AA Meeting for Group Influence Assignment (((((Kim Woods Only))))

AA Meeting for Group Influence

PSY/400

May 27, 2016

AA Meeting for Group Influence

It has been said that unity is a strength, and a single word can work miracles. It has been the sole foundation of social groups that started being formed across the nation in 1997, with the aim creating a social cohesion and helping certain individuals in their hour of need. Some groups focus on health matters; others focus on addiction while other concentrates on integrating old war and US Iraq War soldiers into the peaceful life in the society after having been psychologically affected by war. The Alcoholics Anonymous (The AA Group) is one among the many social gatherings of today. I noticed such when I first visited last Saturday.

Physical Arrangement

AA meetings can occur anywhere, in an open or a closed setting. The meeting I attended was in a community social hall. Individuals were arranged in rows of three, each row containing three seats. At the front, there was a raised platform like a dais with multiple public relations instruments, some musical instruments tables, and chairs. Usually, the members sat on the chairs, new members mixing with old members (Sunstein & Hastie, 2015). The AA's committee members and other associates sat in front of the audience, with other representatives from other social organizations such as LifeRing Secular Recovery, Friends of Nature, Celebrate Recovery, and Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS) (Sunstein & Hastie, 2015). It was a traditional group setting. However, one thing was unique. The walls were decorated with charts, fact maps, Sobriety Slogans, and timetables detailing the group’s upcoming activities.

The group’s composition was also unique. I had read from articles that in a majority of AA meetings, racial diversity is usually low, with sexes ranging at a ratio of 65%-35% male to female (Tonigan, Connors& Miller, 2013). However, this time, it was unique. The group seemed heterogeneous regarding ethnicity while the male to female sex ratio was 55% to 45%. This implies a racial integration and the breaking of traditional norms. In the past, the issue of alcoholism was stereotyped to men, with ladies having a small percentage. However, with the current rate of modernization, alcoholism is becoming a related problem for both genders (Tonigan, Connors& Miller, 2013). Again, it has always been traditionally known that the aged, preferably 47 years and above are burdened by alcoholism. However, the group member’s age ranged from 18-43years.

Purpose, Mission, and Goals

The primary purpose of AA is to create a group of individuals who share hopes, strengths and experience to solve common problems and also help others recover from alcoholism. AAs mission statements vary with regions (Sunstein & Hastie, 2015). However, the mission statement for the group I attended is to carry, disseminate and reveal the purpose of AA, and the benefits of AA to that alcoholic who is still suffering from the hands alcoholism. Their goals are to create awareness of the dangers of alcoholism, unite members, create strength and motivate each other on the journey to sobriety from alcohol.

Primary Participators, Group Norms, and Roles

The AA group has some facilitators, probably trained in psychology and counseling. However, it being an anonymous group, a publication is not advised, and the group's facilitators are not mentioned (Sunstein & Hastie, 2015). Furthermore, the group adheres to several norms of interaction. For instance, albeit more valid for women than men, hugging is typical, notwithstanding when individuals do not have any acquaintance with each other well. There is hardly any handshaking. Unless you are new to AA, if you do not take part in hugging, it is suspected that there is something "wrong" with you. Hence, this norm is based on first looking at logic, then followed by consistency. If it’s logical to hug a friend, and individuals often do it, then any new member must follow it as a norm (Sunstein & Hastie, 2015). The new individual may, or may not, take part in hugging. If a person is new to the group, they are pardoned. Hugging is not intended to hurt, but rather to welcome a person into the group. Additionally, when a person is new to AA and does not have much constant moderation, physical closeness boundaries are more noteworthy, and this is comprehended and regarded by the group (Tonigan, Connors& Miller, 2013). There does not appear to be as much physical space required for solace while individuals are in the AA group as they need when they are not with other AA individuals.

It is a taboo to get a patron of the opposite sex, despite the fact that it happens. Inside the group, cultivating associations with all individuals who are energized; however, it is recommended for the women to be upheld by the women, and the men to be bolstered by the men. It is particularly valid amid the principal year of ceaseless moderation and amid troublesome times. It is additionally valid with the part of sponsorship (Sunstein & Hastie, 2015). Nobody is ever exiled from the group, as per the group's settled upon conventions. A significant portion of the general population had never met; they met in Alcoholics Anonymous. There are particular cases of individuals who had drank together, yet an adage among group individuals is that they are "individuals who typically would not blend." The fact that liquor addiction is a sickness is a key uniting factor.

Communication Patterns

Communication within the group is based on intuition. Consequently, the group’s chairperson is responsible for dealing with conflicts and issues when and in the event they arise. For instance, the director requests silence whenever they feel the group members are deviating from the main theme or taking too long in their discussions (Kirkpatrick, 2016). The executive has control over the talk of the meeting: the meeting begins with him/her saying "My name is “so” and I am a dipsomaniac." This is trailed by a moment of hush, the Serenity Prayer, perusing of the Preamble, announcements, driving the Lord's Prayer, and so forth.

When it is the ideal opportunity for another member to share, it is done either by raising hands and being perceived by the seat, or simply getting out, "My name is “so” and I am an alcoholic (Kirkpatrick, 2016). " People here reflect on their inner parts (introversion) and decide to share their experience in an attempt to influence the outer world (extraversion) or the audience. All individuals are relied upon to present themselves in this same way and be mindful toward others when they are sharing. It is the way one is required to present themselves before talking. If somebody does not do this, another member will yell out, "Who are you?" since it conflicts with the inferred arrangement of the meeting for a man to begin talking until they have recognized themselves along these lines (Kirkpatrick, 2016). Turn-taking is esteemed by the members; while one individual is sharing, others listen mindfully, and cross-talk (talking while another is talking or asking direct, extension inquiries) is not permitted by the group.

Some dialect usually used inside the group has been embraced from the strides, conventions, or the Big Book: stir (signifying "make"), amends, higher force, moral stock, weakness (talked about as a positive thing), and so forth. Language used by member’s ranges from higher registers to mixed up. Dialect and exchanges are confined to issues as they identify with liquor addiction. There is a considerable measure of coincidental learning, for instance: “Read the book! Call your supporter! Go to 90 meetings in 90 days!" and so on (Kirkpatrick, 2016). This happens, for the most part prior and then afterward the meeting. The guidelines and dialect of the group are strengthened by member dialogs and behaviors, for the most part previously, then after the fact the meeting, albeit in some cases instruction in this limit happens amid the meeting. One does not need to be straightforwardly required in correspondence to hear and see things identified with their recovery from liquor addiction in AA group meetings.

Sense of Identity and member attitudes

The majority of the members shared a sense of identity, basing on the notion that all had at one time been addicts of alcohol, struggled out of the addiction or are still struggling. Motivated by the ideology that if alcohol did not kill them, it made them strong enough to resist it. Consequently, the group members fostered an environment of understanding and common identity. Through these, they all attained friendly attitude towards each other and even opened up to share their experiences without remorse or shame. In fact, it became an avenue where people could reveal almost all the evil things they did for money and alcohol, ask for forgiveness and be accepted without being judged. Consequently, such activities and attitudes only ended up uniting the group, directing it almost through all the stages of group development. The non-judgmental attitude cemented the relationship until when the members identified with each other with a common goal of staying sober.

Group Think & Conclusion

Finally, it became clear that the members were vulnerable to group think, and cases of bounded rationality were highly possible. This is because as the group progressed from storming to norming, individuals were almost accepting to everything the chairman said. At the point of conformity, individuals hardly thought about themselves, but with the group in the big picture (Kreitler, & Kreitler, 2014). Consequently, it just became unnatural for oppositions to occur, even was clear that some individuals had better ideas and suggestions in mind, but feared to raise them to avoid opposition from other group members.

References

Kirkpatrick, K, J. (2016). "Interpreting AA (and other 12-step) Meetings." American Sign Language Interpreting Resources. Retrieved from: http://asl_interpreting.tripod.com/situational_studies/kejk1.htm

Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, H. (2014). The cognitive foundations of personality traits. New York, N.Y: Plenum Press.

Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2015). Wiser: Getting beyond groupthink to make groups smarter. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Tonigan, J, S., Connors, J, G., & Miller, R, W. (2013). Special Populations in Alcoholic Annonymous, 22 (4):281-285.