What are some of the differences between “attitudes” and “beliefs,” as described in Ch. 4 of the text?   Must be atleast 300 words!!!

Please use the reading material below!!

The primary message of this chapter can be summarized by the Boy Scout motto “Be prepared!” Have you ever spent an hour or two at a group or team meeting only to find out no one was ready to make a meaningful, informed contribution? Many wasted meetings boil down to the fact that group members just haven’t done their homework. GIGO is the acronym that computer programmers use for the expression “Garbage in, garbage out.” If you put poor information (garbage) into a computer program, you get poor results as output. It works the same way in group discussions.1 To achieve a quality decision, a group needs quality information gleaned from research as well as effective reasoning and critical-thinking skills.2 In this chapter we delve into the processes by which groups accomplish their work and achieve their goals. We’ll discuss how to prepare effectively for a group discussion and how to use research and critical-thinking skills to enhance the quality of the work accomplished by group members. The Greek philosopher Socrates believed that the primary goal of dialogue and discussion was the search for truth. Today, group discussion continues to be a trusted method of seeking answers to tough questions. Our legal system is based on the idea that a jury of adults, after hearing evidence and using their best critical-thinking and analysis skills, should be able to decide whether someone is guilty of a crime. In corporations, teams and task forces hammer out key decisions. Regardless of a group’s composition, goal, or context, its discussion will be more productive if group members have prepared and if they know how to critically evaluate information used to reach reasoned conclusions.3 How to Develop a Discussion Plan Imagine the instructor in your group communication class has assigned you to a group or committee, perhaps, so that you can make a recommendation, solve a problem, or make a decision. What should you do first? How would you develop a plan to get your work accomplished? What should you not do? It’s tempting for members to jump in with both feet and start deciding what to do without adequate research or preparation. The most effective groups develop a plan for accomplishing their goal. Groups are more likely to deliberate wisely and effectively if group members clarify their goals, have good discussion skills, and are motivated to do a good job.4 Suggesting solutions or making final recommendations at your first meeting is not a good idea. Effective groups prepare for discussion.5 We’ll outline the general parts of a discussion plan and then spend the rest of the chapter describing these strategies in detail. Get Acquainted with Your Group Members “Let’s get down to business,” “What are we supposed to do,” and “Get to the point” are typical statements heard at most first team or group meetings. It’s important, however, to take a few minutes to get better acquainted with group members before focusing on the task. A consistent conclusion from teamwork research is that it is vital to ensure that group members know one another in order to develop appropriate roles and responsibilities.6 In fact, often the most serious problems group and team members encounter are not caused by task issues, but rather because people have difficulty relating to each other. Taking time to establish good working relationships and trust can help a group or team be more productive in the long run.7 Do more than just announce your name to the group. Research has documented that if you and other group members take the time to identify who has special expertise or information, the group can work more effectively.8 Perhaps you can provide information about how much experience you have with the topic, or, if no specific task has been articulated, you can talk about your experience in working on group and team projects. You may want to exchange phone numbers and e-mail addresses so that you can contact one another. You need not artificially prolong this initial orientation period, but it will be useful for group or team members to spend some time getting to know their fellow members. Some groups appoint someone to help facilitate their discussion, but most groups figure out the best way to get started on their own. One research team found that self-managing groups can be quite effective, especially with routine tasks.9 Sharing personal information can establish a climate of cooperation. Research suggests that it’s important to encourage all members to participate early in the group’s history. Communication researcher Joseph Bonito found that groups that had higher rates of participation within the first minute of their discussion had higher-quality discussion during the entire meeting; the group members made more task-relevant contributions (that is, they made comments that helped the group make a decision or solve a problem).10 So make sure all group members are contributing early in the group’s history. In addition to taking time to get acquainted with group members, avoid the temptation to make quick decisions. Groups sometimes feel pressure to get something accomplished. One team of researchers found that some groups encounter a “speed trap” when group members focus too much on speed and not enough on quality.11 In essence, the researchers found that an overemphasis on making fast decisions results in a group’s getting caught in a spiral of emphasizing speed and efficiency over quality of decision making. Since norms are established early in the group’s history, make sure the speed of decision making doesn’t become the group’s goal. Clarify the Goals of the Group Once you’ve completed introductions, make sure you know what the group’s purpose, goal, and assignment are. A key question to ask as the group begins focusing on the goal is, “When do you know you’re finished with your task?” When developing the group’s goal, visualize what the completed project will look like. Is the goal to produce a written report or to deliver an oral presentation in which you will make recommendations? You should be able to summarize the group’s goal in your own words. Most work-group goals boil down to one of three tasks: (1) generating ideas, information, or options; (2) making a choice, often about how to solve a larger problem; and (3) putting an idea into action. Your team may be involved in only one of these tasks, or all three. Whatever the group goal, it should be expressed in the form of a question that the group will discuss. Later in this chapter, we suggest that you formulate a discussion question as either a fact (something did or did not happen), a prediction (something will happen), a value (something is better or worse than something else), or a policy (something should be done). Consider writing your question or group goal on a chalkboard or flipchart for all team members to see. When the group starts to wobble or get offtrack, point group members back to the central reason for the discussion—to achieve the goal of the group. As we noted in Chapter 1, having a clear, elevating goal is one of the essential requirements for an effective team. Leadership expert Stephen Covey suggests that to be successful you should “begin with the end in mind.”12 If you find that your group is not achieving its goals or that you’re just not making the progress you expect, the reasons may be one of the following: Your team has an unclear vision of what it wants to accomplish. Team members don’t know what is expected of them; they need help clarifying their roles. Team members aren’t clear about the process of how work gets done. They have such questions as “Do we work individually or together? Do we report our findings at each group meeting?” Team members aren’t getting along. They need to focus on developing greater trust and managing tensions before getting down to business.13 Establishing clear goals can help group members have a clearer vision, understand their individual roles, develop a work plan, and address the uncertainty that is present when the group first get together.14 Develop a Plan for Gathering Information and Analyzing Issues Once you develop your discussion question and clarify your goal, you need to collect information and research conclusions to help answer your question. Research consistently finds that developing a collaborative plan to accomplish the work results in higher-quality results.15 Research has also found that groups tend to be too optimistic in judging their efficiency. It typically takes more, rather than less, time to accomplish group tasks than group members realize.16 So be realistic in estimating how long it will take the group to complete its work. Developing a step-by-step plan that involves all group members will help your group work effectively and create a realistic timetable for accomplishing its goal.17 However, although planning is important, research also suggests that it is beneficial to adjust your plans as your group continues its work. Group communication researchers Leslie DeChurch and Craig Haas found that groups that appropriately adapted to situations and problems that were encountered along the way had a higher-quality solution than groups that didn’t deviate from their plan.18 Their conclusion: Have a plan but give yourself permission to react and respond to what you discover as you seek to make a decision or solve a problem. Before you start surfing the Internet for information, find out what you and your group members already know about the topic and issues. As we have noted, researchers have found that one of the most important things you can do early in a group’s history is to identify who in your group has special skills or is an expert on the topic you’re discussing.19 Once you identify information experts, make sure that they contribute to the group’s conversation.20 After assessing your group’s knowledge, figure out what kind of information you need. Identify who is most interested in specific aspects of your topic. Groups that figure out how to learn together do a better job of managing conflict are overall more effective in achieving their goal.21 Begin to “divide and conquer.” Assign members—or ask for volunteers—to begin researching the topic. Coordinate your group’s research efforts rather than having group members scatter and then plunge into the research process. Without coordination, you may needlessly duplicate your research efforts. In developing a coordinated plan to do the work, educator Lisa Snyder suggests that you will be more effective and efficient if you do these things: Focus on the purpose of the project. Encourage all members to participate by positively reinforcing the contributions of others. Establish a timeline of the due dates. Keep the project on track by periodically reviewing whether you are adhering to the timeline.22 Besides just divvying up the work, be sure to give yourselves specific deadlines when the information will be collected. Allow plenty of time for the group to discuss the information (rather than just compiling the facts and data) before you make final recommendations. Research suggests that groups that have more time to solve a problem tend to do a better job of sharing information among group members; this finding is especially true of virtual groups sharing information via the Internet.23 The more time allotted to solve a problem, the greater the chance that group members will share what they know. So, in addition to making assignments, indicate when the information should be shared with the group. Develop a concrete plan for structuring the workload. Especially if you have limited time, divvying up the research tasks is a good idea. However, some research suggests that with a longer time period and low levels of information, it may be best to work collaboratively rather than independently to gather information.24 What’s important is to make sure that group members share among themselves the information they gather. According to a research team led by communication researcher Charles Pavitt, once a group member shares information or a proposal with the group, all group members will join in the discussion and talk about the ideas presented.25 However, evidence also suggests that some people may dominate the discussion, as indicated in a classic study by Robert Bales. He found that some group members can dominate at least 40 percent of the talk time.26 To maximize the benefits of information sharing and group deliberation, avoid letting one person run the show. Seek balanced participation and sharing of ideas and information. Follow a Structured Agenda to Accomplish the Task © 2012 Scott Adams, Inc./Dist. by Universal Uclick Here’s a powerful principle for effective group discussion: Groups and teams need an agenda to help them organize their discussion. An agenda is a thoughtfully prepared list of the issues, topics, and questions that the group will discuss. There is an art to preparing an agenda—it is not just a list of topics that come to mind. Appendix A presents principles and practices for developing meeting agendas, as well as strategies for facilitating meeting discussion. A group needs not only an agenda for each meeting but also an overarching plan of how to accomplish the group’s goal. If your group is solving a problem, then a straightforward problem-solving agenda should provide the necessary structure. In Chapter 11 we share several techniques and methods for organizing a problem-solving discussion. The most basic problem-solving structure includes these steps: 1. Identify and define the problem. 2. Analyze the problem. 3. Generate several possible solutions. 4. Select the best solution or combination of solutions. 5. Test and implement the solution. Organizing your overall work plan around these steps can help keep your group on track. Share Information with Others Groups typically make better decisions than individuals because there is typically more information among a group of people than in one person.27 Researchers have consistently found that groups that have more information are more likely to arrive at a better solution or outcome.28 But there’s a problem: Group members sometimes don’t share what they know.29 Research has documented that we often talk about and think about ourselves rather than consider making the group goals our concern.30 What factors make group members more willing to share their knowledge? According to one study, you are more likely to share information if: (1) everyone in the group already knows the information—that is, there is a common core of information that group members talk about; (2) at least one person knows the same information you know; (3) you are perceived to be an expert on the topic at hand;31 or (4) you want to enhance your position or influence in the group. Group members may share even those information that everyone already knows to confirm that they are “in the know” and part of the group’s core of well-respected members.32 In addition, we tend to share information with people we like and withhold information from people we don’t like.33 There are several reasons why it’s important to share information with the entire group. In addition to groups’ having more information on which to base their deliberations, shared information can help allay group conflict and tensions and sort through disagreements.34 Researchers have also found that not only sharing information with one another but also talking about how information should be shared helps a group perform better.35 It helps to develop a plan to share information with other group members.36 Besides resulting in better-quality outcomes, another advantage to group members’ sharing what they know is more overall satisfaction with their participation in the group.37 Also, when groups don’t share all of the information that they have with one another, they forge ahead and make a decision or solve a problem based on incomplete information.38 So what can group members do to ensure that they share information with one another? Consider these practical tips: Work to develop a positive, conforming, and, cohesive group climate.39 Celebrate when your group achieves a short-term goal; find ways to catch group members doing things well and then offer a positive, reinforcing comment such as “Good job of finding that key piece of information.” Help the entire group as well as each member feel valued. Group members who feel positive about the group’s goal, as well as believe they are making important contributions, are more likely to share information with other group members.40 Assess the range of knowledge, education, and information among group members. Research suggests that group members who have different levels of information and education are likely to share information among team members only up to a certain point.41 An educationally diverse group will tend to share less information among team members. Don’t let differences in education, knowledge, or culture keep group members from sharing what each of them knows. Assess the group’s cultural diversity. Sometimes people who are in the cultural minority are less likely to share what they know, so encourage them to share information with the entire group. Encourage quiet members to participate. Some group members are shy, while others are just apprehensive about speaking up in any situation. Use the write-and-then-speak technique. Ask group members to first jot down some of their information on a piece of paper and then take turns sharing what they have written. Having a written “script” may encourage quieter members to speak up. Use online, e-mail, text, or instant messages to contribute information. Consider asking group members to first provide a written report via e-mail or other electronic means to every group member. Using the structure provided by having information in written form may gently prod each group member to share what he or she knows.42 Explicitly talk about the problem of unshared information. Also talk about the importance of being open to new information and new ideas.43 Make it a group concern. Some groups have found that group members who receive training in the importance of sharing information do, in fact, share more information.44 Work together to find research and information; don’t worry whether group members are finding similar information. One study found that if several group members found the same information, it was more likely to be shared with the entire group. So duplicating each other’s research can increase the likelihood that the information will be shared with the entire group.45 Determine How to Present Your Information Once you have developed your conclusions, you’ll need to decide how best to present your information to others. Appendix B describes three common formats for doing this: (1) a panel discussion, (2) a symposium presentation, and (3) a forum presentation. In addition to presenting your conclusions orally, you may need to prepare a written report. Consider organizing your written report around the problem-solving steps noted earlier (definition of the problem, analysis of the problem, possible solutions, best solution or solutions). Most written reports are prepared for a specific individual or group. Keep your reader in mind as you develop the written report. Follow any specific guidelines or structure prescribed for you. PUTTING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE: What Should You Do with Group Members Who Don’t Pull Their Weight? A common disadvantage of working in groups and teams is that sometimes a team member may not follow through on assignments, actively contribute, or, even worse, may not attend team meetings. This behavior, known as social loafing, creates much discord and anguish, especially for group members who are following through on assignments and tasks. One of the biggest triggers of conflict is someone who thinks he or she is unfairly doing more work than others. Rather than ignore the problem (especially if a loafing group member is significantly hindering the work of the entire group), group members should confront the issue. But how can the problem be addressed without adding to the stress? Understanding the Problem First, it helps to understand why someone may be loafing. Why do some people not contribute to the group? Consider these possibilities: APATHY: The loafing group member may simply not care whether the group succeeds or not. WORK “CHALLENGED”: The slacking group member may just not like to work very hard. Perhaps he or she has gotten by with doing minimal or no work on other projects and this is just another opportunity to let others do the work. TOO BUSY: The loafer may have too much to do and has made working in the group a low priority, hoping that others will pick up the slack. NO GROUP ACCOUNTABILITY: There may be no way tracking who does what; the loafer can skate through the process because there are no consequences of not doing the work. Addressing the Problem Regardless of the reason for loafing, you and your team members simply want the social loafer to loaf less and work more. Understanding why someone may be goofing off may be interesting, but what you may really want to know is “What do we do to get someone to do his or her work?” DEVELOP CLEAR GROUND RULES: Early in your group’s history, establish an explicit rule that each group member is expected to complete his or her assignments. Even if your group has been meeting for a while, if you’ve not developed ground rules and explicit operating procedures, it may be useful to do so. Talking about how the work should be accomplished makes the issue a group concern rather than a contentious issue between one or two group members. MAKE MEMBERS ACCOUNTABLE: Build in greater accountability so that assignments and due dates are clear and each member has to report to the entire group on the status of work accomplished. How do you make people accountable? As a group, develop specific assignments for individual team members. Then provide deadlines for when the work should be completed. Group members could periodically provide a status update on this individual work, either as part of the group’s regular agenda or by providing a status report via e-mail or texting or on a team Web page. Perhaps each meeting could begin with a status report from each group member. If there’s no accountability for individual effort, it’s easier to let others do the work.46 MAKE THE ISSUE A GROUP CONCERN: What if you’ve developed a system of accountability, and the social loafer is still not doing his or her work? One person should not attack the offending group member; that will only add to a climate of defensiveness and create more stress. Instead, the group as a whole should address the loafer, calmly describing how the lack of individual productivity is creating a problem for the group.47 REPORT THE PROBLEM. Rather than bearing the problem alone, if the problem seems to continue without any change, let your instructor or supervisor know that a problem exists. Also, when sharing the problem, let your instructor or supervisor know what you have done to address the issue. Although we’ve offered several suggestions, realize this: You ultimately can’t change another person’s behavior. Despite what group members do (or don’t do), there are no surefire strategies to spur a loafing member to action.48 The rest of the group may simply have to pick up the slack. REVIEW: HOW TO DEVELOP A DISCUSSION PLAN What to Do How to Do It Get acquainted with your group members Introduce yourself Share your contact information Discuss the experience you’ve had with the topic Clarify the goals of the group Explicitly write down the purposes and goals of the group Identify whether your key purpose is to (1) gather information, (2) make a choice or solve a problem, (3) put an idea into action, or (4) achieve two or more of these purposes Describe what it will look like when your group is finished with its task. Answer the question: How will you know when you are done? Develop a plan for gathering information and analyzing issues Identify and assess the information you already know Develop a written plan that indicates what you already know and what you need to know Give members assignments or ask for volunteers for gathering or analyzing information with a date for reporting back to the group Follow a structured agenda to accomplish the task Identify the topics and issues you need to discuss at each meeting Consider using the traditional problem solving agenda to develop the overarching plan: Identify and define the problem, analyze, generate several solutions, select the best solution, test and implement the solution Develop a written agenda for each meeting using agenda development skills discussed in Appendix A Share information with others Develop a positive climate so group members feel comfortable sharing what they know Explicitly ask other group members if they have information to share Sometimes during meetings have group members first write information they know and then share it orally Explicitly talk about the problem of unshared information and then work together to make sure group members share what they know Determine how to present your information Decide whether you will use a (1) panel discussion format, (2) symposium presentation, or (3) forum presentation (or some combination of all three) when presenting your information to an audience Decide what written materials you need to develop and share with others Consider using the traditional problem-solving structure (identify and define the problem, analyze the problem, generate several solutions, select the best solution, test and implement the solution) or organize both oral and written information using this structure How to Formulate Discussion Questions Before most scientists begin an experiment or conduct research, they have some idea of what they are looking for. Some researchers start with a hypothesis, a guess based on previous theory and research about what they will find in their search for new knowledge. Other investigators formulate a research question that provides a direction for their research. Like scientific research, problem solving seeks answers to questions. It makes sense, then, for group members to formulate a question before searching for answers. By identifying a specific question they must answer, members can reduce some of the initial uncertainty accompanying their discussion. A discussion question should be phrased with considerable care. This is an important part of initiating and organizing any group discussion, particularly problem-solving discussions, because the quality and specificity of a question usually determine the quality of the answer. The better a group prepares a discussion question, the more clearly articulated will be the group’s goal, and the greater will be the chances for a productive and orderly discussion. For some group discussions and conferences, the questions are predetermined. Government committees and juries exemplify such groups. But usually groups are faced with a problem or need and are responsible for formulating a specific question to guide their deliberations. There are basically four types of discussion questions: (1) questions of fact, (2) questions of prediction, (3) questions of value, and (4) questions of policy. To help you determine which type is most appropriate for your various group discussions, we discuss each in the following sections.49 Questions of Fact Some questions of fact are phrased such that the answer to the question is either yes or no. Something either did or did not occur. (Although, of course, a yes or no response can be qualified in terms of the probability of its accuracy.) The question “Did the New York Yankees win the World Series in 2009?” is a question of fact—either they did or they did not. Questions of fact like that can simply be looked up online or in library sources and probably don’t require group deliberations. On the other hand, a group may be asked to investigate a question such as “Did John Smith violate our company ethics policy last year?” VIRTUAL GROUPS When working on a group or team project, it may be useful to share your initial research findings electronically via e-mail, a group Facebook page, or other electronic means. A study by Carol Saunders and Shaila Miranda concluded that virtual groups that collaborate only via e-mail or text typically have access to more information.50 According to the research, although face-to-face group meetings result in more information-sharing initially, over the long term, exchanging information via e-mail may ensure that more information is shared and that all members of the group receive the information. In addition to using e-mail, consider the following strategies to facilitate sharing information. Develop a group listserv through which any group member can send information to every other group member simultaneously. For an extensive group project, consider developing a group Web page, or use Facebook or other collaborative software program to develop a common virtual space in which to collaborate. In addition, your university may have its own e-learning system, such as Blackboard, to assist in virtual collaboration. Consider assigning roles to different members for maintaining the Web page, such as posting minutes of previous meetings, serving as the Web master of the site, and keeping track of whether projects are completed on time. Periodically ask group members if they have information to share with all group members. Dennis Gouran suggests that one way to investigate a question of fact is to construct a story or narrative to answer the discussion question.51 To determine, for example, whether John Smith did violate an ethics policy, the group should reconstruct what John Smith did or did not do. The reconstruction involves developing a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end to answer the question. In trying to answer a question of fact, make sure that all group members understand the key words and phrases in the discussion question. For example, faced with the question “Are there more incidents of terrorism in the United States today than there were before September 11, 2001?” a group will want to clearly define what an “incident of terrorism” is before answering the question. Does it mean any act of violence? By reducing the ambiguity of a question, a group can save considerable time in agreeing on a final answer. Your group’s objective will determine whether or not you should investigate a question of fact. If the group needs to discover what is true and what is false, then formulate a question of fact and define the key words in the question to give it greater focus and clarity. If the group needs to make a less objective value judgment or to suggest solutions to a problem, choose one of the types of questions discussed below. Questions of Prediction Will a tuition increase result in the university’s having a balanced budget? Will the levee withstand a force-3 hurricane? Will the new airport security measures make air travel safer? A question of prediction asks whether something is likely to occur or may occur under a certain set of circumstances. In the question “Will a tuition increase result in the university’s having a balanced budget?” the set of circumstances is a tuition increase. How does a group attempt to answer such a question? Groups look for examples of what happened in similar situations. For instance, the university might survey other universities to see how their budgets were affected when tuition was increased. Groups may also simply use logic and reasoning based on the available evidence to determine what will or will not happen in the future. Will you use questions of prediction when communicating with others in small groups? That’s a question of prediction that you’ll answer based on your past experiences. Group researcher Dennis Gouran suggests that, when investigating questions of prediction, an appropriate agenda for groups to follow would include these four steps:52 1. Develop if-then statements: Identify one or more if-then statements to focus and clarify the issues. Here’s an example of an if-then statement: If tuition is increased, then the university will have a balanced budget. Here’s another if-then statement: If tuition is increased, then the university can continue its expansion program. 2. Analyze the problem: Spend time analyzing the likelihood that what is suspected (a balanced budget) will actually occur. What are the causes, effects, and symptoms of the problem? What impact have previous tuition increases had on the budget in the past? 3. Use evidence: Present evidence that documents the likelihood that X will lead to Y. In this example, X = a tuition increase and Y = a balanced budget. 4. Evaluate the quality of the evidence: Determine whether the evidence that attempts to document the likelihood that X will lead to Y is high-quality evidence (e.g., Is the evidence recent? Is the evidence from a credible source?). Using this four-step agenda, groups can efficiently focus on determining whether the suspected outcome will likely occur. Questions of Value A question of value generally produces a lively discussion because it concerns attitudes, beliefs, and values about what is good or bad or right or wrong. Answering a question of value is more complicated than simply determining whether an event did or did not occur. “Which political party in the United States produced the best presidents?” is an example of a question of value. Group members’ responses to this question depend on their attitudes toward Democrats, Republicans, or other political parties. An attitude is a learned predisposition to respond to a person, an object, or an idea in a favorable, neutral, or unfavorable way. In essence, the attitudes you hold about the world determine whether you like or dislike what you experience and observe. A favorable attitude toward Democrats will affect your response to the value question “Which political party in the United States produced the best presidents?” A belief is what you hold to be true and false. Put another way, it is the way you structure reality. If you believe in God, you have structured your reality to assume that God exists. If you do not believe in God, you have structured your perception of what is true and false so that God is not part of your reality. A value is often defined as an enduring conception of good and bad. Your values affect your perceptions of right and wrong. A value, such as the importance of being honest, is more resistant to change than an attitude or a belief. What are your values? Which of your values have the most influence on your behavior? Because values are so central to how you respond in the world, you may have trouble coming up with a tidy list of your most important values. You may be able to list things you like and do not like (attitudes) or things that you classify as true and not true (beliefs), but your values—the guiding forces affecting your behavior—are sometimes difficult to identify. In looking at relationships between attitudes (likes and dislikes), beliefs (what is perceived as true or false), and values (what is perceived as good or bad), it is important to note that values change infrequently and attitudes are most susceptible to change. Figure 4.1 shows values in the center of the diagram because they are central to how you make sense out of what you experience; if you valued honesty yesterday you will probably still value honesty today and in the future. Beliefs, the next ring, may change depending on your experiences and your perception of what is true and false. Attitudes are shown in the outer ring because they are likely to change more often; our attitudes may change daily. For example, one day you may like your small-group communication class, and the next day you don’t. Yet the underlying value of obtaining a good education probably will not vary. FIGURE 4.1 Interrelationship of Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes Understanding the differences among attitudes, beliefs, and values helps you better understand what happens when a group discusses a value question. You base your response to a value question on your own attitudes, beliefs, and values, as do other group members. If you can identify the underlying attitudes, beliefs, and values that influence the responses to a value question, you can examine and discuss them. Questions of Policy Most problem-solving discussions revolve around questions of policy—questions that help groups determine what course of action or policy change would enable them to solve a problem or reach a decision. “What should be done to improve the quality of education in U.S. colleges and universities?” and “What can Congress do to reduce America’s national debt?” are examples of policy questions. These questions can be identified easily because answers to them require changes of policy or procedure. Discussion questions including phrases such as “What should be done about…?” or “What could be done to improve…?” are policy questions. Most legislation in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives is proposed in response to specific policy questions. A well-written policy question should adhere to three criteria: It should imply that a problem exists, it should be limited in scope, and it should be controversial enough to spark discussion. 1. A policy question should imply that a specific problem exists and must be solved. The question “What should be done about UFOs?” is not an appropriate policy question because it does not provide enough direction to a specific problem. Do not confuse a discussion topic with a discussion question. If your group is going to discuss UFOs, it has a topic, but it is not trying to solve a problem. The group could rephrase the discussion question to make it more policy-oriented: “What could be done to improve the way the government reports and investigates UFO sightings in the United States?” The rephrased question more clearly implies that there is a problem in the way the government investigates sightings of UFOs. The latter question provides clearer direction for research and analysis. 2. A policy question should be limited in scope. Do not try to tackle a complex problem unless your group has the time and resources to solve it. For example, a group of students was assigned the task of formulating a policy question, discussing it, and then reporting the results of the discussion to the class. The students had three weeks to analyze and suggest possible solutions to the problem they had chosen to investigate, which was “What should be done to deal with health care?” Although the question clearly implies a specific problem, its lack of focus frustrated the group. A more limited discussion question, such as “What should be done to improve access to affordable prescription drugs for the elderly in our community?” would have been more manageable. You would do better to consider a simple, clearly worded question that can be analyzed in the time period allotted to your group than a question that would keep the U.S. Congress busy for several months or even years. On the other hand, a group should not phrase a policy-discussion question so that it requires only a yes or no answer or limits the group’s options for solutions. Given this criterion, “Should it be illegal to send text messages while driving in a school zone?” is a less-satisfactory policy discussion topic than “What can be done to ensure greater safety for children in a school zone?” The second question gives the group more options to consider to achieve the goal of children’s safety in a school zone. 3. A policy question should be controversial. A policy question should be about an important issue. An issue is a question about which individuals disagree. If group members disagree about how to solve a problem, they should not necessarily select another issue. Conflict, controversy, and disagreement should not always be viewed negatively. If group members agreed on how to solve a problem at the beginning of a discussion, they would have nothing to discuss. The purpose of a group discussion is to consider all alternatives and to agree on the best one. Therefore, do not reject a discussion question because other group members may hold contrasting points of view. The four types of discussion questions (of fact, of prediction, of value, and of policy) may not appear to overlap, but as one researcher observed, groups must concern themselves with questions of fact, prediction, and value when considering questions of policy.53 They must judge evidence as true or false (questions of fact). They must ponder whether the proposed solution will be effective in the future (questions of prediction). Their attitudes, beliefs, and values (questions of value) will influence the decisions they make on policy changes (questions of policy). CASE STUDY: QUESTIONING THE COST OF TEXTBOOKS: Practice in Applying Principles Imagine that your instructor has just announced a semester-long group project for your small-group communication course. You are assigned to work with a group of five people to develop a solution to a problem and, in so doing, to answer a specific policy question. Your group has been assigned the following issue: What should be done to make college textbooks at our school bookstore more affordable for students at our school? You know that textbooks take quite a bite out of your budget, but you and other group members really don’t understand how textbook prices are set or why used textbooks still have a high price tag. You also don’t understand why popular books on best-seller lists at large bookstores cost under $30 while most of your textbooks cost over $60, with many over $100. At the first group meeting, group members aren’t quite sure how to begin addressing the question. You need to know more about how your local bookstore decides to set prices for both new and used books. Many students are buying their textbooks on the Internet and skipping the bookstore altogether. This sometimes results in the students getting the wrong book or the wrong edition of the book. You’ve also heard that your school’s bookstore generates a profit that is used to support other activities at your school, but you’re not sure of the specific relationship between the bookstore and your school’s budget. Questions for Analysis 1. Although the policy question is clear, what are related questions of fact, prediction, and policy that your group may need to investigate before answering the larger policy question? 2. What should the group do to develop a plan for gathering information and analyzing the issues that contribute to the problem under discussion? 3. What information do you think is available through electronic sources to help your group analyze the issues being investigated? What information is probably not going to be available on the Internet and will call for other research strategies? How would you go about dividing up the work to gather the information you need? 4. Based on the information in this chapter and the information about developing an agenda for a meeting included in Appendix A, prepare an agenda for your group’s next meeting. 5. Develop a reasonable timeline for accomplishing your group’s goal. 6. Your instructor has asked your group to present analysis and recommendations to the class. Based on information included in Appendix B, what would be an appropriate format for your group’s presentation? A discussion question serves a valuable function in providing direction to group deliberations. Discussion questions can be modified. Decide whether your group is considering a question of fact, of prediction, of value, or of policy. Identifying the type of question helps you understand the dynamics of the issue under discussion. If you realize that the question “Should we legalize casino gambling in our community?” involves value judgments, you will be less likely to condemn group members who disagree with you. Even in the face of disagreement, frustration and defensiveness can yield to understanding and compromise. Remember, too, that even though a discussion question may be clearly identified as one of fact, prediction value, or policy, your discussion probably will include other types of questions. Once your group has a well-defined problem to discuss, members should begin researching and analyzing it. REVIEW: FOUR TYPES OF GROUP-DISCUSSION QUESTIONS Question Type Definition Example Question of fact A question that asks whether something is true or false Did university officials violate the freshman-admission policy last year? Question of prediction A question that asks whether something is likely to occur Will the building renovations be completed by Christmas? Question of value A question that considers something’s worth or desirability What are the virtues of a democratic form of government? Question of policy A question that considers whether a change in procedure should be made What should be done to curtail gang violence in our community? How to Use Logic and Reasoning Effectively In the search for truth, you will need to develop logical arguments and reach reasoned conclusions. Researchers have found that at the heart of group deliberation is argument.54 During group discussion the essence of what you do when you interact with others is advance arguments and listen and respond to the conclusions that others have reached. Reasoning is the process of drawing a conclusion from evidence. Your evidence will consist of the facts, examples, statistics, and opinions you use to support the point you wish to make. For over two thousand years, students have studied the principles of critical analysis that we now present. Although you may have been introduced to a discussion of logic, reasoning, and evidence in another course (such as public speaking, argumentation, or philosophy), we think it’s important to apply these important principles to group and team deliberations. First we will provide an overview of reasoning strategies and then describe how to use evidence effectively. There are three major ways of structuring an argument to reach a logical conclusion: (1) inductive reasoning, (2) deductive reasoning, and (3) causal reasoning. Inductive Reasoning Inductive reasoning is a method of arriving at a general, or “bottom-line,” conclusion through the use of specific examples, facts, statistics, and opinions. For example, suppose you recently bought a used personal computer that didn’t work the way it was supposed to when you got it home. You learn that one of your classmates also bought a used computer that didn’t work well. Your uncle also bought a used computer from someone who ran an ad in the paper; his computer didn’t work properly either. Based on those three examples, you reach a conclusion that buying used computers will give you trouble. You’ve reached a general conclusion based on the specific examples you know about. To help answer your group-discussion question, you need to make sure you reach a valid or logical conclusion. When you reason inductively (from specific examples to a general conclusion), keep the following questions in mind: 1. Are there enough specific examples to support the conclusion? Are three examples of problems with used computers enough to prove your point that all used computers don’t work well? There are millions of used computers; three is not a very large sample. If you coupled your examples with additional statistical evidence that over 30 percent of people who purchased a used computer experienced computer problems, then your evidence would be more convincing. 2. Are the specific instances typical? Were the three examples you cited representative of all used computers? How do you know? Perhaps you, your classmate, and your uncle bought computers that were not typical of most used computers. For example, maybe you all bought them from the same guy, who sells them out of the trunk of his car, whereas most people buy them from a reputable retail outlet. If the examples you use to develop your point aren’t representative of the entire population, you run the risk of reaching a flawed conclusion. 3. Are the instances recent? How long ago did you purchase your used computer? If you made your purchase three years ago, conditions may have changed. Perhaps used computers on the market today are more reliable. Deductive Reasoning Deductive reasoning is the process of … drawing a specific conclusion from a general statement or principle. It is the reverse of inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can be presented in the form of a syllogism—a way of organizing or structuring an argument in three parts: (1) a major premise, (2) a minor premise, and (3) a conclusion. The major premise is a generalization or an overall encompassing statement. “All students who take a course in small group communication will have a successful career” is an example of a major premise. The minor premise is a more specific statement about an example that is linked to the major premise. “Mark Stevens has taken a course in small group communication” is an example of a minor premise. The conclusion is based on the major premise and the more specific minor premise. In reasoning deductively, you should ensure that the major and minor premises are true and can be supported with evidence. The conclusion to our syllogism is “Mark Stevens will have a successful career.” To test the truth or validity of an argument organized deductively, consider the following questions. 1. Is the major premise (general statement) true? Will all students who take a course in small-group communication necessarily have successful careers? What evidence exists to support that generalization? The most important part of making a deductive argument hinges on whether your major premise is true. It takes evidence to document the soundness of your major premise. Obviously, just asserting that a statement or generalization is true and labeling it a major premise is not enough. You need facts, examples, statistics, or expert opinion to support your generalization. 2. Is the minor premise (the particular statement) also true? If your minor premise is not true, your syllogism will fall apart. In our example, it is easy to confirm whether Mark Stevens has taken a course in small-group communication. But not all minor premises can be verified as easily. Causal Reasoning The third way to reach a logical conclusion is through causal reasoning—the process of relating two or more events and concluding that one event caused the other. For example, you might reason that in 2012, climate change was the cause of Hurricane Sandy. You can structure a causal argument in two ways. First, you can reason from cause to effect, moving from a known fact (cause) to predict a result (effect). You know that the number of drug arrests in your community has increased; you know this is a fact because you have researched the police records. You reason that crime will decrease in your community if the drug offenders are locked up. Weather forecasters use the same method of reasoning when they predict the weather. They base a conclusion about what will happen tomorrow on what they know about today’s weather. The second way to structure a causal argument is to reason backward, from a known effect to an unknown cause. You know, for example, that interest rates have decreased in the past six months. You hypothesize that the decrease has occurred because of a healthy economy. You can’t be absolutely sure of your analysis, but you do know that interest rates have decreased (the effect). As with other forms of reasoning, you develop strong causal arguments by using evidence to link something known with something unknown. If you understand how to use evidence effectively, you can enhance your use of inductive, deductive, and causal reasoning. How to Evaluate Evidence in Group Discussions After you formulate your discussion question, you need to define key terms and gather information on the issues implied by the question. Group members should also know something about the four kinds of evidence available: (1) facts, (2) examples, (3) opinions, and (4) statistics. Group members who use evidence effectively make better decisions. A research study found that the key element in swaying a jury is the quality and quantity of the evidence presented.55 Research also suggests that when reaching a final conclusion about the validity of an argument, most people find that an argument that is supported by multiple types of evidence is more persuasive than one backed up by only one source or one type of evidence.56 Let’s examine each of the four types of evidence in more detail. Facts A fact is any statement proven to be true. A fact cannot be a prediction about the future because such a statement cannot be verified; it must be a report of something that has already happened or that is happening. “It will rain tomorrow” cannot be a fact because the statement cannot be verified. “The weather forecaster predicts rain” may be a fact if the weather forecaster has made such a prediction; the accuracy of the forecast has nothing to do with whether the statement is a fact. Ask yourself these questions to determine whether a statement is a fact: 1. Is it true? 2. Is the source reliable? 3. Are there any contrary facts? Examples An example is an illustration of a particular case or incident and is most valuable when used to emphasize a fact. An example may be real or hypothetical. A real example can also be called a fact; it actually exists or has happened. A hypothetical example is of little use in proving a point but can add color and interest to illustrate an otherwise dry or boring factual presentation. Apply the following tests to examples: 1. Is it typical? 2. Is it significant? 3. Are there any contrary examples? Opinions An opinion is a quoted comment. The fact-based opinions of unbiased authorities are most valuable as evidence. Like examples, opinions can dramatize a point and make it more interesting. Opinions are most effective when used in conjunction with facts or statistics. The following questions can help you determine the usefulness of opinions: 1. Is the source reliable? 2. Is the source an expert in the field? 3. Is the source free from bias? 4. Is the opinion consistent with other statements made by the same source? 5. Is the opinion characteristic of opinions held by other experts in the field? Statistics Because they cannot present dozens of facts or examples in a given time limit, people often rely on statistics. A statistic is simply a number: 10,000 people, 132 reported cases of child abuse, 57 Western nations. Statistics provide firm support for important points. Pay special attention, though, to the tests of statistics listed next, because statistics are probably the most frequently misgathered and misinterpreted type of evidence. 1. Is the source reliable? 2. Is the source unbiased? 3. Are the figures recent? Do they apply to the time period in question? 4. How were the statistics drawn? If from a sample, is the sample representative of the total population? Is the sample big enough to be reliable? 5. Does the statistic actually measure what it is supposed to measure? 6. Are there contrary statistics? Once you have located and collected your evidence, keep in mind a couple of guidelines for applying it effectively. First, never take evidence out of context. Even if you find a statement that seems to be exactly the evidence you need, do not use it if the sentence following it says something like, “However, this idea has recently been proved false.” Second, try to gather and use as many types of evidence from as many sources as possible to support a point. Gathering and Evaluating Evidence: A Special Emphasis on Web Resources Although traditional library sources are still excellent for gathering evidence used in group discussion, more and more research is conducted via the Internet. Newspapers, research journals, and a multitude of other resources are available online; it’s likely that you and your group members will find a significant amount of information on the Web. The challenge in electronic research is deciding which data are relevant to your question. Although you can access hundreds of libraries and end up with a ream of documents, the volume of information is not nearly as important as your ability to use the information you gather. In the medical profession, triage is the process of making decisions about which patients need the most attention or medical care in an emergency room. Information triage is the process of sorting through information you have gathered from your search to determine what is most useful or needs the most critical attention. You will also need to cite the sources that you find on the Internet. A style manual will tell you how to prepare a bibliographical entry to document an Internet citation. As with any type of evidence, just because you find it on the Web does not mean the evidence or information is accurate or reliable. Anyone with a computer and software can construct a Web site. Information on the Web may not have gone through an editorial process to be checked for accuracy. For example, information that you glean from the Web site of the Wall Street Journal is more credible than that from someone’s personal Web site or the Web site of an organization with a particular political or profit-based agenda. When evaluating information you retrieve from the Web, consider the following criteria:57 1. Accountability. Who is responsible for the Web site? What can you find out about the sponsor? To whom do the sponsors of the Web site owe allegiance? Knowing who is placing the information on the site can help you evaluate whether the information is biased or unbiased. 2. Objectivity. Related to accountability for the Web site is the objectivity of the information presented. Consider the interests and philosophical or political biases of the organization or individual responsible for the site. 3. Accuracy. Is the information accurate? Is the information verifiable by other sources? Web resources should also be relatively free of common grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 4. Recency. How current and up to date is the information on the Web site? Look for clues that the site was recently posted or is kept current. Many sites indicate when they were posted and when they were last updated. As a general rule, the more recent the information (especially facts, statistics, and other data), the better. 5. Usability. Is there information that you can actually use? Does it relate to the group or team’s goal? Also, consider the overall layout and design of the site, which should facilitate its use. How to Develop Critical-Analysis Skills It’s not enough just to have evidence or to be able to label the kind of reasoning that you’re using to reach conclusions. If you want to critically analyze information and ideas, you must evaluate both the logic and the evidence used to reach a conclusion. Critical thinkers who are members of groups and teams need to develop key technical skills: Discovery: The ability to seek and find relevant information Organization: The ability to categorize and structure information Analysis: The ability to break information down into pieces and interpret each piece Synthesis: The ability to combine information, see new patterns, and put information together in new and meaningful ways Clarification: The ability to focus the group on the important information and to differentiate between key and secondary information.58 In addition to identifying and analyzing information, groups need to avoid committing fallacies—false reasoning that occurs when someone attempts to arrive at a conclusion without adequate evidence or with arguments that are irrelevant or inappropriate. Avoiding reasoning fallacies in your own arguments will enhance your critical-thinking skills. Being able to spot reasoning fallacies that others are using will make you a more discriminating and effective listener. Here are some of the most common fallacies. Causal Fallacy Causal fallacy is the inappropriate assumption that one event is the cause of another when there is little evidence to connect the two events. The Latin phrase used to summarize this fallacy is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which translates as “after this, therefore because of this.” Superstitions are prime examples of causal fallacies. Your assumption that your “lucky” rabbit’s foot helps you perform better on math tests probably can’t be demonstrated with facts and evidence. It’s your ability to study and learn math that determines your test results, not whether you have a rabbit’s foot in your pocket. Be on the lookout for group members who inappropriately try to connect one event to another without adequate cause and effective evidence. Either/Or Fallacy The either/or fallacy occurs when someone argues that there are only two approaches or solutions to a problem; it oversimplifies the options by suggesting we must do either X or Y. “It’s either vote for new school taxes or we will have to send our kids to the next county to be educated,” claims a parent at a school-board meeting. Usually there are a range of options to consider in any discussion. In fact, one hallmark of successful groups is the ability to identify several options to solving a problem. Bandwagon Fallacy “Everybody is in favor of expanding the city park, so you should favor it too” is an example of the bandwagon fallacy. Someone using this fallacy tries to convince you that an idea is good simply because “everybody” else thinks it’s good; hence, you should jump on the bandwagon and support the idea. Judge an idea on its merits, not just because of a popular opinion poll. As we noted in Chapter 1, one disadvantage of group discussion is that the group may give in to pressure from others. Hasty Generalization A person reaching a conclusion on the basis of too little evidence or evidence that doesn’t exist is making a hasty generalization. As we noted while discussing tests of evidence or tests of inductive reasoning, one or two examples do not prove your point. For example, because a friend of yours got ripped off by a service station when vacationing in Texas doesn’t mean that you should avoid all service stations in Texas. Here’s another example: “We don’t need to spend more money on music education in our schools; my son listens to classical music at home, and so can other students.” Attacking the Person This fallacy—also known as ad hominem, Latin for “to the man”—involves attacking irrelevant personal characteristics about someone rather than examining the idea or proposal he or she advances. “We all know that Sue’s idea won’t work because she’s been in local politics for years and we just can’t trust her” does not really deal with the soundness of the idea, which may be a great one. Red Herring It is a fallacy to attack someone’s personal characteristics rather than examining the idea the person proposes. How can you improve your group discussion skills? The red herring fallacy, which occurs when someone undermines an idea by using irrelevant facts or arguments as distractions, gets its name from the old trick of dragging a red herring across the trail to divert the sniffing dogs who may be following. Someone uses a red herring fallacy to divert attention or distract listeners from the real issues. For example, someone who claims “The real problem is not sexual harassment in the military, but the fact that we need to pay our military personnel more money” is trying to divert attention from the issue of sexual harassment and change the subject to the salary of military personnel. A group member who listens critically will recognize this distraction and return the discussion back to the issue at hand. If in the course of your discussion you detect that someone reaches a conclusion using a reasoning fallacy, how do you bring it to his or her attention? We don’t suggest that you use an accusatory voice and pounce on someone for the lousy logic. As we point out in Chapter 5, making someone defensive doesn’t do much for maintaining a quality group climate. Your first effort to draw attention to a reasoning fallacy should be to calmly and tactfully describe how the evidence offered does not support the point. Consider using an “I” statement: “I’m not sure I follow that argument.…” Describing how you don’t see the logic of their point is a better way to challenge fellow group members than immediately labeling their logic as a “fallacious argument” and trying to belittle them. “You” statements (“You’re wrong! Your evidence is terrible!”) tend to raise the hackles of your listener and create a defensive, disconfirming climate. COLLABORATING ETHICALLY: What Would You do? When preparing for a group discussion or a team meeting, consider the following ethical obligations. Use sound evidence and reasoning. As we have discussed in this chapter, using appropriate evidence and reasoning will help ensure that your group reaches a quality decision. It is unethical to claim you have found “the truth” without adequately researching the issues you discuss. Furthermore, a discussion peppered with reasoning fallacies can lead to inaccurate conclusions and an insensitivity to the ideas and positions of others. Asserting your conclusions without evidence and overrelying on emotional appeals at the expense of rational, logical reasoning are also unethical. Give credit to your sources. Avoid plagiarism—presenting the words and ideas of others as your own without giving proper credit to the source. Don’t use quotes or paraphrase the ideas of others without acknowledging them. Give proper credit to ideas and information that are not your own, when both speaking and writing. In group discussions you can provide an oral footnote: Simply tell your listeners where you got the idea or information you are using. In your written work, use footnotes or references to document the original source of the ideas. Follow through on commitments. When you don’t follow through on work you have promised to perform, you are not being an ethical group communicator. Don’t promise to do more than you can accomplish, but accomplish all that you promise to do. Now consider the following situation. While watching television you see an interesting program that includes a wealth of statistics documenting the problem of climate change. Not long afterward, you are assigned to work on a group project that focuses on this policy question: Should the government take more aggressive steps to manage the worldwide problem of climate change? You remember several of the statistics that were presented in the TV program, but you don’t remember the precise program that included those statistics. Is it acceptable to share your information with your group and “make up” a source for the statistics? You’re fairly certain that your information is accurate and reliable: You just don’t remember the exact source. No one will ever know that your figures aren’t from the source you cite. Do you share the statistics with your group even though you can’t remember the correct source of the information? What would you do?