Group Influence

PSY400

December 16th, 2014

Group Influence

Group influence is the term used for when a person’s emotions and opinions and behaviors are influenced by others. Group influence occurs when one's emotions, opinions, or behaviors are our influence by a group of others. There are three noted forms of group in full compliance, identification, and internalization. Compliance is the form of group influence when an individual or individuals on the surface seem to agree with others when in actuality they are keeping their differences to themselves. Identification is when an individual is influenced by someone that they like and respect. An example of this is when the celebrity will endorse a product on a TV commercial. Internalization is when an individual agrees with an issue both on the surface and internally. Groupthink on the other hand is a psychological experience that transpires when, in spite of the fact a group desires harmony or conventionality, irrational or dysfunctional decision-making occurs to eliminate conflict. This happens because group members failed to evaluate the alternatives properly, eliminate or suppress other viewpoints by isolating the discussion and the facts of the topic. The reader should comprehend these separate entities upon the completion of reading this essay describing a meeting of the members of the American Legion Post
(Latané, 1981).

The Meeting

On December 5th, 2014 while visiting relatives living on Staten Island, I observed a meeting at American Legion Post number 1544 located in Staten Island New York. The members of the meeting were arranged in a specific organized setting where the cabinet members sat at a dais in the front of the meeting hall facing the rest of the members who sat in chairs in rows facing them. There were members of the cabinet which included the commander, two vice commanders, a secretary, a treasurer, three members of the subcommittee and a guest speaker. There were approximately 50 members in the general assembly facing the dais. This consisted of strictly males between the ages of 40 and 95 years old of various ethnic backgrounds but mostly Caucasian. These members were all veterans from various wars including World War II, Korea, Vietnam and other conflicts the United States was involved in. The purpose of this meeting was basically to decide on how much money this post was going to donate for needy families’ Christmas gifts and dinners. The meeting lasted approximately one hour during which in a very formal and organized fashion the members discussed, old business, new business (which was the decision of how much money they would spend) and what progress has been made on both new business and old business. The meeting was held in a manner not very much unlike Congress. A member would ask for permission from the commander to pose a question on the floor and we get a limited amount of time to do so. After he posed a question other members would ask for the floor to comment on the subject matter. The primary facilitators of the group was the commander, the vice commander, the secretary and the treasurer. Besides the issue of deciding how much money to allocate for needy families Christmas gifts and dinners, the members of the meeting discussed the outcome of the donations for the Thanksgiving dinners, several events that occurred over the last month and several future events and their current status. During the meeting members exchanged information such as numeric information, how people appreciated the donations that was donated, how the past events were concluded and the structure of new events to be held. The communication pattern was such as an extremely organized group. Every issue was unified all the members and no issue came to a conclusion without some member making a motion that the issue be concluded either permanently or for the duration of this meeting and a second member seconding the motion. These members shared sense of identity with each other. They were all veterans that served in combat and identify with each other because of that. Although they had various opinions on subject matters yet they respected each other’s input. I observed no vulnerability to groupthink whatsoever. It was quite obvious that these members interacted graciously with each other and had been doing so for many years, some as far back as the end of the Second World War. In my opinion to group’s behavior and great relevance to the individual attitudes as it was quite apparent that everyone involved were there for the greater good of the community and little if any individual needs were put before the congregations. I couldn’t help but thinking that if Congress worked as efficiently as these gentlemen did our country would not be in the mess it is in (Forsyth, 2010). Comments on the meeting As I have previously stated this meeting was run in extremely organized professional manner. In my opinion this meeting was out of the norm in terms of general meetings most communities and individuals. I feel that it’s extremely rare to find a group of people with a common bond as tight as serving next one another in a time of war. I believe it was this factor that led to the organized, coherent, diplomatic way in which this meeting was held. Although as in any group when individuals have different points of view, ideas clashed. Although voices raised at times, the feeling of mutual respect for the other members of the organization was evident. I couldn’t help feeling good inside seeing this group of men working together so positively and putting a personal interest on the side when they knew it was for the good of the organization and the community. During the meeting the only conflict that I was aware of, was the fact that several members of the group were trying to initiate change in some of the events that the members attended. Specifically the members of the post had a father and son trip to West Point every year to visit the grounds and watch Army’s proposal team play various colleges. In the past the members would have a barbecue before they went to the game. At the picnic a couple of members would barbecue hamburgers, hot dogs, sausages, and various other foods. They have been doing this for over 40 years. One of the younger members suggested that instead of barbecuing they had it catered since the cleanup process took an extremely long amount of time and cut in on the mount of sightseeing they could do while they were there. By listening to the treasurer’s report it was obvious the post had been abundance of money. They had been saving these funds since the Second World War. The post had over $500,000 in funds, so the objection really had nothing to do with the money, the objection was about unaccepted change by some of the older members. From my point of view it did not seem very rational as some of the members and their sons could not visit the museum or go to the parade because they had to prepare the food and then later, cleanup. Upon careful observance I noticed that it was the younger members that wanted to do the catering and the older members wanted to save the money. Someone made a motion to bring the issue to a vote. They did so and the motion passed to have it catered instead of the barbecue for now on. Later it was explained to me by one of the members that they have been bringing up that motion for over 10 years and it was always voted down. When I asked why and how come it was passed this time the explanation seemed very interesting to me. I was told that the older members that served during the Second World War and in Korea were against change. They also all live to the time of the depression and were very intent on saving money all the time. The younger members welcome change and see no reason to have this overabundance of money in the treasury and not be able to utilize it for the events it was raised for. I asked how come it passed this time and never pass before. I was told that the percentage of people voting against the change had diminished because of their age. Over the course of the years the members that fought in the Second World War and in Korea were getting up in age and dying off therefore they no longer had the voting power to overcome the change that was trying to be initiated by the younger members (Bjørnholt, 2014).
Conclusion
The reader should find it interesting how this American Legion post is a microcosm of society in the United States. The same individuals that were voting against the change at the Legion post will be the same group that will vote against change for the country. Elderly members like my father who is 92 years old have different values than the younger ones do. As the older people are dying off, the younger people are gaining strength in voting power to overcome opposition to change. I think this is evident in how the legalization of marijuana was passed in three states and is expected to be legalized in others. I believe this to be true because the older people opposing marijuana are dying off. The people voting now are people in their 60s and early 70s that grew up in the 60s and early 70s when marijuana was more widely accepted (Bjørnholt, 2014).

References:
Forsyth, D. R. (2010, 2006). Group Dynamics. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist

Bjørnholt, M. (2014). "Changing men, changing times; fathers and sons from an experimental gender equality study"