Social Psychology

by Paul Seager

The employee is looking for a company to join (reconnaissance) and is likely applying to more than one; the company is looking for new employees (recruitment) and is investigating the value of a number of individuals. At this stage the individual is a prospective member. The transition point from this stage to the next is referred to as ENTRY.

  2 SOCIALIZATION STAGE

  Having become employed by the company, the employee is now a new member, and will attempt to accept the rules and values of the company (assimilation); the company in turn attempts to adapt to the needs of their new member (accommodation). At this stage, the commitment of both parties has increased compared to the first stage. The transition point from this stage is referred to as ACCEPTANCE, but can be delayed for a number of reasons such as tension between the new members and the existing members.

  3 MAINTENANCE STAGE

  Having entered this stage, the employee is now a full member and both they and the company have considerably increased their commitment to one another. This stage reflects the need of both parties to continually negotiate their roles; the employee may wish to be promoted or the company may wish the employee to carry out slightly different functions from when they originally joined. If the process runs smoothly, many individuals will stay in this phase until they leave the group (e.g. the employee retires). However, if the relationship deteriorates, then the transition point from this stage to the next is DIVERGENCE.

  4 RESOCIALIZATION STAGE

  If the employee starts to become dissatisfied with their role, or the company perceives that the employee is working against the group, the employee is downgraded to a marginal member. The commitment from both parties now starts to decrease. As with stage two (socialization), there now follows a process of negotiation where the company and the employee try to reach a satisfactory resolution to their problems (accommodation and assimilation). If this is successful, then the transition point is CONVERGENCE, and the employee re-enters the maintenance stage; if it is unsuccessful, then the transition point from this stage is EXIT, reflecting the employee resigning or being fired.

  5 REMEMBRANCE STAGE

  In this stage, both parties will review their shared experience; the employee will review what happened leading up to them exiting the company (reminiscence), and the company will also review what has happened and perhaps reflect on their recruitment process to see whether such events can be prevented in the future (tradition). There may still be a little connection between the two parties and commitment may not necessarily be non-existent.

  The group socialization theory seems to have a feel of authenticity (face validity) about it and probably maps on to the experiences that many of us have had when joining existing groups. If the theory is a good one, then it should be able to be applied to a multitude of situations different to that of the employee and the company.

  Having looked at the process of either forming or joining a group, we now turn our attention to three important properties of groups, namely cohesiveness, norms and roles.

  Group cohesiveness

  A number of attempts have been made to define the exact nature of cohesiveness. We seem to instinctively know when we are a part of a group that appears to function smoothly. An early attempt at a definition was put forward by Schachter and colleagues who claimed that cohesiveness was ‘the cement that binds’ a group together and for many years it was thought that the cement comprised interpersonal attraction: if you liked your fellow group members then the group would be a cohesive one. However, two obvious problems spring to mind with this idea:

  1 Large groups, where individual members won’t ever meet each other, can still be cohesive.

  2 It is possible for a group to be cohesive even when some members dislike others.

  A further study helped to shine some light on the definition problem. Groups were asked to design a new student dormitory, and were either given a detailed briefing about how to go about doing this (easy task) or no briefing at all (hard task). Additionally, the groups were manipulated so that individuals believed they either had similar, or dissimilar, values to the other members (thus varying interpersonal attraction). At the end of the task, cohesion within the groups was measured by asking the question: ‘Would you wish to remain in the group for a further session?’. It was found that similarity of values had no effect on this measure, but a better predictor of cohesion was the task type: 85 per cent of individuals elected to stay in the group when the task had been an easy one. This suggested that interpersonal attraction didn’t account for group cohesion, but the task facing a group did.

  Key idea: Group cohesiveness

  The way in which a group acts upon its members to bind them together in some form, both to each other and to the group as a whole.

  More recent research by Carron and colleagues, mainly with sports groups, suggests that group cohesion has two dimensions:

  1 An instrumental basis – that is, a group has a purpose

  2 An affective basis – that is, the social bonds that develop between group members.

  Together these two strands entwine to bring about cohesiveness. A number of assumptions follow from this research:

  • There is more than one factor that might account for whether or not a group sticks together.

  • All dimensions are not necessarily equally present across different groups to the same extent, or at the same time in a group’s life.

  • Any specific dimension does not have to be present in equal amounts in groups of a similar nature.

  • A multi-dimensional model of cohesion does not mean that all dimensions are equally salient throughout the life cycle of a group. Thus a group, such as a Sunday morning football team, could initially be formed, and stay together, based purely on social reasons, but gradually as they become more successful, the basis for its cohesion could change from affective to instrumental (for instance, they start to win trophies).

  It is also interesting to note that cohesion can also be affected by outside forces in the form of competition or threat. Therefore, we should accept that cohesiveness can be affected by both intra-group and inter-group processes.

  A final factor to consider with regards to cohesiveness is task outcome. It perhaps goes without saying that the more cohesive a group, the more likely they are to be successful. However, there is also strand of research that suggests that direction of this causality may be reversed: in fact, the more successful a group is, the more cohesive it becomes. Similarly, research has questioned whether it is only success that leads to cohesiveness. Having myself been a member of a boys football team who were regularly thrashed by the opposition (only losing 20–0 was on occasion considered a triumph!), I can attest to the fact that we were a remarkably tight-knit group despite our losses. This does seem to go against the grain of research. However, one enlightening study suggests that cohesiveness can be affected by choice. If an individual chooses to join a group, which later turns out to be unsuccessful, then cohesiveness might not be affected; however, if the group membership is forced, then cohesiveness is much more likely to deteriorate.

  Group norms

  Groups need rules to function, and these rules are fairly idiosyncratic. However, norms have been found to have a profound effect on group members. For example, a famous study by Newcomb (The Bennington College study) found that group norms were able to override individual norms. Using the naturalistic setting of Bennington College – a liberal all-girl college that paradoxically recruited from conservative families – Newcomb found that even though girls entered the college in their first year with strong conservative attitudes, by the time they were in their final year, their attitudes had changed markedly. He measured this by taking advantage of a presidential election and recording the voting preferences of the pupils. Findings suggest that whilst almost two-thirds of first year students voted for the conservative candidate, thus retaining their personal values, third- and fourth-year students were much more likely to vote for the liberal candidates, thus bein
g influenced by the norms of the college (and some even voted for the Communist party!). Follow-up studies of the girls after they left Bennington College suggested that they retained their new-found liberal values, and showed the enduring influence of group norms on the individual.

  Key idea: Group norms

  Idiosyncratic rules for a group which govern the way in which its members are expected to think and behave.

  Whilst the Bennington College study isn’t without its critics (for example, age may have been a factor in voting preference, and there was no random allocation of participants to different groups: see Chapter 1), other more tightly-controlled experimental findings have found the same outcome – the impact of group norms has a strong effect on the behaviour and attitudes of individuals.

  Overall, norms serve an important function within groups by:

  1 providing a frame of reference through which the world of the group is interpreted;

  2 bringing order and predictability to life;

  3 minimizing personal stress in novel or ambiguous situations;

  4 helping to regulate social existence and co-ordinate the activities of the group members.

  Norms are also very closely tied to group goals. Once the goal of a group is established, norms help to ensure that the goal is reached, and perhaps not exceeded. A study of workers on a factory production line, where the norm was to produce 50 units per hour, found that when a new and enthusiastic worker joined the line and began to produce 60 units per hour, the other workers very quickly applied strong pressure on the new member to adhere to the norm of the group (i.e. 50 units per hour). Failure to do so may have given the factory management an opportunity to change the workers’ conditions of employment.

  Norms also have a role in enhancing and/or maintaining the identity of a group. This can be done in a number of ways, such as prescribing the manner in which members act and even dress. A study of adolescent gang members found that the clothing they wore was a very strong indicator of their identity and was rigidly enforced throughout the group; failure to wear the prescribed clothing was met with sanctions from other group members. This identity-enhancing function of norms can be seen in a wide variety of groups, such as political parties (e.g. towing the party line to become a good Tory) and sports groups.

  However, group norms are not always prescriptive. There is likely to be a range of acceptable behaviours available to members, especially where the norm is peripheral to group life – this is referred to as ‘latitude of acceptance’. For instance, in University life, students are generally allowed to wear whatever they want (a wide latitude of acceptance), but when it comes to submitting coursework, the deadlines are very strictly enforced (a very narrow latitude of acceptance). It has also been found that higher status members of a group (such as a leader) are able to get away with a little more than the group members, but where the issue is of key importance to group life, they are held to a very high standard and expected to be a model group member (e.g. backbench MPs may break the party rules and only suffer minor consequences, but if a high profile cabinet minister were to do so, they would likely be required to resign).

  Key idea: Latitude of acceptance

  The degree to which the behaviour of group members is able to deviate from the group norms (rules).

  Group roles

  Roles play an equally important part of group life, and are typically either formal or informal. The former has specific duties attached to it, with some form of consequences linked to the performance of the role e.g. worker in a factory, head teacher, police officer. The latter is an ambiguous role that has fewer consequences attached e.g. the ‘organizer’, or the ‘listener’, in a group of friends. Roles provide a number of benefits to a group as they help to:

  • ensure a division of labour to reduce the likelihood of physical and cognitive overload of any one member (such as the leader);

  • bring predictability and order to the group’s existence so that any one member will know what is expected of themselves and other members in terms of their behaviour;

  • form part of a member’s self-definition within the group, which in turn contributes to their social identity (an important factor for the continued well-being of an individual).

  Research suggests that roles are important in staving off potential problems. For example, when the role of an individual becomes overloaded, ambiguous or comes into conflict with other roles, it can lead to increased fatigue, increased anxiety, lowered job satisfaction and the development of mental illness.

  Key idea: Group roles

  The expected behaviour assigned to some, but not necessarily all, individuals within a group to facilitate the optimal functioning of both the individual and the group.

  However, roles are not without their disadvantages. For example, if a role is defined too rigidly, a group may not be able to adapt to new situations, sometimes with disastrous consequences, such as the flight crew where all were aware of the adverse weather conditions but no one checked for ice on the wings because it wasn’t in their role description. Similarly, a group becoming too predictable can make it more vulnerable to being targeted by enemy forces.

  There are many roles that exist within a group, some more important than others. Chapter 12 will look at one such role, namely that of the leader, and address such questions as who is likely to become a leader, what do they do, and how this role can affect the functioning of a group.

  Summary

  Given the ubiquity and importance of groups in everyday life, it is important to understand what they are, how they form, how they function and the effect they have upon their individual members. Research into such areas as cohesiveness and norms has important implications for both the formation and optimal functioning of groups. Only through an in-depth understanding of groups can we ensure that future human endeavours are successful, whether they’re earth-bound or in outer-space.

  Food for thought

  Think about a group that you have joined or formed, and attempt to assess the degree to which the processes outlined in this chapter actually applied. Equally, if you are about to join, or form, a group, think about the way in which you can make the process an easier one by applying the information outlined in this chapter.

  Dig deeper

  Baron, R. S. & Kerr, N. L. (2004) Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action. Open University Press.

  Carron, A. V. & Brawley, L. R. (2000). ‘Cohesion. Conceptual & Measurement Issues. Small Group Research, 31(1), 89–106.

  Hogg, M. A. & Abrams, D. (1988) Social Identifications. A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. Routledge.

  Fact-check

  1 Which of the following would probably not be defined as a group?

  a Astronauts on the international space station

  b Sunbathers on a beach

  c Students in a lecture theatre

  d Supporters watching a game of football

  2 What idea did Baumeister and Leary put forward to suggest why individuals need to join a group?

  a Social identity theory

  b The collectivistic perspective

  c Group generativity theory

  d The belongingness hypothesis

  3 According to Tuckman’s model of small group formation, at which stage is mutual trust and support amongst group members first likely to occur?

  a Forming

  b Storming

  c Norming

  d Performing

  4 Moreland and Levine’s group socialization model suggests that:

  a An individual will weigh up costs and rewards before joining a group

  b The evaluation and commitment between a group and an individual will change over time

  c The more resources that an individual invests in a group, the more their commitment will grow

  d All of the above

  5 In the group socialization model, the transition point between being a new member and a full member is:

  a
Entry

  b Acceptance

  c Convergence

  d Divergence

  6 Based on Carron’s work with sports groups, which of the following is not an assumption about cohesiveness?

  a There is more than one factor that might account for whether or not a group sticks together

  b All dimensions are equally present across different groups to the same extent, and at the same time, in a group’s life

  c Any specific dimension does not have to be present in equal amounts in groups of a similar nature

  d A multi-dimensional model of cohesion does not mean that all dimensions are equally salient throughout the life cycle of a group

  7 Newcomb’s ‘Bennington College study’ investigated:

  a Group norms

  b Group cohesion

  c Group formation

  d Group socialization

  8 Which of the following is not an important function of norms within a group?

  a Providing a frame of reference through which the world of the group is interpreted

  b Minimizing personal stress in novel or ambiguous situations

  c Helping to regulate social existence and co-ordinate the activities of the group members

  d All of the above

  9 Peter works as a lawyer for a law firm, and he is required to wear a suit when meeting clients. Failure to do so would land him in hot water with his boss. This requirement has:

  a A broad latitude of acceptance

  b A medium latitude of acceptance

  c A narrow latitude of acceptance

  d None of the above

  10 Which of the following would not be considered a formal role with respect to group membership?