5 Thinking as a Group
Thinking as a Group
One of the central aspects of being part of a group is collectively acting and/or making decisions. The ability to participate in a communicative process that values multiple voices and perspectives while coming to some level of agreement is aspirational, but not always what happens. We can look at a number of examples of how groups think together about shared issues of concern in order to better understand what is and isn’t helpful when thinking together as part of a group. Charlan Nemeth (2018), in In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business, makes an important point about consensus potentially swaying our judgments, even when it is in error. As she puts it:
“The more insidious aspect of consensus is that, whether or not we come to agree with the majority, it shapes the way we think. We start to view the world from the majority perspective. wether we are seeking or interpreting information, using a strategy in problem-solving, or finding solutions, we take the perspective of that majority. We think in narrow ways–the majority’s ways. On balance, we make poorer decisions and think less creatively when we adopt the majority perspective” (p. 2-3).
Nemeth is quick to point out that dissent also influences our thinking, because “When we are exposed to dissent, our thinking does not narrow as it does when we are exposed to consensus. In fact, dissent broadens our thinking” (Nemeth, 2018, p. 2). The importance of dissenting voices, as will be highlighted in the film Twelve Angry Men, can have significant impacts on individuals, groups, and society. The power of even a single dissenting voice can stimulate thinking about information so that a better decision is reached. In the case of the jury in Twelve Angry Men, the art of influence and the ability to recognize the dynamics of a group helps us to value the minority perspective or position, not only to experience such a voice as a hurdle to quickly overcome.
The jury, as Gastil (2010, p. 57) argues, “occupies a special place in American law and the public imagination, and the term deliberation derives much of its current meaning from the jury. As a result, any theory that aims to understand how groups make decisions will need to encompass this most famous of small-group decision-making processes.” In Political Communication and Deliberation, Gastil (2008, p. 157) writes about analytic and social processes that impact how a group makes decisions through a deliberative process.
The analytic and social processes experienced in the jury room, through deliberation, illuminate the different elements of small group communication. When we think about the interplay between deliberative communication with concerns about how a group thinks about a common problem or challenge, we confront the power and influence of majority perspectives. The likelihood of groupthink increases, especially when there are external factors that influence the time an