| Introduction |
Group Dynamics at Wikipedia |
Applied Social Dynamics |
| Secret to Great Group Dynamics |
Guide To Effective Group Dynamics |
| More Theories & Links |
Groups have the following features:
1. It consists of two or more persons who interact with each other.
2. Group members have reciprocal influence on each other. Each member influences and is influenced by others in the group.
3. People develop mutual perceptions and emotions. They perceive and recognise each other as members of the group.
4. Every group has
-
-
- formal leader elected by group members, and
- informal leader “who engages in leadership activities but whose right to do so has not been formally recognised by the organisation or group.”
-
5. Each individual performs specific role which influences expectations of group members from each other. Role structure is “the set of defined roles and inter-relationships among those roles that the group or team members define and accept.”
6. Every group has group norms. “Norm is a standard of behaviour that the group accepts and expects of its members. It represents standards of work to promote group activity.”
7. It maintains stability through group cohesiveness. Members
-
-
- develop liking for each other,
- develop sense of identification with each other, and
- remain attached to each other.
-
8. Members work for common interests and goals.
https://www.taxmann.com/post/blog/group-dynamics-meaning-features-and-types-of-group/
Group Dynamics
Group dynamics is 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 behaviour, tracking the spread
of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and
following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies.
These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology,
anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work,
leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as
communication studies.
1. Intragroup Dynamics - within-group norms roles relations common goals
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 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. 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. 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 psychological distinctiveness 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 behaviour.
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.
Joining Groups
Joining a group is determined by a number of different factors, including an individual's personal traits; 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. It also offers friendship, potential new interests, learning new skills, and enhancing self esteem. 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.
The Minimax Principle is a part of social exchange theory that states that people will join and remain in a group that can provide them with the maximum amount of valuable rewards while at the same time, ensuring the minimum amount of costs to themselves. 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.
In John Thibaut and Harold Kelley's social exchange theory, comparison level is the standard by which an individual will evaluate the desirability of becoming a member of the group and forming new social relationships within the group. This comparison level is influenced by previous relationships and membership in different groups. Those individuals who have experienced positive rewards with few costs in previous relationships and groups will have a higher comparison level than a person who experienced more negative costs and fewer rewards in previous relationships and group memberships. According to the social exchange theory, group membership will be more satisfying to a new prospective member if the group's outcomes, in terms of costs and rewards, are above the individual's comparison level. As well, group membership will be unsatisfying to a new member if the outcomes are below the individual's comparison level.
Comparison level only predicts how satisfied a new member will be with the social relationships within the group. To determine whether people will actually join or leave a group, the value of other, alternative groups needs to be taken into account. This is called the comparison level for alternatives. This comparison level for alternatives is the standard by which an individual will evaluate the quality of the group in comparison to other groups the individual has the opportunity to join. Thiabaut and Kelley stated that the "comparison level for alternatives can be defined informally as the lowest level of outcomes a member will accept in the light of available alternative opportunities.”
Joining and leaving groups is ultimately dependent on the comparison level for alternatives, whereas member satisfaction within a group depends on the comparison level. To summarize, if membership in the group is above the comparison level for alternatives and above the comparison level, the membership within the group will be satisfying and an individual will be more likely to join the group. If membership in the group is above the comparison level for alternatives but below the comparison level, membership will be not be satisfactory; however, the individual will likely join the group since no other desirable options are available. When group membership is below the comparison level for alternatives but above the comparison level, membership is satisfying but an individual will be unlikely to join. If group membership is below both the comparison and alternative comparison levels, membership will be dissatisfying and the individual will be less likely to join the group.
Types of Groups
Groups can vary drastically from one another. For example, three best friends who interact every day as well as a collection of people watching a movie in a theater both constitute a group. Past research has identified four basic types of groups which include, but are not limited to: primary groups, social groups, collective groups, and categories. It is important to define these four types of groups because they are intuitive to most lay people. For example, in an experiment, 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. Cooley 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. Examples of primary groups include family, close friends, and gangs.
Social Groups
A social group is characterized by a formally organized group of individuals who are not as emotionally involved with each other as those in a primary group. These groups tend to be larger, with shorter memberships compared to primary groups. Further, social groups do not have as stable memberships, since members are able to leave their social group and join new groups. The goals of social groups are often task-oriented as opposed to relationship-oriented. Examples of social groups include coworkers, clubs, and sports teams.
Collectives
Collectives are characterized by large groups of individuals who display similar actions or outlooks. They are loosely formed, spontaneous, and brief. Examples of collectives include a flash mob, an audience at a movie, and a crowd watching a building burn.
Categories
Categories are characterized by a collection of individuals who are similar in some way. Categories become groups when their similarities have social implications. For example, when people treat others differently because of certain aspects of their appearance or heritage, for example, this creates groups of different races. For this reason, categories can appear to be higher in entitativity and essentialism than primary, social, and collective groups. Entitativity is defined by Campbell 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 (see ingroup bias). 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. 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. 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).
Group Cohesion
In the social sciences, group cohesion refers to the processes that keep members of a social group connected. Terms such as attraction, solidarity, and morale are often used to describe group cohesion. It is thought to be one of the most important characteristics of a group, and has been linked to group performance, 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. 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). Later, this definition was modified to describe the forces acting on individual members to remain in the group, termed attraction to the group. Since then, several models for understanding the concept of group cohesion have been developed, including Albert Carron's hierarchical model 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 ingroup 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 outgroup. This is called the black sheep effect.[45] The way a person judges socially desirable and socially undesirable individuals depends upon whether they are part of the ingroup or outgroup.
This phenomenon has been later accounted for by subjective group dynamics theory.[46] According to this theory, people derogate socially undesirable (deviant) ingroup members relative to outgroup members, because they give a bad image of the ingroup and jeopardize people's social identity.
In more recent studies, Marques and colleagues have shown that this occurs more strongly with regard to ingroup 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 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 ingroup'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. Outcasts who behave in a way that might jeopardize the group tend to be treated more harshly than the likeable ones in a group, creating a black sheep effect. Full members of a fraternity might treat the incoming new members harshly, causing the pledges to decide if they approve of the situation and if they will voice their disagreeing opinions about it.
Group Influence on Individual Behaviour
Individual behaviour is influenced by the presence of others. For example, studies have found that individuals work harder and faster when others are present (see social facilitation), and that an individual's performance is reduced when others in the situation create distraction or conflict. Groups also influence individual's decision-making processes. These include decisions related to ingroup bias, persuasion (see Asch conformity experiments), obedience (see Milgram Experiment), and groupthink. There are both positive and negative implications of group influence on individual behaviour. This type of influence is often useful in the context of work settings, team sports, and political activism. However, the influence of groups on the individual can also generate extremely negative behaviours, evident in Nazi Germany, the My Lai Massacre, and in the Abu Ghraib prison (also see Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse).
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. A key role in a group is the leader, but there are other important roles as well, including task roles, relationship roles, and individual roles. Functional (task) roles are generally defined in relation to the tasks the team is expected to perform. 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. A group member engaged in a relationship role (or socioemotional role) is focused on maintaining the interpersonal and emotional needs of the groups' members; examples of relationship role include encourager, harmonizer, or compromiser.
Norms are the informal rules that groups adopt to regulate members' behaviour. Norms refer to what should be done and represent value judgments about appropriate behaviour in social situations. Although they are infrequently written down or even discussed, norms have powerful influence on group behaviour. They are a fundamental aspect of group structure as they provide direction and motivation, and organize the social interactions of members. Norms are said to be emergent, as they develop gradually throughout interactions between group members. While many norms are widespread throughout society, groups may develop their own norms that members must learn when they join the group.
There are various types of norms, including: prescriptive, proscriptive, descriptive, and injunctive:
- Prescriptive Norms: the socially appropriate way to respond in a social situation, or what group members are supposed to do (e.g. saying thank you after someone does a favour for you)
- Proscriptive Norms: actions that group members should not do; prohibitive (e.g. not belching in public)
- Descriptive Norms: describe what people usually do (e.g. clapping after a speech)
- Injunctive Norms: describe behaviours that people ought to do; more evaluative in nature than a descriptive norm
Intermember Relations are the connections among the members of a group, or the social network within a group. Group members are linked to one another at varying levels. Examining the intermember relations of a group can highlight a group's density (how many members are linked to one another), or the degree centrality of members (number of ties between members). Analysing the intermember relations aspect of a group can highlight the degree centrality of each member in the group, which can lead to a better understanding of the roles of certain group (e.g. an individual who is a 'go-between' in a group will have closer ties to numerous group members which can aid in communication, etc.).
Values are goals or ideas that serve as guiding principles for the group. 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. Status can be determined by a variety of factors and characteristics, including specific status characteristics (e.g. task-specific behavioural and personal characteristics, such as experience) or diffuse status characteristics (e.g. age, race, ethnicity). It is important that other group members perceive an individual's status to be warranted and deserved, as otherwise they may not have authority within the group.[53] Status differentials may affect the relative amount of pay among group members and they may also affect the group's tolerance to violation of group norms (e.g. people with higher status may be given more freedom to violate group norms).
Group Performance
Forsyth suggests that while many daily tasks undertaken by individuals could be performed in isolation, the preference is to perform with other people.
Social Facilitation and Performance Gains
In a study of dynamogenic stimulation for the purpose of explaining pacemaking and competition in 1898, Norman Triplett theorized that "the bodily presence of another rider is a stimulus to the racer in arousing the competitive instinct...". 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".
Further to Triplett's observation, in 1920, Floyd Allport found that although people in groups were more productive than individuals, the quality of their product/effort was inferior.
In 1965, Robert Zajonc expanded the study of arousal response (originated by Triplett) with further research in the area of social facilitation. In his study, Zajonc considered two experimental paradigms. In the first—audience effects—Zajonc observed behaviour in the presence of passive spectators, and the second—co-action effects—he examined behaviour in the presence of another individual engaged in the same activity.
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.
2. Intergroup Dynamics - between group behaviour & psychology relations
Intergroup dynamics (or intergroup relations) refers to the behavioural and psychological relationship between two or more groups. This includes perceptions, attitudes, opinions, and behaviours 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, Fischer & Ferlie found initially positive dynamics between a clinical institution and its external authorities dramatically changed to a 'hot' and intractable conflict when authorities interfered with its embedded clinical model. Similarly, 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).
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). This comparison process is not unbiased and objective. Instead, it is a mechanism for enhancing one's self-esteem. In the process of such comparisons, an individual tends to:
favour 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
remember more detailed and positive information about the ingroup, and
more negative information about the outgroup
Even without any intergroup interaction (as in the minimal group paradigm), individuals begin to show favouritism towards their own group, and negative reactions towards the outgroup. 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). 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 behaviours. 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 the Robbers Cave Experiment. The Robbers Cave Experiment was later used to support realistic conflict theory. Other prominent theories relating to intergroup conflict include social dominance theory, and social-/self-categorization theory.
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.
Contact Hypothesis (intergroup contact theory)
In 1954, Gordon Allport suggested that by promoting contact between groups, prejudice can be reduced. 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. 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. In some cases, even without the four optimal conditions outlined by Allport, prejudice between groups can be reduced.
Superordinate Identities
Under the contact hypothesis, several models have been developed. A number of these models utilize a superordinate identity to reduce prejudice. That is, a more broadly defined, ‘umbrella’ group/identity that includes the groups that are in conflict. By emphasizing this superordinate identity, individuals in both subgroups can share a common social identity. For example, if there is conflict between White, Black, and Latino students in a high school, one might try to emphasize the ‘high school’ group/identity that students share to reduce conflict between the groups. Models utilizing superordinate identities include the common ingroup identity model, the ingroup projection model, the mutual intergroup differentiation model, and the ingroup identity model. Similarly, "recategorization" is a broader term used by Gaertner et al. to describe the strategies aforementioned.
Interdependence
There are techniques that utilize interdependence, between two or more groups, with the aim of reducing prejudice. That is, members across groups have to rely on one another to accomplish some goal or task. In the Robbers Cave Experiment, Sherif used this strategy to reduce conflict between groups. Elliot Aronson’s Jigsaw Classroom also uses this strategy of interdependence. In 1971, thick racial tensions were abounding in Austin, Texas. Aronson was brought in to examine the nature of this tension within schools, and to devise a strategy for reducing it (so to improve the process of school integration, mandated under Brown v. Board of Education in 1954). Despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of the jigsaw classroom, the strategy was not widely used (arguably because of strong attitudes existing outside of the schools, which still resisted the notion that racial and ethnic minority groups are equal to Whites and, similarly, should be integrated into schools).
Applied Social Dynamics
In this article, we'll look at what group dynamics are, and why they matter. We'll then discuss some examples of poor group dynamics, and we'll outline some tools that you can use to deal with them.
Improving Group Dynamics
Helping Your Team Work More Effectively
By the Mind Tools Content Team
Imagine that you've brought together the brightest people in your department to solve a problem. You have high hopes for the group, so you feel frustrated when people can't come to a decision.
Several factors are holding the group back.
To start with, one person is very critical of colleagues' ideas. You suspect that her fault-finding is discouraging others from speaking up. Another has hardly contributed to the sessions at all: when asked for his opinion, he simply agrees with a more dominant colleague. Finally, one group member makes humorous comments at unhelpful times, which upsets the momentum of the discussion.
These are classic examples of poor group dynamics, and they can undermine the success of a project, as well as people's morale and engagement.
What Are Group Dynamics?
Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist and change management expert, is credited with coining the term "group dynamics" in the early 1940s. He noted that people often take on distinct roles and behaviors when they work in a group. "Group dynamics" describes the effects of these roles and behaviors on other group members, and on the group as a whole.
More recent researchers have built on Lewin's ideas, and this work has become central to good management practice.
A group with a positive dynamic is easy to spot. Team members trust one another, they work towards a collective decision, and they hold one another accountable for making things happen. As well as this, researchers have found that when a team has a positive dynamic, its members are nearly twice as creative as an average group.
In a group with poor group dynamics, people's behavior disrupts work. As a result, the group may not come to any decision, or it may make the wrong choice, because group members could not explore options effectively.
What Causes Poor Group Dynamics?
Group leaders and team members can contribute to a negative group dynamic. Let's look at some of the most common problems that can occur:
- Weak leadership: when a team lacks a strong leader, a more dominant member of the group can often take charge. This can lead to a lack of direction, infighting, or a focus on the wrong priorities.
- Excessive deference to authority: this can happen when people want to be seen to agree with a leader, and therefore hold back from expressing their own opinions.
-
Blocking: this happens when team members behave in a way that
disrupts the flow of information in the group. People can adopt
blocking roles such as:
- The aggressor: this person often disagrees with others, or is inappropriately outspoken.
- The negator: this group member is often critical of others' ideas.
- The withdrawer: this person doesn't participate in the discussion.
- The recognition seeker: this group member is boastful, or dominates the session.
- The joker: this person introduces humor at inappropriate times.
- Groupthink: this happens when people place a desire for consensus above their desire to reach the right decision. This prevents people from fully exploring alternative solutions.
- Free riding: here, some group members take it easy, and leave their colleagues to do all the work. Free riders may work hard on their own, but limit their contributions in group situations; this is known as "social loafing."
- Evaluation apprehension: team members' perceptions can also create a negative group dynamic. Evaluation apprehension happens when people feel that they are being judged excessively harshly by other group members, and they hold back their opinions as a result.
Strategies for Improving Team Dynamics
Use these approaches to improve group dynamics:
Know Your Team
As a leader, you need to guide the development of your group. So, start by learning about the phases that a group goes through as it develops. When you understand these, you'll be able to preempt problems that could arise, including issues with poor group dynamics.
Next, use Benne and Sheats' Group Roles to identify positive and negative group roles, and to understand how they could affect the group as a whole. This will also help you plan how to deal with potential problems.
Tackle Problems Quickly
If you notice that one member of your team has adopted a behavior that's affecting the group unhelpfully, act quickly to challenge it.
Provide feedback that shows your team member the impact of her actions, and encourage her to reflect on how she can change her behavior.
Define Roles and Responsibilities
Teams that lack focus or direction can quickly develop poor dynamics, as people struggle to understand their role in the group.
Create a team charter – defining the group's mission and objective, and everyone's responsibilities – as soon as you form the team. Make sure that everyone has a copy of the document, and remind people of it regularly.
Break Down Barriers
Use team-building exercises to help everyone get to know one another, particularly when new members join the group. These exercises ease new colleagues into the group gently, and also help to combat the "black sheep effect," which happens when group members turn against people they consider different.
Also, explain the idea of the Johari Window to help people open up. Lead by example: share what you hope the group will achieve, along with "safe" personal information about yourself, such as valuable lessons that you've learned.
Focus on Communication
Open communication is central to good team dynamics, so make sure that everyone is communicating clearly. Include all of the forms of communication that your group uses – emails, meetings, and shared documents, for example – to avoid any ambiguity.
If the status of a project changes, or if you have an announcement to make, let people know as soon as possible. That way, you can ensure that everyone has the same information.
Opinionated team members can overwhelm their quieter colleagues in meetings. Where this happens, use techniques such as Crawford's Slip Writing Method, and make sure that you develop strong facilitation skills.
Pay Attention
Watch out for the warning signs of poor group dynamics.
Pay particular attention to frequent unanimous decisions, as these can be a sign of groupthink, bullying, or free riding. If there are frequent unanimous decisions in your group, consider exploring new ways to encourage people to discuss their views, or to share them anonymously.
Key Points
The term "group dynamics" describes the way in which people in a group interact with one another. When dynamics are positive, the group works well together. When dynamics are poor, the group's effectiveness is reduced.
Problems can come from weak leadership, too much deference to authority, blocking, groupthink and free riding, among others.
To strengthen your team's dynamics, use the following strategies:
- Know your team.
- Tackle problems quickly with good feedback.
- Define roles and responsibilities.
- Break down barriers.
- Focus on communication.
- Pay attention.
Keep in mind that observing how your group interacts is an important part of your role as a leader. Many of the behaviors that lead to poor dynamics can be overcome if you catch them early.
https://www.mindtools.com/ad3z8yv/improving-group-dynamics
The Secret to Great Group Dynamics
Whether you’re a first-time project manager or an experienced team lead,
we all have one thing in common: we want the people we’re leading to
do well.
You want your teammates to collaborate, communicate, and
connect with one another, so they can do their best work as effortlessly
as possible. But how can you unlock good teamwork if the people you’re
managing aren’t getting along?
That’s where group dynamics come in. When you understand what leads to good group dynamics, you can empower your group to communicate more clearly, collaborate more effectively, and get more high-impact work done together.
What are group dynamics?
Group dynamics describe the interactions, attitudes, and behaviors between a set of people who are working together. The term was first used by social psychologist Kurt Lewin to describe how groups act and react to changing circumstances.
These dynamics don’t appear out of thin air—they grow out of the way people see themselves in relation to and among their peers. For example, you might have a positive group dynamic if your group is comfortable collaborating together. Alternatively, you might notice negative group dynamics if two people are trying to lead a project and aren’t listening to the other person’s input.
At Asana, we believe that good group dynamics start with great organizational culture. When team members feel welcome to be their full selves at work, they’re able to collaborate and communicate more effectively.
What is a group?
A group is a collection of people who are working together. This can include formal groups—like teammates working under the same manager, a cross-functional project team, or members of an office—or informal groups—like coworkers who share common interests or identities.
For example, at Asana, we’ve created informal groups called Employee Resource Groups (ERGs). Over two thirds of our employee base belongs to one or more of these groups, which support various communities to create safe, positive, and inclusive spaces for our employees to come together across different functional groups.
How groups are formed
Bruce Tuckman first described how groups are formed in his 1965 theory Tuckman's stages of group development. According to Tuckman, there are five stages of group development:
- Forming. This is when the group first gets together. If they’re working on a project, they may align on project goals or define their project plan. At this developmental stage, group members behave independently from one another—most of the conversations between group members are civil but distant.
- Storming. The second developmental stage usually begins with a disagreement of some sort. This disagreement is the catalyst for group members to more actively share their opinions and be honest with one another. As a result of this honesty, group members begin to trust each other.
- Norming. Once the group has resolved their initial disagreement or conflict, group interactions turn cooperative and friendly. During this developmental stage, the group will begin to establish group norms—even if they don’t discuss or record those norms. Unlike the independence from the Forming phase, group members in the Norming phase lean towards group decision-making and prioritize group cohesion. In fact, the danger of the Norming phase is that group members are too hesitant to share their opinions, which can lead to stagnation.
- Performing. This is when the group is at their best. Group members are able to execute independently or tackle problem solving as a group. Instead of worrying about how other group members perceive them, individual members are focused on the group’s goals.
- Adjourning or mourning. Tuckman added this stage in 1977 to describe the separation of the group once the project is over. If the group has been working well together, there can be a sense of loss when the group structure is dissolved.
Why group dynamics matter
Good group dynamics enable collaboration and communication because they reduce the barrier towards teamwork. When conversations flow easily, it can feel effortless to work together. But getting there takes time, practice, and support.
Group dynamics are a tool that can help you unlock better communication and collaboration. If you’re managing a group that isn’t moving forward the way you want them to, fostering positive group dynamics can help you improve the group’s productivity so they can hit their goals.
The role communication plays in group dynamics
Too often, unclear communication can lead to confusion, strife, and negative group dynamics. By clarifying your communication expectations and channels, you can empower your team to communicate clearly and effectively.
Start by creating a communication plan to clarify which channel team members should use and when, how frequently different details should be communicated, and who is responsible for each of the different channels. For example, at Asana, we use:
- Email to communicate with external clients or partners.
- Slack for live communication about day-to-day updates and quick questions with team members.
- Asana for asynchronous communication about work—like task details, project status updates, or key project documents.
- Zoom or Google Meet for any team meetings, like project brainstorms.
Resolving existing negative group dynamics
When a group has negative dynamics, group members can struggle to get things done. In extreme cases, negative group dynamics can lead to hurt feelings and require conflict resolution. If you’re managing a group that has negative group dynamics, first understand where those dynamics are coming from. Then, you can pinpoint what is causing those issues and work towards solving them.
Before you can resolve negative group dynamics, you first need to recognize the signs. Negative dynamics can look like different actions and behaviors depending on the group. Some signs to look out for include:
- Frequent frustration among group members
- Group members who aren’t comfortable around one another
- Group members who are confused, conflicted, or have negative self-esteem in relation to their peers
- Group members who aren’t collaborating or communicating
- Small groups, subgroups, or cliques that exclude other group members
- Exclusive friendship groups
Once you’ve identified negative group dynamics, you can work to resolve those issues based on what is causing them. Here are the most common causes for negative group dynamics and how you can resolve them among your group.
Perceived social loafing
- Problem: Group members feel like a certain member or members aren’t pulling their weight.
- Solution: Identify what is causing social loafing and support that group member.
Social loafing is the perceived psychological phenomenon that some individuals put in less work when they’re collaborating as a group. If group members think another person isn’t pulling their weight, that can cause frustration and reduce group morale. If this seems to be the case, read our article to learn why social loafing is more about clarity than productivity—and what you can do to help.
Incompatible communication styles
- Problem: Group members are using passive or aggressive communication styles, which is impeding good communication.
- Solution: Help group members express themselves assertively, instead.
Communication styles describe how group members interact and communicate. As you might imagine, some communication styles can create conflict in the workplace. For example, an aggressive communicator might make it hard for other group members to express their opinion. If a group member seems to be displaying a negative communication style, you can identify the root cause of why they’re communicating that way and help them communicate in a more assertive manner. Read our manager’s guide to communication styles to learn how.
Lack of creativity and innovation
- Problem: Group members are struggling to creatively resolve problems.
- Solution: Encourage co-creation and disagreement to spark good group collaboration and avoid groupthink.
One risk during the Norming stage is that your group becomes so cohesive they stop challenging each other. Disagreement is actually a critical part of collaboration—in order to co-create the best solution, group members need to build an idea together. If you notice your group going with the flow instead of coming up with new ideas, challenge them to come up with a creative solution that might be better.
Too much (or too little) autonomy
- Problem: Your group seems stuck on the Storming phase of group development—they haven’t been able to successfully set and stick to group norms.
- Solution: Reassess your management style if necessary.
As the group lead, you want to give your group space to come up with their own ideas, be creative, and be innovative. But make sure you aren’t taking a completely laissez-faire approach to managing your group. On the flip side, make sure you’re giving your group enough space to develop group norms and connect with one another. There’s a fine line between guiding your group in the right direction but also letting them develop their own group processes. When in doubt, encourage your group to collaborate—but remember that you make the final decision if need be.
Turning your group into a team
Addressing negative group dynamics and helping your group work together more effectively can help you achieve your shared goals and improve group morale. But the best thing you can do to support group dynamics is to help your group see themselves as a team—instead of just a collection of people.
The difference between a group and a team
A group is a collection of people who are working together. Even though these team members might work together during a project, they don’t necessarily see themselves as part of a whole. Typically, members of the group are loosely connected by a goal, but they likely don’t have a shared purpose or set of values to work with.
Alternatively, a team is a group of people with a shared purpose and common goal. Team members are invested not only in their individual success, but also in the success of the team. Teams are more motivated and cohesive than groups, because team members see themselves as a part of something bigger. Team members share a specific goal that they focus on achieving together.
Going from group to team
How can you empower your group to see themselves as a team? This is easier in some cases—for example, you can transform a cross-functional group into a team by focusing on the goal of the cross-functional project.
There are some situations that lack a clearly shared goal. For example, a group of people who share the same manager may be working on completely different projects with totally separate goals. The manager can use team building activities to bring their group members closer. But the easiest way to build a team is to share values.
Create shared values to spark team building
Having shared values automatically puts everyone on the same team because they’re speaking the same language. With shared values, you can skip the Forming stage and get straight to high-impact work.
Shared values are something you can establish on the team, department, or company level. Most companies already have shared values—and if yours does, make sure you’re bringing those values into everyday work. Reminding your group that they share these values can help skip the Norming phase because the shared values are the norm. Instead of struggling to learn to work together, team members can unlock collaboration because they all have the same values.
How we use shared values at Asana...
https://asana.com/resources/improving-group-dynamics
Guide To Effective Group Dynamics
Group dynamics can play a significant role in how individuals perform
their jobs or meet goals. The concept examines how different
personalities, behaviors or attitudes interact with one another. When you
understand the core elements
of group dynamics, you can help ensure
your projects or tasks run more smoothly.
In this article, we explore group dynamics and how they work, their
common types and elements of successful group dynamics.
What are group dynamics?
When individuals work within a group, they take on different roles and behaviors. The idea of group dynamics refers to how those roles and behaviors interact and affect the group. This concept was first coined in the 1940s by social psychologist Kurt Lewin. In an ideal group dynamic, members work cohesively as a team to form decisions and meet specific goals.
Group vs. team
While they may initially seem similar, professionals define groups and teams in the workplace as follows:
- Group: A group is a collection of independent people with separate priorities united by their shared interests or experiences.
- Team: A team is a collection of interdependent people brought together by a shared goal. Like members of groups, members of teams also have something in common, such as interests or experiences.
How do group dynamics work?
A series of elements contribute to group dynamics, from the group structure to more specific components, such as established roles and norms. When these elements work effectively, it enables team members to build trust and work together to reach a common goal or decision. Furthermore, having established roles within the team can ensure everyone is held accountable for performing their responsibilities. Their ability to collaborate may depend on the varying personalities of members, which is something to consider when developing a team.
Another essential factor in group dynamics is the concept of cohesiveness. Better cohesion, or unity among members, makes it easier to accomplish tasks. The group should establish where they find common interests and values, along with agreeing on their goals and the processes to achieve them. Groups can also increase cohesion when members spend significant time together or have to compete against another team.
With negative group dynamics, members’ behaviors do not interact well with one another. These conflicts may arise if individuals' personalities do not align, which is why you should set behavioral norms to ensure everyone acts respectfully. Poorly defined roles can be another cause for negative group dynamics–if members don’t understand their expectations, it can be harder to achieve goals.
Types of group dynamics
Groups can fall into two general categories: formal and informal. While formal groups refer to groups created by an organization to fulfill its goals, an informal group is formed naturally by its members based on shared interests or values.
Typically, formal groups have predetermined and assigned roles for their members, while informal groups do not. Within these categories, you’ll find six specific types of groups:
1. Command
A command group is a type of formal group determined by a company's organizational chart. It typically comprises supervisors or managers and the individuals who report to them.
Example: Communications specialists report to a communications manager or director in an organization under the command group.
2. Functional
This type of formal group is created to achieve organizational objectives. Functional groups don’t have a specific timeline to complete goals, but they remain a group even after achieving their goals or objectives. While each group member has a specific role, all members work toward organizational goals together that are related to their department.
Example: Departments within an organization, such as marketing, accounting and human resources, are types of functional groups.
3. Task
A task group is a type of formal group created to achieve a business task, sometimes called a task force. Unlike a functional group, this group must work together to achieve relevant goals toward their main task within a specific timeframe. As a result, some of these groups disband after they’ve reached their objective.
Example: A company may form a task group to work on the development and launch of a new product.
4. Friendship
A friendship group is a type of informal group created by individuals who share common interests, beliefs, values and other similarities. These groups often do not perform business-related tasks and instead participate in activities together outside of work.
Example: A group of employees regularly meets for dinner after work on Friday nights.
5. Interest
An interest group is a type of informal group in which members do not necessarily work within the same formal business groups, such as departments, but have a common interest. These interests are specific to the group and may not always align with organizational goals.
Example: A union at a company represents an interest group. While its members may work in different departments, they work as a group to improve the conditions of their workplace for employees.
6. Reference
This type of informal group represents a reference or evaluation point for others. These groups can influence peoples' behaviors by demonstrating what actions or attitudes are appropriate. Religious affiliation represents a type of voluntary reference group. In the workplace, a department might use another department–either internal or external–as a reference group.
Example: A marketing department may evaluate its performance by comparing itself against a competing company's marketing department.
Elements of effective group dynamics
The following concepts, from the development of the group to its size, represent core elements that can help create effective group dynamics:
Development
As you develop a team, you should understand the different stages it experiences as it completes its objectives. You may notice changes in behaviors or the way members interact within each stage. You can assess members' actions during these steps and make adjustments as needed to help the group develop into a high-performing team.
The five stages of team development are:
- Forming: Members first join as a group and get to know one another. They begin to discuss the group's purpose and how to achieve goals, along with establishing norms and expectations for their behaviors and work output.
- Storming: Individuals begin to voice differences or concerns related to work processes or responsibilities. Some start vying for leadership positions, which can cause power conflicts. The group must overcome these concerns to create a positive dynamic and operate successfully.
- Norming: Members come to a collective decision about group expectations or norms and how to achieve their objectives. The leader defines the roles and responsibilities of each member and creates a process for everyone to follow. Cohesion begins, enabling a shared purpose and stronger dynamic.
- Performing: Members have assigned roles and begin performing necessary tasks. Cohesion builds to enable collaboration, decision making and problem solving to stay on track to meet their goals.
- Adjourning: This stage applies to temporary groups who disband once they achieve their objective. Those with positive group dynamics not only reach their goal but celebrate one another and their contributions.
Roles
To create positive group dynamics, you should define roles. In a work environment, a leader assigns responsibilities to group members. However, members may find themselves performing naturally occurring responsibilities while working within a team, often referred to as emergent roles.
Emergent roles fall under the following categories:
- Work roles: Individuals in these roles focus on task-oriented duties, such as identifying challenges the group faces and making procedural suggestions.
- Maintenance roles: Individuals in these roles focus on social or emotional responsibilities aimed at maintaining cohesion and participation among members like resolving conflicts.
- Blocking roles: Individuals in these roles conduct activities that disrupt the group, which could harm group dynamics. However, these actions may not be ill-intentioned–sometimes a member dominates a conversation or resists an idea to create discussion or encourage another look at the issue.
Principles/norms
Effective group dynamics require establishing a set of principles or norms to follow. Principles define the values of the group, while norms set work processes and acceptable behaviors, such as:
- Appearance norms: These determine how group members dress or present themselves. They may be required if you work in an environment with a specific dress code or uniform.
- Performance norms: These define how much work group members must contribute and expected results. For example, if you work for a media company, you may need to write and publish a specific number of articles each week.
- Resource allocation norms: These determine how leaders assign resources or rewards, such as specific software to accomplish tasks or bonuses for making a target number of sales.
- Social arrangement norms: These set guidelines for how group members interact or communicate with one another.
Size
The size of a group can affect how members work and interact with one another. In a small group, usually consisting of between two to 10 people, members often find more opportunities for participation because of the size. With limited teammates, individuals may also find it easier to build relationships with one another.
A large group consists of more than 10 members, which means the work can be spread across more people–potentially lightening individuals' workload or dividing it more equally. Because they often do not work as closely, groups with particular dynamics related to size may form smaller groups representing close relationships within the larger group.
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/group-dynamics
More Theories
Social Identity Approach
"Social identity approach" is an umbrella term designed to show that there are two methods used by academics to describe certain complex social phenomena- namely the dynamics between groups and individuals. Those two theoretical methods are called social identity theory and self-categorization theory. Experts describe them as two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories.
Social Groups
The social identity approach has been contrasted with the social cohesion approach when it comes to defining social groups. The social identity approach describes the state of people thinking of themselves and others as a group. Therefore, three intra-psychological processes proceed. Firstly, social categorization (see self-categorization theory) means that people organize social information by categorizing people into groups. Secondly, social comparison (see social comparison theory) means that people give a meaning to those categories in order to understand the task of the group in the specific situation. Thirdly, social identification is the process in which people relate the self to one of those categories.
Regarding the relation between collective identification and work motivation, several propositions have been made regarding situational influences, the acceptance of the leader and the self-definition of a collective. As a situational influence, research says that individuals are activated by situations that challenge their inclusion to the group. The acceptance of the leader is another proposition. The so-called ingroup-favoring-bias (see in-group favoritism) means that if the team leader is interpreted as an ingroup member, the other team members will attribute his or her good behavior internally while they will attribute bad behavior externally. For self-definition of a collective the value of the group as well as the belief in current and future success is important. Closely linked to self-definition to a collective, cohesion is another construct that has an impact on the development of group motivation and in a broader sense also to the group performance.
On the topic of social groups, some social psychologists draw a distinction between different types of group phenomenon. Specifically, "those that derive from interpersonal relationships and interdependence with specific others and those that derive from membership in larger, more impersonal collectives or social categories". The social identity approach however does not anticipate this distinction. Instead it anticipates that the same psychological processes underlie intergroup and intragroup phenomenon involving both small and large groups. Relatedly, the persistent perception that the social identity approach is only relevant to large group phenomenon has led some social identity theorists to specifically reassert (both theoretically and empirically) the relevance of the social identity approach to small group interactions.
Social Identity Theory
Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.
As originally formulated by social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s and the 1980s, social identity theory introduced the concept of a social identity as a way in which to explain intergroup behaviour. "Social identity theory explores the phenomenon of the 'ingroup' and 'outgroup', and is based on the view that identities are constituted through a process of difference defined in a relative or flexible way depends on the activities in which one engages" This theory is described as a theory that predicts certain intergroup behaviours on the basis of perceived group status differences, the perceived legitimacy and stability of those status differences, and the perceived ability to move from one group to another. This contrasts with occasions where the term "social identity theory" is used to refer to general theorizing about human social selves. Moreover, and although some researchers have treated it as such, social identity theory was never intended to be a general theory of social categorization. It was awareness of the limited scope of social identity theory that led John Turner and colleagues to develop a cousin theory in the form of self-categorization theory, which built on the insights of social identity theory to produce a more general account of self and group processes.
Self-Categorization Theory
Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people (including themselves) as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation (which was one of its early goals), it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification. Self-categorization theory has been influential in the academic field of social psychology and beyond. It was first applied to the topics of social influence, group cohesion, group polarization, and collective action. In subsequent years the theory, often as part of the social identity approach, has been applied to further topics such as leadership, personality, outgroup homogeneity, and power. One tenet of the theory is that the self should not be considered as a foundational aspect of cognition, but rather the self should be seen as a product of the cognitive system at work.
Social Comparison Theory
Social comparison theory, initially proposed by social psychologist Leon Festinger in 1954, centers on the belief that there is a drive within individuals to gain accurate self-evaluations. The theory explains how individuals evaluate their own opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others in order to reduce uncertainty in these domains, and learn how to define the self. Comparing oneself to others socially is a form of measurement and self assessment to identify where an individual stands according to their own set of standards and emotions about themselves. Following the initial theory, research began to focus on social comparison as a way of self-enhancement, introducing the concepts of downward and upward comparisons and expanding the motivations of social comparisons. Social comparison can be traced back to the pivotal paper by Herbert Hyman, back in 1942. Hyman revealed the assessment of one's own status is dependent on the group with whom one compares oneself. The social comparison theory is the belief that media influence, social status, and other forms of competitiveness can affect our self-esteem and mood. In turn, this can affect individuals outlook on themselves and how they fit in with others.
Links
Ingroups and Outgroups: How Social Identity Influences People
https://effectiviology.com/ingroup-outgroup
Conceptualizing Social Identity: A New Framework and Evidence for the
Impact of Different Dimensions
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247746725_Conceptualizing_Social_Identity_A_New_Framework_and_Evidence_for_the_Impact_of_Different_Dimensions
Social Influence and Group Identity
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-psych-070620-111818
6.1 Social Groups
https://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/6-1-social-groups/
6.2 Group Dynamics and Behavior
https://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/6-2-group-dynamics-and-behavior/
6.3 Formal Organizations
https://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/6-3-formal-organizations
group develpmental stages video
https://nobaproject.com/modules/the-psychology-of-groups
