Explaining CMC: Group Dynamics

Explaining CMC: Group Dynamics
Marc Knutson
I must confess that throughout this first two complete week immersion into the study of Computer Mediated Communication, there have been many subjects that have caught my eye, and indeed my intrigue. More specifically and poignantly is the entire phenomenon of ‘Flames and Flaming’ (Thurlow, p.70) However, I am going to save that treatise for my final paper.
The second most intriguing aspect that I have read concerns itself with the subject material of Unit 5: Group Dynamics! I was fascinated by the development of these phenomena especially since this is such a young technology (Register Guard, p.A5). Over the years, and through the development of the technology, group dynamics has unfolded that includes terminology, i.e., Disinhibition, Deindividuation, et al, subjects that we will review in more detail in following pages.
However, let’s take things in order. Following in the same track as Thurlow, let’s identify two things first: the words Group, and Dynamics.
Keeping it simple, ‘A social group is where members are all persons who are classified together on the basis of some social/psychological factor(s).’ (Thurlow, 2008, p.60)
Dynamics are defined as: the aggregate of motivational forces, both conscious and unconscious, that determine human behavior and attitudes ( dictionary.reference.com).
Therefore, we are talking about group behavior with motivational forces that appear to determine behavior and attitudes. With that in mind let’s address something I call: Standout Terms
There are many terms associated with the study of ‘Group Dynamics in CMC’ however, quite frankly, some seem to stand out over others, (and for the sake of brevity) specifically:
Disinhibition
In a nutshell, disinhibition has to do with the fact that people ‘simply stop worrying about what people think of them’ (Thurlow, 2008, p.62) And, as a result they feel that they can get away with whatever they can, whether it be texting (most popular) or e-mails. The idea is that when people feel that they lose their sense of identity, which is what FtF supports, they can be obnoxious, or more subversive - irresponsible. Sadly, I have seen what Disinhibition has caused, and will be covered in my final paper about Flaming.

Deindividuation
Deindividuation draws a strong resemblance to a theory known as ‘The Spiral of Silence’ (Griffin, E.M., 2006) – only in reverse! The theory of the ‘Spiral of Silence’ basically teaches that when someone is in a room of people who are of one strong viewpoint or belief, but there is one who is not of the same viewpoint, or belief – that person will remain silent, and not speak up about his beliefs because he is basically outnumbered. Whereas, we learn that deindividuation is more of what we would think of a mob mentality, ‘like soccer hooligans’, that lose self control. One Final thought on deindividuation: it also reminds me of another theory called Groupthink –
‘when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making’ (psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink).
Conformity
On the heels of ‘Groupthink’ is conformity, which simply put in today’s CMC world means that ‘one’s attitudes, opinions, actions and even perceptions to be affected by prevailing opinions, attitudes, actions and perceptions’ (Thurlow, 2008). Which basically meant that there are those who are not strong enough in their own convictions that they can withstand the pressures of peers or the ‘group’.

Cohesion
Cohesion as defined, is the ‘tendency to stick together’ (Thurlow, p.65) but is not unique to CMC. It plays strongly in Military groups, (platoons, squads, etc.) where we understand the term “safety in numbers”. As soldiers enter a battlefield, or take a patrol out, you sense ‘conformity in their actions, but you experience a ‘cohesiveness’ or a ‘cohesion’ in their mental state. A fundamental tenet of battlefield tactics is ‘don’t become separated.’ Therefore, it remains true in Group Dynamics of CMC also, there is a cohesion of people who share like beliefs, and stick together as a result.

Conclusion
It is therefore, my conclusion, that a study of Group Dynamics is integral to the understanding of the overall culture of the modern Computer Mediated Communication. What, at one point in my very own life didn’t even exist – now has socio-psychological nomenclature that has had to evolve with the changing times. I remember when Bonanza was first aired ‘In Color’! Now we have names for groups that didn’t exist twenty to thirty years ago.

References:
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., and Tomic, A. (2008). Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet. London: SAGE Publications.

Griffin, E. (2006). Communication: A First Look at Communication Theory (6th ed.) New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill
Modesti, K. (2009, October 30). Internet’s first words recalled, The Register Guard, p. A5
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dynamics, retrieved November 9, 2009
http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm, retrieved November 9, 2009.