The Penn State Scandal is one that will go down in history for having misconceptions, lies being thrown around, and overall a very bad situation for the reputation of Penn State University. Groupthink could relate to this scandal because the men who either lied to authorities, covered up aspects of the situation, or denied everything that the press said, were partaking in groupthink. Groupthink is the idea that if groups get too confident that they will begin to start making poor decisions as a group. The men who lied and denied accusations did not want to break the cohesive bonds between Jerry Sandusky and themselves.
There are many factors that play into groupthink. The first is an illusion of invulnerability. This factor plays part in that the group thinks they are the best group and nothing could ever bring them down. This seems to obviously be false in this situation because they were caught in the act of lying. Another factor of groupthink is belief in the group's own morality. Group members think that their actions and beliefs are better than people from outside of the group. The third factor is the tendency to hold shared stereotypes. Group members often will take a "us versus them" mentality to make ones group seem better. Looking at these three factors alone, the people who had a pivotal role in the Penn State Scandal thought that their group was better and stronger than the press. Sandusky's team of lawyers and co-employees were wrong in that they thought that they could fool the press and the judicial court about the scandal.
The men that tried to help Sandusky eventually ended up getting caught of fraud and lying to authorities. These men should think next time before they talk just because they are close with all of their group members.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Group Communication Roles and Tasks
As we started to brainstorm what people were interested in our class and what they'd like to research, our class came up with five or six topics. Our group is doing lit reviews for nonverbal communication, and I couldn't be happier with my topic and group. We started off by doing our survey, coming together as one to put all of our ideas together to make interesting questions. We started to experience interaction as we came up with questions and thoughts for our survey. Since our group is considered a "small group" our communication was direct and participation was equal all around. We essentially have become a team because we all put in our input, we all fully did our annotated bibliographies and we did them successfully. Our collective identity is becoming stronger by class period.
The one thing I like about our group the most is that we are all creative in our own way. As I said before, we all bring something different to the table which makes our group synergy great. The idea that many brains is better than just one brain is definitely seen in our group. In no way are any of our group members not doing much for the project and just sitting back and relaxing also known as social loafing, which I have seen in PLENTY of at my experiences at Kutztown University. I find our whole group as being information seekers and initiator contributors. I say this because we are always throwing ideas out in the open, asking each other for clarification and asking for facts from respective articles. I personally put the "Joker or Clown" into positive roles. Although it is usually a negative connotation by diverting thhe group off task, I believe that cracking a joke here or there lightens up the mood and makes everyone enjoy their time doing the project.
We all take on maintenance roles by talking for a little bit before we get started at the task at hand. Doing so, increases our group cohesiveness and we feel good about our topic and we get a lot of work done. Becoming too cohesive could decreases productivity because we would get off tangent more than we usually do. I cannot see this happening to our group because we'd like to achieve good grades and more importantly feel good in the end about the work that we had accomplished.
The one thing I like about our group the most is that we are all creative in our own way. As I said before, we all bring something different to the table which makes our group synergy great. The idea that many brains is better than just one brain is definitely seen in our group. In no way are any of our group members not doing much for the project and just sitting back and relaxing also known as social loafing, which I have seen in PLENTY of at my experiences at Kutztown University. I find our whole group as being information seekers and initiator contributors. I say this because we are always throwing ideas out in the open, asking each other for clarification and asking for facts from respective articles. I personally put the "Joker or Clown" into positive roles. Although it is usually a negative connotation by diverting thhe group off task, I believe that cracking a joke here or there lightens up the mood and makes everyone enjoy their time doing the project.
We all take on maintenance roles by talking for a little bit before we get started at the task at hand. Doing so, increases our group cohesiveness and we feel good about our topic and we get a lot of work done. Becoming too cohesive could decreases productivity because we would get off tangent more than we usually do. I cannot see this happening to our group because we'd like to achieve good grades and more importantly feel good in the end about the work that we had accomplished.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Penn State Scandal
This Penn State scandal really made Penn State University look really bad. In all that was going on there, much stress were put on the people that were accused of lying, actually assaulting children and people covering up what Sandusky had done. Those people were Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Mike McQueary. All three of those men either lied to police authorities, covered up some aspect of Sandusky's wrong doing or denied some altercations to conform to group think. These three men obviously were a very close knit group of friends who didn't want to break the bonds of cohesiveness so they all conformed and decided to lie to authorities about a very serious subject.
Those three men most likely did that due to group think. This relates to group think because they were a close group of guys who did not want the University to look bad at all, yet it ended up looking bad. They denied, lied, or covered up aspects to keep their prestige of Penn State University on the roll. They did this because they had been working for such a beloved institution together for some years now, and they did not want to see it go down the drains. In group think members of the group try to avoid conflict, exactly what the situation was here. Also, members try to reach critical decisions without alternative ideas or thoughts, its one idea and its done. This cohesive group of Penn State representatives ultimately can be explained as a a group of people who stick to group think.
Those three men most likely did that due to group think. This relates to group think because they were a close group of guys who did not want the University to look bad at all, yet it ended up looking bad. They denied, lied, or covered up aspects to keep their prestige of Penn State University on the roll. They did this because they had been working for such a beloved institution together for some years now, and they did not want to see it go down the drains. In group think members of the group try to avoid conflict, exactly what the situation was here. Also, members try to reach critical decisions without alternative ideas or thoughts, its one idea and its done. This cohesive group of Penn State representatives ultimately can be explained as a a group of people who stick to group think.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
"Put the phone down!"
Last week I went upstairs to the South Dining Hall to eat dinner and I encountered a very nice lady who I had a great conversation with. Carol, who worked the sandwich station in the buffet style cafeteria, was a very nice and kind lady. Carol and I talked about our families and many other things. Carol had a big family and a very loving family it sounded like. I told her about my family and how my sister lives in California. She was surprised to hear that my family lives in New Jersey and my sister is all the way on the west coast.
I showed Carol a picture of my sisters dog, Sadie, and we got into another conversation about pets and how I had none when I was growing up and she had a loving dog whom she will never forget. Carol and I gave each other much feedback which helped us both go along with the conversation. Carol and I also were bonding in our conversation, although it was not in a romantic way. Carol and I now know each others name and I will always go up to her station to simply say hello to her and to see how her day is going.
I showed Carol a picture of my sisters dog, Sadie, and we got into another conversation about pets and how I had none when I was growing up and she had a loving dog whom she will never forget. Carol and I gave each other much feedback which helped us both go along with the conversation. Carol and I also were bonding in our conversation, although it was not in a romantic way. Carol and I now know each others name and I will always go up to her station to simply say hello to her and to see how her day is going.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Debating a Devilish Question
The question " Is there any part of a dyadic relationship that is NOT communication?" is an extremely difficult question to answer. As I'm sitting here at my computer trying to think of all the possibilities, I cannot think of why any part would not be communication. The five characteristics of dyadic communication ( it's directness, it's personal, it's immediate, it's spontaneous, and it's usually informal) are all relevant to my personal experiences and I can probably vouch for our whole class and say the same thing.
I think that every part of a dyadic relationship is all communication. I support my belief by saying that the multiple approaches stated in the book are extremely relevant and make perfect sense. The developmental approach looks at communicating in a way that relationships between two people will evolve if the person finds something special in the other person engaging in the conversation. The cultural-level rules looks at how we interact with people that we do not know. When engaging in a conversation with an unfamiliar person, humans ask general questions such as "Hello, how are you?" or " I'm Matt. It's nice to meet you.What is your name?" Questions like these "break the ice" for new prospective interpersonal relationships. Sociological-level rules is a shared way of greeting people due to group membership. For example, on a college campus it is likely that you will hear many "What's up?" questions being thrown around because that question is short and sweet and everyone says it. Finally the Psychological-level rules are the rules that pre-existing interpersonal relationships use everyday with each other, such as hugging a friend or shaking somebody's hand.
All of these rules and approaches build dyadic relationships and I feel that after doing this blog I strongly support that everything in the world is considered communication. I know we talked about this in class but I strongly believe that everything we see, hear, say, and do is communication.
I think that every part of a dyadic relationship is all communication. I support my belief by saying that the multiple approaches stated in the book are extremely relevant and make perfect sense. The developmental approach looks at communicating in a way that relationships between two people will evolve if the person finds something special in the other person engaging in the conversation. The cultural-level rules looks at how we interact with people that we do not know. When engaging in a conversation with an unfamiliar person, humans ask general questions such as "Hello, how are you?" or " I'm Matt. It's nice to meet you.What is your name?" Questions like these "break the ice" for new prospective interpersonal relationships. Sociological-level rules is a shared way of greeting people due to group membership. For example, on a college campus it is likely that you will hear many "What's up?" questions being thrown around because that question is short and sweet and everyone says it. Finally the Psychological-level rules are the rules that pre-existing interpersonal relationships use everyday with each other, such as hugging a friend or shaking somebody's hand.
All of these rules and approaches build dyadic relationships and I feel that after doing this blog I strongly support that everything in the world is considered communication. I know we talked about this in class but I strongly believe that everything we see, hear, say, and do is communication.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Interpersonal Theories
In my sisters junior year of college she met a guy at a local bar who she found to be extremely outgoing and handsome. Little did my sister know that after leaving the bar that night that she would soon be dating him, and then be engaged to him and then finally reach their wedding day. Two weeks before Bret(now my brother-in-law) engaged to my sister he had found out that he was hired to work for Nestle Food Company doing marketing and research. My sister was extremely proud and supportive of his new job except for one little fact. Bret had to then move out to California for his new job.
My sister and Bret had to make decisions fast. My sister recently had just gotten a job at the local high school teaching 10th grade Chemistry. She knew she could not let the job down but she also knew that she could not leave her love of her life. They knew it would not work long distance so for a week or so they were in a very rocky position in their relationship. Bret obviously ended up engaging to my sister and she had agreed to move out to California with him in the Fall. They are now happily married and they never once regret their decision moving out to California.
This particular situation with my sister and brother-in-law exemplifies the filtering theory. This theory states that we use a series of filters to judge how close to others we want to become. The most important type of filter that my sister and Bret used and engaged in(no pun intended) was the sociological or incidental cues. this filter are the demographic or environmental factors that determine probability of contact. This filter includes factors such as where we work and live, how frequently we travel, and so on. "Obviously, we cannot form relationships with people we have never met, and maintaining contact with someone thousands of miles away is extremely difficult." I underlined and bolded part of the previous sentence because it made my personal story of my sister and my brother-in-law ten times more probable.
I added a clip of the famous movie, The Notebook. In this clip, the couple is seen doing everything together and some things done seperately, which can be called autonomy-togetherness dialect. If you skip to about 45 seconds into the clip you will see the couple rope swinging into a lake, the next scene you can see the husband trying to teach the wife how to drive a stick shift. Although he was getting very annoyed and angry with her he still found time to laugh at it until the next scene. In the next short part the couple got into a slight argument but immediatley got over the situation.
My sister and Bret had to make decisions fast. My sister recently had just gotten a job at the local high school teaching 10th grade Chemistry. She knew she could not let the job down but she also knew that she could not leave her love of her life. They knew it would not work long distance so for a week or so they were in a very rocky position in their relationship. Bret obviously ended up engaging to my sister and she had agreed to move out to California with him in the Fall. They are now happily married and they never once regret their decision moving out to California.
This particular situation with my sister and brother-in-law exemplifies the filtering theory. This theory states that we use a series of filters to judge how close to others we want to become. The most important type of filter that my sister and Bret used and engaged in(no pun intended) was the sociological or incidental cues. this filter are the demographic or environmental factors that determine probability of contact. This filter includes factors such as where we work and live, how frequently we travel, and so on. "Obviously, we cannot form relationships with people we have never met, and maintaining contact with someone thousands of miles away is extremely difficult." I underlined and bolded part of the previous sentence because it made my personal story of my sister and my brother-in-law ten times more probable.
I added a clip of the famous movie, The Notebook. In this clip, the couple is seen doing everything together and some things done seperately, which can be called autonomy-togetherness dialect. If you skip to about 45 seconds into the clip you will see the couple rope swinging into a lake, the next scene you can see the husband trying to teach the wife how to drive a stick shift. Although he was getting very annoyed and angry with her he still found time to laugh at it until the next scene. In the next short part the couple got into a slight argument but immediatley got over the situation.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis asks the question of whether the language we speak shapes the way we think and see the world. Personally, I think that this theory is a bit bizarre yet very interesting. I think that this theory applies to everyone in the world and that everyone speaks differently and will view the world differently because of that.
Linguistic relativity says that people from different language communities and different cultures will look at the world differently pertaining to how they speak. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis looks at if American students ever studied a foreign language. For example, some concepts and ideas that are easily expressed in one language are difficult to translate into another.
After reading an article in the New York Times my senior year of high school I can vividly remember an article about the chinese language. In this article it discussed how chinese people cannot understand the concept of tripping on something while walking down the street. The article said that they cannot understand this because there is nothing in their language that means "to trip" they only have a word for falling. This is just one of many examples of where the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis comes into play.
In conclusion, I think that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is a theory that is going to be on-going major debate for many, many years. I feel this way because people feel very differently about this theory and some people say it is completely bogus.
Linguistic relativity says that people from different language communities and different cultures will look at the world differently pertaining to how they speak. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis looks at if American students ever studied a foreign language. For example, some concepts and ideas that are easily expressed in one language are difficult to translate into another.
After reading an article in the New York Times my senior year of high school I can vividly remember an article about the chinese language. In this article it discussed how chinese people cannot understand the concept of tripping on something while walking down the street. The article said that they cannot understand this because there is nothing in their language that means "to trip" they only have a word for falling. This is just one of many examples of where the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis comes into play.
In conclusion, I think that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is a theory that is going to be on-going major debate for many, many years. I feel this way because people feel very differently about this theory and some people say it is completely bogus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)