Page 112 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Diversity and the Effects of Culture 95

One of us observed a classroom group with difficulties caused in part by salient
generational value differences. The boomer member, who was the age of the millenni-
als’ mothers, attempted to organize the work of the group, to establish regular meet-
ing times, and to coordinate the library research of the group. In her journal, one of
the millennial students lamented that she felt “ordered around” by her mother and
was having a hard time accepting this boomer student as a peer. She wanted to
disagree and to suggest alternative ways of finding information— such as using the
Internet for research— but felt uncomfortable about contradicting somebody who
reminded her of her mother. Eventually, partly because of the sensitivity of the
boomer member, this group was able to talk and joke about their generational differ-
ences and to learn from one another. One particularly interesting difference in this
group was that the millennial students thought of the Internet first as a way to research
a topic, whereas the boomer thought first of print sources.
Age or generational differences in small groups have not been investigated much.
Studies of media use found generational differences. Kuo found that X- ers in Taiwan
55
used electronic media significantly more than others. Shah and colleagues found
different patterns of media usage for informational purposes, with builders using
56
newspapers, boomers using television, and X- ers using the Internet. Age diversity is
likely to be particularly challenging for teams in which task interdependence is high,
57
as in some sports like basketball. These results support further study into the effects
of generation- related co- cultural differences.

Co-Cultural Differences Based on Socioeconomic Class
As with generational differences, the effects of socioeconomic class differences in
small groups likewise have not been widely investigated. However, numerous studies
attest to differences in communication patterns based on socioeconomic class. We
like to think we belong to a classless society, but we don’t. For example, during the
news coverage of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, it became clear that the disaster
plan had been constructed by middle- and upper- class Americans and was based on
middle- class assumptions (such as everyone has access to a personal car with which
to evacuate). This failure to understand behaviors and life patterns of individuals
from lower socioeconomic classes was devastating for the New Orleans poor, who
had no way to leave the city before the storm. Socioeconomic class is not based
solely on income. Class distinctions are also determined by education, job authority,
58
and skill. In addition, people are readily able to classify others’ occupations by
socioeconomic class. Furthermore, class differences produce differences in values
and communication patterns. Ellis and Armstrong examined television depictions of
middle- class and non- middle-class (lower- class and poor) families and found implicit
59
messages about how people of different classes communicate. For instance, middle-
class males used longer sentences and generally more complex speaking patterns
than non- middle-class males. Middle- class people of both sexes used more adverbs.
The word ain’t, never used by middle- class speakers, served to mark someone as non-
middle class.

gal37018_ch04_075_108.indd 95 3/28/18 12:35 PM