Phases of Conflict in Small Group Development: A Markov Analysis

Abstract

Previous research on conflict emanates from a variety of theoretical perspectives and yields inconsistent conclusions. The purpose of this study was to describe the nature of conflict and communication by answering the following question: How does conflict function in the process of achieving group consensus? Transcriptions of classroom groups were subjected to a Markov statistical analysis. The results of the study indicated that phases of conflict are present throughout group interaction. Three phases were discovered and designated as interpersonal conflict, confrontation, and substantive conflict. During the interpersonal conflict phase, conflict is indirect and probably stems from individual differences. While conflict is direct and most abundant during the confrontation phase, it functions positively (i.e., generates interpretation) and facilitates decision making during the substantive conflict phase. Results from this analysis suggest numerous implications concerning the nature ofconflict and communication.

A Stochastic Analysis of Communication Development in Self-Analytic Groups

“…Coders were instructed to code each message, a message being defined as each verbal utterance by a single individual until interrupted by another person. This definition of message is consistent with the one generally used in Markov analysis (e.g., Ellis & Fisher, 1975;Parks, Farace, & Rogers, 1975;Parks, Farace, Rogers, Albrecht, & Abbot, 1976) and proposed for interaction research (e.g., . The contiguity of messages was preserved by coding the interact, two messages in sequence, as well as individual acts (single messages).…”

The future of small group communication research: Revitalization or continued good health?

“…The early work on decision development (see, for example, Fisher, 1970aFisher, , 1970bGouran & Baird, 1972;Leathers, 1969Leathers, , 1970Stech, 1975) and later extensions to the relational aspects of communication (e.g., Ellis, 1979;Ellis & Fisher, 1975;Fisher, Drecksel, & Werbel, 1978) reflected the assumption that interaction at any given point is almost exclusively a function of the utterances that have preceded and a major determinant of those that follow. In short, those conducting studies began to treat group communication as if it represented some sort of closed system, with virtually everything that occurs being accounted for by the characteristics of utterances.…”

“…Some research has also dealt with what communicative exchanges reveal about the ways in which group members appear to relate themselves to one another, that is, symmetrically or asymmetrically. In fact, we have learned quite a bit about this aspect of group interaction (see, for example, Ellis, 1979;Ellis & Fisher, 1975;Poole & Roth, 1989a, 1989b.…”

Detecting groupthink: Methods for observing the illusion of unanimity

“…Where pressure against doubts has been exerted successfully, few doubts are voiced and conflict is avoided. Conflict and the absence of conflict could be detected by applying a category system developed by Ellis and Fisher (1975). They operationalized conflict as "a disagreeing interact."…”