Page 63 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

46 J. Godemann

Social validation also has an influence on the expressive behaviour of group
members. Information that has been negatively evaluated by the group flows into
the decision-making process considerably less often than generally accepted infor-
mation (Stewart and Stasser 1995). Paradoxically those who more often introduce
shared information are considered to have more expertise than those who introduce
non-shared information.
The so-called ‘shared reality’ approach (Levine et al. 2000) explains such
phenomena by demonstrating how shared reality forms a reference point for the
evaluation of information from other group members. Every type of group has “a
common frame of reference. This common frame of reference is often described as
the group’s culture” (Levine and Moreland 1991: 258). Building on the common
ground approach of Clark (1996), knowledge held in common is not only a condi-
tion for group action (Godemann 2008), but also represents ‘social facts’, i.e. what
is judged by the group to be right or wrong. Shared reality thus determines the
group’s understanding of itself and influences decision-making processes. In the
course of problem-solving processes the group develops its own shared reality of
methods and strategies. Following Asch (1987) if a shared reality is to develop then
it is necessary for the group members to perceive the actions of other members,
interpret them and relate them to one’s own activities. Levine and Higgins consider
‘shared reality’ as “the major contributor to group activity” (Levine and Higgins
2001: 34).
Shared reality and common ground essentially lead to shared mental models.
The shared mental models of a group comprise the knowledge relating to group
goals, characteristics, interaction patterns as well as role and behaviour patterns. In
a word, they represent the shared knowledge necessary for collective action to take
place. Mental models relate to a meta-knowledge that goes beyond the perspective
of individual group members. In groups there may be individuals with greatly dif-
ferent perspectives on certain problem areas. Perspectives include opinions, atti-
tudes, values and especially a cognitive structure that is related to the varying
experiences and amounts of knowledge possessed by individuals. The development
of group-related mental models presupposes the ability of group members to take on
other perspectives.
Perspective taking can be understood as a process of understanding a person as
part of a specific background. From a psychological point of view the taking of
another perspective requires two mental processes. First there must be the concept
of an outside perspective, i.e. there must be the realisation that another person has a
different perspective. And second a process of thinking must take place that simu-
lates and anticipates the perspective of the other. Only when both conditions are
fulfilled can we speak of perspective taking (Flavell 1985). In order to accept and
understand other perspectives it is necessary to undergo a reflection of one’s own
perspective. In inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, truths from single disci-
plines lose their certainty or are relativised. ‘Crises’ are created on purpose and
one’s own discipline is questioned by outside perspectives. Ideally those involved
gain a certain distance to what is considered established and are able to see things
from another standpoint.