Intragroup dynamics (also referred to as
in-group, 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 behaviours, attitudes, opinions, and experiences of each member are collectively influenced by the other group members. In many fields of research, there is an interest in understanding how group dynamics influence individual behaviour, 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, honour-related violence, and self-defence.
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.
Emergent groups arise from a relatively spontaneous process of group formation. For example, in response to a natural disaster, an
emergent response group may form. These groups are characterized as having no preexisting structure (e.g. group membership, allocated roles) or prior experience working together. Yet, these groups still express high levels of interdependence and coordinate knowledge, resources, and tasks. gender; social motives such as need for affiliation, need for power, and need for intimacy; attachment style; and prior group experiences. Groups can offer some advantages to its members that would not be possible if an individual decided to remain alone, including gaining
social support in the forms of emotional support, instrumental support, and informational support. However, joining a group may also cost an individual time, effort, and personal resources as they may conform to
social pressures and strive to reap the benefits that may be offered by the group. However, this does not necessarily mean that a person will join a group simply because the reward/cost ratio seems attractive. According to Howard Kelley and John Thibaut, a group may be attractive to us in terms of costs and benefits, but that attractiveness alone does not determine whether or not we will join the group. Instead, our decision is based on two factors: our comparison level, and our comparison level for alternatives. To determine whether people will actually join or leave a group, the value of other, alternative groups needs to be taken into account. Joining and leaving groups is ultimately dependent on the comparison level for alternatives, whereas member satisfaction within a group depends on the comparison level. participants were asked to sort a number of groups into categories based on their own criteria. Examples of groups to be sorted were a sports team, a family, people at a bus stop and women. It was found that participants consistently sorted groups into four categories: intimacy groups, task groups, loose associations, and social categories. These categories are conceptually similar to the four basic types to be discussed. Therefore, it seems that individuals intuitively define aggregations of individuals in this way.
Primary groups Primary groups are characterized by relatively small, long-lasting groups of individuals who share personally meaningful relationships. Since the members of these groups often interact face-to-face, they know each other very well and are unified. Individuals that are a part of primary groups consider the group to be an important part of their lives. Consequently, members strongly identify with their group, even without regular meetings. believed that primary groups were essential for integrating individuals into their society since this is often their first experience with a group. For example, individuals are born into a primary group, their family, which creates a foundation for them to base their future relationships. Individuals can be born into a primary group; however, primary groups can also form when individuals interact for extended periods of time in meaningful ways. as the extent to which collections of individuals are perceived to be a group. The degree of entitativity that a group has is influenced by whether a collection of individuals experience the same fate, display similarities, and are close in proximity. If individuals believe that a group is high in entitativity, then they are likely to believe that the group has unchanging characteristics that are essential to the group, known as essentialism. Examples of categories are New Yorkers, gamblers, and women.
Group membership and social identity The social group is a critical source of information about individual identity. 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 (
in-group bias). 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).
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). 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.
intergroup conflict and therapeutic change. 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. 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.
Black sheep effect Beliefs within the
in-group are based on how individuals in the group see their other members. Individuals tend to upgrade likeable in-group members and deviate from unlikeable group members, making them a separate out-group. This is called the
black sheep effect. The way a person judges socially desirable and socially undesirable individuals depends upon whether they are part of the in-group or out-group. This phenomenon has been later accounted for by subjective group dynamics theory. According to this theory, people derogate socially undesirable (deviant) in-group members relative to out-group members, because they give a bad image of the in-group and jeopardize people's social identity. In more recent studies, Marques and colleagues have shown that this occurs more strongly with regard to in-group full members than other members. Whereas
new members of a group must prove themselves to the full members to become accepted, full members have undergone socialization and are already accepted within the group. They have more privilege than newcomers but more responsibility to help the group achieve its goals.
Marginal members were once full members but have lost membership because they failed to live up to the group's expectations. They can rejoin the group if they go through re-socialization. Therefore, full members' behavior is paramount to define the in-group's image. Bogart and Ryan surveyed the development of new members' stereotypes about in-groups and out-groups during socialization. Results showed that the new members judged themselves as consistent with the stereotypes of their in-groups, even when they had recently committed to join those groups or existed as marginal members. They also tended to judge the group as a whole in an increasingly less positive manner after they became full members. However, there is no evidence that this affects the way they are judged by other members. Nevertheless, depending on the
self-esteem of an individual, members of the in-group may experience different private beliefs about the group's activities but will publicly express the opposite—that they actually share these beliefs. One member may not personally agree with something the group does, but to avoid the black sheep effect, they will publicly agree with the group and keep the private beliefs to themselves. If the person is privately
self-aware, he or she is more likely to comply with the group even if they possibly have their own beliefs about the situation. In situations of
hazing within
fraternities and sororities on college campuses, pledges may encounter this type of situation and may outwardly comply with the tasks they are forced to do regardless of their personal feelings about the Greek institution they are joining. This is done in an effort to avoid becoming an outcast of the group.
Group structure A group's structure is the internal framework that defines members' relations to one another over time. Frequently studied elements of group structure include roles, norms, values, communication patterns, and status differentials. Group structure has also been defined as the underlying pattern of roles, norms, and networks of relations among members that define and organize the group.
Roles can be defined as a tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way. Roles may be assigned formally, but more often are defined through the process of role differentiation. Role differentiation is the degree to which different group members have specialized functions. A group with a high level of role differentiation would be categorized as having many different roles that are specialized and narrowly defined. Individuals engaged in task roles focus on the goals of the group and on enabling the work that members do; examples of task roles include coordinator, recorder, critic, or technician. They are a fundamental aspect of group structure as they provide direction and motivation, and organize the social interactions of members. Like norms, values may be communicated either explicitly or on an ad hoc basis. Values can serve as a rallying point for the team. However, some values (such as
conformity) can also be dysfunction and lead to poor decisions by the team.
Communication patterns describe the flow of information within the group and they are typically described as either centralized or decentralized. With a centralized pattern, communications tend to flow from one source to all group members. Centralized communications allow standardization of information, but may restrict the free flow of information. Decentralized communications make it easy to share information directly between group members. When decentralized, communications tend to flow more freely, but the delivery of information may not be as fast or accurate as with centralized communications. Another potential downside of decentralized communications is the sheer volume of information that can be generated, particularly with electronic media.
Status differentials are the relative differences in status among group members. When a group is first formed the members may all be on an equal level, but over time certain members may acquire status and authority within the group; this can create what is known as a
pecking order within a group. This dynamogenic factor is believed to have laid the groundwork for what is now known as social facilitation—an "improvement in task performance that occurs when people work in the presence of other people". Zajonc observed two categories of behaviours—
dominant responses to tasks that are easier to learn and which dominate other potential responses and
nondominant responses to tasks that are less likely to be performed. In his
Theory of Social Facilitation, Zajonc concluded that in the presence of others, when action is required, depending on the task requirement, either social facilitation or social interference will impact the outcome of the task. If social facilitation occurs, the task will have required a dominant response from the individual resulting in better performance in the presence of others, whereas if social interference occurs the task will have elicited a nondominant response from the individual resulting in subpar performance of the task. Several theories analysing performance gains in groups via drive, motivational, cognitive and personality processes, explain why social facilitation occurs. Zajonc hypothesized that
compresence (the state of responding in the presence of others) elevates an individual's drive level which in turn triggers social facilitation when tasks are simple and easy to execute, but impedes performance when tasks are challenging. Nickolas Cottrell, 1972, proposed the
evaluation apprehension model whereby he suggested people associate social situations with an evaluative process. Cottrell argued this situation is met with apprehension and it is this motivational response, not arousal/elevated drive, that is responsible for increased productivity on simple tasks and decreased productivity on complex tasks in the presence of others. In
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959),
Erving Goffman assumes that individuals can control how they are perceived by others. He suggests that people fear being perceived as having negative, undesirable qualities and characteristics by other people, and that it is this fear that compels individuals to portray a positive self-presentation/social image of themselves. In relation to performance gains, Goffman's
self-presentation theory predicts, in situations where they may be evaluated, individuals will consequently increase their efforts in order to project/preserve/maintain a positive image.
Distraction-conflict theory contends that when a person is working in the presence of other people, an interference effect occurs splitting the individual's attention between the task and the other person. On simple tasks, where the individual is not challenged by the task, the interference effect is negligible and performance, therefore, is facilitated. On more complex tasks, where drive is not strong enough to effectively compete against the effects of distraction, there is no performance gain. The
Stroop task (
Stroop effect) demonstrated that, by narrowing a person's focus of attention on certain tasks, distractions can improve performance.
Social orientation theory considers the way a person approaches social situations. It predicts that self-confident individuals with a positive outlook will show performance gains through social facilitation, whereas a self-conscious individual approaching social situations with apprehension is less likely to perform well due to social interference effects. ==Intergroup dynamics==