The Psychology of Group Cognition
Cheryl Bergman
University of Massachusetts Lowell
The Psychology of Group Cognition
Collaboration between people is central to the framework of society and group work has become more prevalent than ever in educational settings and workplaces. Studying groups and the nature of collaboration has become an important area of research. While there has been progress made, the need still exists for further research in and around group learning with the intention of understanding the nature of effective group work.
When working in teams or organizations, the same fundamental issues tend to arise: “they are faced with challenges of establishing common frames of reference, resolving discrepancies in understanding, negotiating issues of individual and collective action, and coming to joint understanding” (Barron, 2000). Understanding the psychology behind group cognition is important because understanding this is related to understanding the learning potential of groups (Roschelle, 1992; Webb & Palincsar, 1996). Thus far, there has been a significant amount of research done on the individual human mind, but this does not provide a thoughtful foundation on which to be able to understand the nature of group interaction or how information is processed in a group (rather than by individual members who are part of a group). This literature review will seek to discuss some of the existing research available surrounding group cognition, the limitations that are present in current research, and necessities for future research.
Group cognition is a complex topic because of the diversity and individual traits present in each member of the group. Present in-group learning is a variety of viewpoints, particularly different cognitive perspectives and different socio-cultural perspectives. This said, each of these terminologies has shown to carry different interpretations across various research studies. In the 1999 article Socially Shared Cognition, Affect, and Behavior: A Review and Integration by Leigh Thompson and Gary Alan Fine, two theories around group cognition are outlined: symbolic processing and situation cognition. Symbolic processing focuses on the structures within the brain that are responsible for deciphering the representations of symbols in the mind. (Norman, 1993). Situation cognition, also referred to as situated action, focuses on the environment that one is in is intertwined directly with one’s knowledge (Norman, 1993).
Though there is commonality present in the challenges that arise when people work in a group, there is little commonality when it comes to the current research around group cognition. One of the primary reasons for this is the lack of alignment when it comes to the terms used in current research. Among the many terminologies used are collective mind, shared understand and team mental models (Akkerman et al., 2007). Each of these terms does, indeed, refer to group cognition and the derivation of collective meaning that result from the activities of a group. In addition to the varied terminologies present, there is also confusion between conceptual developments and empirical results in the field. This confusion is amplified, as a number of articles and studies do not define much of the terminology that they use, leading to a lack of clarity amongst concepts (Akkerman et al., 2007). An example of this terminology is socially shared meaning. The term shared alone can mean distributed, experienced, or partaking in a consensus (Thompson and Fine, 1999). It should be noted that the Thompson and Fine (1999) article noted a dozen terms that they found in their research to describe group cognition.
In addition to the lack of definitive terminology, also present is a lack of complete terminology and references included when alternative terminology is used that may be in alignment with the same concept in other literature. Akkerman et al. (2007) refer to this terminology as cross-fertilization. Another limitation of current research is the very definition of group research, as it was once regarded as the effect on an individual’s cognition in response to the hypothetical presence of others (Thompson and Fine, 1999). It was not until later that group research took the form of studying groups as entities of people (Thompson and Fine, 1999).
Thompson, Peterson, and Kray (1995) specified three classifications of research around social cognition: social cognition, socially shared cognition, and contextualized social cognition. Social cognition focuses on the individual and their own cognitive processes around social information rather than social interaction. Socially share cognition focuses on the cognition that comes as a product of interaction. Contextualized social cognition examines the individual in the midst of the social interaction and has an emphasis on that individual’s goal for the interaction.
Zajonc and Adelmann (1987) are responsible for an article on group meaning on which much further research was based in their article Cognition and Communication: A Story of Missed Opportunities. Zajonc and Adelmann identified five classifications, or levels, of meaning: cultural, dyadic, interaction, individual and unconscious. The common factor that distinguishes cultural meaning is one’s culture or nation. The common factor that distinguishes dyadic meaning is a group that is tied together either by a common cause; this group shares understanding that others – people outside the group – would not. Examples of a dyadic group include sororities, families, and groups of coworkers. Zajonc and Adelmann explain that there are customs and traditions in the dyadic group that may not be understood by an outsider, an example they provide is a ritualistic Sunday night dinner, the customs surrounding which are understood and expected of the group. Interactional meaning refers to a very specific circumstance, situation or person. The meaning in interactional meaning is the most short-term meaning; it is present during one event or circumstance, and would not usually again be referenced. Individual meaning is meaning derived from one individual and his or her own experience; it could colloquially be described as one having an inside joke with his or herself. Unconscious meaning refers to meaning that takes place without the cognizance of the individual, as many cognitive processes do.
Collective meaning is a theory that focuses on the concept that group cognition extends beyond understanding collective comprehension into understanding of the shared perceptions, behaviors and interpretations that come as a result of a group embarking on shared activities (Thompson and Fine, 1999). The theory of collective meaning, or interpersonal meaning, refute the idea that cognition is a solo act that is independent of stimuli that may influence it (Levine, Resnick, & Higgins, 1993). This theory may have effect on the research currently available, as most experimental and correlational studies that have been done in the past focus on individual outcomes (Barron, 2000). Most environments in which group activities take place, however, tend to focus on individual outcomes as a measure of success and individuals are assessed independently from one another (Barron, 2000).
The 1999 study by Leonard Springer, Mary Elizabeth Stanne and Samuel S. Donovan, Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis, studied two different kinds of group learning in the classroom, cooperative learning and collaborative learning. These two types of learning appear in multiple studies, articles and literatur, and are the most widely used terms encountered during research for this literature review. Springer, Stanne and Donovan describe cooperative learning as consisting of groups working toward a common goal. Cooperative learning is likely to hold each member of the group accountable or offer reward to members of the group when their collective goal is achieved. Cooperation may be established when each member of the class is given their own role (Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway, and Krajcik, 1996). Cooperative learning is described by Barron (2000) as interactions in which peers constantly evaluate the output of one another, and also emphasizes the presence of complementary roles that peers play for one another. Collaborative learning as a much more informal kind of learning that lacks the structure that cooperative learning does. Collaborative learning may consist of the negotiation of goals and the amalgamation of knowledge and problem-solving techniques from the group; there is usually not a group goal that is communicated in collaborative learning. The distinguishing factor behind collaborative learning is that it results in negotiated goals and “socially constructed” knowledge (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Collaborative learning, ideally, is meant to build knowledge of the group as a whole though calling on the expertise of others (Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway, and Krajcik, 1996). Collaborative learning is more likely to lend itself to difficulties present in both types of group learning, however, such as highly adept students dominating group discussion. This may be because students may be less motivated to perform in a group when there are no rewards to ensure that each student participates and cooperates (Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway, and Krajcik, 1996). It is noted that both collaborative and cooperative learning can take on many forms, and are not considered to intersect with one another, but to exist in a more parallel pattern.
Also outlined in the 1999 study from Springer, Stanne and Donovan are three perspectives that seek to explain phenomena behind group learning. These perspectives are applicable to both collaborative learning and cooperative learning: the motivational perspective, the affective perspective and the cognitive perspective (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). The motivational perspective states that reward systems are detrimental to group learning, and competitive learning can be especially toxic as it leads to students who do not find value in the success of the group as a whole. The affective perspective states that students are most motivated by intrinsic factors such as a genuine desire to learn, and this is more effective to rely on than providing any extrinsic motivations. Springer, Stanne and Donovan (1999) describe this as “democratic teaching and learning processes. The cognitive perspective states that learning in a group is an ideal condition to promote maximum achievement. This is because of the cognitive growth that is achieved through discussions of the material, cognitive conflicts that are worked through, the exploration of critical thinking skills surrounding reasoning and decision-making in the group.
The structure of the group also plays a role in the group’s success. One way that a compatible group may be formed is through the evaluation of compatibility scores as per the model derived by Shutz (1958). Shutz believe that each person has his or her own needs, characterized by different levels of inclusion, control and affection. Shutz suggested that the compatibility of a pair might be derived from the measure of how much an individual has these needs him or herself, and how much they desire it from others. An ideal pairing may consist of one member with a high need for control paired with another with a low need or desire for control. Other elements of group structure may include nomothetic roles and idiographic structure aspects. Nomothetic roles are people in roles who carry out roles due to their function of society (Shutz 1958). An example of this is a teacher, as they have a societal duty to teach that is independent of their individual characteristics. Idiographic aspects of structure focus on aspects of the personality (of teachers, for instance) that may affect how routines occur in the classroom (Shutz 1958). These two concepts are considered complimentary elements of structure; one cannot be evaluated without the other and they exist in the classroom in proportion to one another. A class that is structured with a higher proportion in the nomothetic will be more likely to follow the rules of the school more rigidly and allow for less individual expression in the classroom; a class that is structured with a higher proportion in the idiographic may allow for each student to study what is most interesting to them (Shutz 1958).
In the 2006 article by Piet Van den Bossche, Wim H. Gijselaers, Mien Segers and Paul A. Kirschner, group cognition is explored using the verbiage “team cognition,” and through the discussion of two perspectives used to understand team cognition: the social perspective and the cognitive perspective. The social perspective focuses on the social factors that are most likely to contribute to the success in teamwork. The cognitive perspective focuses on the result of teamwork on cognitive processes (Bossche et al., 2006). Imperative to the success of the team is how problems were able to be worked out together; this may be an indicator of the overall success of the group, second to the level of functioning each individual in the group may have (Barron, 2000). Another indicator of team success may have are structural factors, such as the size of the group, the composition of the group (such as ability level of each learner) and the nature of the tasks being executed. (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O’Malley, 1996). Bossche et al. state that little research has been done in the past around how “team-level beliefs” – beliefs that the team shares around their team’s relations – and what effect this has on group learning and on group functioning. One factor that lends itself to a team’s learning behavior is their sense of psychological safety. This psychological safety, for the purposes of understanding group cognition, consists of building an environment that makes each member of the team feel safe to take risks interpersonally (Edmondson, 1999). For a team to be considered psychologically safe, this belief of safety must be shared (Bossche et al., 2006). Psychological safety lends itself to effective learning in teams because it assists in mitigating concerns about the potential for embarrassment (Edmondson, 1999). On the other end of things, if the classroom or team environment is not supportive, this may result in tensions and the determent of learning (Shutz, 1958). In more extreme situations, individuals who feel anxious in the presence of their environment or peers may be unable to accurately perceive the world in addition to the task at hand (Shutz, 1958). Another factor that may correlate with the success of learning in a team is cohesion. Cohesion is a term that may be distinguished in two ways: The first of which is task cohesion, which is a team’s commitment to the completion of a task (Mullen & Copper, 1994). The second of these is social cohesion, which refers to the bond between group members (Bossche et al., 2006). Thusly, members of a team may be operationally inclined to complete a task because of task cohesion simply to derive the satisfaction of completing that task (Bossche et al., 2006). Members of a team may be inclined to put forth effort a complete a task because of social cohesion as a result of their commitment to the other members of their group. While both of these can lend themselves to successful, desirable learning outcomes, there is the potential for social cohesion to lead to the indiscriminate acceptance of solutions. (Bossche et al., 2006). Another determinant of group learning efficacy is group potency, defined as the “the collective belief of group members that the group can be effective” (Shea & Guzzo, 1987a, p. 26). High levels of team potency positively correlate with a team’s motivation and performance (Bossche et al., 2006). One of the benefits of a high level of potency present in a team is that it may allow the team to move through adversity for more easily and, thusly, allow them to process information more effectively. (Gully et al., 2002).
The classroom setting is a significant factor when it comes to group cognition. Containing the peer-group, teacher, predetermined curricula and more, the classroom is ultimately a large social configuration (Schmuck & Schmuck, 1971). Understanding what goes on in the classroom requires an understanding of the relations between students, among student and teacher, and the nature of the peer relations that are present (Schmuck & Schmuck, 1971). Peer relations, for instance, may have the potential to promote group cognition or inhibit it based on the quality of the relations occurring in the classroom. There are even more factors: the organization of the school building, the district that the building is located, and other social forces around it; these, too, are components of the classroom (Schmuck & Schmuck, 1971).
Team learning behaviors do not just take place by putting groups of people together (Bossche et al., 2006). As long as there is conceptual confusion and a lack of clarity surrounding group cognition and how it is defined, there is no scientifically sound way on which to build upon existing research without endless cross-referencing and research. Great benefit would come to both further research and group learning if there were defined concepts around group cognition. This said, it would be advantageous to align on one, coherent theory of group cognition that will allow further research and research that is able to built upon past research. Furthermore, true empirical research cannot be done without clarity around these concepts. Even college students do not distinguish between cooperative and collaborative learning unless they are pressured to do so, in which case they often cannot differentiate between the two (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). There is room for further research to be done on the impact of the structure of the group, including group size, and their effect on achieving mutual cognition. In this literature review, there contains a significant amount of concepts and terminology. Although many of these concepts and terms overlap in their meaning and connotation, they do not do so explicitly so that the theories around group cognition may be simplified, and empirical data may not be as applicable as in other areas of psychology that contain more specific definition.
Among the many benefits that may come as a result of doing further research into understanding group cognition could be the understanding the nature of groups in conflict and how to support them. This could, perhaps, lead to the ability to diffuse conflicts between groups. As a result of conducting future studies in this regard, we may be able provide educators with tools to keep their classrooms conflict-free or, at most, have the ability to mitigate or prevent a public safety issue that may occur as a result of conflict of groups. In addition, further research would allow for the potential to increase the efficacy of group learning as a whole. The 1999 study by Springer, Stanne and Donovan concluded that the majority of students are likely to learn information around (at least) Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics best from collaborative, small-group work – but there is still a need to focus on learning rather than teaching. Further research in the area of group cognition may lend a basis through which implementation of small group learning may become more widespread. Furthermore, it is imperative that further research also includes more than just measurements of individual learning as an indication of success (Barron, 2000) as there must also be measurement of the collective knowledge of the dyad. There is a significant need for more research and understanding around group learning in the classroom as it is imperative for the student (and person) to be able to work effectively in groups, as this will lend itself also to the ability to relate well with others.
Works Cited
Akkerman, S., Bossche, P. V., Admiraal, W., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Simons, R., &
Kirschner, P. (2007). Reconsidering group cognition: From conceptual confusion
to a boundary area between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives? Educational Research Review, 2(1), 39-63. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.02.001
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436.
Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with Peers: From
Small Group Cooperation to Collaborative Communities. Educational Researcher,
25(8), 37-40. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.umasslowell.idm.oclc.org/stable/1176492
Bossche, P. V., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and
Cognitive Factors Driving Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments.
Small Group Research, 37(5), 490-521. doi:10.1177/1046496406292938
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research
on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans
and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-211).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
Garcia, E. Guzmán‐Ramírez and C. Pacheco, CoLFDImaP: A web‐based tool for
teaching of FPGA‐based digital image processing in undergraduate courses,
Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 23, 1, (92-108), (2013).
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Johi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of
team- efficacy, potency and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis
as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.
Levine, J., Resnick, L., & Higgins, E. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual
Review of Psychology, 44, 585-612.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210-227.
Norman, D.A. (1993). Cognition in the head and in the world. An introduction to the
special issue on situated action. Cognitive Science News. 17. 1-6.
O’Donnell, A. M. (2015). Group Processes in the Classroom. International Encyclopedia
of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 416-421. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-
8.92078-6
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987a). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan
Management Review, 28, 25-31.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. (1997). Effects of small-group learning on
undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Theiner, G., Allen, C., & Goldstone, R. (2011, July 29). Recognizing Group Cognition.
Retrieved October 12, 2018, from http://www.academia.edu/311456/Recognizing_Group_Cognition
Thompson, L. (1998). A New Look at Social Cognition in Groups. Basic & Applied
Social Psychology, 20(1), 3–5. Retrieved from https://umasslowell.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=18331606&site=ehost-live
Thompson, L., & Fine, G. A. (1999). Socially Shared Cognition, Affect, and Behavior: A
Review and Integration. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 3(4), 278. Retrieved from https://umasslowell.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3181390&site=ehost-live
Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Kray, L. (1995). Social context in negotiation: An
information processing perspective. In R. Kramer & D. Messick (Eds.),
Negotiation as a social process. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 841–873). New York, NY: MacMillan.
Zajonc, R. B., & Adelmann, P. K. (1987). Cognition and communication: A story of
missed opportunities. Social Science Information, 26, 3-30.