This document summarizes a group project analyzing dynamics within a social problem research project group. The group's goal was to generate commitment for individuals with ADHD by challenging stigmas. Group members collaborated with outside organizations and planned an event with a speaker, music, and projects. The summary discusses challenges like differing subgroup goals, one member's lack of contribution, and differing views on whether ADHD is a learning disability. It emphasizes the importance of balancing individualism and collectivism to achieve group goals.

1. Running head: GROUP ANALYSIS 1
Group Analysis
Erin N. Bosman
University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire

2. GROUP ANALYSIS 2
Group Analysis
My Social Problem Research Project group consisted of Jennifer Oppor, Jordan
Koski, Emily Johnson, Ethan Kilgore, Micaela Haupert, and April Westrum, and Me
(Erin Bosman). Our group had an end goal to generate commitment to soaring above
stigmas surrounding learning disabilities, and more specifically soaring above stigmas
surrounding Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). We focused on ADHD
for our social problem. That's our overall task, and interest of the group. To be successful
as a group, teams must share a commitment to their goal or task. In order to be effective
in their approach to the end goal or purpose of a group, the members must unite and agree
to put the overall interest of the group above their own interests (Forsyth, 2014, pg.422-
423).
We collaborated with the Eye to Eye Organization and UW- Eau Claire's Services
for Students with Disabilities Office in order to reach our end goal of generating
commitment for individuals with ADHD. Our SPRP group organized and executed an
event to help promote and generate commitment for the Eye to Eye organization, and for
individuals with ADHD in general. We had live music, a comedian, a speaker (Maddy
Mahoney) from the Eye to Eye organization, and various projects that the organization
uses in their organization's monthly meetings. We challenged individuals to think about
stigmas associated with ADHD, and how they can challenge those stigmas.
"Higher team function is linked with higher team cohesion. Based off this study,
individuals with diverse levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance can potentially
increase teams’ achievements and quality of work, depending on the team’s ability to
ensure cohesiveness." (Lavy, Bareli, & Ein-Dor, 2015, pg. 46). In order for a group to

3. GROUP ANALYSIS 3
achieve task cohesion, they must have group- level motivation. Task cohesion is the
dedication shared by the individuals comprising a group to complete a goal that requires
the effort of the whole group. In order for a group to remain cohesive and on task, they
must have group- oriented motivation rather than personal motivation (Forsyth, 2014,
pg.137). They must focus on wanting all group members to be successful rather than
focusing on only themself, and their own success.
When we formed as a group, we had to combine two smaller groups with two
different interests together. The goals the two subgroups had in mind could not
coordinate with each other easily, international problems and ADHD. Because the group
wanting to focus on ADHD was larger, the other group put the main interest of the group
above their own interests. We were able to focus on our overall project and our want to
help someone in the community, leading to our overall end goal to generate commitment
to soar above stigmas associated with ADHD.
The ability to work cohesively on a shared goal together has definitely helped us
to have higher team functioning. We are all able to understand our main goal, and to split
that up between group members. Individuals tend to vary in their resource level for
contribution, which can affect their public good. A public good is an individually
contributed factor that benefits all members of the group (Frank, 2010). When members
don't fill their obligation to contribute in a group, it is termed a public goods dilemma
(Forsyth, 2014, pg.442).
In my social problem research project group, the public goods dilemma was
observed through one of our group members who missed many of our meetings and
planning for our community dent. That member also left the event planned for our

4. GROUP ANALYSIS 4
"community dent" a little early. Throughout the project that member had kept in contact
with me, but not the rest of the group. I found tasks and made requests for that member.
However, they did not effectively follow through on the majority of the tasks they
received, leading to the public goods dilemma being seen in our group. One member is
contributing less, but still will receive a fairly equivalent grade to the rest of our group.
They had very little contribution to the public good. However, They also are not excluded
for their lack of contribution and cooperation.
Social influence is described as "interpersonal activities and processes that change
other people" (Forsyth, 2014, pg. 203). All individuals have at some point influenced
someone, to come to a decision or idea, and vice versa. In relation to group dynamics, if
multiple group members hold one ideal, they may pressure and influence the remaining
members into that same ideal.
In my SPRP group, it was difficult to collaborate and discuss every single part of
the project as a group. We had members who have internships or jobs on top of their
course schedule, and other organizations that they are involved in which made it highly
difficult to coordinate many meetings outside of class time. In situations where it is
challenging to collaborate every detail of a project, it is common to split up the tasks.
Often times a couple of the group members will decide how to divide the various details
and parts of the project and create a list of tasks or sub-topics. Each group member then
goes through the list picking a task. In this we can also see social influence through the
subgroups needing to influence the other subgroups to comply with their ideas for the
project. After completing these tasks, we were able to consult the rest of the group

5. GROUP ANALYSIS 5
members and decide if our own work was sufficient or if it needed collaboration between
other group members as well.
When working in groups, it is important to try and understand all perspectives and
ideas. This can be difficult because of the influence others can provide on each other.
Social influence and compliance tasks cause others to change their input, even though
they may feel differently. It is important to work to overcome these influences, in order to
respect all group members and their opinions.
One concept that my SPRP group struggled with was the difference between
ADHD and learning disabilities. The majority of our group saw this as a controversial
perspective rather than as a fact, while I saw it as a fact. As a psychology major, I
acknowledge that ADHD is not a learning disability but that ADHD can coexist with
learning disabilities. ADHD is classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder, which can
lead to learning disabilities. "ADHD is not considered to be a learning disability. It can
be determined to be a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), making a student eligible to receive special education services. However, ADHD
falls under the category “Other Health Impaired” and not under “Specific Learning
Disabilities.”("ADHD", n.d.)" Overall, learning disabilities have both mental and
physical aspects (such as dyslexia) while ADHD is mostly neurological, with mental
aspects.
After attempting to show my other group members the statistics and research
behind this distinction between ADHD and learning disabilities, I attempted to
understand their perspective. A couple members of our group have ADHD and are
convinced that it is a learning disability, purely because they are allowed education

6. GROUP ANALYSIS 6
accommodations. While this is true, I still was not able to fully accept their argument
against ADHD not being a learning disability. However, for the final outcome of our
project, I decided to not focus on this and to focus on generating commitment for those
individuals with ADHD. Social influence caused me to change my input and opinion for
our project. However, my overall opinion did not change, and I respected the perspective
of other group members.
It is important for individuals to hold their own opinions and perspectives, as well
as hold overall opinions for the overall group purpose. Individuals can have a higher level
of individualism or a higher level of collectivism, or a balance of the two traits. I
personally, think that I have a balance of the two traits. Either way, most individuals have
some level of a need to belong whether that's with their family or within an organization
of some sort. Individualism and collectivism can vary with each individual and often can
be confused (and sometimes correlated) with the idea of being selfish or selfless. Largely,
Individualism and collectivism can reflect on social identity within a group and whether
individuals are being included or excluded.
Generally, My personality tends to reflect a balance of both collectivism and
individualism. When with primary level groups, such as family or close friends, I tend to
be more unique reflecting individualism. I enjoy having time to myself and need time
away from interacting. However, when I am working with social level groups, such as
through work or school, I tend to show more collectivism. I lean towards making sure the
whole group is included, happy, and no individuals are being ostracized before looking at
my own goals for the group. Within our SPRP group, I focused towards the end goal of

7. GROUP ANALYSIS 7
generating commitment for individuals with ADHD and soaring above stigmas associated
with ADHD.
Often times individuals with ADHD are told that they just need to focus more,
that they've had a little too much sugar, or that they say they have ADHD simply so they
can be medicated. Karen Pallarito wrote an article for CBS on Teens with ADHD, and
the fact that they often are bullied. "Teenagers who take drugs like Adderall and Ritalin
to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are twice as likely to be bullied
as their peers" (Pallarito, 2015). Some individuals with ADHD will even sell or trade
their prescriptions, which leads to bad connotations with these medications. According to
Linda Cottler, Individuals with ADHD aren't stigmatized for using this medication but
rather they are stigmatized for behaviors that their peers are not accepting of, such as the
struggle to listen and stay on task (Pallarito, 2015).
The event that my SPRP group held had the overall goal to generate commitment
for individuals with ADHD. In doing this we intended for individuals to soar above
stigmas associated with ADHD, and to understand the importance of treatment and
accommodations for students with ADHD. Maddy Mahoney, our connection with the
Eye to Eye Organization, stated that "fair does not always mean equal" in her speech
during our event. Sometimes having these accommodations, and inequalities, can lead to
fair results and treatment between all individuals. I also think that it is important that
individuals have a balance of individualism and collectivism, to fully respect this ideal of
fair not always being equal.
Throughout the past few months, I have developed a greater understanding of
group dynamics. The social problem research project allowed me to see the development

8. GROUP ANALYSIS 8
of a group as well as to experience the challenges and successes that the group
experienced. To be an effective group, members must share a commitment to an overall
purpose and the purpose of my group was to generate commitment for individuals with
ADHD. It is important for groups to be cohesive and to be able to overcome the
challenges of social influences, using each person's individualistic tactics and level of
collectivism to be effective in reaching their overall purpose.

9. GROUP ANALYSIS 9
References
ADHD. (n.d.). Retrieved November 22, 2015, from http://ldaamerica.org/types-of-
learning-disabilities/adhd/
Eastwick, P. W., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Is it a game? Evidence for social influence in
the virtual world. Social Influence, 4(1), 18-32. doi:10.1080/15534510802254087
Forsyth, D. (2014). Group dynamics (6th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
Frank, S. A. (2010). A general model of the public goods dilemma. Journal Of
Evolutionary Biology, 23(6), 1245-1250. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.01986.x
Lavy, S., Bareli, Y., & Ein-Dor, T. (2015). The Effects of Attachment Heterogeneity and
Team Cohesion on Team Functioning. Small Group Research, 46(1), 27-49.
doi:10.1177/1046496414553854
Pallarito, K. (2015, November 20). Teens who take ADHD meds are bullied more.
Retrieved November 22, 2015, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teens-on-
adhd-meds-are-bullied-more/