Group Discussion as Interactive Dialogue or as Serial Monologue: The Influence of Group Size

Abstract

Current models draw a broad distinction between communication as dialogue and communication as monologue. The two kinds of models have different implications for who influences whom in a group discussion. If the discussion is like interactive dialogue, group members should be influenced most by those with whom they interact in the discussion; if it is like serial monologue, they should be influenced most by the dominant speaker. The experiments reported here show that in small, 5-person groups, the communication is like dialogue and members are influenced most by those with whom they interact in the discussion. However, in large, 10-person groups, the communication is like monologue and members are influenced most by the dominant speaker. The difference in mode of communication is explained in terms of how speakers in the two sizes of groups design their utterances for different audiences.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bales

R.F.

Strodtbeck

F.L.

Mills

T.M.

Roseborough

M.E.

(1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461–468.

Cherry

E.C.

(1956). On human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clark

H.H.

(1985). Language and language users. In Lindzey

Aronson

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 179–231). New York: Harper & Row.

Clark

H.H.

(1996). Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Clark

H.H.

Murphy

G.L.

(1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In Le

J.F.

Ny & Kintsch

(Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287–299). New York: North-Holland.

Dabbs

J.M.J.

Ruback

R.B.

(1987). Dimensions of group processes: Amount and structure of vocal interaction. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 123–169.

Dunbar

(1996). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In Sternberg

R.J.

Davidson

J.E.

(Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fisher

R.A.

(1921). On the probable error of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron, 1, 3–32.

Garrod

Anderson

(1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218.

10.

Garrod

Doherty

(1994). Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition, 53, 181–215.

11.

Hare

A.P.

(1962). Handbook of small group research. New York: Free Press.

12.

Hare

A.P.

(1981). Group size. American Behavioral Scientist, 24, 695–708.

13.

Krauss

R.M.

Fussell

S.R.

(1996). Social psychological models of interpersonal communication. In Higgins

E.T.

Kruglanski

A.W.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 655–701). New York: Guilford Press.

14.

Parker

K.C.H.

(1988). Speaking turns in small group interaction: A context sensitive event sequence model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 965–971.

15.

Sacks

Schegloff

Jefferson

(1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in dialogue. Language, 50, 696–735.

16.

Schober

M.F.

Clark

H.H.

(1989). Understanding by addressees and over-hearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.

17.

Stasser

Taylor

L.A.

(1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 675–684.

18.

Steiner

I.D.

(1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

19.

Stephan

F.F.

Mishler

E.G.

(1952). The distribution of participation in small groups: An exponential approximation. American Sociological Review, 17, 598–608.