{"id":188,"date":"2016-08-09T17:04:10","date_gmt":"2016-08-09T17:04:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-social-psychology\/?post_type=chapter&p=188"},"modified":"2021-11-15T20:26:28","modified_gmt":"2021-11-15T20:26:28","slug":"understanding-social-groups","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-jefferson-socialpsychology\/chapter\/understanding-social-groups\/","title":{"raw":"Understanding Social Groups","rendered":"Understanding Social Groups"},"content":{"raw":"
\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
  1. Define the factors that create social groups and perceptions of entitativity.<\/li>\n\t
  2. Define the concept of social identity, and explain how it applies to social groups.<\/li>\n\t
  3. Review the stages of group development and dissolution.<\/li>\n<\/ol><\/div>\n\u00a0\n\n[caption id=\"attachment_1884\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"600\"]\"group<\/a> Figure 10.2 We work together in social groups to help us perform tasks and make decisions. Source: Randy, Ruth, and Sarah by Eric Peacock (https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/evilpeacock\/2941174072) used under CC BY NC SA 2.0 (https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-sa\/2.0\/); Mars science laboratory by NASA HQ Photo (https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/nasahqphoto\/7722920232) used under CC BY NC 2.0 license (https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/2.0\/); The cultural competency team get to work by Josie Holford (https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/poughkeepsiedayschool\/7887558936) used under CC BY NC ND 2.0 license (https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/2.0\/)[\/caption]\n\n\u00a0\n\nAlthough it might seem that we could easily recognize a social group when we come across one, it is actually not that easy to define what makes a group of people a social group. Imagine, for instance, a half dozen people waiting in a checkout line at a supermarket. You would probably agree that this set of individuals should not be considered a social group because the people are not meaningfully related to each other. And the individuals watching a movie at a theater or those attending a large lecture class might also be considered simply as individuals who are in the same place at the same time but who are not connected as a social group.\n\nOf course, a group of individuals who are currently in the same place may nevertheless easily turn into a social group if something happens that brings them \u201ctogether.\u201d For instance, if a man in the checkout line of the supermarket suddenly collapsed on the floor, it is likely that the others around him would begin to work together to help him. Someone would call an ambulance, another might give CPR, and another might attempt to contact his family. Similarly, if the movie theater were to catch on fire, a group would form as the individuals attempted to leave the theater. And even the class of students might come to feel like a group if the instructor continually praised it for being the best (or worst) class that he or she has ever had. It has been a challenge to characterize what the \u201csomething\u201d is that makes a group a group, but one term that has been used is entitativity<\/strong> (Campbell, 1958; Lickel et al., 2000).\u00a0Entitativity refers to something like \u201cgroupiness\u201d\u2014the perception, either by the group members themselves or by others, that the people together are a group<\/em>.\n\nThe concept of entitativity is an important one, both in relation to how we view our ingroups, and also in terms of our perceptions of and behavior toward our outgroups. For example, strong perceptions of ingroup entitativity can help people to retain their sense of collective self-esteem in the face of difficult circumstances (Bougie, Usborne, de la Sablonniere, & Taylor, 2011). Seeing our ingroups as more entitative can also help us to achieve our individual psychological needs (Crawford & Salaman, 2012). With\u00a0our outgroups, our perceptions of their entitativity can influence both our prosocial and antisocial behaviors toward them. For instance, although in some situations individuals may feel more xenophobic toward outgroups that they perceive as more entitative\u00a0\u00a0(Ommundsen, van der Veer, Yakushko, & Ulleberg, 2013), they may in other contexts\u00a0choose to donate more money to help more entitative outgroups (Smith, Faro, & Burson, 2013).\u00a0<\/span>\n

    Similarity<\/h2>\nOne determinant of entitativity is a cognitive one\u2014the perception of similarity. As we saw in our discussions of liking and loving, similarity is important across many dimensions, including beliefs, values, and traits. A group can only be a group to the extent that its members have something in common; at minimum, they are similar because they all belong to the group. If a collection of people are interested in the same things, share the same opinions and beliefs, or work together on the same task, then it seems they should be considered\u2014by both themselves and others\u2014to be a group. However, if there are a lot of differences among the individuals, particularly in their goals, values, beliefs, and behaviors, then they are less\u00a0likely to be seen as a group.\n\nGiven the many differences that we have discussed in other chapters\u00a0between members of individualistic and collectivistic cultures in terms of how they see their social worlds, it should come as no surprise that different types of similarity relate more strongly to perceptions of entitativity in each type of culture. For instance, similarity in terms of personal traits has been found to be more strongly associated with entiativity in American versus Japanese participants, with the opposite pattern found for similarity in terms of common goals and outcomes (Kurebayashi, Hoffman, Ryan, & Murayama, 2012). \u00a0<\/span>\n\nPeople, then, generally get together to form groups precisely because they are similar. For example, perhaps they are all interested in playing poker, or follow the same soccer team, or like martial arts. And groups are more likely to\u00a0fall apart when\u00a0the group members become dissimilar and thus no longer have enough in common to keep them together (Crump, Hamilton, Sherman, Lickel, & Thakkar, 2010; Miles & Kivlighan, 2008).\n

    Communication, Interdependence, and Group Structure<\/h2>\nAlthough similarity is important, it is not the only factor that creates a group. Groups have more entitativity when the group members have frequent interaction and communication with each other (Johnson & Johnson, 2012). Although communication can occur in groups that meet together in a single place, it can also occur among individuals who are at great distances from each other. The members of a research team who communicate regularly via Skype, for instance, might have frequent interactions and feel as if they are a group even though they never or rarely meet in person.\n\nInteraction is particularly important when it is accompanied by interdependence<\/strong>\u2014the extent to which the group members are mutually dependent upon each other to reach a goal<\/em>. In some cases, and particularly in working groups, interdependence involves the need to work together to successfully accomplish a task. Individuals playing baseball are dependent upon each other to be able to play the game and also to play well. Each individual must do his or her job in order for the group to function. We are also interdependent when we work together to write a research article or create a class project. When group members are interdependent, they report liking each other more, tend to cooperate and communicate with each other to a greater extent, and may be more productive (Deutsch, 1949).\n\nStill another aspect of working groups whose members spend some time working together and that makes them seem \u201cgroupy\u201d is that they develop group structure\u2014the stable norms and roles that define the appropriate behaviors for the group as a whole and for each of the members. The relevant social norms for groups include customs, traditions, standards, and rules, as well as the general values of the group. Particularly important here\u00a0are injunctive norms<\/strong>, which specify how group members are expected to behave<\/em>. Some of these are prescriptive norms, <\/strong> which\u00a0tell the group members what to do<\/em>, whereas some are proscriptive norms,<\/strong> which tell<\/em>\u00a0them what not to do<\/em>. In general, the more clearly defined and the widely agreed upon the norms in a group are, the more \u00a0entitativity that the group members will feel.\n\nEffective groups also develop and assign social roles (the expected behaviors) to group members. For instance, some groups may be structured such that they have a president, a secretary, and many different working committees.\u00a0Different roles often come with different levels of status, or perceived power, and these hierarchies.\u00a0In general, groups are more effective when the roles assigned to each member\u00a0are clearly defined and appropriate to those individuals' skills and goals. Also, if members have more than one role, for example, player and coach, it is important that these roles are compatible rather than contradictory. High-performing groups are thus able to avoid placing members under r<\/strong>ole<\/strong> stress<\/strong>. This\u00a0<\/strong>occurs when\u00a0individuals experience incompatible demands and expectations within or between the roles that they occupy<\/em>, which often\u00a0negatively impacts their ability to be successful in those roles<\/em> (Forsyth, 2010).\n\n\u00a0\n

    Social Identity<\/h2>\nAlthough cognitive factors such as perceived similarity, communication, interdependence, and structure are often important parts of what we mean by being a group, they do not seem to always be necessary. In some situations, groups may be seen as groups even if they have little independence, communication, or structure. Partly because of this difficulty, an alternative approach to thinking about groups, and one that has been very important in social psychology, makes use of the affective feelings that we have toward the groups that we belong to. As we have read, social identity refers to the part of the self-concept that results from our membership in social groups (Hogg, 2003).\u00a0Generally, because we prefer to remain in groups that we feel good about, the outcome of group membership is a positive social identity\u2014our group memberships make us feel good about ourselves.\n\nAccording to the social identity approach, a group is a group when the members experience social identity\u2014when they define themselves in part by the group that they belong to and feel good about their group membership (Hogg, 2010).\u00a0This identity might be seen as a tendency on the part of the individual to talk positively about the group to others, a general enjoyment of being part of the group, and a feeling of pride that comes from group membership. Because identity is such an important part of group membership, we may attempt to create it to make ourselves feel good, both about our group and about ourselves. Perhaps you know some people\u2014maybe you are one\u2014who wear the clothes of their sports team\u00a0to highlight their identity with the group because they want to be part of, and accepted by, the other group members. Indeed, the\u00a0more that we\u00a0see our\u00a0social identities as part of our membership of a\u00a0group, the more likely\u00a0we are to remain in them, even when attractive alternatives exist (Van Vugt & Hart, 2004).\n

    The Stages of Group Development<\/h2>\nAlthough many groups are basically static, performing the same types of tasks day in and day out, other groups are more dynamic. In fact, in almost all groups there is at least some change; members come and go, and the goals of the group may change. And even groups that have remained relatively stable for long periods of time may suddenly make dramatic changes; for instance, when they face a crisis, such as a change in task goals or the loss of a leader. Groups may also lose their meaning and identity as they successfully meet the goals they initially set out to accomplish.\n\nOne way to understand group development is to consider the potential stages that groups generally go through. One widely used approach here is the model developed by Tuckman and Jensen (1977). As you can see in Figure 10.3, \"Stages of Group Development,\"<\/a> the different\u00a0stages involve forming, storming, norming and performing,<\/em> and adjourning<\/em>.\n\n\n[caption id=\"attachment_2947\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"269\"]\"Figure<\/a> Figure 10.3 Stages of Group Development[\/caption]\n\n\u00a0\n\nThe\u00a0forming\u00a0<\/strong>stage<\/strong>\u00a0occurs\u00a0when the members of the group come together and begin their existence as a group<\/em>. In some cases, when a new group, such as a courtroom jury, forms to accomplish a goal, the formation stage occurs relatively quickly and is appropriately considered the group\u2019s first stage. In other cases, however, the process of group formation occurs continually over a long period of time, such as when factory workers leave their jobs and are replaced by new employees.\n\nThe forming\u00a0stage is important for the new members, as well as for the group itself. During this time, the group and the individual will exchange knowledge about appropriate norms, including any\u00a0existing group structures, procedures, and routines. Each\u00a0individual will need to learn about the group and determine how he or she is going to fit in. And the group may be inspecting the individual\u2019s characteristics and appropriateness as a group member. This initial investigation process may end up with the individual rejecting the group or the group rejecting the individual.\n\nIf the forming\u00a0stage can be compared to childhood, there is no doubt that the next stage\u2014storming<\/em>\u2014can be compared to adolescence. As the group members begin to get to know each other, they may find that they don\u2019t always agree on everything. In the storming stage<\/strong>, members may attempt to make their own views known, expressing their independence and attempting to persuade the group to accept their ideas<\/em>. Storming may occur as the group first gets started, and it may recur at any point during the group\u2019s development, particularly if the group experiences stress caused by a negative event, such as a setback in progress toward the group goal. In some cases, the conflict may be so strong that the group members decide that the group is not working at all and they disband. In fact, field studies of real working groups have shown that a large percentage of new groups never get past the forming and storming stages before breaking up (Kuypers, Davies, & Hazewinkel, 1986).\n\nAlthough storming can be harmful to group functioning and thus groups must work to keep it from escalating, some conflict among group members may in fact be helpful. Sometimes the most successful groups are those that have successfully passed through a storming stage, because conflict may increase the productivity of the group, unless the conflict becomes so extreme that the group disbands prematurely (Rispens & Jehn, 2011).\u00a0Groups that experience no conflict at all may be unproductive because the members are bored, uninvolved, and unmotivated, and because they do not think creatively or openly about the topics of relevance to them (Tjosvold, 1991). In order to progress, the group needs to develop new ideas and approaches, and this requires that the members discuss their different opinions about the decisions that the group needs to make.\n\nAssuming that the storming does not escalate too far, the group will move into the norming stage<\/strong>, which is when the appropriate norms and roles for the group are developed.\u00a0<\/em>Once these norms have been developed, they\u00a0allow the group to enter the performing stage, <\/strong>which is when group members\u00a0establish a routine and effectively work together<\/em>. At this stage,\u00a0the individual group members may report great satisfaction and identification with the group, as well as strong group identity. Groups that have effectively reached this stage have the ability to meet goals and survive challenges. And at this point, the group becomes well tuned to its task and is able to perform the task efficiently.\n\nIn one interesting observational study of the group development process in real groups, Gersick (1988, 1989)\u00a0observed a number of teams as they worked on different projects. The teams were selected so that they were all working within a specific time frame, but the time frame itself varied dramatically\u2014from eight to 25 meetings held over periods ranging from 11 days to six\u00a0months. Despite this variability, Gersick found that each of the teams followed a very similar pattern of norming and then performing. In each case, the team established well-defined norms regarding its method of attacking its task in its very first meeting. And each team stayed with this approach, with very little deviation, during the first half of the time it had been allotted. However, midway through the time it had been given to complete the project (and regardless of whether that was after four\u00a0meetings or after 12), the group suddenly had a meeting in which it decided to change its approach. Then, each of the groups used this new method of performing the task during the rest of its allotted time. It was as if an alarm clock went off at the halfway point, which led each group to rethink its approach.\n\nMost groups eventually come to the adjourning<\/strong>\u00a0stage<\/strong>, where group members prepare for the group to end<\/em>. In some cases, this is because the task for which the group was formed has been completed, whereas in other cases it occurs because the group members have developed new interests outside the group. In any case, because people who have worked in a group have likely developed a strong identification with the group and the other group members, the adjournment phase is frequently stressful, and participants may resist the breakup. Faced with these situations, individuals frequently plan to get together again in the future, exchanging addresses and phone numbers, even though they may well know that it is unlikely they will actually do so. Sometimes it is useful for the group to work ahead of time to prepare members for the breakup.\n\nKeep in mind that\u00a0this model\u00a0represents only a general account of\u00a0the phases of group development, beginning with forming\u00a0and ending with adjourning, and will not apply equally well to all groups . For instance,\u00a0the stages are not necessarily sequential: some groups may cycle back and forth between earlier and later stages in response to the situations they face. Also, not all groups will necessarily pass through all stages. Nevertheless, the model has been useful in describing the evolution of a wide range of groups (Johnson & Johnson, 2012).\n
    \n

    Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n