The Breakfast Club is a movie, based around a group of students who spend a day together in detention. There is the jock, the criminal, the brain, the weirdo and the princess. What makes this movie so real and interesting to watch, is the fact that it is real, it is very true to life. Obviously I did not make this connection before, but the Adaptive Structuration theory is apparent throughout the movie. Just as the theory states, we normally don’t even realize how we effect the group and how the group effects us. The students in this movie start out with nothing in common and nothing to talk about. However, by the end, their ability to adapt rules and resources within themselves is clear by the friendships formed.
One instance from the theory takes place when the criminal, who is the “active agent”, has the ability to motivate the other students. They aren’t allowed to go out in the hallway, make any noise, or switch seats. He finds a way to get everyone involved in this escape out of the library to go to his locker. In this case, power, morale and communication are definitely combined for all five of them to logically make the decision together. As the movie progresses, you see that he did make a difference, because the adventure out of the library helped to open the communication lines.
Where this theory is represented the best, is the end of the movie. The proctor for detention tells them they each need to write a paper before they are allowed to leave. This paper had to say something along the lines of what they learned from their mistake. This group of students came together and made a decision. They came together as a group, and collaborated ideas. First it was agreed that only one paper will be written, and it will be from all of them. They then used their rules and resources effectively, by having each person provide something unique to the paper. The brains kid was in charge of actually writing the paper, and the others would tell him what to write.
Just as the theory supports, whenever they all interact, it has an impact on the group. What they created was a group symbol in a way, a collective understanding of their time spent in detention. The letter is a result of group structuration because it formed from interaction with each other. The letter itself is the action, the end result; the students took in place of abiding by the rules of detention, which is consistent with their behavior as the movie develops. It is a very simple, short letter explaining just enough and leaving a smile on your face. This group of students is definitely a rare mix, and fun to watch adapt to each other, just as we do in groups all the time.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making
This past summer, for one of my classes, we were assigned a group project to do. There were five of us because the class was split into three groups. Looking back at this assignment, we certainly fulfilled all four of the functions discussed in this theory.
To start, we ran into the problem first hand. All of us had different schedules, which left us one day where we could all meet and work on the project. Some people didn’t have cars, some of us worked, and we only had one week to do it. I was glad we figured out a time on Sunday to all meet and collaborate. Since we had the problem of meeting together to work on things, we all decided to break up the areas of the project and tackle them individually. This sometimes is scary to do, because the quality of work in one person’s section could be completely opposite of someone else’s. However, with all things said and done, I feel we did a good job on analyzing the problem.
I wouldn’t say we really set goals, we set deadlines. Since we only had a week to finish this project, we had to have certain things done by the time we were meeting on Sunday. We obviously wanted to have a good presentation, but we didn’t have an exact outline of goals we wanted to achieve.
Within this project, we were doing a PowerPoint presentation also. When thinking of all the possible pictures and layouts of the slides, it became a little unorganized. We wanted to have a lot of options, but then people would feel picked on or not as important if the group nixed their slide idea. Our brainstorming definitely lasted longer than it should have, I think the more people in a group, the more conflict there will be. This idea as a whole became a little messy because we all did a certain number of slides, and tried combining them together. We didn’t follow the function of identification of alternatives exactly, because I do remember quite a bit of criticism. Although there were a lot of alternatives we had to work with, and we did finally agree on what we were and were not keeping.
The evaluation function comes into play towards the end of the project. Those last few hours of completion caused everyone to get a little nervous. We wondered how the presentation was going to go and who was saying what. Do we like what everyone produced? It was the fine-tuning part of our project where all of the positive and negative characteristics were evaluated.
To start, we ran into the problem first hand. All of us had different schedules, which left us one day where we could all meet and work on the project. Some people didn’t have cars, some of us worked, and we only had one week to do it. I was glad we figured out a time on Sunday to all meet and collaborate. Since we had the problem of meeting together to work on things, we all decided to break up the areas of the project and tackle them individually. This sometimes is scary to do, because the quality of work in one person’s section could be completely opposite of someone else’s. However, with all things said and done, I feel we did a good job on analyzing the problem.
I wouldn’t say we really set goals, we set deadlines. Since we only had a week to finish this project, we had to have certain things done by the time we were meeting on Sunday. We obviously wanted to have a good presentation, but we didn’t have an exact outline of goals we wanted to achieve.
Within this project, we were doing a PowerPoint presentation also. When thinking of all the possible pictures and layouts of the slides, it became a little unorganized. We wanted to have a lot of options, but then people would feel picked on or not as important if the group nixed their slide idea. Our brainstorming definitely lasted longer than it should have, I think the more people in a group, the more conflict there will be. This idea as a whole became a little messy because we all did a certain number of slides, and tried combining them together. We didn’t follow the function of identification of alternatives exactly, because I do remember quite a bit of criticism. Although there were a lot of alternatives we had to work with, and we did finally agree on what we were and were not keeping.
The evaluation function comes into play towards the end of the project. Those last few hours of completion caused everyone to get a little nervous. We wondered how the presentation was going to go and who was saying what. Do we like what everyone produced? It was the fine-tuning part of our project where all of the positive and negative characteristics were evaluated.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
With this theory, I thought of how I have been as a college student.
I tried to think of times that I can remember having cognitive dissonance.
Then it hit me. How many times have I said, "I am going to study and do really well for this exam". Then the time comes to study and I blow it off until the last hour I have left. Why?
I said I would study, and instead I find other things to do. This is an obvious inconsistancy between my attitude towards studying and my behavior.
In the beginning of my reasoning, I know I like to reassure myself I'm doing the right thing. I'll sit and say, well, I have been reading, I know the material, a few hours is all I'll need. Then when it comes down to that last hour, my attitude suddenly changes. This is due to the pressure of knowing that I don't have any other time to study. Now I am forced to do it. All the sudden, the issue of studying becomes more important. Postdecision dissonance is now in play. I need to reassure myself that I will be able to study in this last hour.
Then it comes to test time, and I don't do as well as I had hoped. I realize why and tell myself I need to study harder the next time. Sometimes, it becomes a vicious cycle of cognitive dissonance. Other times, I get it through my head and hit the books hard. So this theory is very true, and also critiqued well by knowing that we can't always predict attitude and behavior.
I tried to think of times that I can remember having cognitive dissonance.
Then it hit me. How many times have I said, "I am going to study and do really well for this exam". Then the time comes to study and I blow it off until the last hour I have left. Why?
I said I would study, and instead I find other things to do. This is an obvious inconsistancy between my attitude towards studying and my behavior.
In the beginning of my reasoning, I know I like to reassure myself I'm doing the right thing. I'll sit and say, well, I have been reading, I know the material, a few hours is all I'll need. Then when it comes down to that last hour, my attitude suddenly changes. This is due to the pressure of knowing that I don't have any other time to study. Now I am forced to do it. All the sudden, the issue of studying becomes more important. Postdecision dissonance is now in play. I need to reassure myself that I will be able to study in this last hour.
Then it comes to test time, and I don't do as well as I had hoped. I realize why and tell myself I need to study harder the next time. Sometimes, it becomes a vicious cycle of cognitive dissonance. Other times, I get it through my head and hit the books hard. So this theory is very true, and also critiqued well by knowing that we can't always predict attitude and behavior.
Elaboration Likelihood Model
The internet is a good example of the ELM theory.
When comparing television with the internet, more people are starting to use the internet more than television.
I think this has to do with being able to select what you see.
Just as in the theory, people use their "mental filter" to browse whatever interests them online, rather than being forced to wait for commercials on television.
The theory also claims that statements that are personally relevant become tested. So if I am concerned about eating healthy, for example, then I will find that information I need online. My concern and interest in eating right becomes my motivation to elaborate ideas I read in the articles the internet produces. Television does not provide me with that information I am looking for, rather, I might have biased elaboration during the commercials because I am expecting to see all fast food commercials which contradict my thinking.
This theory also touches on credibility being the most interesting cue on the peripheral route. This is why Dr.Phil is now linked with Match.com advertisements. More and more people are in search of finding someone, but not all the shows on Dr.Phil correlate with their own lives. Consequently, turn to the internet while using your credible source to find the information you need. With sites like Match.com, you determine what information comes back to you, and it all is personally relevant. Dr.Phil will become more persuasive being in both the television and internet mediums, than just television alone. In fact, the slogan for Match.com is, "It's okay to look." This slogan is a mirror image of one of the peripheral cues in this theory, social proof.
Overall, I think this theory is dead on, especially for my generation. We pick out foods we don't like in salads as carefully as we monitor what we will subject ourselves to see.
With the internet, searching for questions is endless, and private.
Being able to find only the stores you like to shop at and the brands you wear is easy.
With television, we are becoming more and more impatient. TiVo has helped the commercial problem to an extent, but as the theory states, we make an effort to kid ourselves in search for the truth. We will see and read what we want, and that's that.
When comparing television with the internet, more people are starting to use the internet more than television.
I think this has to do with being able to select what you see.
Just as in the theory, people use their "mental filter" to browse whatever interests them online, rather than being forced to wait for commercials on television.
The theory also claims that statements that are personally relevant become tested. So if I am concerned about eating healthy, for example, then I will find that information I need online. My concern and interest in eating right becomes my motivation to elaborate ideas I read in the articles the internet produces. Television does not provide me with that information I am looking for, rather, I might have biased elaboration during the commercials because I am expecting to see all fast food commercials which contradict my thinking.
This theory also touches on credibility being the most interesting cue on the peripheral route. This is why Dr.Phil is now linked with Match.com advertisements. More and more people are in search of finding someone, but not all the shows on Dr.Phil correlate with their own lives. Consequently, turn to the internet while using your credible source to find the information you need. With sites like Match.com, you determine what information comes back to you, and it all is personally relevant. Dr.Phil will become more persuasive being in both the television and internet mediums, than just television alone. In fact, the slogan for Match.com is, "It's okay to look." This slogan is a mirror image of one of the peripheral cues in this theory, social proof.
Overall, I think this theory is dead on, especially for my generation. We pick out foods we don't like in salads as carefully as we monitor what we will subject ourselves to see.
With the internet, searching for questions is endless, and private.
Being able to find only the stores you like to shop at and the brands you wear is easy.
With television, we are becoming more and more impatient. TiVo has helped the commercial problem to an extent, but as the theory states, we make an effort to kid ourselves in search for the truth. We will see and read what we want, and that's that.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Constructivism
I think there is a time in every person’s life when they don’t get along with their parents.
My time lasted quite a while with my mother. My friends used to always tell me that I told my mom too much information, and I should just not tell her everything. Well it took me a while to realize I had to listen to them. Meanwhile, I was unknowingly developing the ability to anticipate my mother’s reactions. I was producing person-centered messages to my mother where I knew what to say and when to say it, knowing how she would react. I told her in a tactful way enough information to keep her satisfied and not the things she really didn’t need to know. This saved us both a lot of yelling.
I felt this simple interaction also follows suit with the GPA model. My goal was to include my mother in my life, and still use my friend’s advice. So I came up with a plan of action by finding out how my mom reacted to certain activities I’d talk about, or friends I’d be with. She would tell me flat out whether or not she agreed with whatever it was I was doing, and tell me if she liked the people I was hanging out with. Obviously I didn’t take everything she said to heart, but it was more or less a collection of what she felt was acceptable for me and what she didn’t like me doing. So in a way, I then knew what I should and should not tell her, based on her previous reactions.
These procedural records that I stored in my memory served as cheat sheets if I wanted a certain outcome. The last part of the GPA method is the action where I give my big speech and hope all goes as planned! I knew how my mom was going to react if I told her I was with a certain person, so I would just simply say I was out with someone else. That way, I let her know what I did and where I was, so that accomplished my goal. Yet I also hid the fact of who I was with to prevent any sort of outrage, which was part of my plan. It let her know enough to keep her happy, and let me conceal enough to fulfill my goals.
My time lasted quite a while with my mother. My friends used to always tell me that I told my mom too much information, and I should just not tell her everything. Well it took me a while to realize I had to listen to them. Meanwhile, I was unknowingly developing the ability to anticipate my mother’s reactions. I was producing person-centered messages to my mother where I knew what to say and when to say it, knowing how she would react. I told her in a tactful way enough information to keep her satisfied and not the things she really didn’t need to know. This saved us both a lot of yelling.
I felt this simple interaction also follows suit with the GPA model. My goal was to include my mother in my life, and still use my friend’s advice. So I came up with a plan of action by finding out how my mom reacted to certain activities I’d talk about, or friends I’d be with. She would tell me flat out whether or not she agreed with whatever it was I was doing, and tell me if she liked the people I was hanging out with. Obviously I didn’t take everything she said to heart, but it was more or less a collection of what she felt was acceptable for me and what she didn’t like me doing. So in a way, I then knew what I should and should not tell her, based on her previous reactions.
These procedural records that I stored in my memory served as cheat sheets if I wanted a certain outcome. The last part of the GPA method is the action where I give my big speech and hope all goes as planned! I knew how my mom was going to react if I told her I was with a certain person, so I would just simply say I was out with someone else. That way, I let her know what I did and where I was, so that accomplished my goal. Yet I also hid the fact of who I was with to prevent any sort of outrage, which was part of my plan. It let her know enough to keep her happy, and let me conceal enough to fulfill my goals.
Relational Dialectics
In the movie, The Devil wears Prada, dialectical tension is abundant. The main character, Andy, is in a relationship with her boyfriend Nate. She has been searching for a job for months, and when she finds one she is determined to make it work. However, as the movie progresses, we see that her job as assistant is more a way of life. The job nearly consumes her every move and as she becomes more involved, her relationship with Nate starts to deteriorate.
What first made me think of this movie was when Andy was a few months into the job, and she came home late one evening. Nate had made dinner for them and bought her flowers since they hadn’t really spent much time together. Andy doesn’t make it to dinner…in fact she doesn’t come home until Nate is almost ready to go to work. He is waiting in their apartment when she comes home, and he is miserable. He tells Andy how she isn’t the same girl he once knew, that she is never home and she doesn’t care about anyone but herself and her job. Andy and Nate argue over this situation, but do not see eye to eye, and go their separate ways to bed. This exemplifies the integration-separation dialectic because Andy expresses how she wants to be this wonderful girlfriend, and be the best assistant she can all at once. Andy, without knowing it, had been pulling herself into inclusion within the fashion industry and discarding her college friends and boyfriend. It is not so much that this was intentional, but rather an inevitable tension. On the flip side, Nate was just asking for more connectedness, some time for their relationship to grow. They struggle with this dialectic for a while throughout the movie.
The stability/change dialectic also takes place within various parts during the movie. As Andy is introduced to this foreign world of fashion, she quickly becomes bored with her past ways of life. She starts to hate all of her old clothes, hangs out with new people, and starts questioning her love for Nate. There is a time where she reflects on her past memories, while shuffling through pictures in her apartment At that point of reflection I think she became aware of how predictable her life had become. This new job, was not something she would normally go after, so she felt a satisfied with her decision to keep pushing forward. Andy was defiantly experiencing more of an internal battle of certainty and uncertainty, not knowing which direction she wanted her life to go.
Lastly, I didn’t really notice much noteworthy expression/non-expression between Andy and Nate. However, they did seem to attempt to manage the other two dialectic problems in various scenes. When Andy and Nate had their first argument, Andy made an agreement to do a sort of spiraling inversion approach. She set up appointments with her boyfriend to just go out with him and not think abut work. Then the next day she would do just work and let Nate figure something else out. Andy thought she could manage their relationship successfully this way, but the outcome proves her wrong. Going back and forth constantly was wearing Andy out and started to manipulate her every move. Overall, this relationship was a messy one for sure. In the end, Andy quit her life-consuming job in order to get Nate back.
What first made me think of this movie was when Andy was a few months into the job, and she came home late one evening. Nate had made dinner for them and bought her flowers since they hadn’t really spent much time together. Andy doesn’t make it to dinner…in fact she doesn’t come home until Nate is almost ready to go to work. He is waiting in their apartment when she comes home, and he is miserable. He tells Andy how she isn’t the same girl he once knew, that she is never home and she doesn’t care about anyone but herself and her job. Andy and Nate argue over this situation, but do not see eye to eye, and go their separate ways to bed. This exemplifies the integration-separation dialectic because Andy expresses how she wants to be this wonderful girlfriend, and be the best assistant she can all at once. Andy, without knowing it, had been pulling herself into inclusion within the fashion industry and discarding her college friends and boyfriend. It is not so much that this was intentional, but rather an inevitable tension. On the flip side, Nate was just asking for more connectedness, some time for their relationship to grow. They struggle with this dialectic for a while throughout the movie.
The stability/change dialectic also takes place within various parts during the movie. As Andy is introduced to this foreign world of fashion, she quickly becomes bored with her past ways of life. She starts to hate all of her old clothes, hangs out with new people, and starts questioning her love for Nate. There is a time where she reflects on her past memories, while shuffling through pictures in her apartment At that point of reflection I think she became aware of how predictable her life had become. This new job, was not something she would normally go after, so she felt a satisfied with her decision to keep pushing forward. Andy was defiantly experiencing more of an internal battle of certainty and uncertainty, not knowing which direction she wanted her life to go.
Lastly, I didn’t really notice much noteworthy expression/non-expression between Andy and Nate. However, they did seem to attempt to manage the other two dialectic problems in various scenes. When Andy and Nate had their first argument, Andy made an agreement to do a sort of spiraling inversion approach. She set up appointments with her boyfriend to just go out with him and not think abut work. Then the next day she would do just work and let Nate figure something else out. Andy thought she could manage their relationship successfully this way, but the outcome proves her wrong. Going back and forth constantly was wearing Andy out and started to manipulate her every move. Overall, this relationship was a messy one for sure. In the end, Andy quit her life-consuming job in order to get Nate back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)