opinion at All Times
The theory identifies
people as constant as lessors of the climate of public opinion. Noelle-Neumann
contends that individuals receive information about public opinion from 2
sources.
Personal observation – People are able to do by listening to the views of others and incorporating that knowledge into their own viewpoints. Personal observation of public opinion can often be distorted and inaccurate.
Media – The media effects are frequently indirect. People are inherently social in nature, they talk about their observation to others.
People seek out the
media to confirm or disconfirm their observation and they interpret their own
observation through the media.
Three: Public Behavior is effected by Public Opinion Assessment
The public behavior is influenced by evaluations of public
opinion. Noelle-Neumann proposes that public behavior takes the form of either
speaking out on a subject or keeping silent.
If individual sense support for a topic, then they are likely to
communicate about it. If they feel the others do not support a topic, then they
maintain silence.
In sum, people seem to act according to how other people feel.
It is believed that the media accelerate the muting of the
minority in the spiral of silence.
Mass media is powerful in shaping the mind of its society
It could change one’s perceptions and believes.
Noelle-Neumann believes
that
The media even provide sometimes biased words and phrases. So,
people can confidently speak about a subject. If certain words or phrases are
favored by the media, then many people will fall silent.
The public is not offered a broad and balanced interpretation of
news events. Consequently, the public is given a limited view of reality. This
restrictive approach to covering cultural events and activities narrows an
individual’s perception.
PEOPLE WHO WILL NEVER SILENCE
Noelle-Neumann describes
2 types of individuals who form vocal minority that remains at the top of the
spiral in defiance of treats of isolation. She calls them as a:-
The Hard-Core
Those who have been
overpowered and relegated to a completely defensive position in public. Already
beaten down, they have nothing to lose by speaking out. People in the hard core
cling to the past and regard isolation as the price they have to pay.
The Avant-Garde
The intellectuals,
artists and reformers who form the vanguards of new ideas. They seek public
response even though it is usually negative
The hard core and avant-garde minorities as the only hope for future swing in public sentiment.
Spiral of Silence Theory example. Spiral of Silence Theory diagram
One: Relationships progress from non-intimate to intimate.
Relational
communication between people begins at a rather superficial level and moves
along a continuum to a more intimate level.
Not
all relationships fall into the extremes of non-intimate or intimate. We may
want only a moderately close relationship.
For
instance, we may want a relationship with a coworker to remain sufficiently
distant so that we do not know what goes on in her house each night or how much
money she has in the bank. Yet we need to know enough personal information to
have a sense of whether she can complete her part of a team project.
Two: Relationships development is generally systematic and predictable.
Social
Penetration theorists argue that relationships progress fairly systematically
and predictably.
Relationships
like the communication process are dynamic and ever changing, but even dynamic
relationships follow some acceptable standard and pattern of development.
Relationships
generally move in an organized and predictable manner. Although we may not know
precisely the direction of a relationship or be able to predict its exact
future, social penetration processes are rather organized and predictable.
Three: Relational development includes de-penetration and dissolution
Just as communication allows a relationship to move forward toward intimacy, communication could move a relationship back toward non-intimacy. If the communication is conflictual, for example, and this conflict continues to be destructive and unresolved, the relationship may take a step back and become less close.
Four: Self-disclosure is the core of relationship development.
Self-disclosure
can be generally defined as the purposeful process of revealing information
about yourself to others. Usually, the information that makes up
self-disclosure is of a significant nature.
For
instance, revealing that you like to play the piano may not be all that
important. But, revealing a more personal piece of information, such as that
you are a practicing Catholic or that you use marijuana for medicinal reasons
may significantly influence the evolution of a relationship.
Altman and Taylor first described the
process of self-disclosure as peeling back the layers of an onion, which
possess both breadth and depth.
“Breadth” refers to the various facets of a person’s life, such as work,
family, community and hobbies.
“Depth” pertains to the details concerning each of these areas.
The outer layers of the onion represent superficial information about a
person, such as physical appearance and speech.
The deeper layers represent more intimate information, such as the
person’s thoughts, feelings and relationships with others. As a person
self-discloses to a friend or partner, she peels away the outer layers of he
self toward exposing her core nature.
Cost and Reward
Social Penetration Theory (SPT) is
grounded several principles of Social Exchange Theory (SET). The relationship
can be conceptualized in term of rewards and costs.
Rewards: the relational events or
behaviors that stimulate satisfaction, pleasure, and contentment in relational
partner.
Costs: those relational events or
behaviors that stimulate negative feelings.
If a relationships provides:
more
rewards than costs => relationship remain
more
costs than rewards => relationship dissolution
Altman and Taylor outlined the various stages of
intimacy that result from this process of self-disclosure:
Orientation Stage — also known as the “small talk” or “first impression” stage. Communicators become acquainted by observing mannerisms and personal dress and by exchanging non-intimate information about themselves. Interaction adheres to social norms.
Exploratory Affective Stage — Communicators begin to reveal more about themselves, such as their opinions concerning politics and sports teams. Deeply personal information is withheld. Casual friendships develop at this stage, and most relationships stay at this level.
Affective Stage — Communicators begin to disclose personal and private matters. Personal ways of speaking, such as using idioms or unconventional language, is allowed to come through. Communicators feel comfortable enough to argue or criticize each other. Romantic relationships develop at this stage.
Stable Stage — Communicators share a relationship in which disclosure is open and comfortable. They can predict how the other person will react to certain types of information.
De-penetration — Occurs when one or both communicators perceive that the cost of self-disclosure outweighs its benefits. Communicators withdraw from self-disclosure, thus ending the relationship.
Think about the last time you
were part of a group. Perhaps during school project, assignment etc. Imagine,
that someone proposes an idea that you think is quite poor.
However, everyone else in the
group agrees with the person who suggested the idea and the group seem set on
pursuing the course of action.
Do you just keep silent and go
along with the majority opinion?
In many cases, people just end
up when they fear that their objections might disrupt the harmony of the group
or suspect that their ideas might cause members to reject them.
THE
HISTORY OF GROUPTHINK – WHO CREATED IT?
The term ‘Groupthink’ was
coined in 1972 by a social psychologist, Irving Janis. He learns how group
decisions are made and how group decisions could be successful or a failure.
To understand the nature of
decision making in small groups, Irving Janis in his book “Victims of
Groupthink” (1972), explains what takes place in groups where a group member is
highly agreeable with one another.
After the publication of Irving
Janis book ‘Victims of Groupthink’ in
1972 and a revised edition with the title ‘Groupthink:
Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes’ in 1982, the
concept of groupthink was used to explain many other faulty decisions in
history.
Irving Janis believes that many poor governmental decisions and policies are the result of groupthink. He uses historical data to support his theory by analyzing 6 national political decision-making episodes in United States: –
The
Negative Example
The Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961)
The Korean War (1950 – 1953)
Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor (1941)
Escalation of the Vietnam War (1955 – 1975)
The
Positive Example
Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)
The Marshall Plan (1948)
Groupthink happen when the
desire for cohesion and agreement takes precedence over critical testing, analysis,
discussion and evaluating ideas. According to Irving Janis, groupthink can
destroy effective decision making. Too little conflict often lowers the quality
of group decisions.
The theory is not only
applicable to political decision, but also in any other decision making and
communication process as well as in business and educational groups. For
example, it has been implemented in several disastrous policy decisions
including NASA’s (1986) decision to launch the space shuttle Challenger, which
exploded just after take-off.
Japanese
Attack on Pearl Harbor (1941)
The attack on Pearl Harbor on
December 7, 1941 is a prime example of groupthink.
The United Stated had
intercepted Japanese message and they discovered that Japan were preparing an attack
somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. As a result, Washington sent a warning to the officers
stationed at Pearl Harbo.
But why was this warning not
taken seriously enough to prepare for the attack? Discussions led the Navy and
Army to conclude that the attack was unlikely, and they rationalized their
opinion in many ways.
The attack would only happen as a response to the US attacking
Japan
Japan would surely not be crazy enough to start a war
that they couldn’t win.
The officers thought that even if the attack should
happen, they would be able to detect and destroy the fleets before they could
reach the base.
Groupthink happens when the
desire for cohesion and agreement takes precedence over critical analysis and
discussion.
Cuban
Missile Crisis (1962)
In October 1962, Cuba was
caught building offensive nuclear weapon stations and arming them with soviet
missiles. President John F. Kennedy had already suffered through one instance
of groupthink in the Bay of Pigs Invasion the year before. He seemed to have
learned what not to do in these kinds of international crisis.
In the missile crisis, Kennedy
constantly encouraged his advisors to challenge and debate one another. He set
up subgroups to discuss the problem independently. Various members, including
Kennedy talked with outsiders and experts about the problem to make sure that
fresh opinions were heard.
In the end, Kennedy successful
invoked a military blockade and stopped the Cuban-Soviet development.
Irving Janis was intrigued by
the fact that essentially the same group of people made decisions of such
divergent quality. He found that Kennedy’s advisor (National Security Council)
did not thoroughly test information before making the Bay Pigs Invasion
decision
DEFINITION OF GROUPTHINK
A way of group deliberation that minimize conflict and emphasizes the need for unanimity – Richard West and Lynn H. Turner
An unintended outcome of cohesion in which the desire for cohesion and agreement take precedence over critical analysis and discussion – Titsworth and Harter
THREE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTION THAT GUIDE THE THEORY
Groupthink is a theory
associated with small group communication. Irving Janis focus work on ‘problem-solving
group’ and ‘task-oriented group’, whose main purpose is to make decisions and
give policy recommendations.
Let’s examine three critical assumptions that guide the theory: –
Cohesiveness
Defined as the extent to which group members are willing to work together. Cohesion arises from a group’s attitudes, values and patterns of behaviors. Those members who are highly attracted to other member’ attitudes, value and behaviors are more likely to be called cohesive
Unified Undertaking
Defined as a group
member hold their input rather than risk rejection. Group members them more
inclined to follow the leader when decision-making time arrives.
Frequently Complex
The nature of most
problem-solving and task-oriented groups are usually complex.
WHAT
COMES BEFORE: ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS OF GROUPTHINK
What causes groupthink. Irving
Janis believes that 3 conditions exist that promote groupthink: (1) Group
Cohesiveness, (2) Structural Factors and (3) Stressful Characteristic.
Group
Cohesiveness
How cohesiveness can lead to
groupthink? Cohesion differs from one group to another and different levels of
cohesion produce different results. In some group, cohesion can lead to
positive feelings about the group experience and the other group members.
High cohesive groups may also
bring about a troubling occurrence. Irving Janis believes – as groups reach
high degrees of cohesiveness, it will tend to stifle other opinions and
alternative.
High-risk decisions – Group
members may be unwilling to express any reservations about solutions. Therefore,
the decision may be made without thinking about consequences.
Refer to a group’s
ability to remain unaffected by outside influences. They become immune from
what takes place outside of their experience. People outside the group who
could help with the decision may even be present in the organization, but not
asked to participate.
2.Lack of Impartial Leadership
Group members are
led by people who have a personal interest in the outcome.
3.Lack of Decision-Making Procedure
Failure to provide
norms for solving group issues. Group may be influenced by dominant voices and
go along with those who choose to speak up.
4.Homogeneity – Social Background and Ideology
Irving Janis noted
that social background and ideology among the members of a cohesive group makes
it easier for them to concur on whatever proposal are put by the leader.
Stressful
Characteristic
Internal and external stress
on the group may evoke groupthink. When stress in high, group usually rally
around their leaders and affirm their belief’s
8
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK
Although groupthink may be difficult to detect when you are in a group, Irving Janis (1982) observes 3 categories of symptoms of groupthin
Illusion of invulnerability
A group’s belief that they are special enough to overcome any obstacles or setbacks. This is related to extremism which encourages people to take bigger risks
Belief in inherent morality of the group
Assumption that the group members are thoughtful and good. Therefore,
they assume the decisions they make will be good.
When people think they are doing something moral, they do not consider
morality of the process and consequences.
Stereotypes of out-groups
Out-group are viewed as enemies and their views are always taken as
negative and are ignored.
Collective rationalizations
The situation in which group members ignore warnings about their
decision.
Self-censorship
People censor their own feelings and its communication to avoid conflict
and disagreements.
Illusion of Unanimity
Belief that silence equals agreement
Self-Appointed mind-guards
Group members who shield the group from adverse information. Makes people
remain far from contradictory thoughts, actions and communications.
Direct pressure on dissenters
All members of a group have a feeling of group feeling. They think that
if they put forward any views different from other members, it can cause conflicts.
WAY
TO PREVENT GROUPTHINK
How can group members learn to
avoid groupthink?
Irvin Janis (1980) offer
several recommendations. He believes that the answer to the problem of
groupthink is to take the following steps in group decision making: –
Encourage everyone to be a critical evaluator and
express reservations whenever they come up.
Do not have the leader state a preference upfront
Set up several independent and separate policy groups
Divide into subgroups
Discuss what is happening with others outside the
group
Invite outsiders into the group to bring fresh ideas
Assign an individual at each meeting to be devil’s
advocate
Spend considerable time surveying warning signal
Hold a second-chance meeting to reconsider decisions
before making them final
We also can consider, the
suggestion by other small group communication researchers: –
The group leader should encourage critical and independent thinking
If you find
yourself a leader in a small group, you should encourage disagreement not just
for the sake of argument but to eliminate groupthink. Even if you are not a
leader, you can encourage a healthy discussion by voicing any objections you
have to the ideas being discussed.
Group members should be sensitives to status differences that may affect decision making
Group should
consider the merits of suggestions, weigh evidence and make decision about the
validity of ideas without being too concerned about the status of those making
suggestions. Avoid agreeing with a decision just because of the status or
credibility of the person making it.
Invite someone from outside the group to evaluate the group decision process.
Sometimes, an
objective point of view from outside the group can help avoid groupthink. Many
large companies hire consultants to evaluate organizational decision making.
Sometimes, an outsider can identify unproductive group norm more readily than
group members can
Assign a group member the role of devil’s advocate
Group also can
assign someone to consider the negative aspects of the suggestion before it is
implemented. It could save the group from groupthink and enhance the quality of
the decision.
Ask group members to subdivide into small group
One technique that
may reduce groupthink is to have group divide into two teams to debate the
issue. From that, group can consider potential problem with the suggested
solution.
Consider using technology to help your group gather and evaluate ideas
The quality of
group decisions can be enhanced of group members contribute ideas by using
software programs to help gather and evaluate ideas.
Although Irving Janis (1980) recommendations and suggestion seem
realistic, critics such as Paul ‘t Hart (1990) question whether Irving Janis’s
recommendation in advertently evade collegiality and foster group factionalism.
In order to avoid oversimplifying the groupthink problem, ‘t Hart (1990)
has proposed 4 general recommendations for groups who may be prone to
groupthink.
CRITISM ON GROUPTHINK
Aldog and Fuller – advise us to consider the limitations of groupthink.
This theory focuses almost solely on decision quality and does not address
other desirable outcomes of the decision process such as member adherence to
decision and satisfaction with the group leader.
They often other elements affect decision making including
organizational politics
REFERENCE
Richard L. West, Lynn H.Turner (2018). Introducing
communication theory analysis application (6th ed). New York:
McGrawHill-Education
A. Beebe, John T. Masterson. (2003). Communicating in small
groups (4th ed.). New York: Pearson
John K. Brilhart, Gloria J. Galanes. (1998). Effective
group discussion (9th ed.). New York: McGrawHill
Littlejohn, S.W. (2017). Theories of human
communication. (11th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning
groupthink examples,groupthink psychology,how to avoid groupthink,characteristics of groupthink,groupthink psychology example,causes of groupthink,groupthink quizlet,groupthink articles, GroupThink Example GroupThink Example GroupThink Example
Westley Maclean introduced the mediated theory of communication in 1955. Maclean assumes that the process of communication begins when the receiver receives the message. Message is sent from the sender and received by the receiver by means of media.
Westley MacLean Theory of Mediated Communication Proposes 4 stages/levels in the theory:
Level 1: INTRAPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Level 2: INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Level 3: SIMPLE MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
Level 4: COMPLEX MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
Level 1: INTRAPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
This level assumes communication occurs with one source only (within the self)
Communication in this level can be verbal and/or non verbal
No feedback in this level (feedback only happens within the self)
X’ is any object/issue within a person’s frame of reference.
‘A’ refers to the individual observing ‘X’
refers to the concept of ‘infinity’ (no ending)
Level 2: INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
This level assumes communication occurring between two or more individuals -Communication in this level occurs via face-to- face
Individuals interacting in this level can choose any object ‘X’ to discuss about (but the object ‘X’ has to be within both individuals frame of reference/experience)
Feedback between the individuals during the interaction is spontaneous (face-to-face communication)
X’ is any object/issue within a person’s frame of reference.
‘A’ refers to an individual which chooses what object to communicate with individual B
Both individuals (A and B) must be able to see and understand the object (X) which is being discussed
Feedback is spontaneous (transactional)
Level 3: SIMPLE MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
This level assumes communication occurring via media or any forms of communication devices
Communication devices, in this context refers to telephone, Internet (e-mail), newspapers, television, satellite etc.
This is a form of interactive communication
Feedback is present in this level, but feedback is delayed
‘C’ refers to media institutions (journalists/producers/media management etc) which chooses what issue (X) to broadcast to society (B)
media institutions refers to all categories of media industries: electronic media, print media and new media
In this level, media institutions can act as gatekeeper
‘B’ refers to society which receives the news/story about an issue (X) from the media ‘C’
‘B’ is not able to directly see or observe the issue (X), but is being informed about the issue via the media ‘C’
‘B’ is able to provide feedback about the issue (X) to the media ‘C’
Level 4: COMPLEX MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
This level assumes communication occuring via the media and involves more individuals and stages/procedures (complex)
In this stage, two groups of individuals (general public and the media) directly observe an object/issue (X) and the media ‘C’ disseminates news/stories about ‘X’ to the general public who are not able to directly observe ‘X’
Agenda setting occurs in this level; the media chooses what issue to focus on
The media ‘C’ can magnify an issue to capture the attention of the general public examples: – political issues – social issues – health issues – celebrities issues etc
