Group Dynamics in Four Research Studies - Essay Example

? Group Dynamics in Four Research Studies Table of Contents 3 Part 4 Introduction 4 2. Articles 6 2 Theories 6 2.2 Defining of Concepts 10 3. Methods of Experimentation 11 4. Conclusions 13 Castaway 16 Part II 16 1. Introduction 16 Bibliography 19 Appendices 20 Abstract Group dynamics and the interpersonal relationships that build in a group are based on multi-dimensional interactions. Four articles on a variety of concepts that relate to group dynamics have been reviewed and evaluated in the following paper in order to discover how group relational dynamics influence the group and the individual. The first article discusses performance and pressure and how high pressured situations can create changes in the brain that lead to different lowered abilities to perform tasks. The second article discusses the nature of consistency and quantity of behaviors as it relates to the establishment of rules and norms that are followed by the members of a group. The third article discusses how the individual can have influence for change within in group possibly leading to fracture. The final article discusses the way in which narrative occurs in a group and that it is related to status within the group, manifesting in either instructive or competitive formats depending on whether or not the members are diverse or equal in the group. Group Dynamics in Four Research Studies Part 1 1. Introduction Understanding groups is not an easily accomplished task for a researcher. There are a number of different influences that will affect how groups will behave. Theories have emerged that account for a great deal of the different ways in which groups affect individuals and individuals affect groups. Both collectivism and individualism will have influences on how a group develops. DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock (2011, p. 391) discuss the way in which pressure will affect performance by individuals as they operate within a group setting. Pressure can change the ability of an individual to place attention on what they are doing changing the outcome of the execution of a task. Groups can change behavior through the climate within the group. Miles, Paquin, and Kivlighan (2011, p. 326) look at how intimacy is created within a group and how the behavioral norms of a group will be adopted by a new member. When considering the work of DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock (2011, p. 391) it is clear that pressure for a new member would have an influence on the performance of their task within the group, thus affecting their behavior. The work of Apolloni and Gargiulo (2011, p. 151) shows that not only will groups create dynamics for conforming on individuals; individuals will have an influence on changes within the group. In order to not become stale, communities and groups will allow individuals to emerge as disrupters in order to change the direction of a group so that the culture does not become flattened. Furthermore, Grant (2011, p. 407) discusses the way in which narratives are given within a group setting and that the dynamics of the group and the nature of the individual will affect the way in which narratives developed. The following paper will look at the research studies done by these four sets of authors in order to see how they can be discussed together in order to look at groups through the aspects of pressure, intimacy and bonds, individual influence on the group, and the narratives that define how the group comes to accept the individuals within it. DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock, (2011) wrote the article Choking under pressure: Multiople routes to skill failure in order to look at how pressure affects performance. Miles, Paquin, and Kivlighan (2011) wrote Amount and consistency, two components of group norms: An actor partner interdependence analysis of intimate behaviors in groups which discusses the nature of intimacy in groups. Apolloni and Gargiulo (2011) wrote Diffusion processes through social group dynamics: Advances in complex systems in which the affect of the individual can be shown to divert from behavioral norms in order to introduce new behaviors. And finally, Grant (2011) wrote an article called Storytelling, group dynamics and professional cultures: Lesons from a focus group study in order to look at how the stories told by individuals are influenced by the group dynamics and the roles of the individuals in a group. An examination of these studies and a critical evaluation of how they are related leads to conclusions about the impact of these studies on a larger level of comprehension of group interaction. 2. Articles 2.1 Theories DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock, (2011) developed a study on the idea of distraction as it related to the concept of choking under pressure. The attention that is needed in order to complete tasks is used as the basis for their inquiry with attention given to the idea that pressure can also prompt closer attention to the completion of some thoughts. The authors also discuss the concept that pressure itself can act as a distraction. Where learning is concerned, the information integration dynamic works more efficiently with the demands on working memory and attentional control not both engaged. Through experimentation, the authors of the article Choking under pressure: Multiple routes to skill failure explore the nature of distraction as it relates to pressure in order to understand how skill failure can take place. The purpose of the study is to find ways in which to find skills to alleviate the problem of distraction in group settings. Through investigating the means of failure in group settings through choking, the authors intend to look for means in which to counter those failures. DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock, (2011, p. 390) write that “Moreover, by uncovering the mechanisms governing pressure-induced failure, we can also further our understanding of how emotional and motivational factors combine with memory and attention processes to impact skill learning and performance”. Through looking for the means of failure through a variety of influences, the authors intend to create a model through which to find ways to create skills for matching pressure with success. Miles, Paquin, and Kivlighan (2011, p. 326) look at group behavioral norms through looking at both consistency and quantity of behavior throughout group members. The relationship of norms across group members and intimacy is then examined in order to determine how behaviors affect bonding that promotes intimacy. The two types of groups that were examined were interpersonal growth groups and trauma recovery groups. Through the use of the actor-partner interdependency model devised by Kenny, Kashy, Manetti, Piero, and Livi in 2002, the authors measured intimacy, quantity, and consistency of behavior during past and current group meetings. The model used for the inquiry was the hierarchical linear model analysis which showed that the amount of intimate behaviors in previous sessions would reflect the amount of continued intimate behavior in current sessions. Quantity and consistency was measured for partner effects which showed that a continuation of behaviors could be measured. When consistency and quantity drop intimacy is correlated to drop. When consistency is high even if quantity is not, the relationship between the variables was not consistent. In looking at the two different papers, it is clear that pressure and monitoring can be integrated into the idea of measuring intimacy in groups. A group setting will require some level of performance, whether it is in behaviors or in verbal communications. The group settings that were determined for the study done by Miles, Paquin, and Kivlighan (2011, p. 326) were therapeutic, but the intimacy in the groups could be examined in relationships to groups in general. The first observation made was that when a new member entered into a group that member would begin to exhibit the normative behaviors for the group. Authors discuss that the unwritten rules of the group will influence the behavior displayed by an individual. The one stipulation that is made is that group behavior in support groups may be different than that of other types of groups. Information will be supported by a group when the information is supportive of group norms. In relationship to the first study by DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock, (2011, p. 390), this study can be understood as a situation of pressure under which the new member must determine the behaviors that are norms, if they can conform to these behaviors, and then how to conform to them. Distraction theory and monitoring theory show different mechanisms for skill failure. Distraction theory suggests that pressure affects performance by shifting the attention and working memory functions away from the ability to perform. Monitoring theory describes, in contrast, suggests that pressure puts too much attention on the skill process. One of the ideas that the authors suggest is that pressure co-opts the working memory, demanding cognitive functions that should be used for proceduralized motor skills. This theory suggests that pressure would impose differently depending on what kind of skill is being performed (DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock 2011, p. 391). Apolloni and Gargiulo (2011, p. 151) created a study in which the diffusion of behaviors within a group was looked at as coming from one individual. A community or a group will have conforming behaviors but there will be individuals who introduce new behaviors in order to keep the group dynamics from becoming flat. The papers presented up to this point show that group behaviors affect the individual and that pressure from monitoring or from expecting performance can hinder the individual and that the individual will observe a group in order to obtain information on how to behave and what is a part of the group dynamic. Appoloni and Gargiulo (2011, p. 151) go on to discuss that individuals will then influence the way in which the group behaves by introducing new components of behavior. The performance environment may have a high level of influence on the way in which the brain reacts to pressure. Pressure at a high level likely has multiple components that will exert complex effects which lead to thoughts and monitoring that are distracting. Failure and the ways in which failure occurs happen depending on the situation and the attentional demands that are required for the task. The authors of the research examine a number of different types of pressure and how the different circumstances affect the capacity to perform (DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock 2011, p. 391). In a group atmosphere where intimacy is being established, the pressure to conform as it resists against the individual belief systems may need to be considered. Where Miles, Paquin, and Kivlighan (2011, p. 326) discuss that group intimacy is dependent upon consistency and quantity of behaviors that are norms, it must be considered that the work of DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock (2011, p. 391) suggests that in the process of performing, pressure will be asserted making it difficult to perform or behave in ways that are related to the group. This can account for shyness when first entering a group or a reluctance to participate at the beginning. Pressure prevents the performance of what is known to be appropriate behavior because of a reluctance to violate normative rules. Grant (2011, p. 407), meanwhile, discusses the dynamics of narratives that emerge within groups. The context of the group setting combined with the background of the individual will dictate how a narrative will emerge. Focus groups were the object of the studies in which the idea of how stories emerge and in what context was examined. The position of the individuals within the group in relationship to others participating would influence the way in which stories were told. This can be related to the work on pressure by DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock (2011, p. 391) as the performance of storytelling would be influenced by the amount of pressure that was put on the individuals. As well, as related by Appoloni and Gargiulo (2011, p. 151), individuals would relate their experiences in ways that would shift the dynamics of the group so that the cultural experience would not be flat. As well, the ways in which group behaviors would become norms and the ways in which they were expressed would have an influence on how behavior in a group, even a newly formed group, would experience their participation (Miles, Paquin, and Kivlighan 2011, p. 326). 2.2 Defining of Concepts DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock (2011, p. 406). Monitoring pressure refers to the idea of the pressure that happens when others watch. The idea of outcome pressure is pressure that comes when an incentive is offered in exchange for performance. For both situations it is likely that both working memory and attention are diverted in counterproductive ways. Miles, Paquin, and Kivlighan (2011, p. 329) discuss the idea of climate strength as the variability of perceptions of the climate within a group. There is an agreement made by group members that will determine the climate strength within a group. Miles, Paquin, and Kivlighan (2011, p. 329) also use the term focal individual in order to describe the person who is the focus of understanding the idea of inclusion in a group and how it influences behaviors. In order to create their study the authors differentiated and separated the focal individual from the group, not including the individual focused on for studying the phenomenon. This was defined through the use of the actor-partner interdependency model (APIM) devised by Kenny, Kashy, Manetti, Piero, and Livi in 2002. Appoloni and Gargiulo (2011) discuss that there are two processes that can help to define the choices of individuals within a group. The first is coalescence which means the joining together of groups in order to form communities through determinations on like beliefs and values. The term fragmentation refers to the individual’s choice to be a member or to not be a member. An example is made when communication is made within a group and changes an aspect of the group, thus creating a new moment in which the change must be considered in whether or not to remain a member. Grant (2011) has created a study about storytelling. There were no specific key terms that needed special identification or defining for this paper. 3. Methods of Experimentation DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock (2011) set up four experiments in order to observe pressure in relationship to skill performances. Various configurations resulted in a variety of results. The basic method was to use undergraduate student volunteers with participant groups at around 100. Following the observation of performance, questionnaires were given so that participants could rate their feelings on their experience. The overall results of the experiments supported the claims of the researchers. The attention on a task is diverted or enhanced depending upon factors of personal importance of completion or whether or not the task is being watched. Cognitive resources needed for the tasks also influence how the skills are performed as well as the pressure within the environment of performance. One of the weaknesses of this experiment, however, is that the participants were all of an age relative to being an undergraduate at a university. Miles, Paquin, and Kivlighan (2011, p. 329) use eight different groups, five of which are personal growth groups from a university with the other three groups being trauma groups from a women’s prison. There were 66 total participants with only ten of them being men which could indicate that there might be some gender bias in the results. The groups were observed and given the Interpersonal Relations Scale Checklist as a survey instrument. In comparison to the four experiments done by DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock (2011), this was a smaller scaled investigation and had a great deal of limitation due to the types of groups chosen in order to research the phenomena. Appoloni and Gargiulo (2011) use a simulation method in order to discuss the Axelrod model which explains diffusion in a group or community. The two types of individual influences used were the spread of gossip and the development of innovation.Through mathematically looking at the concepts presented by the model, the researchers show correlated relationships between the individual and the group as information and behavioral change occurs. In looking at the three experimental research papers with participants, this seems to have a well developed representation, but the weakness would reside in not using people to represent relational concepts. The simulation seems more valid in the way in which conclusions are drawn, but less certain since it is done by projecting what might happen. Although, the experimental research was all plagued by bias created by unbalanced participant groups, this research is plagued by a lack of human involvement. The study done by Grant (2011) consisted of assembling focus groups from 44 members of an annual professional planning conference where the participant groups were divided into seven groups in order to determine how narrative changed in relationship to roles ascribed from external forces and then redefined internally within the groups. The focus on comparing different types of professionals allows for authority figures and subordinates to create contrasts. The study seemed to have the least amount of bias in comparison to the other two participants based studies. 4. Conclusions The experiments done by DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock (2011) provided information that could support predictions that can help to determine when performance will fail and how new skills can be developed in order to prevent failure. DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock (2011, p. 406) write their final comments by saying “By focusing on the specific cognitive mechanisms by which pressure can exert its impact, we can begin to cut across such domains, working toward an overarching theory of when performance will fail versus succeed under stressful situations”. The results from Miles, Paquin, and Kivlighan (2011, p. 338) show that consistency in behavior was more important than quantity of normative behavior shown. When behavior was shown to be consistent, it reinforced the individual’s inclination to use the rules of the group. However, that reinforcement did not have to occur at a high volume. This can be related to the first article in that pressure would change the way in which behavior manifested, but with consistent reinforcement, behaviors would conform and become more easily displayed. Appoloni and Gargiulo (2011, p. 157) show that larger groups have a higher capacity to change due to individual influence as the opportunity for the influence to mutate is higher. This can lead to fracture as well when the new idea only truly affects a portion of a group who then splinters off to support the new dynamic. If shown through the lens of the study on pressure, this can be seen as a reaction to new ways in which behavior must be performed. As well, it shows that the overall issue is relevant to the development of consistency and how a change in what is constant can change the configuration of a group. The results that Grant (2011, p. 422) found was that diversity within a group was influential to how narratives were developed. In groups with mixed professional levels, the narratives were more richly created and were intended to inform the other members where in groups with a more aligned membership, competition would develop. Once again, the pressure that comes from being within a group would influence the performance of tasks such as narratives and can be shown through the Grant (2011, p. 422) study to be directly related to status within a group. The influence of individuals with diverse experiences shows that a group’s behaviors are related to how they perceive one another thus dictating behavior. The four studies, when taken together, suggest that groups are influential on the behavior of individuals but that groups can also be influenced by the individual who can create change within a group. Membership in group creates intimacy when behaviors are constant, but one individual may create a shift in behaviors through concepts such as gossip or innovation. Groups are never constant, however, and through changes that can be made through performance and influence they remain interesting and evolving when new ideas are introduced. Storytelling within the groups provides for understanding on how groups are both community and individual members as status and influence affects how storytelling occurs, creating narratives that help to build beliefs, bonds, and behaviors bringing the connections of these four studies full circle. Castaway Part II 1. Introduction One of the films that can be used to understand how the need for group inclusion will drive an individual to create their own inclusion in a group is the movie Castaway starring Tom Hanks. In the film an airplane accident leaves Hanks stranded on a small deserted island with no other contact with people. He is alone accept for the packages that make their way from the Federal Express airplane on which he flew across the ocean. He uses what he can to make due, losing touch with reality to an extent as his isolation begins to wear on him. During his journey he must deal with the effects of not having a social support system which includes the problem of an infected tooth that almost takes his life. In his isolation comes a clear message about the importance of social interaction. Wilson The importance of social interaction comes in the form of a soccer ball with which he creates a surrogate for a human being. The soccer ball, which he names Wilson for the name of the brand, becomes a symbolic representation of social support. He confides in Wilson, talks to him and even seeks his advice. The creation of a social group out of an inanimate object shows that the human mind looks for social companionship and when it cannot find it, it will make do with a substitute. Hanks is completely alone and must find a way to make a social connection so that he can continue his inclusion in human settings of conversation, relationships, and through having an intimate where there was no access to any other kind of connection. The interesting connection to Wilson comes when he finally makes it off of the island on a raft. At one point, Hanks looses Wilson into the water, signifying that his need for the substitute human group was at its end as he would be found and moved back into society. The anguish of his cries as the ball begins to move away from him in the water is heart wrenching as it is clear that the only kind of ‘human’ connection and comfort he has had for years is a soccer ball that has been personified. However, the madness that had pushed him to create such an object would soon end as he was picked up by a passing ship. His abandonment into isolation was over and his need for a substitute creation was no longer necessary. He grieved for his loss, but reconnecting to human existence would help to resolve his need for the inanimate friend. Conclusion The importance of groups in the human condition is seen by the importance of creating a group by the lead character in the movie. If anyone had suggested that in one time in his life his best friend would be a soccer ball he would have told them they were mad. However, this does appear to be the case because of his circumstances. In order to survive he creates a group through imputing into an inanimate object what he needed from companionship, creating his own survival group through projecting his needs onto the ball. The loneliness and isolation of a deserted island that had little in the way of resources created the dynamics necessary for him to project his needs onto a thing. Through his experience it can be seen that the importance of human connection is a vital part of the development of the necessary skills to survive. Bibliography Apolloni, A., & Gargiulo, F. (2011). Diffusion processes through social group dynamics. Advances In Complex Systems, Vol. 14, No. 2, p. 151-167. DeCaro, M. S., Thomas, R. D., Albert, N. B., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Choking under pressure: Multiple routes to skill failure. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol., No. 3, p. 390-406. Grant, J. L. (2011). Storytelling, Group Dynamics, and Professional Cultures: Lessons from a Focus Group Study. Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 12, No. 3, p. 407- 425. Miles, J. R., Paquin, J. D., & Kivlighan, D. r. (2011). Amount and consistency, two components of group norms: An actor partner interdependence analysis of intimate behaviors in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, And Practice, Vol. 15, No. 4, p. 326-342/ TVRage. (2013). [Online] Retrieved from http://www.tvrage.com/The_Real_World (Accessed 4 May 2013). Appendices Appendix 1 Choking Under Pressure: Multiple Routes to Skill Failure Marci S. DeCaro Miami University and Vanderbilt University Robin D. Thomas Miami University Neil B. Albert Spencer Foundation and The University of Chicago Sian L. Beilock The University of Chicago Poor performance in pressure-filled situations, or “choking under pressure,” has largely been explained by two different classes of theories. Distraction theories propose that choking occurs because attention needed to perform the task at hand is coopted by task-irrelevant thoughts and worries. Explicit monitoring theories claim essentially the opposite—that pressure prompts individuals to attend closely to skill processes in a manner that disrupts execution. Although both mechanisms have been shown to occur in certain contexts, it is unclear when distraction and/or explicit monitoring will ultimately impact performance. The authors propose that aspects of the pressure situation itself can lead to distraction and/or explicit monitoring, differentially harming skills that rely more or less on working memory and attentional control. In Experiments 1–2, it is shown that pressure that induces distraction (involving performance-contingent outcomes) hurts rule-based category learning heavily dependent on attentional control. In contrast, pressure that induces explicit monitoring of performance (monitoring by others) hurts information-integration category learning thought to run best without heavy demands on working memory and attentional control. In Experiment 3, the authors leverage knowledge about how specific types of pressure impact performance to design interventions to eliminate choking. Finally, in Experiment 4, the selective effects of monitoring-pressure are replicated in a different procedural-based task: the serial reaction time task. Skill failure (and success) depends in part on how the performance environment influences attention and the extent to which skill execution depends on explicit attentional control. Keywords: pressure, category learning, working memory, attention, serial reaction time task People often find themselves in high-stakes situations where performing their best carries implications for future opportunities and success. Whether it is a high school student taking the SAT, a golfer playing to make the cut for the PGA tour, or a violinist auditioning for an orchestra, high-level performance in important situations is crucial for advancement in most facets of life. In these types of high-stakes situations, the desire to perform as well as possible is thought to create performance pressure (Baumeister, 1984; Hardy, Mullen, & Jones, 1996; Beilock & Carr, 2001). Unfortunately, in both real-world (e.g., Dandy, Brewer, & Tottman, 2001; Davis & Harvey, 1992; Dohmen, 2008; Forgas, Brennan, Howe, Kane, & Sweet, 1980; Heaton & Sigall, 1989; Paulus, Shannon, Wilson, & Boone, 1972) and laboratory situations (e.g., Beilock, 2008; Beilock & Gray, 2007), this pressure to attain performance success often causes people to perform below their actual abilities. The term choking under pressure describes this phenomenon. Choking is not just poor performance. Rather, it is performing more poorly than expected, given one’s skill level, in situations where performance pressure is at a maximum (Beilock & Gray, 2007). Understanding why choking occurs is important for devising training regimens to alleviate it. Yet investigations into unwanted skill failure can do a lot more. Understanding skill failure and success under pressure may shed light on the similarities and differences in the cognitive control structures underlying a diverse set of skills, ranging from math problem solving to golf putting. Moreover, by uncovering the mechanismsgoverning pressure-induced failure, we can also further our understanding of how emotional and motivational factors combine with memory and attention processes to impact skill learning and performance. An understanding of how the performance environment alters cognitive processes not only advances our understanding of the “choking under pressure” phenomenon specifically but also provides insight into related situations in which performance inadvertently falters, ranging from test anxiety (Ashcraft, 2002; Wine, 1971) to the threat of conforming to a negative stereotype (i.e., stereotype threat; Steele, 1997). This article was published Online First May 16, 2011. Marci S. DeCaro is now in the Department of Psychology and Human Development at Vanderbilt University; Robin D. Thomas, Department of Psychology; Neil B. Albert, Department of Psychology; Sian L. Beilock, Appendix 2 Amount and Consistency, Two Components of Group Norms: An Actor Partner Interdependence Analysis of Intimate Behaviors in Groups Joseph R. Miles University of Tennessee Jill D. Paquin and Dennis M. Kivlighan, Jr. University of Maryland, College Park This study presents a new conceptualization of behavioral norms as consisting of two components: the average amount of a target behavior exhibited in a group and the consistency of this behavior across group members. Using this conceptualization, we examined the relationship between group behavioral norms regarding intimate behaviors and individual group members’ intimate behaviors in two types of groups: interpersonal growth groups and trauma recovery groups. Specifically, we used the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM; Kenny, Kashy, Manetti, Piero, & Livi, 2002) to examine the relationships between an individual group member’s amount of intimate behaviors (i.e., the actor effect), the amount (i.e., group mean) and consistency (i.e., SD) of intimate behaviors of the other group members in both the previous and current sessions (i.e., the partner effects), the interaction of the amount and consistency of the group’s previous and current intimate behaviors, and the amount of intimate behaviors exhibited by the individual group member in the current session. A hierarchical linear modeling analysis revealed that an individual group member’s previous amount of intimate behaviors was positively related to her or his amount of intimate behaviors in the current session. Also, there was a significant interaction for the two components of the partner effect in the current session (i.e., group amount and consistency of intimate behaviors in the current session) such that when the consistency of intimate behaviors of the other group members was low, there was a significant, negative relationship between group amount of intimate behaviors and the individuals group member’s intimate behaviors in a session. When consistency was high, however, this relationship was not significant. Keywords: actor-partner interdependence model, group counseling, group norms, intimate behaviors Julie, a new member, comes to her first interpersonal growth group meeting. Although the group leader prepared her by discussing what entering a new group might be like, Julie is still unsure how to behave. Because the group is functioning well, she notices most of the other group members engaging in intimate behaviors. Intimate behaviors include verbal interpersonal behaviors that involve skill in dealing with the thoughts,feelings, and behaviors of the self and other group members (Shadish, 1984). For example, intimate behaviors in an interpersonal growth group include such complex interpersonal behaviors as discussing one’s own positive and negative emotions and encouraging other group members to discuss their emotions as well, expressing dislike of one’s own or other’s behavior, disclosing personally revealing material, requesting feedback, and discussing one’s relationship with other members of the group. Based on her observations of the intimate behaviors of the other group members in her new group, Julie also starts to verbally engage in these intimate behaviors. Appendix 3 DIFFUSION PROCESSES THROUGH SOCIAL GROUPS’ DYNAMICS ANDREA APOLLONI Institut des Syst`emes Complexes Rh?one-Alpes (IXXI) and Laboratoire de Physique, ?Ecole Normale Sup?erieure de Lyon, 69007 Lyon, France andrea.apolloni@ens-lyon.fr FLORIANA GARGIULO INED, 75020, Paris, France floriana.gargiulo@ined.fr Received 29 September 2010 Revised 23 February 2011 Axelrod’s model describes the dissemination of a set of cultural traits in a society constituted by individual agents. In a social context, nevertheless, individual choices toward a specific attitude are also at the basis of the formation of communities, groups and parties. The membership in a group changes completely the behavior of single agents who start acting according to a social identity. Groups act and interact among them as single entities, but still conserve an internal dynamics. We show that, under certain conditions of social dynamics, the introduction of group dynamics in a cultural dissemination process avoids the flattening of the culture into a single entity and preserves the multiplicity of cultural attitudes. We also consider diffusion processes on this dynamical background, showing the conditions under which information as well as innovation can spread through the population in a scenario where the groups’ choices determine the social structure. Keywords: Complex system; groups’ dynamics; evolving network; simple diffusion; complex diffusion. 1. Introduction Social groups have been the focus of many studies in different fields, from mathematical biology [18], through economics [17] and sociology [24]. These formations play a fundamental role at many levels, both in understanding the existence of strong ties in social networks and in throwing light on the diffusion processes mechanism in a population. Two main processes govern the formation of groups in a society: homophily (the tendency to interact with similar agents) and social influence (the tendency to become more similar after an interaction) [4]. Appendix 4 Storytelling, Group Dynamics, and Professional Cultures: Lessons from a Focus Group Study JILL L. GRANT School of Planning, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada ABSTRACT The social context within focus groups affects the types of stories told, and who tells them. Serendipitous findings from a focus group study in Atlantic Canada revealed different storytelling styles among various types of professionals. While recreation staff told positive stories of community engagement and personal stories of transformation, planners narrated tales of political struggle and professional frustration. The findings offer lessons about learning from research failures and demonstrate the potential utility of focus groups as a setting for research on storytelling. By illuminating differences in professional cultures, the analysis suggests that effectively managed focus groups may provide a useful venue for facilitating deliberate and reflective practice. Keywords: Canada; focus groups; group dynamics; professional cultures; storytelling Storytelling in Planning Theory and Practice Once upon a time, in a university far away, investigators decided to employ a research method new to them. They trained their staff, collected and analysed their data, and reported their findings. One day they discovered an unexpected pearl within the data: in preparing that gem for display they uncovered some unsettling truths about their own hubris, but also revealed the potential for new insights. This is their story. Sometimes serendipitous lessons emerge from research designed for other purposes. When this occurs, the insights produced must be shared with others, as part of the reflective engagement Scho?n (1983) required of planning scholars and policy practitioners. In some cases, such reporting may impel researchers to issue a mea culpa, to acknowledge their failure to fully control for confounding issues.When such errors generate interesting outcomes, however, the investigator has the obligation to disseminate the understanding offered. This article reports on unanticipated lessons learned from focus groups conducted with planners and other policy-makers in Atlantic Canada. By providing the facilitator with insufficient training to address the challenges she would face in leading focus group discussions, the researchers inadvertently created a laboratory within which storytelling practices flourished. The resulting data illustrates the potential of focus group discussions as a research setting for observing consensual storytelling in practice. “We all tell stories and we live in their midst” (Finnegan, 1998, p. 1). Eckstein, 2003, p. 14) defined stories as “verbal expressions that narrate the unfolding of events over some Appendix 5 Guided Reflection Castaway Key points Hanks goes down into the ocean on an airplane Loses everything and has minimal resources Finds a way to live. Makes a friend out of his soccer ball The ball, Wilson, becomes a vital part of his experience. Losing the ball creates grieving. No longer needs the ball when he is back in the ‘world’ Group Connection Isolation creates a need for companionship The need for group approval and interaction creates a substitute The ball is a surrogate human friend He develops a relationship with the ball The grief he experiences is for his lost connection The ball is a connection to something outside of himself. Read More