Title of Paper

Sub Title

Joseph J. Green

Northern Arizona University

Inconsistancy between course work and credit hours

Love that Pearson is gone

Test questions sometimes don’t seem to target valuable insight.

Some readings, such as Corina’s way, seem to be an awful lot of extra work to answer a few questions that seem tagently related to the course. Particularly for 1 credit courses that could be compared to 1.5 or 2 credit courses that are much less material.

Lessons seem to vary greatly in quality. With some, the reading material, presentations, and media are fantastic, yet with others, it is hard to navigate and seem to have little to do with the lesson, or at least, little to do with test questions.

Way too many foreign films. In some lessons, it makes sense, but others, I think it would make more sense to stick with English. If the course is about foreign films, or comparing techniques of foreign films to local films, that’s fine, though some seem to have foreign films that are trying to teach universal ideas that would be easier to grasp if not having to pay attention to subtitles and the filmography at the same time.


Social environment that a person within a group finds himself in has a dramatic affect on a person’s behaviour

Groups go through a series of five stages

Forming – figure out what they need to do, get together

Storming, everyone pushes their opinions and try to find status in the group

norming – norms are developed. Upper and lower extremes of individual opinion are cut off until the group finds a nice middle ground.

Performing – where real performance gains and accomplismenets of tasks happen

Adjourning – The groups have finished it’s tasks and wraps up the purpose of the grou and evenutally dissolves. (Smith, 2007)

Group norms develop over time until individual members accept a general average of what the group thought.

Muzafer Sherif found with agroup of individuals in an expiriment where they tried to judge the distance a spec of light had moved, had widely varying opinions, but over time the group came to a common ground. Even spoken to individually after the fact, they people stuck with what the group thought. Even if the expiriment was explained to them, they continued to stick with the group thik.

Members of a group are replaceable. When new memebers are introduced, they may have different thoughts, but over time, come to agree with the group.




Applying theory to groups

People have different opinions, but come to a middle ground after a while.






People have different opinions, but come to a middle ground after a while.




The songs




Leave and go to another state

General notes

Group of people watching presidental candidate (Kennedy)

singing together. Before 5th minute

People are quiet during Kennedy speech 5:00

Shaking everyone’s hands on the way out.

Group of according playing 0700

applause begins applause 0800

Humpfry kissing hands and shaking babies

Humpfry talking about caring about agriculture, influences negative connotations to the other group (his opponents) on their level of dedication to agriculture. 21:00

Someone laughs, everyone joins in a bit and applauses.

Try to make people leaugh “They like to see me squirm” (about asking tough questions)

Humpfry talks to his people. Telling them to make sure they are doing things in a specific way. Humpfry is unquestionably the boss. 23:00

Everyone is subbordinate. Telling woman what to do.

Kennedy suggesting that the people figure things out themselves 26:00

Kennedy team seems to push towards people thinking on their own

Kennedy team has a catchy song – chanting about voting for him – using the song “High Hopes” by Frank Sinatra with some altered lyrics

Crowd seems to split appart for Kennedy 29:00

Kennedy is very “we” focused instead of “I” focused 34:00

Kennedy is catholic, and we’re catholic too, I think that has a lot to do with it 39:00

Other’s say, they’d prefer a god fearing man

Other’s say, religion should stay out of politics. 39

Both camps have confirmation bias. They both believe, without a doubt, that their candidate will win 40:00

Groups are large. Every member doesn’t know every other member.

Humpfry folks feel great in the early results

Kennedy folks clearly look nervous and defeated in the early results

City votes comes out and knocks Humpfry over. 2:1 Kennedy

The people all believed their group, despite their earlier confidence.

Rural and city folk prefer different sides. Kennedy for city, Humpfrey for rural, rual has little say in presidential matters


=======================Judgment At Nuremberg===================


Find people to perside over the case. Get everyone together.


Get the basic oppinion from each side


Captin is formal

Judge requests informality

Captin submits

Judge doesn’t want servants.

Senator says he does, for sake of the servants

Judge aquests


prosecution and defense do their roles. Judges do their roles. Sentences and context are executed, disstening opinion read.


Person complains of horn, other joins in.

Judge Haywood talks to Harrison. Harrison is a captin from West Point. Haywood tells him that he feels uncomfortable with all the formality. Requests a bit of informality. Harrison accepts a middle ground and calls him “Judge”

and all this formality kinda gets me down a little” 0934

Judge says having three servents makes him feel like a fool. The Senator mentions that it helps them too, they’re able to eat, and the judge accepts. 10:00


People on trial answer not-guilty


The defense has made their statement. Proc and Def are of different oppinions. Proc says these people failed to administer true justice (as judges), Def said that they are not responsible for the laws in their country, only to uphold them. Judge Haywood doesn’t know what to think.

Nazism itself. People feel into each other.

Judges fall into doing their job, group think

Dr Wieck 42:00 – Swore to the “Servant Loyalty Oath of 1934” Because everyone did, it was mandatory. He also renouced his position as a judge to avoid wearing the swashtika. Yet, still took the oath. An oath that allowed Hitler to gain such power.

52:00 Servants. What could we do?

1:03 – Mr. Rudolph Petersen admited to being sterilized. A nurse who said she was against it prepared him. A Dr. who said he was against it, did it anyway.

1:13 Max mentioned how the American people don’t care anymore. With the war over (for two years), focus was shifted elsewhere quickly.

1:19 The colonel lumps all germans as guilty for the crime of just trying to get along in their lives. The crimes of the state and her orders of her people against the individuals.

1:25 – song of unity with one another

1:44 – The Jew, Mr. Feldenstein, was placed on trial for pollutioon of the aryian race. Method of prosecution was simple rilecution. According to Mrs. Wallner.

1:55ish. One of the men on trial refused to believe it possible that so many people were murdered. After someone tells him of the possibility, he starts to believe. Most did not speak.

Courts and jouries themselves are all about a social group dynamic.

Two people, the prosecutor and defense, are expected to maintain the extreem oppinions. The rest of the people try to come to the common ground of belief.

2:22 sacrificial lamb story. People were desperate, to find a devil to blame, was to free themselves.

2:30 – Earnst Janning. He admited knowing other people were horrible, he admitted that he knew better, he admited that he walked among them. As someone who dedicated his life to justice, his guilt was strong. Janning is noted to be a wonerful and intellegent man, he even saw what may come, or what was likley to come, yet he went along with it anyway, and turned a blind eye. Group think.

2:41 Defendants give their final statements. They were all strongly not guilty in the beginning, they all seem to accept responsibility, however, they believe that they are not guilty for following the laws of their country.

Even the persecution started to feel that it’s more than just sentencing people guilty.

2:51:25 Judge: “That under a national crisis, ordinary, even able and extraordinary men can delude themselves into the commission of crimes so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination.” ~ Goes along with my own thing I came up with…

===============The Manchurian Candidate ==========================






Army group in brothel

Army group follows orders, get captured.

Major Bennett Marco reoccuring dream. All are brought together. Raymond Shaw is investigated. Major Marco is recommended to be put somewhere else for a while. Must be shell shock. 18:00

22:00, another member of the group starts dreaming of Raymond Shaw strangling the guy (GET HIS NAME) ; Raymond gives shaw his pistol; Shaw shoots who?

Bobby lembeck?


Shaw is ordered to kill his newspaper boss. The dr and the other guy make a decision to kill someone to test. The DR is against it at first, but submits to allowing it, first suggessting killing own personelle, then allowing for the boss guy.

1:11 Robert shaw talking about his pre-army fling. She may have saved his life, and they went on happily ever after until his mother ruined it.

Every grouping seems to be a pair, except for the commies in the dream

Commie folk do horrible things in the name of, what? I don’t even know. But at start of video

Shaw and Shaws mother dominant and subbordinate relationship.

First movie?

Groups of american people

Groups of candidates and their staff

Second movie?

A group prosiding over a group who had prosided over others

Third movie?

Multiple one on one relationships

Shaw, shaw’s mother

Shw’s mother, Shaw’s step father

The major and shaw

Shaw and the colonel?

Major and the girl

Some judgement groups

The major and the medical board

The commies in the dream

Drilled to remember imaginary events (the platoon)

He strangled Ed Mavole

Shot Bobby Lembeck

Killed Mr. Gaines (his boss)

was just a test

Killed Senator Jordan

Killed Jocelyn

His mother is his American operator????? Yup.


Lack of friends may have helped him go crazy

Studies should be done at the group level? Or the individual?

Manchu candidate is a group and individual thing


Manchu – Communisim win over capitalism

Nuremberg – Prevail in Justice

Primary – Win the primary


Manchu – Desire to overcome capitalism; desire to talk about dreams and reach out

Nuremberg – For what else is justice for?

Primary – Get’s the crowed going and cheering on their candidate

Jennifer George’s theory of group affective tone

Groups display collective mood states

Group mood may not be noticed by members of the grouping

Manchurian – Happy at the brothel

Nuremberg – Everyone seemed to fall into a mood of feeling for the prosecuted

Primary – Respective candidate crowds grew into a frenzy of cheering. Kennedies even more with the Sinatra rip.

Social Exchange Theory

Individuals try to maximize rewards and minimize costs

In groups, individuals surrender exclusive control over their outcomes

Members influence outcomes and actions of all other members

Manchu – Mother accepts control over her son

Nuremberg – Judges accept guilty verdict, with one dissenting opinon

Primary – The not kennedy guy force control over the group. Kennedy side seems to encourage thinking

Systems Theory

Unique results are obtained when a system is formed by creating dependency among formerly independent components. Groups are systems – collections of individual units that combine to form an integrated, complex whole.

Manchu – All members of the captured soldiers are combined to support the killing machine that is Shaw

Nuremberg – All members are combined to find a group judgement of the actions of others.

Primary – The many parts that combine to create a campaign.

Self-categorization theory

align people’s self-conceptions with their conception of the groups to wich they belong.

Manchu – Major aligned himself with PTSD or Shell Shock people’s

Nuremberg – Everyone begun feeling similarly at the end

Primary – Both camps found themselves to be winners and part of their candidates.


theoretical perspectives in group dynamics

Groupthink – Irving Janis

People among groups become so unified that they feel they can’t disagree with group decisions and fail to examine functions carefully. Loss of rationality due to strong pressures to conform.

Manchu – Not sure

Nuremberg – The defendants gave into the crimes due to strong pressures to conform. Even the best and brightest aren’t free from such failures

Primary – Everything the candidates said to their respective groups was met with applause


Studying Groups

Recurring-phase theories.

Three basic themes. Dependency on the leader, pairing among members for emotional support, and fight-flight reactions to a threat to the group.

Manch – Not sure

Nuremberg – Persiding judge, other honors, the defendants

Primary – very direct to the themes


Johnson Ch1 Group Dynamics

Goal theory

Mastery goals – Improvement

Performance goals – Looking good

Manchu – Improve ability to assasinate people as needed

Nuremberg – Improve justice

Primary – Look good

Level of aspiration

Compromise between ideal goals and more realistic expectations.

Manchu – Mother ends up with her own son – uses him anyway

Nuremberg – Ideal – justice; realistic – needs allies

Primary – Want to please all, but seek to please the majority

Realistic conflict theory

Intergroup conflicts are rational in the sense that groups have incompatible goals and are in compeition over scarce resources.

Manchu – Wanting to do a trial assaination vs preserving the weapon

Nuremberg – The judges at the end. One says nay, Haworth(main judge?) says yay.

Primary – The general public. Such things as pro or against a leader being god-fearing.


Group goals social interdependence and trust

Kurt lewin field theory


people behave baised on the interaction of the person and the environment.

Function of personal qualities and social environment.

Manchu – The soldiers are brainwashed

Nuremberg – defendants submit and stand with one another, prosecutor and defense fight

primary – Crowds go wild


the nature of group dynamics