Group Communication 2023

Group Communication
Lawrence R. Frey
University of Colorado at Boulder

The study of group communication focuses on (1) the nature and effects of symbol usage in
relatively small collectivities (a minimum of three people) on individual, relational, and
collective processes and outcomes, as well as (2) how groups and group processes
themselves are products of such symbolic activity. The study of how groups employ
communication and how that communication is affected by and affects phenomena is
called a symbolic-management focus; the study of how the significant symbol of "group"
and group processes result from communication is called a symbolic-constitutive focus
(Frey & Sunwolf 2004). Both perspectives view a group as a significant site of communica-
tion; indeed, Poole (1998) argued that because a group is the minimum unit of analysis
for the confluence of influence associated with both individuals and social contexts, the
group should be the fundamental unit of communication research.

THEORIZING GROUP COMMUNICATION

A number of theories have been developed to understand and explain communication in
groups, including systems, functional, symbolic convergence, and structuration theories, as
well as the symbolic-interpretive perspective. One of the most prominent ways of viewing a
group is as a system comprised of inputs (variables that precede and potentially influence
groups), throughputs (group interaction processes), and outputs (products resulting from group
inputs and throughputs) (--> Systems Theory). From such a symbolic-management perspective,
communication represents a throughput that is influenced by inputs (e.g., group members
and relevant contexts) and affects outputs (e.g., decisions made and member satisfaction).
Another well-established symbolic-management theory that views groups through the
input-throughput-output lens is functional theory (-4 Group Decision-Making, Functional
Theory of). Functional theory argues that effective group decision-making (the chief
outcome studied) requires the satisfaction of fundamental tasks or requirements, called
functional prerequisites (e.g., thorough and accurate understanding of the choice-making
situation), with communication being the means of satisfying these critical requirements.
Symbolic-constitutive theories include (1) symbolic convergence theory, which describes
how recurring communication forms (e.g., fantasies, fantasy chaining, and fantasy themes)
lead group members to share a common social reality (e.g., rhetorical visions), including the
perception of being a group; and (2) structuration theory, which draws on sociologist Anthony
Giddens's work to explore how group members' enactment of structures (rules and
resources) produces and reproduces the group system, a process called "structuration." The
symbolic-interpretive perspective is a more recent theory grounded in these and other
theories (e.g., rhetorical and dialectical perspectives), and employing a variation of
systems language to focus on relationships among symbolic predispositions (inputs),
symbolic practices (e.g., specific forms of symbol usage such as narratives), and symbolic
processes and products (e.g., developing group climate and culture, with processes and
products linked to reflect their recursive and reflexive relationship).
2024 Group Communication

STUDYING GROUP COMMUNICATION

The study of group communication includes a focus on task and relational com-
munication, investigations of laboratory and natural or bona fide groups, and the use of
quantitative and qualitative methods.

Task and Relational Communication

Historically, the study of groups emerged from an interest in (1) knowing whether groups
(and group discussion) were more effective than individuals in solving tasks, and (2)
employing effective practices to promote democratic group decision-making. Group
communication scholars, thus, began by studying the relationship between communication
and decision-making and problem-solving in task groups (-4 Group Communication
and Problem-Solving). Process-oriented scholars studied the communication processes by
which decisions and solutions to problems developed, focusing, for instance, on
distributional and sequential communication structures in decision-making groups,
group developmental stages/trajectories, and group argumentation Group Communica-
tion and Social Influence); outcome-oriented scholars studied the effects of communication on
group decision-making, including group information processing, impact of group
discussion procedures, and, later, effects of new communication technologies (e.g., decision
support systems) on group decision-making (--4 Technology and Communication).
Group researchers since the time of psychologist Robert Freed Bales have recognized,
however, that groups also have a social or relational dimension. Historically, task and
relational dimensions were seen as competing forces, but both are now viewed as
necessary. Although some early researchers focused on how communication in laboratory
decision-making groups affected outcomes such as member satisfaction, more recently,
scholars have focused on relational messages (e.g., social support), processes (e.g., relation-
ship development), and both positive (e.g., cohesiveness) and negative (e.g., groupthink)
outcomes (see Keyton 1999; Barker et al. 2000) in many other types of groups, especially
those in natural settings.

Laboratory versus Natural or Bona Fide Groups

Although the study of groups in other disciplines, and some of the early studies in the
communication discipline, focused on groups in their natural contexts, historically,
because of its emphasis on the task, group communication was studied in the laboratory.
For instance, Frey (1994) reported that his review of group communication research
published during the 1980s, a prolific period because of the infusion of the theories
described previously, revealed that the majority of that research studied student (72.3
percent), zero-history groups (64.1 percent), meeting once (72.3 percent), in a laboratory
setting (59.6 percent); moreover, 50 percent of the research conducted in the field studied
groups that were created for classroom purposes.
Although laboratory studies revealed much about group communication processes and
their effects on decision-making and problem-solving, and some studies, such as those on
new communication technologies were conducted in labs that mirrored natural settings
 Group Communication 2025

(e.g., technology rooms in organizations), numerous critiques of the external --3 validity of
such research led communication scholars to start studying groups in their natural
environments. In addition to natural task groups (e.g., organizational teams), researchers
also started studying more relationally oriented groups, including families, friendship
cliques, social clubs, support groups, children's groups, and church groups, as well as
gangs, cults, terrorists, and other "dark-side" groups. These studies of natural groups led
Putnam and Stohl (1990) to advance the bona fide group perspective, which challenged the
typical "container model" of groups as relatively closed entities with fixed boundaries and
borders and focused solely on internal group processes, by arguing that groups demon-
strated two interrelated characteristics: stable yet permeable group boundaries and inter-
dependence with their relevant contexts (— Bona Fide Groups). Subsequent studies have
explicated these two characteristics (see, e.g., the studies in Frey 2003).

Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

In addition to conducting experiments and surveys to study group communication
quantitatively, group communication scholars have led the way in the use of interaction
analysis, the quantitative observational study of discourse. Starting in the 1930s, followed
by the pioneering work of Bales's (1950) interaction process analysis (IPA), which coded for
both task and relational communication, and Bales et al.'s (1979) extension of IPA, the
system for the multiple level observation of groups (SYMLOG), and continuing to the
present day, scholars developed numerous observational instruments to code and
measure group interaction.
As scholars moved to the field to study natural or bona fide groups, they started
employing more qualitative methods to study group communication; these include ethno-
graphic methods (-3 Ethnography of Communication), —> discourse analysis, rhetorical
analysis (--), Rhetorical Criticism; Rhetorical Studies), and performance studies. Today,
many researchers conduct multi-methodological studies that combine various methods
(—> Research Methods).
Studying group communication, however, poses some significant challenges, including:
(1) a level-of-analysis issue of how much to focus on individual members versus the
group as an entity (and the possible member relationships in between); (2) how to
account for the fluidity and permeability of group boundaries and borders (as in the bona
fide group perspective); (3) the unit of interaction to code (e.g., separate speech acts,
complex combinations, or the entire group discussion); and (4) the designation of group
variables (as the same construct, such as cohesiveness, can be an input, throughput, or
output variable). Group communication scholars continue to debate how best to manage
these methodological issues (see Poole et al. 1999).

FACILITATING GROUP COMMUNICATION

Historically, the study of group communication was tied to practice — helping people to be
more effective participants in democratic group decision-making. Scholars and
practitioners have realized for quite some time that groups, when engaged in naturally
occurring (free) discussion, often flounder and perform less effectively than might be
2026 Group Communication

expected; consequently, groups need facilitation - which typically means employing

meeting procedures that specify how a group should organize its processes to achieve a
particular goal (- Meeting Technologies). A plethora of group meeting procedures has
been created, ranging from those that facilitate group creation, group conflict commun-
ication, group conversation or discussion, task group communication (e.g., from macro-
level issues of planning, decision-making, evaluating, and promoting change to micro-level
procedures that help groups to structure, analyze, create, and agree), to those that promote
team communication (see, e.g., Sunwolf & Seibold 1999; Sunwolf & Frey 2005; Frey 2006).
Research on the effects of those meeting procedures, however, has lagged far behind the
development of procedures. What research does exist suggests that these facilitation
procedures work because they structure the communication that takes places in ways
that prevent groups from engaging in faulty processes and that harness the strengths of
groups.

SEE ALSO: ► Bona Fide Groups ► Decision-Making Processes in Organizations

► Discourse Analysis ► Ethnography of Communication ► Group Communication and
Problem-Solving ► Group Communication and Social Influence ► Group Decision-
Making, Functional Theory of ► Meeting Technologies ► Qualitative Methodology
► Quantitative Methodology ► Research Methods ► Rhetorical Criticism ► Rhetorical
Studies ► Structuration Theory ► Symbolic Convergence Theory ► Systems Theory
► Technology and Communication ► Validity

References and Suggested Readings

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small group interaction.
Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley.
Bales, R. F., Cohen, S. P., & Williamson, S. A. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level
observation of groups. New York: Free Press.
Barker, V. E., Abrams, J. R., Tiyaamornwong, V., Seibold, D. R., Duggan, A., Park, H. S., &
Sebastian, M. (2000). New contexts for relational communication in groups. Small Group
Research, 31(4), 470-503.
Frey, L. R. (1994). The naturalistic paradigm: Studying small groups in the postmodern era. Small
Group Research, 25(4), 551-577.
Frey, L. R. (ed.) (2002). New directions in group communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frey, L. R. (ed.) (2003). Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups, 2nd edn.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frey, L. R. (ed.) (2006). Facilitating group communication in context: Innovations and applications
with natural groups. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Frey, L. R., & Sunwolf (2004). The symbolic-interpretive perspective on group dynamics. Small
Group Research, 35(3), 277-306.
Frey, L. R., Gouran, D. S., & Poole, M. S. (eds.) (1999). The handbook of group theory and research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hare, A. P., Blumberg, H. H., Davies, M. F., & Kent, M. V. (1994). Small group research: A handbook.
Norwood. NJ: Ablex.
Hirokawa, R. Y., & Poole, M. S. (eds.) (1996). Communication and group decision-making, 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole
(eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
pp. 192-222.
 Group Communication and Problem-Solving 2027

Poole, M. S. (1991). Procedures for managing meeting: Social and technological innovation. In
R. A. Swanson & B. 0. Knapp (eds.), Innovating meeting management. Austin, TX: 3M Meeting
Management Institute, pp. 53-109.
Poole, M. S. (1998). The small group should be the fundamental unit of communication research.
In J. S. Trent (ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the twenty-first century. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 94-97.
Poole, M. S., & Hollingshead, A. B. (eds.) (2005). Theories of small groups: An interdisciplinary
perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Poole, M. S., Keyton, J., & Frey, L. R. (1999). Group communication methodology: Issues and
consideration. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (eds.), The handbook of group
communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 92-122.
Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context.
Communication Studies, 41(3), 248-265.
Sunwolf, & Frey, L. R. (2005). Facilitating group communication. In S. A. Wheelan (ed.), The
handbook of group research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 485-509.
Sunwolf, & Seibold, D. R. (1999). The impact of formal procedures on group processes, members,
and task outcomes. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (eds.), The handbook of group
communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 395-431.
Wheelan, S. A. (ed.) (2005). The handbook of group research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.