Group Think Project Final Answer PDF

Preview

Summary

A project on group think about personality. ...

Description

7-2 Groupthink Activity: Examine the results of the jury's decision to convict or acquit and consider the process and the reasoning you and your colleagues gave for their votes. Reflect, too, on what you have learned about groupthink from the course materials and readings. Write a post that reflects on the deliberation and considers the wider implications of groupthink for society. Consider: To what extent was the verdict in this case an example of groupthink? Where else do you see groupthink in our society? What implications does groupthink have for social welfare and social change?

I have to say that mostly everyone in my group B went with the “not guilty” verdict. There were some people who did go with the “guilty” vote. I agree with the “not guilty” vote since the evidence and facts points to having reasonable doubt. Most of the evidence point to circumstantial and not sufficient enough to point towards a guilty verdit. The lack of strong evidence that defintly point towards hm killing his wife. No motive, forensic evidence or witness even put him on the scene. My main estimate that happen to Lurcene stems from the fact that her life was crumbling around her. She lost her kids and her husband. That was a lot of grief to deal with for one person. I believe that Paloma is a great susopect than the ex-husband since she wanted Lurcene out of their lives.

An example of groupthink would be the deliberation process we had between the groups when trying to figure out if the husband is guilty or not. According to Forsyth and Burnette (2010) is when people lose their sense of opinion to conform with the group. I believe the members of our group did somehow conform to the plans of the group since most of us went with the “not guilty” verdict. I am sure before people decided to post their opinion, they scrolled through the discussion board and notice a pattern of not guilty votes. In public, I believe groupthink will be at large if we were all sitting in a delibration room. For starters, everyone just wants to go home and not waste time, therefor,e they might rush for the easy verdict. However, delbration could be long and strenuous and people just might conform not to get on the groups bad side. However, regardless of groupthnk or not I still believe Reginald was not guilty. It could be that people noticed that the votes were leaning towards not guilty and just conformed but the evidence stack up as a suicide. Self -censorship could have occurred as well when people hide their opinion to conform with the majority. According to Moorhead, Ference and Neck (1991) self-censorship occurs when people blocks their thoughts, ideas or opinion just to not go against the majority. I did not see conflict occur in the discussion forum; therefore, it is hard to see if we really did conform to groupthink. Nevertheless, I believe we can down with the right decision on behalf on Reginald’s case. A staff meeting at my job has associates very well with the idea of Groupthink. They conform to the bosses opinion and do not want to make recommendations or ideas for the job. However, people are just scared to make the wrong decision or be embarrassed in front of everybody. At my workplace, I am full of ideas and suggestions but it can all be turned down if it doesn’t sound right to the rest of the coworkers at the staff metting. Our confident levels and our belief in ourselves will also dedicate how far you let groupthink influence your ideas. Howevver, most of the time congruency in ourself works best to remain quiet and stagneant to

not influence conflict. WE don’t want to hurt nobodys feelngs or even step on anybody toes, so therefore, we remain quiet. . My final idea of Groupthinks stands as it inhibits innovation and creativity since we have to suporess our opnion to confor with the majority of the group. If we do not have innocoation our society will not progress for better gains. Without this – without innovation – society will struggle to progress in a direction that is beneficial to all. The Women’s suffrage movement and the abolition of slavery all were only possible because people stood up against the current “consensus” and went up against the majority.

Forsyth, D.R., & Burnette, J. (2010). Group processes. In R. F. Baumeister, & E.J. Finkel (Eds), Advance social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 495-534). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. P. (1991). Group decision fiascoes continue: Space shuttle challenger and a revised groupthink framework. Human Relations, 44(6), 539-550.

7-1 Discussion: Pick the Right Date

After reading the two articles for this module on attraction, mating, and the internet, please complete the Pick the Right Date interactive. Then, answer the following question: What are the key variables that a person looks for when they are looking for a long-term mate? Given those variables in the profiles of two potentially compatible people, how accurately can you predict their long-term relationship success?

Pick the Right Date interactive:

The obvious choice seems to be Contestant # 2 (Deborah). First, let’s talk about location. #’s 1, 3, & 4 live in other states and #3 want to live in France, while #2 lives relatively close by. John wants to have kids someday while #3 doesn’t seem to have that on her agenda anytime in the near future. #1 and #4 already have kids, although having another doesn’t seem out of the

question with #1 (however, being a teacher’s aide and working with children and having one already, perhaps she wouldn’t want any more). Religion: This could potentially be a major issue, especially since John is an Atheist, not believing in any God and #1 and #3 are avid churchgoers and heavily involved in their churches. While #4 is not religious, she does not want any more kids, which would go against John’s dream of having two someday. #2 is not religious, but not atheist either, but is closer to John’s belief than the ones that are strong believers. #2 also has the same hobby (hiking) and loves all animals (which is good for John, the dog lover). #3 is allergic to animals which would pose a big problem, because as a dog owner I know that I would not give up my animals for anyone, and #1 has cats (a dog’s chew toy?) and birds - dogs may not be the ideal playmate for these pets. #2 is also majoring in Environmental Science (at the same school that John went to, which is not really relevant – but something in common at least), and John feels strongly about Science.

Key variables/characteristics to look for in picking a mate:

Although in the article “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating” (1993), Winch’s theory is stated as that people seek mates with characteristics/traits that they themselves lack, I think that in this case with John, the religious beliefs, wanting to have children, and his preference of pets is going to be too “set in stone” so to speak to budge much from it especially the children issue – that’s his future, his namesake, that he would have to sacrifice and that’s just too big. Similarities in beliefs and long-term goals is important while other characteristics such as hobbies may not be as important – people can have separate hobbies. In fact, it would be important that they not only enjoy doing things together (having similar interest is great, but they can also enjoy different things on their own. It’s healthy to have a hobby and healthy to not always have to do things together; to do things separately, with friends or alone. Physical attraction is also necessary. It doesn’t mean that the person has to be physically beautiful or gorgeous. It means that one has to see that person as beautiful, whether or not it’s on the outside or inside. Being attracted to someone isn’t necessarily solely about looks – intelligence is very attractive. A person can be drop-dead gorgeous, but physical appeal will only last so long. If the lights are on but no one’s home - meaning you can’t have an intelligent conversation with that person, or laugh together – how long will the physical attraction be enough? Morals, values, and beliefs (not just religious beliefs) is another thing that is paramount to have in common as any differences in opinion or views can be detrimental. When you have things in common such as the sharing of values and beliefs (not necessarily all of them, but a good majority), rather than being total opposites, it’s easier to communicate, understand, know, and trust someone which will all provide the best possible chances of a long-lasting relationship.

Buss, David M., and David P. Schmitt. 1993. "Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating." Psychological Review 100, no. 2: 204 – 232 http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204...