Group dynamics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Group dynamics refers to a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group (intragroup dynamics), or between social groups (intergroup dynamics). The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behavior, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies.[1] Group dynamics are at the core of understanding racism, sexism, and other forms of social prejudice and discrimination. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, business, and communication studies.

Intragroup dynamics

Intragroup dynamics (also referred to as ingroup-, within-group, or commonly just ‘group dynamics’) are the underlying processes that give rise to a set of norms, roles, relations, and common goals that characterize a particular social group. Examples of groups include religious, political, military, and environmental groups, sports teams, work groups, and therapy groups. Amongst the members of a group, there is a state of interdependence, through which the behaviors, attitudes, opinions, and experiences of each member are collectively influenced by the other group members.[10] In many fields of research, there is an interest in understanding how group dynamics influence individual behavior, attitudes, and opinions.

The dynamics of a particular group depend on how one defines the boundaries of the group. Often, there are distinct subgroups within a more broadly defined group. For example, one could define U.S. residents (‘Americans’) as a group, but could also define a more specific set of U.S. residents (for example, 'Americans in the South'). For each of these groups, there are distinct dynamics that can be discussed. Notably, on this very broad level, the study of group dynamics is similar to the study of culture. For example, there are group dynamics in the U.S. South that sustain a culture of honor, which is associated with norms of toughness, honor-related violence, and self-defense.[11][12]

[edit]Group formation

Group formation starts with a psychological bond between individuals. The social cohesion approach suggests that group formation comes out of bonds of interpersonal attraction.[2] In contrast, the social identity approach suggests that a group starts when a collection of individuals perceive that they share some social category (‘smokers’, ‘nurses,’ ‘students,’ ‘hockey players’), and that interpersonal attraction only secondarily enhances the connection between individuals.[2] Additionally, from the social identity approach, group formation involves both identifying with some individuals and explicitly not identifying with others. So to say, a level of psychologicaldistinctiveness is necessary for group formation. Through interaction, individuals begin to develop group norms, roles, and attitudes which define the group, and are internalized to influence behavior.[13]

Emergent groups arise from a relatively spontaneous process of group formation. For example, in response to a natural disaster, anemergent response group may form. These groups are characterized as having no preexisting structure (e.g. group membership, allocated roles) or prior experience working together.[14] Yet, these groups still express high levels of interdependence and coordinate knowledge, resources, and tasks.[14]

[edit]Group membership and social identity

The social group is a critical source of information about individual identity.[15] An individual’s identity (or self-concept) has two components: personal identity and social identity (or collective self). One’s personal identity is defined by more idiosyncratic, individual qualities and attributes.[2] In contrast, one’s social identity is defined by his or her group membership, and the general characteristics (or prototypes) that define the group and differentiate it from others.[2] We naturally make comparisons between our own group and other groups, but we do not necessarily make objective comparisons. Instead, we make evaluations that are self-enhancing, emphasizing the positive qualities of our own group (see ingroup bias).[2] In this way, these comparisons give us a distinct and valued social identity that benefits our self-esteem. Our social identity and group membership also satisfies a need to belong.[16] Of course, individuals belong to multiple groups. Therefore, one’s social identity can have several, qualitatively distinct parts (for example, one’s ethnic identity, religious identity, and political identity).[17]

Optimal distinctiveness theory suggests that individuals have a desire to be similar to others, but also a desire to differentiate themselves, ultimately seeking some balance of these two desires (to obtain optimal distinctiveness).[18] For example, one might imagine a young teenager in the United States who tries to balance these desires, not wanting to be ‘just like everyone else,’ but also wanting to ‘fit in’ and be similar to others. One’s collective self may offer a balance between these two desires.[2] That is, to be similar to others (those who you share group membership with), but also to be different from others (those who are outside of your group).

[edit]Group cohesion

In the social sciences, group cohesion refers to the processes that keep members of a social group connected.[4] Terms such as attraction, solidarity, and morale are often used to describe group cohesion.[4] It is thought to be one of the most important characteristics of a group, and has been linked to group performance,[19] intergroup conflict[20] and therapeutic change.[21]

Group cohesion, as a scientifically studied property of groups, is commonly associated with Kurt Lewin and his student, Leon Festinger. Lewin defined group cohesion as the willingness of individuals to stick together, and believed that without cohesiveness a group could not exist.[4] As an extension of Lewin’s work, Festinger (along with Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back) described cohesion as, “the total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group” (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950, p. 37[4]). Later, this definition was modified to describe the forces acting on individual members to remain in the group, termed attraction to the group.[4] Since then, several models for understanding the concept of group cohesion have been developed, including Albert Carron’s hierarchical model[22]and several bi-dimensional models (vertical v. horizontal cohesion, task v. social cohesion, belongingness and morale, and personal v. social attraction). Before Lewin and Festinger, there were, of course, descriptions of a very similar group property. For example, Emile Durkheim described two forms of solidarity (mechanical and organic), which created a sense of collective conscious and an emotion-based sense of community.

Intergroup dynamics

Intergroup dynamics refers to the behavioral and psychological relationship between two or more groups. This includes perceptions, attitudes, opinions, and behaviors towards one’s own group, as well as those towards another group. In some cases, intergroup dynamics is prosocial, positive, and beneficial (for example, when multiple research teams work together to accomplish a task or goal). In other cases, intergroup dynamics can create conflict. For example, underlying the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado, United States, intergroup dynamics played a significant role in Eric Harris’ and Dylan Klebold’s decision to kill a teacher and 14 students (including themselves).[26]

[edit]Intergroup conflict

According to Social Identity Theory, intergroup conflict starts with a process of comparison between individuals in one group (the ingroup) to those of another group (the outgroup).[27] This comparison process is not unbiased and objective. Instead, it is a mechanism for enhancing one’s self-esteem.[2] In the process of such comparisons, an individual tends to:

▪ favor the ingroup over the outgroup ▪ exaggerate and overgeneralize the differences between the ingroup and the outgroup (to enhance group distinctiveness) ▪ minimize the perception of differences between ingroup members ▪ evaluate the ingroup more favorably ▪ remember more detailed and positive information about the ingroup, and more negative information about the outgroup[28]
Even without any intergroup interaction (as in the minimal group paradigm), individuals begin to show favoritism towards their own group, and negative reactions towards the outgroup.[28] This conflict can result in prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. Intergroup conflict can be highly competitive, especially for social groups with a long history of conflict (for example, the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, rooted in group conflict between the ethnic Hutu and Tutsi).[2] In contrast, intergroup competition can sometimes be relatively harmless, particularly in situations where there is little history of conflict (for example, between students of different universities) leading to relatively harmless generalizations and mild competitive behaviors.[2] Intergroup conflict is commonly recognized amidst racial, ethnic, religious, and political groups.

The formation of intergroup conflict was investigated in a popular series of studies by Muzafer Sherif and colleagues in 1961, called theRobbers Cave Experiment.[29] The Robbers Cave Experiment was later used to support Realistic conflict theory.[30] Other prominent theories relating to intergroup conflict include Social Dominance Theory, and social-/Self-categorization Theory.

[edit]Intergroup conflict reduction

There have been several strategies developed for reducing the tension, bias, prejudice, and conflict between social groups. These include the contact hypothesis, the jigsaw classroom, and several categorization-based strategies.

[edit]Contact hypothesis (intergroup contact theory)

In 1954, Gordon Allport suggested that by promoting contact between groups, prejudice can be reduced.[31] Further, he suggested four optimal conditions for contact: equal status between the groups in the situation; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and the support of authorities, law, or customs.[32] Since then, over 500 studies have been done on prejudice reduction under variations of the contact hypothesis, and a meta-analytic review suggests overall support for its efficacy.[32] In some cases, even without the four optimal conditions outlined by Allport, prejudice between groups can be reduced.[32]

Understanding Group Process achments • Understanding Group Process
Group process refers to how an organization's members work together to get things done.

Typically, organizations spend a great deal of time and energy setting and striving to reach goals, but give little consideration to what is happening between and to the group's greatest resource - its members. While working hard to achieve results, it is critical that members' needs be addressed. Membership in an organization is as much an opportunity to develop self confidence, refine skills and make friends as it is to support a cause, fundraise or educate the campus community. All of these can be done simultaneously, but most likely will not just happen on their own.

Group process can occur from within the group, outside of the group and anytime of year. Effective organizations take a close look at how members work together, which roles they fill and whether members are contributing equally. Through group process, observation and analysis can help identify problems early, thus alleviating the need for a major overhaul as the year progresses. Your vantage point as a group member provides a great opportunity to regularly observe how things are going. Depending on the frequency of meetings and an understanding of what to look for, you can be instrumental in ensuring group and individual success.

Elements of an organization which typically influence group proceedings include communication, participation, decision making and role fulfillment. When observing these specific areas you will likely see several things happening simultaneously. This is to be expected, but it can also be rather confusing. Initially, you may want to isolate a single aspect of the group. As you become more adept at observation, you can gradually increase your areas of focus.

Listed below are several questions to ask yourself as you begin observing a group.

Observation
One of the easiest aspects of group process to observe is the pattern of communication: • Who talks? For how long? How often? • At whom do people look when they speak? • Who talks after whom? Who interrupts whom? • What style of communication is used (assertions, questions, tone of voice, gestures, etc.)? • Who sits where? Do the same people always sit in the same place?
The kinds of observations we make give us clues to other important things which may be going on in the group (e.g., such as who leads whom or who influences whom).

Participation
One indication of involvement is verbal participation. Look for differences in the amount of participation among members. • Who are the high participants? Who are the low participants? • Do you see any shift in participation (e.g., highs become quiet; lows suddenly become talkative)? What are possible reasons for this in the group's interaction? • How are the silent people treated? How is their silence interpreted? Consent? Disagreement? Disinterest? Fear? Etc.? • Who talks to whom? Do you see any reason for this in the group's interactions? • Who keeps the ball rolling? Why? Do you see any reason for this in the group's interactions?
Decision Making
Many kinds of decisions are made in groups without considering the effects that these decisions will have on other members. Some people try to impose their own decisions on the group, while others want all members to participate or share in the decision making process. • Does anyone make a decision and carry it out without checking with other group members (self-authorized)? For example, one person decides on the topic to be discussed and immediately begins to talk about it. What effect does this have on other group members? • Does the group drift from topic to topic? Who topic-jumps? Do you see any reason for this in the group's interactions? • Who supports other members' suggestions or decisions? Does this support result in the two members deciding the topic or activity for the group? How does this affect the other group members? • Is there any evidence of a majority pushing a decision through over other member's objections? Do they call for a vote (majority support)? • Is there any attempt to get all members participating in a decision (consensus)? What effect does this seem to have on the group? • Does anyone make any contributions which do not receive any kind of response or recognition? What effect does this have on the member? • Does the exec board make all of the decisions or do all of the talking or do the members?
Organizational Roles
A variety of crucial roles need to be filled to ensure group goal accomplishment and success. Roles are distributed among three types:
Task
Primarily expressed through trying to accomplish group tasks. Examples: initiator, contributor, information seeker and giver, elaborator, energizer, recorder.
Maintenance
Oriented toward improving relationships among members. Examples: encourager, harmonizer, compromiser.
Self Oriented
Focuses on personal needs regardless of group concerns. Examples: aggressor, recognition seeker, dominator, blocker.
Process observation requires patience and the ability to focus on everyone in the group. Paying attention to these questions and roles can help you to better understand how the group is affecting its member and vice versa.
GROUP PROCESSES
TAKING OUR PLACE IN THE GROUP
Almost all groups are structured into specific roles. People move in and out of roles, and in and out of groups. Groups are dynamic in terms of their structure and their membership. But first of all, of course, people need to join groups.
Joining groups
We join groups for all sorts of reasons, but in many cases we are looking for company (e.g. friendships and hobby groups) or to get things done that we cannot do on our own (e.g. therapy groups, work groups and professional organizations). We also tend to identify with large groups (social categories) that we belong to – national or ethnic groups, political parties, religions, and so forth.
Research on group formation generally examines the process, not the reasons. One view is that joining a group is a matter of establishing bonds of attraction to the group, its goals and its members. So a group is a collection of people who are attracted to one another in such a way as to form a cohesive entity
(Festinger et al., 1950). This approach has been used extensively to study the cohesiveness of military groups, organizational units and sports teams (Widmeyer, Brawley & Carron, 1985).
Another perspective, based on social comparison theory