Class Notes (1,000,000)
CA (610,000)
York (40,000)
PSYC (5,000)
PSYC 3430 (100)
Lecture 10

PSYC 3430 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Group Dynamics, Myers–Briggs Type Indicator


Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC 3430
Professor
Peter Thompson
Lecture
10

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 1 pages of the document.
Which level of analysis (i.e., micro, meso, macro) do you believe is
most important in moving the construct/eld of group dynamics
forward? Why?
In order to keep the construct of group dynamics moving forward, it is
important to analyze groups at all three levels. However, focusing on
micro-level group analysis will give us the most accurate and greatest
understanding of groups. Every group (big or small) is made up unique
individuals with di&erent personalities. According to Fine, the
interaction between each group member creates the group’s overall
social stability. Individuals come together and form groups through a
shared a common interest or set of values and understanding (2010).
Ultimately, what makes a group are the very individuals within it.
Groups would otherwise be a mere abstract idea, if not impossible, if it
were not for the individuals that make it up.
Which measurement method do you (i.e., your group) believe has the
greatest predictive validity when measuring group performance?
When measuring group performance on the micro-level, it is important
to look closely at each individual’s unique traits and qualities that they
bring forth; in addition to as why they think and behave the way they
do. It is the combination of these factors that determines the group’s
overall structure. This assessment could be done through completing
the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (16MBTI), which will then sort
individuals into di&erent categories through self-report methods. It is
believed that the 16MBTI allows the greatest predictive validity when
measuring group performance.
References
Fine, G.A. (2012)
Group Culture and the Interaction Order: Local
Sociology on the Meso-Level. Annual Review of Sociology
, 38, 159-179.
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version