Self-Organizing and Complexity Perspectives of Group Creativity:
                    Implications for Group Communication

Salazar, Abran J.

doi:10.4135/9781412990042.n10

Cited by 6 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, most of these theorists have not supplied models that capture the kind of emergent processes that they suggest (cf. Arrow et al, 2000; McGrath, 1997; Salazar, 2002), though Hewes (1996) does point toward something like the class of models discussed here and Contractor and Seibold (1993) present an alternative class of models. Still, the claim that nonlinear emergence is a property of groups is intuitively pleasing and suggestive because it hints at explanations for the role of communication in producing group outcomes that lay beyond SM’s grasp.…”

Section: Dual‐level Connectionist Models Of Communication Influence Imentioning

confidence: 91%

“…A number of group theorists (cf. Arrow et al, 2000; Contractor & Seibold, 1993; Hewes, 1996; McGrath, 1997; Salazar, 2002) have suggested that processes of social interaction in groups be viewed in terms of nonlinear, “emergent processes,” that is, processes where simple nonlinear relationship between (or among) variables can generate seemly unpredictable and complex behavior in the system as a whole. Unfortunately, most of these theorists have not supplied models that capture the kind of emergent processes that they suggest (cf.…”

Section: Dual‐level Connectionist Models Of Communication Influence Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To assess the viability of these intuitions, a class of alternative models of emergent processes in small groups needs to be presented and their worth assessed. The approach taken here, unlike other formulations (especially Arrow et al, 2000; McGrath, 1997; Salazar, 2002), does not start by assuming group processes are obviously emergent and, therefore, that emergence is a property of groups that should be the starting point for our theorizing. Instead, I present a class of models that represent justifiable claims about the dynamic interaction between psychological and communication processes in groups.…”

Section: Dual‐level Connectionist Models Of Communication Influence Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather than intuiting that complexity might apply to group interaction (cf. Arrow et al, 2000; McGrath, 1997; Salazar, 2002), the plausibility of dual‐level connectionist models can demonstrate it logically and simulate it digitally.…”

Section: Promises Problems and Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Influence of Communication Processes on Group Outcomes: Antithesis and Thesis

Hewes

2009

Human Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of communication processes on group outcomes is discussed from two perspectives, one in which influence does not exist and one in which influence is central. Formal models for both perspectives are presented as a means of bracketing discussion of the role of communication processes in group outcomes. The implications of these models for future theorizing are discussed. The first of these two models is an extension of Hewes's socioegocentric model (1986, 1996). The second class of formal model, duallevel connectionist models, integrates mental and communication processes to explain moment-by-moment communication behavior. This class of models is contrasted with important models of group influence that use atemporal aggregations of messages to predict group outcomes. Implications of dual-level connections models for the role of ''emergence'' in group theorizing, the limitations of Markovian models of group communication research, and the decomposability of psychological and communication processes are elaborated.

show abstract

Section: Dual‐level Connectionist Models Of Communication Influence Imentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Dual‐level Connectionist Models Of Communication Influence Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dual‐level Connectionist Models Of Communication Influence Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Promises Problems and Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Influence of Communication Processes on Group Outcomes: Antithesis and Thesis

Hewes

2009

Human Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Decades of research has documented the critical importance of higher levels of psychosocial complexity to constructive conflict processes and outcomes, including studies on conflict and cognition (Golec, 2002;Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955;Peng & Nisbett, 1999), social perception (Crisp & Hewstone, 2007;Quattrone, 1986), social identity (Peterson & Flanders, 2002;Roccas & Brewer, 2002), emotion (Averill, 1983;Gottman, Murray et al, 2002), communication (Conway, Suedfeld, & Tetlock, 2001;Tetlock, 1985;Tetlock, 1988), creativity, and innovation (Salazar, 2002), and social structures (LeVine & Campbell, 1972;Varshney, 2002). A recent theoretical model connects these varied strands of research and postulates differences in the basic underlying dynamics of intractable versus more manageable social conflict (Coleman, Vallacher, Nowak, & Bui-Wrzosinska, 2007;Vallacher et al, 2010;Vallacher, Coleman, Nowak, & Bui-Wrzosinska, 2011).…”

Section: Complexity and Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Get Complicated: The Effects of Complexity on Conversations over Potentially Intractable Moral Conflicts

Kugler

Coleman

2020

Negotiation Conflict Man Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflicts over important moral differences can divide communities and trap people in destructive spirals of enmity that become intractable. But these conflicts can also be managed constructively. Two laboratory studies investigating the underlying social–psychological dynamics of more tractable versus intractable moral conflicts are presented, which tested a core proposition derived from a dynamical systems theory of intractable conflict. It portrays more intractable conflicts as those, which have lost the complexity inherent to more constructive social relations and have collapsed into overly simplified, closed patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting that resist change. Employing our Difficult Conversations Lab paradigm in which participants engage in genuine discussions over moral differences, we found that higher levels of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral complexity were associated with more tractable conversations. Whereas in a pilot study we examined conflicts that naturally became more/less intractable, in our main experiment, high versus low levels of cognitive complexity were induced.

show abstract

Conditions for self‐organizing and creativity in blended learning environments

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to describe the conditions that give rise to and support self-organizing learning and creativity in blended learning environments. Particular attention is given to theoretical and practical suggestions and the roles of on-and offline working environments.Design/methodology/approach -Iterative grounded theory methodology is used to provide a case analysis of a course held at the University of Helsinki in 2010 in conjunction with theoretical discussions.Findings -Practical advice is provided for organizers of blended learning courses and a theoretical model for self-organizing in blended learning settings is proposed. Three key considerations of self-organizing -space, knowledge, and agency -were located and each of them is discussed with a focus on practical recommendations.Research limitations/implications -More research is needed, especially in a ''classroom'' context, in order to further clarify the links of different on-and offline learning environments and to reach a better understanding of the interplay between them.Practical implications -The approach presented here can be useful for implementing web-based blended learning methods in universities and other educational organizations.Originality/value -Technology-and teacher-oriented views of learning are not successful in the context of blended learning. Conditions for self-organizing and creativity are needed.

show abstract

Self-Organizing and Complexity Perspectives of Group Creativity: Implications for Group Communication

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The Influence of Communication Processes on Group Outcomes: Antithesis and Thesis

The Influence of Communication Processes on Group Outcomes: Antithesis and Thesis

Get Complicated: The Effects of Complexity on Conversations over Potentially Intractable Moral Conflicts

Conditions for self‐organizing and creativity in blended learning environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About