Group Dynamics: Group Processes

Detailed study notes — Chapter 2 (Roles, Relationships, Interaction, Non-verbal

Behaviour & Decision Making in Groups)

Overview: Group dynamics is the study of the nature of groups, how they develop, and how they work.
This chapter (Section A) covers the theory of group processes — roles, intra-group relationships,
interaction, non-verbal behaviour, and decision-making — and (Section B) applies this theory to two case
examples: a task-focused pottery group and a psychodynamically-oriented support group.

A. Group Processes

1. Roles
Definition (Merton, 1957): A role is 'the behavioural enacting of the patterned expectations attributed to a
stated position.'

Formal vs informal roles

• Formally ascribed roles — official positions with associated status/responsibilities (e.g.
occupational therapist, patient, head of department, instructor, volunteer, student).
• Informally adopted roles — spontaneous social roles, e.g. leader, follower, non-conformist, clown,
scapegoat, mother, gossip, bully, bore, baby, know-it-all, moralizer, critic, controller, supporter,
stirrer.

Benne & Sheats (1948) — three formal role groupings

(a) Group task roles — facilitate group effort
• Initiator/contributor — suggests new ideas
• Information-seeker — asks questions
• Opinion-seeker — asks for clarification of values
• Information-giver — offers facts
• Opinion-giver — states beliefs
• Elaborator — spells out / expands ideas
• Coordinator — clarifies relationships, pulls threads together
• Orienter — considers the group's position relative to its goals
• Evaluator-critic — compares accomplishments to a standard
• Energizer — arouses the group into action
• Procedural technician — carries out routine tasks
• Recorder — writes suggestions/decisions; the 'group memory'

(b) Group building & maintenance roles — build group-centred feeling

• Encourager — praises/understands others' views
• Harmonizer — mediates differences, relieves tension
• Compromiser — meets others half-way
• Gate-keeper/expediter — facilitates communication flow, encourages participation
• Standard setter (ego-ideal) — expresses standards for the group
• Group observer/commentator — notes and interprets group process
• Follower — goes along with group ideas and actions

(c) Individual roles — satisfy personal needs irrelevant to the task

• Aggressor — deflates/attacks others, expresses disapproval
• Blocker — resists, negative
• Recognition-seeker — boasts, acts unusually for attention
• Self-confessor — uses the group as an audience for personal feelings
• Playboy — cynical, nonchalant, distracting

Function of group roles

• Every member plays at least one role; members often shift between several roles as the group's
needs change (roles can be fixed or fluid).
• Roles serve individual or group interests — e.g. task groups need workers/energizers/initiators;
social groups need harmonizers/encouragers/clowns.
• People adjust their role according to roles others adopt (e.g. a leader may emerge in a group of
natural followers if the task requires it).

Example: In a painting group, Anne sets up a vase (leader); John jokes 'Not Anne's flowers again!'
(clown/challenger/potential leader); later someone else organises equipment (a third leader) — showing
roles shifting before the task even begins.

Case study — the role of the clown

The clown jokes/relieves tension, often functioning as a harmonizer or, defensively, to help the group avoid
painful topics by turning conflict into a joke. Dynamics: early clowning relieves tension and is rewarded
with attention, reinforcing the behaviour; the clown can then get 'stuck' in the role even when the group
later tires of it. Key question: is clowning a chosen response from a rich role repertoire, or the only defence
the person has mastered? If the latter, they risk exclusion.

Case: Neil, the only male in a magazine work-group, was expected to lead but lacked confidence; he
became the group clown. Members later grew irritated by his clowning once they wanted to focus on the
task. The therapist assigned him to lead one part of production — letting him save face and build
genuine leadership confidence.

Case study — the role of scapegoat

The scapegoat is singled out and blamed — often someone 'different', new, or disliked — and receives the
group's projections. When a group fails, blaming one member reaffirms the group's worth and displaces
guilt (a psychodynamic defence).

• Example 1: A conflict-ridden but 'cohesive' staff team blames a job-seeking colleague for lacking
commitment — uniting the group and displacing their own guilt about apathy.
• Example 2: In a competitive volleyball game, a losing team singles out one member as 'the
problem'; pressure increases her anxiety and errors, letting the team feel they 'could have won'.

The scapegoat role may be adopted by the individual or ascribed by the group — this is problematic
because it blocks change and allows responsibility to be avoided.

Other problems with group roles

• Role-lock — an individual becomes stuck in a fixed, stereotyped role.
• Role-status — hierarchical structures create subservient positions, forming subgroups and
reducing overall cohesion (e.g. two experienced students leading a task and unfairly taking credit for
the group's work).
• Role conflict — occurs when a member holds disagreeable or competing roles at once (e.g. being
a 'secret-holder', or a therapist who must both analyse group dynamics and participate as a feeling
member).

How to help people take on new group roles (practice techniques)

• As leader, don't take all responsibility/roles — allow the group to flounder so others can step in.
• Encourage the group to discuss the roles being played and whether other roles are needed.
• Use role-play to experiment with new roles on a trial-and-error basis; give constructive feedback
afterwards.
• Ask an overly vocal member to act as 'observer' to gain perspective.
• Recognise and praise attempts at new roles (e.g. a quiet member trying a challenger role).
2. Intra-group Relationships
Relationships in groups are complex and shift over time as goals and roles change. Three analytical tools
help unpack them: sociometric structure, subgrouping, and triads.

Sociometric structure (Moreno, 1953)

The sociometric test / sociogram asks members to choose or reject others by a criterion (e.g. 'most
liked'). Key patterns Moreno identified:

• Isolates — neither choose nor are chosen

• Unchosen members
• Mutual attractions (pairs)
• Chains — linked choices, not necessarily mutual
• Triangles — mutual three-way choices
• Stars — chosen by many but choose no one in return

Three illustrative sociograms

• A — Attraction sociogram: A is most popular (central); B and C form a cohesive clique with A; D
and E are peripheral, aspiring to join; F is unchosen and picks marginal people — suggesting an
isolate or non-conformist.
• B — Collaboration sociogram: A is central (chosen by 8); H, I, J are peripheral; strong pairings
form 3 sub-groups. Interpretation shifts dramatically depending on who is the actual leader (e.g. A
vs. the more isolated I) — this affects whether the group will function well.
• C — Popularity sociogram: A and B are most popular, D is least popular; discrepancies between a
member's actual popularity and their self-perceived popularity may reveal something about
self-esteem.

Value & limits of sociograms

Good for revealing alliances, sub-groups, and members' emotional position. Limitation: interpretations
about attitudes/quality of relationships remain speculative. Four practical uses: (1) research tool, (2)
forming cohesive work groups, (3) therapeutic insight/feedback tool, (4) management tool for
supervision/co-leader pairing.

Subgroups
Informal structures form when members share attraction, common ideas or attitudes.

Advantages of subgrouping
• Diversity of sub-group life enriches the group and tempers excessive conformity pressure.
• Subgroups offer strength/support, especially for quieter members — can be a 'stepping stone' into
the wider group (only works if the subgroup's norms reinforce the formal group's aims).
• Subgroups let the group organise for a wider range of tasks and work more efficiently (e.g. splitting a
carpentry group into wood-finding / workshop-prep / design teams).

Disadvantages of subgrouping
• Over-identification with a sub-group can weaken allegiance to the whole group.
• Sub-groups may become competing cliques, polarising views and blocking consensus (e.g. two
antagonistic cliques on a decision-making committee).
 Case: In a therapeutic community, one work sub-group grew a stronger allegiance to itself than the
community — charging outsiders more, questioning wider authority — until its leader (a staff member
acting out inter-staff competition) left the community.

Triads (Haley, 1976)

The triad is a special sub-group — simple to conceptualise but rich in dynamics. Haley distinguished:

• Alliances — two people in agreement / sharing a common interest.

• Coalitions — two people united through criticism or concern for a third.

Four triad configurations

• A — All agree: stable, cohesive arrangement.
• B — Two agree, both disagree with a third: e.g. a child (Z) in argument with two united parents
(X, Y).
• C — One pair conflicts, one member agrees with each: e.g. a marital therapist positioned
between two warring partners; the therapist's agreement with one is threatened by the other's
conflict with them.
• D — Conflict/disagreement all around: typical of a disengaged, conflict-ridden family.

Family therapy examples of secret coalitions

• Mother & daughter form a secret coalition against an alcoholic father — their complaints may
increase his exclusion and perpetuate the problem; therapy aims to re-assert the generational
boundary and strengthen the parental partnership.
• Shifting triads: (a) Husband & wife in conflict while husband and his mother are close
(mother-in-law may be blamed for marital tension); (b) Husband & wife united against the mother —
a configuration that may sustain the marriage.
3. Interaction
Verbal and non-verbal communication is constant in groups, occurs consciously and unconsciously, and
never truly stops (even ignoring someone communicates disinterest). Three lenses: (a) task vs. social
communication, (b) verbal content, (c) overall communication patterns.

Task versus sociable groups (Argyle, 1967)

Every group has both task-related and social interactions; the balance shifts with group aims.

Task Sociable

Verbal Information & discussion related to the Gossip and chat, jokes and games,
task discussion of personal problems

Non-verbal Task performance, help, non-verbal Communicating interpersonal attitudes,

comments on performance, non-verbal emotions, self-presentation
signals conveying information

A therapist running a gardening group, for example, is simultaneously: explaining a task (verbal/task),
watching for understanding via non-verbal cues (non-verbal/task), letting members chat (verbal/social),
and encouraging participation with smiles/nods (non-verbal/social).

Verbal interaction — Bales' Interaction Process Analysis (1970)

Bales categorised observable interaction into task and social-emotional aspects, with 12 categories across
4 groups:

• A — Positive social-emotional reactions: (1) shows solidarity, (2) shows tension release, (3)
agrees
• B — Attempted answers (task, neutral): (4) gives suggestion, (5) gives opinion, (6) gives
orientation/information
• C — Questions (task, neutral): (7) asks for orientation, (8) asks for opinion, (9) asks for suggestion
• D — Negative social-emotional reactions: (10) disagrees, (11) shows tension, (12) shows
antagonism

Equilibrium concept: behaviours balance in pairs — negative reactions (D) need balancing positive ones
(A); questions (C) need answers (B). Heap (1976): group continuity depends on 'a reciprocity of interaction
contributions.'

Key research findings (Bales and others)

• Individual participation is a function of group size, personality, status, knowledge, and physical
location.
• High participators tend to give information/opinions and address the whole group; low
participators tend to ask questions or express agreement, directed at individuals.
• Those who contribute more also receive more messages — this can cascade into an unbalanced
pattern where the least productive members receive no communication at all.
• Heinicke & Bales (1953): as members feel safer they express more feeling, tolerate more
disagreement, and become less conciliatory; hostility/disagreement often rises around the second
meeting (part of natural group evolution) — and lasts longer in groups without an agreed leader.

Applying interaction research to practice

• Encourage silent members to simply agree or ask questions — remove pressure to be 'original'.
• Encourage newly-participating members to address the whole group, not just the leader.
• Forestall rigid low-participation patterns early: use pair/small-group activities, ice-breakers, seating
changes, or structured roles.
• Check that negative feeling/disagreement is balanced across the session by agreement/positive
feeling.
• Assign roles or functions to members; electing a leader speeds conflict resolution, especially in
task/decision-making groups.

Patterns of communication (network structures)

• Hierarchy — decisions made at the top, passed down after receiving input from below (e.g. OT
department: Head → Seniors → Basic Grade → Support Staff).
• Circle — equal access/sharing; leadership circulates (e.g. Community Mental Health Teams).
• Clique — a central sub-group in close contact; others isolated with limited information (e.g.
doctors/nurses in close contact while other disciplines, relatives, or the patient are unsure of
decisions).
• Real settings often combine patterns, e.g. (a) hierarchy + circle in a treatment team with a
coordinating consultant plus free communication among other members; (b) clique + line where
rehab departments must communicate with doctors via ward nurses.

There is no single ideal network — the right pattern depends on the group's structure and needs, and on
how well it copes when communication breaks down (e.g. what happens if the consultant communicates
poorly, or a shift-change loses a message).

Classroom communication experiment (based on Bavelas, 1950)

Members sit in restricted-channel patterns (Star, Y, Line, Hierarchy, Circle) each holding a secret symbol
card; the group must discover which of 6 symbols is missing, without communicating outside permitted
channels. Typical results:

• Circle — highest satisfaction, but relatively slow/inefficient.

• Star — fastest, but members feel dissatisfied and uninvolved.
• Y, Line, Hierarchy — variable results; core/central people are more active and feel satisfied (or
pressured), while peripheral members feel more apathetic.
4. Non-verbal Behaviour
Non-verbal behaviour (NVB) expands or contradicts verbal communication and is often unconscious
rather than deliberately controlled — making it a powerful but hard-to-fully-absorb channel that group
leaders must learn to read and use.

Physical Body motion Spatial Vocal

appearance nodding orientation speech tone

touch facial expressions territoriality timing

posture gesture proximity stress

gaze / eye contact positioning

Three roles of non-verbal behaviour

• Support verbal messages — can change the meaning of words; controls/synchronizes speech.
• Communicate emotions and attitudes — feedback and sharing beyond words.
• Substitute for speech — sign language, mime, facial expression when speech is impossible.

Eye contact
Four functions (Argyle, 1967): signals wish to initiate interaction (though we look away when starting to
speak); we look at a speaker ~60% of the time while listening vs. ~30% while talking; more eye contact
while talking increases believability/influence; prolonged gaze implies more interest in the person than in
what is said.

• Focused eyes on speaker = listening/interest; looking away = boredom/disinterest.

• Prolonged listener eye contact may convey critical evaluation or challenge.
• A speaker seeking eye contact may be inviting support — or attempting to provoke.
• Avoiding eye contact may be evasive, or signal a wish to be excluded, or feelings of boredom,
threat, or guilt.

Practice: using eye contact to manage a monopolizer

If a member over-monopolizes conversation, others typically withdraw eye contact/encouraging cues to
control the flow. If that fails, the leader (or another member) can use eye contact to signal a wish to
interrupt — and if that still fails, verbally interrupt.

Touch
Rare in Western group culture but powerful when it occurs — can be warm/comforting/therapeutic, or
dangerous if misinterpreted as offensive/invasive.

Touch continuum
• Functional (clinical/purposeful)
• Social (polite/pleasant)
• Friendly (warm/caring)
• Intimate (close/sexual)

Functional and friendly touch occur most often in groups. Cultural norms shape acceptability (e.g. touch
between men can feel less acceptable in Western society than between women/mixed pairs) — though a
group's own evolved norms can override wider cultural norms.
Research (Hargie et al., 1981): touch can increase self-disclosure and compliance with requests — a
powerful therapeutic tool that also carries a risk of manipulation/power abuse.

• Functional touch (e.g. lifting) is usually accepted easily.

• Supportive/consoling touch (e.g. a spontaneous hug) needs more care; some people dislike
touch and feel invaded rather than consoled — this must be respected.
• A 'pat-on-the-back' can feel patronising rather than reassuring.
• Structured touch exercises (massage, trust games) should be graded and developed gradually —
forcing intimacy is counter-productive (e.g. hand massage is less threatening than body massage).

Grading touch in drama therapy (example progression)

• Wink swop — accidental touch
• Hug tag — exuberant but selective
• Group sculptures — cooperative and functional
• Rag doll / tin soldier — in pairs and in play
• Sensitivity exercises — more intimate and prolonged

Positioning / seating
Where members choose to sit/stand reflects (and in turn affects) relationships, motivation, and feelings —
e.g. a member sitting outside the discussion circle may be withdrawing (protest, boredom, threat) or may
have been subtly excluded by the group.

Heap (1977) — five 'regularities' of seating in circle-based discussion groups

• More motivated / attention-seeking members sit near the leader.
• Members next to the leader may get 'forgotten' — the leader must make extra effort to include them.
• The seat farthest from the leader initially attracts unmotivated/insecure members, though the seat
directly opposite the leader (the 'hot seat') is the most exposed.
• Seat changes are significant — e.g. motivated members may move to improve eye contact with the
leader.
• The 'hot seat' tends to be taken over by more motivated, aggressive, or dominant members.

Field of greatest interaction (Steinzor, 1950): in a circle, people interact least with those immediately
next to them and most with those roughly opposite (position ~3.6 places away in a group of ten). Practical
use: seat quiet members opposite expressive ones to boost their participation.

Practice scenarios — problem seating

(1) Two members isolate themselves at a separate table — possible solutions: join the tables, invite (don't
insist) them to rejoin, or discuss treatment aims/importance of togetherness before the next session. (2) A
new, anxious member asks to work alone — generally agree for the first session as a gentle introduction,
revisiting the issue in subsequent sessions.
5. Decision Making in Groups
Decision-making is central to therapy groups (choosing/executing activities), staff meetings (policy, student
pass/fail), and multi-disciplinary teams (patient/client futures).

The decision-making process — four phases

• 1. Planning — the problem is identified ('What do we want to achieve?', 'How should we approach
the task?').
• 2. Exploration — parameters of problem/solution are discussed; brainstorming is useful here.
• 3. Judgement — pros and cons of each solution are evaluated; members give opinions.
• 4. Decision — a solution is agreed; unanimous decisions are harder in less cohesive groups or
where values differ, so consensus or majority decisions may be used instead.

Effective group decision-making requires participation and consensus: all members should feel free to
state opinions, and the final decision should reflect members' views rather than the leader simply imposing
one — otherwise it is not truly a 'group decision'.

Barriers to effective decision-making

• Fear of consequences — e.g. fear an absent leader won't sanction the decision, or fear of
responsibility/change/failure (example: a staff group avoided choosing peer-teaching topics because
members didn't want to 'set themselves up to teach').
• Interpersonal difficulties — conflict between members/sub-groups polarises views; one negative
member may veto all suggestions.
• Conflicting loyalties between groups — e.g. an OT in a multi-disciplinary team may want to
discharge a patient (bed pressure) while also wanting the patient to stay for more treatment
(therapist role).
• Unrealistic expectations of unanimity — some members reject majority rule/consensus. It helps to
agree the type of decision-making required before starting.

Research on decision making

Lewin (1934/1984 in text) found group discussion far more effective than lecturing at changing behaviour:
only 3% of a lecture-audience of housewives changed food-buying habits, versus 32% of those who took
part in group decision-making discussion.

Three key phenomena

Group polarization
Members tend to become more extreme in their decisions after group discussion, but only in the
direction of the original inclination (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969). A conservative-leaning group
becomes more conservative; a risk-leaning group becomes more risky.

Clark & Keeble (1987) explain this via:

• Diffusion of responsibility — easier to take an extreme position when no individual owns the
consequences.
• Information sharing / persuasive arguments — discussion surfaces more information, supporting
a more definite decision.
• Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) — members want to appear favourably; if risk is seen
as socially desirable, choices shift riskier; if caution is more socially desirable, choices shift more
conservative.
Risky-shift (Stoner, 1961)
A specific form of group polarization: group discussion generally produces higher-risk choices than the
average of members' prior individual choices. Demonstrated with the 'Mr B' heart-operation dilemma
exercise — individuals rate the lowest acceptable probability of surgical success, then discuss as a group
to reach consensus; the group consensus is typically riskier than individual starting positions.

Groupthink (Janis, 1972)

In highly cohesive decision-making groups, members strive for unanimity; critical evaluation is sacrificed
for consensus, and opposing facts/views are 'swept under the carpet' to preserve 'group morale... and the
comfortable "us feeling"' (Clark & Keeble, 1987).

Groupthink is more likely when:

• the decision-making team is close and must keep working together;

• the group is isolated from others;
• the group is under external threat;
• members are influenced by a strong, view-promoting leader.
B. Case Examples and Analysis
Two 'routine' groups are analysed using the process framework above, to show that all groups — not just
dramatic ones — are rich in dynamics.

Example 1 — The Pottery Group (task-focused)

Setting: Weekly OT pottery group on an acute admission psychiatric unit; semi-open membership; aim =
encourage basic, unpressured social interaction for isolated/socially anxious members.

Members (this session)

• John — shy, regular attender, low confidence, anxious around others.
• Susan — inconsistent attender, schizophrenic breakdown history, child-like, demands staff attention.
• Dave — new, depressed/withdrawn/apathetic (admitted for exam-related acute anxiety).
• Mike — regular attender, manic-depressive with cognitive/perceptual deficits from a past head injury;
poor concentration, unaware of others' needs.
• Marjory — new, benzodiazepine-withdrawal, tense/irritable.
• Sheila — occupational therapist / group leader.

Session summary
Sheila individually welcomed and checked in with each arriving member (John, then Susan who needed to
'off-load' distress about a ward-round decision, then Dave who was brought in by a nurse). She introduced
a new activity (the pottery wheel), demonstrated hand-over-hand technique, and paired experienced
members (John, Dave) to teach newer members (Susan, Marjory) while she personally 'contained' the
restless, attention-seeking Mike. Marjory had a frustration outburst (smashed a wobbly bowl) which Dave
helped her recover from. The session closed with a group check-in; all members chose to return next
week, with specific peer pairings requested (Susan/John, Marjory thanking Dave).

Analysis

Roles
• Sheila = directive leader — selects activity, nurtures Susan/Marjory/Mike, relates more
adult-to-adult with John/Dave.
• John & Dave = informal 'co-therapist' roles, teaching Susan and Marjory respectively.
• Susan = child-like role, receiving extra tolerance/attention.
• Mike = group clown, giving him a positive function despite limited task/relationship skills.
• Marjory = shifts from 'outside aggressor' to 'the emotional one' to more group-orientated by the
end.

Relationships
The group evolved into three working pairs (John–Susan, Sheila–Mike, Dave–Marjory), each giving
strength/support; relationships developed more within pairs than across the whole group.
John–Susan–Mike's bond reflects their longer-standing membership.

Interaction
Mostly task-related interaction, which itself generated social/emotional exchanges (task satisfaction for
some, frustration for Marjory). The interaction sociogram shows a star pattern centred on Sheila. A
Bales-style summary shows interactions concentrated in the positive socio-emotional/neutral-task zones
— evidence of an overall positive group 'feel'; John/Dave show similar interaction patterns, complementing
Susan/Marjory's; Sheila interacts at the widest range of levels, reflecting her high input.
Non-verbal aspects
Hands-on touch during wheel demonstration likely increased trust/bonding despite initial lack of closeness;
Sheila likely used significant listening/encouraging facial expression and body positioning (not explicitly
described); seating around a large central table facilitated both whole-group and paired interaction.

Decision making
Mainly leader-controlled (Sheila set rules/activity), but members made some individual choices, and
genuine group decision-making emerged at the close (unanimous request to repeat the wheel activity,
with specific peer commitments).
Example 2 — The 'Next Step' Support Group (psychodynamic)
Setting: Closed women's support group, 6 members incl. therapist, meeting weekly for 8 sessions; aim =
consider the 'next step' in building new coping strategies. All members have lost an important life role.

Protagonist — Dorothy: recently 'lost' her mothering role (daughter emigrated to Australia); has an
alcohol problem; husband is a compulsive gambler.

Excerpt summary
Dorothy tearfully describes her husband's gambling losses and declares (again) that she will leave him
after 30 years. Therapist Rachel gently challenges this repeated claim, suggesting Dorothy doesn't really
want to leave and 'needs him, warts and all'. Brenda initially reacts angrily on Dorothy's behalf (a coalition
against the 'punitive' therapist); Anita bridges the tension by showing she understands Rachel's point
while still supporting Dorothy — reframing it as Dorothy needing someone to blame. Rachel widens the
exploration to the whole group ('Can we help Dorothy here?'), and Brenda constructively suggests
'security' as the underlying gain; Rachel adds that staying may also let Dorothy avoid confronting her own
drinking as long as her husband doesn't change.

Analysis

Roles
• Rachel (therapist) = supporter, confronter, group observer.
• Dorothy = self-confessor, initially risking a victim stance but moving toward being a positive
listener.
• Brenda = initially aggressor (toward Rachel) and encourager (toward Dorothy); later becomes an
initiator-contributor.
• Anita = harmonizer and gate-keeper — effectively a co-therapist for this segment.

Relationships (alliances & coalitions)

Brenda forms a coalition with Dorothy against the therapist; Anita forms an alliance with Rachel while
still validating Dorothy, defusing the conflict. Rachel then re-unites the whole group by inviting everyone to
help Dorothy, easing tension and constructively re-engaging Brenda.

Interaction
A Bales-style breakdown of this excerpt shows Dorothy mostly giving orientation/information and asking
for opinions/suggestions while showing antagonism; Brenda and Anita show solidarity, agreement, and
suggestion-giving (with Brenda also showing some antagonism); Rachel shows solidarity, agreement, and
gives opinions — consistent with a supportive-but-confronting therapeutic stance.

Non-verbal aspects
Very limited data — only tone/attitude cues in the transcript ('gently', 'puzzled'). Likely seated in a circle,
with a wide range of emotional expression among members (not explicitly recorded).

Decision making
None apparent in this excerpt — the segment is exploratory/therapeutic rather than task-decision focused.
Chapter Summary
This chapter examined group dynamics through five process lenses: roles (formal/informal,
task/maintenance/individual, role problems such as role-lock, role-status and role conflict), intra-group
relationships (sociometric structure, subgrouping, triads), interaction (task vs. social, Bales' Interaction
Process Analysis, communication network patterns), non-verbal behaviour (eye contact, touch,
positioning), and decision-making (the four-phase process, barriers, and the phenomena of group
polarization, risky-shift and groupthink).

Two contrasting 'routine' case examples (a task-based pottery group and a psychodynamic support group)
demonstrated how this framework can be applied in practice — with the key caution that process-based
analysis is relatively objective but not exhaustive; the essence of a group may also depend on its
current theme, atmosphere, and changing involvement over time (explored further in the next chapter, on
group phases/development).

Reflection / discussion prompts collected from the chapter

• Which informal roles do you habitually take on in different groups you belong to (family, work,
social)? Are they chosen or situational?
• Have you experienced role-lock, scapegoating, or role conflict in a group? How was it resolved (or
not)?
• How would you map the sociometric structure of a group you're part of — who are the stars,
isolates, and cliques?
• Which communication network (hierarchy, circle, clique) best fits your work team, and how does it
cope when communication breaks down?
• How comfortable are you using touch therapeutically, and where would you draw the line?
• Have you witnessed groupthink or a risky-shift in a decision-making group? What conditions
enabled it?