Page 131 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

114 Chapter 5

FIGURE 5.2 Aggressive Assertive Nonassertive (passive)
Assertiveness
lies between
aggressiveness and
nonassertiveness

the perspectives and ideas of the other members so they can help find a mutually sat-
isfactory solution. They are, in effect, ethical participant-observers (see Chapter 1).
Consider the following exchange from the ad team:
Ben: I think we should recommend that Ozarks Glass Studio buy a full-page color
ad in 417 Magazine to promote its glassblowing classes.
Marija: Ordinarily, I might agree with you, but Ozarks Glass Studio has a natural
demographic—people who like the arts, people who hang out downtown, and people
who have plenty of time and disposable income. That matches the demographic of
the public radio station, which I think is a better buy. 417 Magazine hits business
people, but public radio hits business people and arts-oriented folks. (Marija went on
to provide specific facts and figures.)
Notice that, in this exchange, Marija neither caved in to Ben nor tried to shout
him down. She assertively stated her position and attempted to persuade with facts.
That’s what she should do as a good group member—speak up! And, she should also
be open to persuasion by Ben, who may himself have relevant facts about where
Ozarks Glass Studio should advertise. If you want to know how assertive you are,
complete the Assertiveness Rating Scale in Figure 12.3 in Chapter 12.

Cognitive Complexity
How members act in discussions of complex problems, especially when there are wide
differences among members’ perspectives and preexisting beliefs, is seriously affected
Cognitive Complexity by a trait psychologists call cognitive complexity. Cognitive complexity refers to an indi-
How well developed vidual’s ability to interpret multiple signals simultaneously: how much information
a group member’s someone can absorb, process, and make sense of. Cognitive complexity is a measure of
construct system for simple-to-complex thinking—do you think in only either/or terms, or can you perceive
interpreting signals shades of gray? Compared to people low in cognitive complexity, people high in cogni-
is; cognitively tive complexity use more complex arguments in speaking, can integrate their goals with
complex individuals those of others in these arguments, and do a better job of building on others’ feelings
are able to and beliefs during discussion. Cognitively complex members ask more questions and
18
synthesize more provide more objective information during discussions of class policies than do their
information and think less-developed classmates; they do not presume to know the other’s viewpoint and are
in more abstract and
organized terms than open-minded. Less cognitively complex members use their own frames of reference as
are cognitively simple if these were universal. During group decision making, high complexity persons can
individuals. arrive at consensus much better than less complex persons, who speak as if they
already know what their fellow group members believe and have experienced. 19
To expand your cognitive complexity, start to assume less, ask more questions,
and check out what you think others want, feel, and think. For example, Candi, our

gal37018_ch05_109_134.indd 114 3/28/18 12:35 PM