Side two track two. Continuation of Social Interaction. Page 214. The intense kind of relationship involved in romantic love is a recent and largely Western phenomenon. It does not occur in most primitive societies. It has been suggested, be a feral personal communication, that this kind of relationship is only possible where there has been experience of a similar intense relationship with parents, and it does not occur when there is more diffuse family system, each child being reared by a number of adults. Falling in love means that A is very strongly rewarded by B in the sexual sphere, with the result that A likes B very much and becomes dependent on B for further rewards. On the other hand, A incurs costs through loss of independence and the difficulties of synchronizing, thus he is in an approach-avoidance conflict. This is confirmed by the common phenomena of lovers repeatedly breaking off and then coming together again. Waller and Hill, 1951, stressed the pains of dependence.

[01:06]

We are more inclined to stress the difficulties of meshing and reconciling conflicts. It could be said that without sex, marriage would be impossible. There would not be the incentive to make the necessary adjustments. The progress of love is marked by two public rituals, engagement and marriage. The usual purpose of such rites of passage is to proclaim publicly a change of state. In this case, the relationship between two people. A further interesting ritual is the honeymoon. Rapoport and Rapoport, 1964, suggest that there are two main interpersonal tasks to be completed during the honeymoon, to work out mutual satisfactory ways of regulating sexual behavior and of living together at closer quarters. A working agreement has to be arrived at over a huge range of interpersonal issues, and... towards many outside situations. Page 215. In other words, a new level of equilibrium has to be worked out with synchronizing at a greater level of intimacy and a higher rate of interaction.

[02:10]

Report board and report board opposite. Repeat that in the USA... Report that in the USA this new level of intimacy is often found stressful and that honeymoon couples seek the company of other honeymoon couples and often go home earlier than was planned. The honeymoon does, however, ease the change of the relationship with family and friends which must take place with marriage. This sequence of events may be compared favorably with the change in relationship with parents which adolescents have to make. After marriage, the couple has to settle down to a way of life in which there is usually some degree of division of labor. The pattern of life and of social interaction which they adopt is very much a function of the surrounding culture and varies considerably between different times and places with varying degrees of world differentiation page 241f if sexual relationships are so rewarding why do so many marriages end in divorce about one in ten in britain Two theoretical reasons are suggested by the previous analysis.

[03:11]

Firstly, when the level of sexual reinforcement declines, the balance of the approach avoidance conflicts may shift. This would be expected to happen if a synchronizing system has been established with difficulty involving cost to both sides. Continued intimacy would then become, on the balance, punishing rather than rewarding. Secondly, the situation which is... which the dyad is in, changes with the time with the addition of children to the family and changes in the domestic or work situation. These may all elicit changed styles of behavior in one partner or in both and are further possible sources of conflict. When marriage does succeed, there is a pattern of dyadic behavior rather different from that discussed so far. There is a high degree of meshing, great similarity of outlook, and there are also changes in identity in which the other is seen not so much as a separate person but as a regular part of the immediate social environment and becomes in some ways a part of the self-image. End of chapter 5 Page 216 Chapter 6 Small Social Groups

[04:30]

The study of small groups as interaction systems. Concepts and Methods A great deal of social interaction takes place in small social groups. Monkeys and apes live in groups within which children are procreated and reared with various family structures. The work of gathering food and drink, arranging shelter, is performed. Visually, social activities occur in defense against predators as organized. Page 27-F-O. This is presumably an instinctive pattern of behavior which has evolved through the survival of those groups and their members that adopted it. Human life is similar. Children are reared in families, go to play with groups of friends, or educated in groups at school. Later, they work in cooperative groups and live in families of their own witch-born communities, and they pursue common interests in various societies and clubs. Just as the two members of a dyad work out a pattern of interaction and social relation, so the members of small groups work out a pattern of interaction in which all the members are related as members of the group.

[05:38]

Since 1950, there's been a great deal of research on small groups, mainly in the form of laboratory experiments, much of it carried out with great skill. The implicit strategy of research has been to assume that all kinds of small groups follow the same empirical laws, and that these can best be studied under controlled laboratory conditions where confusing environmental variables are absent. The result is that there is now an extensive literature about small social groups of students engaged mainly in problem-solving or allied tasks, and we really do not know very much about real groups in the outside world. One of the things I have tried to do in this chapter is to describe the patterns of interaction in some of the main kinds of a small group. It will now be apparent that what happens is startlingly different from the behavior in any experimental group so far studied. This is a further demonstration of the danger of stripped-down laboratory experiments in which only the variables included are those the experimenter knows about.

[06:42]

Perhaps the most pressing need at the time is for detailed studies of small groups in the field. Some of the work on small groups, furthermore, has been of the very artificial kind where actual interaction is eliminated. That was criticized previously, page 17FF. There are experiments and conformity in which group members cannot see or hear one another, but only see what are alleged to be judgments made by others, and there are experiments and coalitions in which the interaction taking place is restricted to moves in a dice game. Such experiments may throw light on the effect of social processes and cognitive or decision processes, but they tell us nothing at all about interaction and very little about conformity or coalitions. Most experimental groups have the disadvantage of lasting for about half an hour. It is now recognized that the most important group phenomena will not appear under these conditions, and experimenters have started to keep their subjects for longer, for ten days in isolation in one experiment.

[07:45]

Aldwyn and Haythorn, 1967. Even this is rather short in view of the finding that it takes about nine weeks for roommates to settle down into a stable pattern of interaction. Taylor, 1965. A number of small group researchers have turned to the study at T groups, since these groups last over a period of time. T groups, however, have the considerable disadvantage of being totally unlike any kind of naturally existing group. Most research on small social groups has so far been at least detailed and concrete level of analysis than the work on DAEVs. This is partly for the historical reason that small group research was originally inspired by Liu in 1952 and has made use of his field theory concepts. There is also the practical reason that those interested in the details of interaction have mainly confined themselves to dyads because of the enormous amount of data produced by small groups. Another pressing need in this area, then, is the study of small groups at the level of analysis of the elements of social behavior.

[08:52]

Meanwhile, what's been discovered, albeit at a relatively macroscopic level, is of great interest from the point of view of interaction, and will be reviewed selectively in this chapter. The Formation of Social Groups Different kinds of group come together in different ways. Leisure and Interest Groups through common interests and some degree of mutual compatibility, work in educational groups, mainly in order to work as an organized, excuse me, and as organized by administrators. Page 218. The balance of tasks and interpersonal motivations and the degree of external direction is different than these two main types of groups. Although groups and laboratory experiments may endure for only 30 minutes, most real groups... in life, last for very much longer, and some of the main phenomena of group formation can be seen only in groups which persist over some weeks or months.

[09:56]

Most studies of such groups have been of the therapy groups or of T groups, though, in fact, the stages of development are similar in groups of a number of kinds. Most observers of groups have reported that they progress through a number of developmental stages. Tuckman, 1965, after reviewing a large number of studies, suggested that there are four main phases and that both group structure and task activity develop in parallel ways. His scheme is as follows. All right, that's a chart. Four across and two down. Number one, forming. Number two, storming. Number three, norming. Number four, performing. And down, group structure and task activity. One, forming, group structure. There is anxiety dependence on a leader, testing to find out what the nature of the situation and what behavior is acceptable. Forming, task activity.

[10:58]

Members find out what the task is, what the rules are, what methods are appropriate. Number two, storming. Group structure. Conflict between subgroups. Rebellion against leader. Opinions are polarized. Resist control by group. Conflicts over intimacy. Task activity. Emotional resistance to demands of task. Number three, norming, N-O-R-M-I-N-G. Group structure. Development of group cohesion, norms emerge, resistance overcoming conflicts patched up, mutual support and development of group feeling. Task activity. Open exchange of views and feelings, cooperation develops. Number four, performing. Group structure. Interpersonal problems are resolved. Interpersonal structure is the tool of task activity.

[12:00]

Roles are flexible and functional. Task activity. Emergence of solutions to problems. Constructive attempts at task completion. Energy is now available for effective work. This is major work period. End of chart. It is recognized that these stages may take quite different amounts of time and different kinds of group. For example, laboratory discussion groups have been found to go through these stages in a few hours, while therapy groups might take a year of meetings. Page 219. In most groups, new members are added from time to time and sometimes replacing previous members. Mills, 1967, suggests that a new member goes through a series of stages. One, he is concerned with the satisfaction of the basic needs which bring him to the group. Two, he conforms to group norms. Three, he is concerned with the pattern of social interaction in the group in the pursuit of group goals. Four, he takes part in leadership of the group in consideration of its long-term aims.

[13:01]

In the early stages of a group, the problem is that of attaining an equilibrium pattern of interaction and relationships, which is sufficiently acceptable to all members. This is the equivalent of the process of trial and error that takes place in dyads. For some groups, a mutually satisfactory equilibrium may not exist. The members are simply... Incompatible. Schatz 1953 set up experimental groups which were high and low in compatibility. Incompatible groups were put together by including more than one person who was very high in dominance or members with very different levels of affiliative motivation. These groups were ineffective at tasks requiring cooperation. Aethorn et al. 1956 set up groups of four. where one was designated the leader and with different combinations of authoritarian and non-authoritarian leaders and followers. When there was an authoritarian leader and democratic followers or vice versa, there was observed to be lower morale, less effective communication, more conflict, and worse cooperation.

[14:04]

Bales, 1953, supposes that there must be a preponderance of positive, rewarding responses for equilibrium to be maintained. Negative reactions would act to inhibit the preceding acts of the trial and error to a more stable pattern can take place. On the other hand, attempts at influence and direction may very often lead to negative reactions, though they are an essential part of much interaction. Social skills may be developed which avert such responses, for example the persuasive-consultive style of leadership. Once equilibrium has been established, the group will persist in a stable condition. However, further slow developments will occur because the group will have to adjust to changes in the outside world and because members of the group may try to introduce changes in group activities and goals. The history of a group ends with its dissolution. Mann, 1967, observa the stage is marked by a nostalgic preoccupation with the earlier phases of the group, preparation for the re-entering to the outside world, and plans for reunions.

[15:12]

The way of written of groups as autonomous entities which have some kind of life of their own. All group actions consist of the behavior of individuals, and all changes are initiated by individuals. Page 220. Members of a group come together, motivated both by interpersonal needs and by concern for the task. They are in a cultural and organizational setting which requires certain kinds of behavior. What emerges from these given elements is a pattern of group activity which both gets the job done and which satisfies interpersonal needs. Amman's 1951 distinguished between the primary system of activity concerned with the task and the secondary system of additional social interaction for purely social purposes. A group may start meeting to do a job and then carry on meeting because the members like one another. Group development is the process of working out largely by trail and error an interaction pattern and set of relationships that are adequate to both problems.

[16:15]

Three main aspects of this social system will be discussed below. One, the norms of behavior, representing agreed solutions to task and interpersonal problems. 2. The hierarchical structure of leadership, power, and social influence. 3. The affective or sociometric structure of liking and disliking, corresponding also to frequencies of interaction or communication between members. Each of these three aspects of the social system have been observed to emerge in developmental studies. As in the case of dyadic interaction, once an agreed social system has emerged, it tends to persist in a state of staple relationship excuse me, of stable equilibrium resisting change. Again, it is a matter of degree how far such a system may develop in different groups. The affective structure develops greater or lesser degrees of cohesiveness. There may be varying degrees of consensus about the status hierarchy. There may be various amounts of conformity to norms about matters of central importance to the group.

[17:19]

A group can hardly be regarded as a group as opposed to a collection of individuals unless there is some minimal degree of attraction to the group. The overall level of attraction towards the group, cohesiveness, is one of the most important dimensions of social groups and can be equated with loyalty. Cohesiveness can be measured by indices such as the percentage of in-group choices, the we-I ratio, the turnover rate, or the number of supportive interactions. There have been numerous investigations of the kinds under which cohesiveness develops in both laboratory and field settings. See if Lott and Lott, 1965, Cartwright and Zander, 1959. Members may be attracted by the other members or by the group task. The attraction to members can be measured by sociometric methods. The sources of cohesiveness can be summarized under these two headings, satisfaction of interpersonal needs and satisfaction of needs related to the task. Page 221.

[18:20]

Interpersonal needs are satisfied when the conditions for friendship formation are present. Frequent interaction and similarity of members. CF page 209FF. Members will be drawn towards the group if they are valued, popular, and prestigeful in the group. Those who are lowest in these respect are most likely to leave it. Certain kinds of group behavior are more satisfying and produce cohesive democratic leadership and cooperation rather than competition. Mutual compatibility of members making a smooth meshing social system is important. There should not be too many very dominant leaders. A skillful leader can help to produce meshing by integrating newcomers and isolates by a smooth outward in resolving conflicts and by trying to maximize interpersonal satisfactions. Psychopaths, schizoids, and other mentally disturbed personalities can have a very disrupting influence. They produce an atmosphere of unease and tension and may deliberately create conflicts between others. External threat can lead to an increase of group cohesiveness, especially if it is thought that cooperative action is the best means of dealing with the threat.

[19:25]

Lott and Lott, 1965. Satisfaction of needs related to the task also generates group cohesiveness. Shared success in group tasks, especially if this leads to an increase of status or other rewards, acts in this way, as a number of laboratory experiments show. Attraction to the group may be based on the prestige belonging to it, the economic benefits incurred, or the opportunities for work or play, rather than the interpersonal attractions of membership in the first place. E.G. Ross and Zander, 1957. In order for a group to develop to the state in which the external task is effectively performed and interpersonal problems are solved, it is necessary for it to become a cooperative group in which the members are committed to agreed group goals. These may be openly stated goals, though it has been suggested that groups may pursue collective goals. of which the members are not consciously aware, such as avoidance of the task or rebellion against the leader in key groups and therapy groups.

[20:27]

See page 260FF. The group's task goals are linked more or less closely to the individual goals of members, as when members of a research group stand to gain professional rewards from the successful completion of a research product. There may be some disagreement among the members as to what the group goal should be, but unless members suppress their individual preferences to some extent, the group will not function effectively, and there will be no needs, excuse me, no satisfaction of task-related needs. It is for this reason that most groups are in a state of mixed cooperation and competition. Gardner and Zander, 1959, Tybott and Kelly, 1969. However, in addition to needs which are linked to the external task, members have also... interpersonal needs which they seek to satisfy in the course of social interaction. Page 222. Again, if members do not suppress their personal preferences about how they should behave in the group, there will not be a smoothly synchronizing group for it may not have the optimal structure for task performance, as, for example, when the least competent member is too influential over decisions.

[21:37]

Really, it is most satisfactory if group goals are closely compatible with individual needs. Members can, however, become committed to group goals in a number of ways. An interesting demonstration that group goals can become internalized was produced by Lewis 1944. She found that in cooperative groups, tension for task completion was discharged by another member completing the task as measured by the Zygernik effect. enhanced memory for uncompleted tasks. How can members be induced to accept group goals? 1. Thomas, 1957, found that by creating a division of labor in which members performed complementary roles, a cooperative relation was established between them. There was greater cohesiveness, greater effort, more work, and greater feeling of responsibility. The same principle may produce cooperation over social tasks, e.g.

[22:38]

on committees and other groups where tasks and social interaction coincide. If members can work out complementary, i.e. synchronizing role relationships, there will be a cooperative group. 2. Cooperation can be induced by the rewarding structure imposed on the group. Deutsch 1949 offered shared grades to be based on the overall group performance and found that this induced more cooperation than when grades were offered for individual performance. In the cooperative groups, members saw themselves as interdependent, coordinated their efforts, were more strongly motivated, communicated more with one another, got more work done, and were more friendly to one another. Three, when members of the group participate in setting the group goals, they become more strongly committed to them. This may come about through the practice of group decision in which the leader steers the group to make a decision about goals. A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of this procedure, CFR Gale, 1957A. A leader may also consult members individually.

[23:41]

These techniques can be discussed further in relation to effective styles of readership, page 299FF. Four, group members may be more or less cooperative as a result of personality or cultural background. Margaret Mead, 1937, showed that whole cultures can be placed along the cooperative competition dimension. Five, cooperation over social tasks can be induced by creating satisfactory conditions for synchronizing and complementary role differentiation. Exline and Ziller, 1959, created... uncooperative groups by setting up incongruence between status, voting power, and ability. 223. Six, coalitions may develop among some or all members of a group if they see that this increases the probability of need satisfaction. This topic will be taken up later, page 239. Some of the effects of cooperation on group interaction and task performance have been reported already.

[24:46]

The task is more effectively and rapidly completed by a cooperative group. If it is a group task requiring coordination of individual efforts, as was shown in the Deutsch experiment, in a study of 72 actual committees, Burry, Zos, Hunt, and Gutzka, 1950, found that the committees in which members were rated lowest on self-oriented needs get through more business. If each person is working independently, however, competitive motivation has a stronger motivating effect as various studies of subjects turning crank candles and copying newspaper material with rubber-stamped show, D.G., Widmore, 1925. The reason for the superiority of cooperative groups is that the group is a more effectively organized unit for coordinating individual effort in the ways that the Deutsch studies showed. In particular, there is fuller and more effective change of information, while in competitive group, information tends either to be concealed or not received.

[25:49]

Sandra and Wolf, 1964, found that under more cooperative conditions, there was greater providing of information and a greater desire for information. The social interaction in the group also differs under cooperation. There are more positive, friendly, and trusting relations between members as compared with hostile and suspicious relations in competitive groups. The reason is that efforts by a member towards the shared goal are also contributing directly to the satisfaction of others. Members are mutually rewarding. in work situations cooperative or competitive relations may be set up by the use of group or individual incentives when salesmen in shops are paid by individual bonus this may create deadly warfare between them including such strategies as hiding the goods keeping control of keys and stealing wealthy-looking customers In addition, members of an intense or emotional state in a competitive group with a mutual distrust and hostility and frantic competing for scarce resources can induce great emotional disturbance.

[26:53]

Mintz, 1951, was able to generate a simulated panic situation by creating a situation in which competing group members all try to pull their corks out of a large bottle at the same time. A cooperative group can be regarded as providing a secure and calming social environment. Finally, members of cooperative groups enjoy the group meetings more, as many of these studies show. Page 224, Basic Processes of Interaction in Small Groups Social Norms Members of a group will have much in common from the beginning, but it is also found that there is convergence... toward shared ways of perceiving and judging, of communication and interaction, shared attitudes and beliefs, and shared ways of doing whatever the group does. The phenomena has been extensively studied in laboratory experiments, and there are several excellent reviews of the literature.

[27:57]

Allen, 1965. Elander and Willis, 1967. Seg Gordon Backman, 1964. Much of this work has been concerned with perception or cognition, and many experiments have involved no social interaction at all, e.g. Crutchfield, 1955, although the behavior in question is learned and normally functions in a setting of social interaction. We shall concentrate on the process of interaction connected with conformity. Most research has concentrated on the causes of conformity, and it has often been assumed that conformity is rather discreditable. It... could be argued that for a group to function at all, there must be some degree of agreement over how things shall be done, but that there must also be innovators who suggest new ways of doing them and thus enable the group to develop and keep up to date. Probably the single most important and widely confirmed generalization about social groups is that they form norms.

[28:58]

Our first interest is why they do this. the functions served by norms, and the processes leading to them being formed. The matter is more complex than was at one time realized, and at least four different processes seem to be involved, though they could be condensed to a single formula. Shared patterns of behavior are adopted by group members because this enables them to attain group goals and satisfy interpersonal needs. 1. Most groups have some tasks to perform and goals to attain. Norms are formed particularly about matters which are relevant to the task. The norms represent shared solutions to problems, and cooperation is easier if all are working on the same lines. Failure to conform may threaten the attainment of the group goal. In work groups, for example, there are strongly enforced norms about not working too hard, since this could lead to reduction in piecework rates.

[30:00]

Roth Lisberger, and Dixon, 1939. Among professional thieves, there are strong pressures on matters like punctuality, where deviation might lead to a rest of the gang. Sutherland, 1937. 2. Groups have internal problems, too. The regulation of interaction in the group. Newcomb, et al., 1965, stressed the need for shared means of communication. Page 225. Group members usually have the same language, but they also develop additional private and slang terminology. The requirements of meshing produce conformity, of mood and content of interaction. The existence of rules makes life easier, decisions don't have to be taken, and the behavior of others is predictable, as with norms about the times of meals. Sharif and Sharif 1964 describe the norms of adolescent groups, which include such things as going with a new girl is permissible so long as it is announced to the group in case there are any objections.

[31:06]

Clearly, such norms enable conflicts to be avoided. Taibot and Faucho... 1965 found that there was a special kind of norm formation, the making of contracts, and a game-playing situation when members had unequal power and one was worried about the division of outcomes. It is argued that norms are formed as an impersonal means of ensuring fair distribution. Number three. Norms are also formed about opinions, attitudes, and beliefs. And when there was no means of tracking such ideas against physical reality, individuals may turn to social reality instead. Fessinger, 1950. While the others are known to be well-informed, this may be a very reasonable procedure. Number four. Norms are formed about clothes, other aspects of physical appearance and behavior, whose main purpose is to identify the actor as a member of the group.

[32:07]

Such shared behavior indicates to members of the group and to others who the members are and also functions as part of the self-presentation of an individual, page 34F. This behavior is particularly noticeable in adolescent groups, page 246FF. It is probable that groups will bring pressures to bear about the appearance of members when the latter is likely to bring the group into disrepute. and that such pressures will occur more in groups that are uncertain of their social standing. Norms begin as a kind of working agreement among the original members of the group. No members may share the norm behavior from the outset and may have joined for this reason. If they do not share it, group processes are set into operation, which often result in their conforming. Halabella, 1958, distinguished between people simply agreeing and actually moving towards the norm. To the members, the norm seemed to have some kind of independent existence exterior to the group and to have a moral quality.

[33:10]

Tybott and Kelly, 1959, suggest that the basis of this may be that parents have in the past laid down the rules and arbitrated between siblings. The newcomer to the group may later move beyond overt compliance in the presence of the members to internalize the norms. whereas previously he would only conform when the group was looking, now he will always do so, will believe it is right, and he be prepared to influence or convert deviating members. Page 226. Criteria such as these are used in Chinese thought reform centers to decide when a person has been indoctrinated. Lifton, 1961. and has been suggested by killman 1961 that there's a third level of conformity between complaints and internalization which he calls identification this is where there is an attitude change which is sustained by the relationship

[34:11]

with the influencing agent, as in brainwashing and religious conversation. The processes of social learning involved in internalization may include interjection of the reactions of group members, Argyle, 1964A, and a shift of self-image resulting from taking group members as models, page 368F. We now consider non-conforming behavior. Willis, 1963, suggested the... that anticonformity, movement away from the group norms, is different from independence, behavior not influenced by group norms. Willis and Hollander, 1964, carried out an experiment in which these two patterns of behavior were produced experimentally. Anticonformity appeared when the partner was initially seen to be 90% incorrect, when flexibility was encouraged and subjects were rewarded if they did better than their partner. Independence was produced when the subject initially found himself to be 90% correct, when consistency was encouraged, and subjects were rewarded for being right, regardless of what the partner did.

[35:16]

The independent variable was a combination of these conditions. We have argued that groups need innovators to supply new ideas. It has been suggested that... Deviates play a second important role in groups. They make norms more explicit and show other members what happens to those who break them. Mills, 1967. Deviates are also a major topic of conversation in groups and seem to add interest and variety to group life, but why should an individual deviate and what does he gain from it? One, he may be more influenced by the norms of a second group which is more important to him. He is marching to a more distant drummer. In this way, he may function as an opinion leader, providing a channel of communication for the flow of ideas through the community. 2. He may have strong personality needs which prevent him from accepting the norm. For example, a very aggressive person might be resistant to norms about pacifism. Such individuals may leave the group, or the norm may change if it does not meet the needs of enough members.

[36:21]

3. A member may arrive at new ideas about how to tackle the group's internal or external problems. Such new ideas may have various sources, including some original problem-solving. But how can the deviate persuade the group to accept his ideas instead of rejecting him as a deviate? Page 227. It has been observed that new members start by conforming, and when sufficiently accepted, start to introduce innovation. Hollander, 1958, suggested that members acquire... idiosyncrasy credit, i.e. permission to deviate by virtue of their past good behavior, conformity, and contribution to group goals. Deviation is now seen as potentially valuable to the group rather than otherwise. If a member is or feels himself to be an expert upon some matter, he has greater confidence in his ideas in this sphere and will be more persistent. This was seen in the Willis and Hollander 1964 experiment. Number four, sometimes a member will deviate for no other reason than he wants to challenge the leader.

[37:24]

When a member deviates, a characteristic sequence of interactions follows. Firstly, there is norm sending, i.e. leading members of the group indicate what the norms are. This may be done by the example of their own behavior. In this case, the relevant influence process is one of identification and imitation. It may explain verbally what behavior is expected and what the acceptable limits are. When a member is deviated, this may be responded to in a variety of ways. There may be minor nonverbal signals, the raised eyebrow or frown. There may be verbal communication, either of a persuasive or threatening kind. It is found that communication to a deviate increases unless he is seen as a hopeless case. Pessinger, 1950. There may be total social rejection and exclusion from the group or physical violence. The deviate... may now conform if he is keen to be accepted by the group. Walker and Haynes, 1962, found that there was more conformity in cohesive groups if subjects had been not to believe the conformity was instrumental to being liked, not if they were informed otherwise.

[38:32]

Schachter, 1951, showed that deviants are rejected particularly in cohesive groups and on topics relevant to group goals. Some aspects of conformity must be looked at in terms of cognitive processes. Deutsch and Gerard, 1955, showed that people sometimes conform because they think the rest of the group were right, and not just to avoid being rejected. Deviants may regard the other group members as sources of expert advice or of factual information, which may be useful for solving external problems. The amount of conformity will depend on the perceived expertise or competence of the other members. We will now consider some of the main variables governing the conformity behavior of deviants and the basis for the finding of interaction. Page 228. Number 1. Relation to the Group. People conform most to the norms of group which they are keen to belong, known as reference groups.

[39:34]

Newcomb, 1943. This has been confirmed in laboratory experiments in which groups are made to appear more or less attractive, e.g. back 1951. May be through processes of identification with group members, because acceptance by the group is a desirable goal, or because the group is regarded as a reliable source of information. Status in the group should affect conformity, as predicted by Hollander's theory. There are results of some more contradictory. See, Alan Ops said, some of the better studies suggest that the relationship is curved linear. The greatest conformity is shown by those of medium status. Dittes and Kelly, 1956. There is much less conformity when a David is supported by even one other person than when he is alone. This was found, for example, in a very realistic experiment by Milgram, 1965. Subjects were instructed by the experimenter to give large electric shocks to another person, but were more able to refuse if others refused also. 2. Personality of subject.

[40:37]

A number of studies have tried to find out which subjects conform most in laboratory situations, usually involving little or no interaction, has found the conformers of female, unintelligent, authoritarian, and lacking in self-confidence. Gretchfield, 1955-9-1959. However, whether a person will conform also depends on situational factors. Although women conform more on judgmental tasks, and McDavid 1965 found that women conform more on male issues, it was found that they did not do so on matters that were either sex-free or feminine. Hollander and Willis 1967 have suggested that conformity is no more of a personality trait than is leadership. Both depend very much on the group and the situation. As with leadership, there is evidence for a rather small degree of consistency between one conformity situation and another, found 1964. Furthermore, the correlation between conformity and personality depends on the nature of the situation.

[41:40]

For example, whereas authoritarians conform more if the other people are more powerful or of higher status, it is people with low confidence and strong affiliation needs who respond most to peer group pressures. Different personalities also react differently depending on their competence in the situation as will be shown below. There may be cross-cultural differences in conformity to Norse. Milgram, 1961, found that Norwegians conform more than comparable French subjects in the Crutchfield situation. Andrew Smith et al., 1950, have argued that conformity is stronger in the USA than in more interdirected cultures such as Europe. It is our impression that there are great differences in conformity between different subpopulations within each of these countries. British teenagers conform, American writers do not. Page 229. 3. Nature of the Situation. There is more conformity when the behavior in question is public rather than private, as an experiment by the author showed, Ergo, 1957.

[42:49]

The more surveillance there is by the group, the greater the likelihood of sanctions for deviance. Conformity is greatest if a person feels that the other people have greater competence or knowledge of the situation, so that he will conform to quite different extents in different situations. This has been demonstrated by experiments in which subjects are given preliminary trials in which feedback indicates they are good or bad at judging a task. The more difficult the topic or task the more a person conforms. Allen, 1965. Hierarchical structure and role differentiation. Although groups form norms, the members do not all behave identically. This is partly because there are different tasks to be done in the group and partly because members have different personalities. We saw earlier that in groups of... Premates, a hierarchical order develops in which the dominant animals direct the group activity, provide defense against predators, and see that young animals are protected against larger ones.

[43:55]

Page 34 FM. The emergence of a leadership hierarchy is characteristic of human groups too. But there are other kinds of role differentiation as well. It is found that a clear leadership structure is more likely to appear under some conditions than others. These are the conditions in which a leader is required to direct and coordinate group activities. 1. Bale et al., 1951, found a more unequal distribution of verbal acts in larger groups. And Hemphill, 1950... found that in groups over 30, in size, a leader-centered direction was more acceptable. Without firm leadership in a large group, there was chaos. 2. When decisions must be made quickly, an ineffective leader will quickly be replaced by another person, and the leader is allowed to be more influential. Hamblin, 1958. On the other hand, trivial... Decisions are also delegated to a leader, so perhaps equalitarian and democratic processes flourish only for problems of intermediate urgency or importance, Jones and Gerard, 1967, or when there is enough time.

[45:01]

3. When the task to be performed is complex, and when there are diverse persons or roles to be coordinated, there is probably greater need for an effective leader. Page 230. The emergence of a leadership hierarchy seems to be a universal feature for human groups. It may partly be derived by trial and error as the best way of getting the task done. Perhaps the family provides a model which is unwittingly copied in all of the groups. There is also a cultural tradition in different societies and experience in one group will generalize to others. We are primarily concerned here with... in formal groups, i.e. groups where there are no formal ranks, titles, or offices. Formal organizations will be considered in Chapter 7. We shall, however, deal with the family in this chapter, since it is more like a small group rather than a social organization. Although all members may be equal in age or social class, nevertheless some acquire greater power or status than the others.

[46:04]

By leadership or power is meant a person's capacity to influence other members of the group. By status, is meant the admiration or esteem which a person enjoys in the group. There are some human groups where leadership is based on the physical size and fighting power of members, as is the case with primates. Apart from groups of small boys and juvenile delinquents, leadership in human groups is decided more on the basis of conversation and contribution to the group's problems. Bales has studied the pattern of verbal interaction and problem-solving groups of three to eight groups, Figure 6.1 gives the totals of a number of groups where each member has been ranked in order of number of communication sent. These results show clearly that some people communicate much more with others. The distribution is usually J-shaped, with the majority of members saying little. The larger the group and the more unequal the status of competence of members, the more unequal are the rates of contribution.

[47:07]

It was found that the people who... Say most are also addressed most, and they address the group as a whole most, which is rarely done by the low contributors. The lows communicate upwards, highs to the group. The pattern of interaction is furthermore different for high and low contributors. The highs contribute more attempted solutions and information. Lows agree or disagree and ask for information. Bales, 1953. How does this J shape? I argue a pattern of behavior developed. It seems likely that people communicate as much as the rest of the group wants and permits them to, and that nonverbal reinforcements by the group control the rates. Banton and Nelson, 1964, found that frequency of offering opinions in problem-solving groups could be increased or reduced by experimentally controlled agreement-disagreement. Differences in interaction rates may indeed increase within the group until checked, but an equilibrium level of differentiation has been reached.

[48:13]

Bales, 1953, page 231. Thus, a person's final level of interaction is jointly determined by his motivation to talk and the value the others place upon it. The process does not work perfectly since some people are insensitive to negative reactions so that their rate of contribution may be high in relation to the perceived value on the group. It takes time for a hierarchy of structure to settle down to a stable pattern, and there is usually a struggle for status in the early life of the group. There tends to be isolation between attending to these interpersonal problems and getting on with the group's work. Until the internal problems have been solved, work will be ineffective, and there will be wrangling and polarization of opinion over trivial issues reflecting disagreements over social relationships. Bales, 1953. Tuchman, 1965. Figure 6.1, the distribution of participation in groups of different sizes, from Bayles et al., 1951.

[49:14]

Okay, obviously in groups of different sizes, the smaller the group, the fewer points we have to consider. Axes are percentage of total axe, which rank from, evidently, 0 to 50, and rank position. which the first chart is 0 to 3, and then 0 to 4, to 5, 6, 7, and then finally 0 to 8. First one, N equals 3, S, or sessions, equals 26, and capital N equals hundreds of acts, which is 93. Zero to four groups, group members. Total group membership is four. Sessions, 89, hundreds of acts, 582.

[50:18]

N equals five. S equals N. Capital N equals 107. Zero to six is N equals six. S equals 18. N equals 213. N equals seven. S equals 15. N equals 220. And N equals 8. S equals 10. N equals 128. Back to text. Group members differ not only in the total amount of their contributions, but also in their style of social behavior. We have already noted the difference between highs and lows. These differences are often referred to as the adoption of different roles in the group, by which is meant that there are a limited number of alternative styles commonly adopted, page 232. Slater, 1955, studied 20 discussion groups of three to seven men and found that there were varying degrees of role differentiation.

[51:24]

A common pattern was found for there to be an ideas man and a best-liked man. The ideas man communicated a lot, particularly in the task area, while the best-liked man was high on showing solidarity. tension release, agreeing, and asking questions. In similar studies of five-man groups, Bales, 1953, found that the person rated highest in guidance and best ideas was the highest interactor, but was disliked most and only third in positive choices. A rather similar differentiation was found in the study of Great Books, Clubs, by Davis, 1961. He found that the roles of providing fuel for discussion, putting the threads together in clarification, were often performed by the same person, while joking and making tactful remarks to heal hurt feelings were performed by others. Group members distinguished between those whose company they enjoy and choose as friends and those whom they think can help to realize the group goals.

[52:25]

Can the same person carry both roles? The Bales Group report not but Turk 1961. reports that the two leaders can coincide when members are strongly committed to the group task. As will be shown later, it's not only possible but essentially that a formally appointed leader should carry both task and social roles. Slater, 1955, found that there was a close social relationship between the two kinds of leader in his groups. It is certainly not always the case that two clear leaders emerge in a group, It is true that there are two main jobs to be done, organizing the group to perform the external task and resolving interpersonal problems and keeping members happy. On the other hand, these two activities are closely related and a formal leader cannot perform the best effectively without at the same time performing the second. The democratic, persuasive, consultive type of leadership does both simultaneously.

[53:26]

Page 209FF. Perhaps the subject used in these experiments did not have the necessary social skills, or perhaps it is more difficult for an informal leader to use these techniques. Males and females often play their characteristic roles. Males are task-oriented and dominant. Females are socially oriented and submissive. We can analyze group hierarchies in terms of the different amounts of power, influence, or leadership which each member can exercise. This may be defined as the... extent to which a member can and does influence others, and it can be assessed by observation of influence attempts. Lippitt et al. 1952 counted the numbers of attempts at influence made by 127 boys at two camps, and also the percentages of successful influence attempts. Page 233. Power can be assessed from ratings made by group members about who is best at getting others to do what he wants them to. as used in the study above. Many of the earlier studies in this area used the term leadership rather than power and tried to find the person or persons who had the most influence on the group using observations or ratings, Gibb 1969.

[54:38]

A person can say to have power or influence over one person or group, and the internal power structure of a group can be analyzed. Many studies were carried out to find the personality correlates of leadership. rather small correlations were found between leadership in general and personality traits in any particular group and situation however leadership depends entirely on the personal attributes of those present but which these are varies greatly between different situations and groups. The situation, the external task, calls for someone who is an expert on the task in question and can help the group toward its goals. Leadership is bound to rotate if a group is confronted by a series of different tasks or situations. Carter and Nixon, 1949. Leadership and influence in an informal group are a matter of degree. There is no clear separation of leader and lead. as there is in groups with appointed leaders. Furthermore, all group members have some influence on the group. Hollander and Webb, 1955, found that group members nominated much the same people as followers as they would for leaders, but they did not nominate them as friends.

[55:48]

Leaders like followers are chosen because they are good at the job. The group, the internal task, calls for someone who can synchronize the rest of the group in a rewarding relationship, and maintain cohesion. Haythorn et al. 1965 found that authoritarian groups get on best with authoritarian leaders. It has often been found that there is the same correlation between informal leadership and intelligence, extroversion, adjustment, and social sensitivity. Mann, 1959. Gibb, 1969. It is not only a matter of social skill, though this is important, it is necessary to have the kind of personality that fits into the group in the right way. Whether or not a person becomes a leader also depends on his motivation, his involvement in the group, and its goals, his motivation to lead, and hence the amount of time and effort he is prepared to put in. Some are motivated to lead, others to be independent, others to establish affiliative relations. The latter will become the socio-emotional leaders.

[56:51]

The various sources of power are discussed in the next chapter, page 286-FF. How is power related to social interaction? By definition, powerful individuals are able to exert greater influence. The Lippert et al., 1952 study, shows how those rated as powerful tried to influence others more often and were more often successful. Page 234. Bandura et al., 1963, found that there was also a more voluntary imitation of powerful confederates. Powerful people can influence the group, including the change of... of group norms. This is partly achieved through the powerful person having greater freedom of action or permission to deviate. See page 227. How successful a person will be also depends on his social skill, how skillfully he persuades and manipulates the others. The powerful person will contribute more in group discussion. Base 1949 found a correlation between interaction rate and ratings of leadership in 10-man groups.

[57:54]

he also enjoys the interaction more there is some truth in the theory that there is an exchange of rewards and that the more powerful people are given power by the other members because they are useful on the other hand the most powerful members receive more rewards and there are usually others who would like to have more influence than they do the hierarchical structure of groups can be analyzed in terms of status differences we will define a person's status as the extent to which he is esteemed, admired, or approved by other members of the group. This is distinct from his popularity based on affection and his power based on his ability to influence. Groups Develop stable status structures, in which the placement of members is fairly well agreed. Feelings of subjective status also correspond fairly well with status awarded by others. Status is based on factors such as excellence of performance, to be discussed shortly.

[58:57]

It is associated with objective rewards, such as higher rank or pay, and is indicated by visible status symbols such as clothes, size of desks, thickness of carpet. Status appears to be based on conformity to group norms, superior attainment and directions valued by the group, contribution of effort and other costs extended in group affairs. Harmon's 1961 sees status primarily as recognition by the group. in exchange for rewarding services received. This principle does not hold when status is awarded to people of higher social class or some other external kind of rank, and the wider society social classes develop from equivalent levels of various hierarchies. A person's position in this system becomes recognizable through the cultural differences between classes. Excellence of performance in different spheres, status awarded by the group, and tangible rewards may get out of step, and this is called status incongruence. Several studies show that the individual is concerned to feel uncomfortable.

[60:01]

The group is ineffective, and the changes will occur in the group to improve the alignment of the different aspects of status. Benoit, Smullyan, 1944, Troe and Hirschdorfer, 1965, page 235. The explanation for this phenomena may lie in reduction of cognitive dissonance or the difficulty of predicting behavior and interacting when there are conflicting indices of status. People strive to increase their status and to make maximum use of dimensions on which their status is highest. This is an important aspect of self-presentation. Status symbols are both used by individuals for this purpose and awarded by the group to them. There can be violent rivalry for status, especially when two people are in a similar position, and the treatment they receive is highly visible as in the case of sibling rivalry, Tybott and Kelly, 1959. How do status differences affect social interaction in a group?

[61:03]

No detailed evidence appears to be available, but the phenomena are fairly familiar. The high-status person is treated with respect and deference. Not only may he receive higher pay or other material benefits, but he is rewarded interpersonally as well, which seems to go against exchange-theory expectations. On the other hand, he will not receive affiliative rewards since lower-status individuals find his presence makes them nervous and uneasy. And there may not be reciprocity of his efforts for others. See page 174F. Around the man who has just been... Around the man who has just been to the moon or made some great discovery, there's a kind of an almost holy atmosphere. His company has sought since sheer association with him confers status on others, while others are nervous and excited. He is genial and relaxed, securing his position in the group and conveying rewards to others at little cost to himself. In addition to differences of power or status, world differentiation of other kinds appears within the group. We have discussed the emergence of task and socio-emotional leaders above.

[62:08]

It is found that members of problem-solving groups specialize in different aspects of the task, a kind of division of labor. This is more likely to happen in larger groups, Thomas and Fink 1963. In every kind of group, some kind of role differentiation takes place, but the roles which appear are different, as will be shown below. Three possible explanations may be suggested for the appearance of different roles in a group. One, there may be a number of definite jobs to be done in the group. The emergence of two kinds of leaders in discussion groups is an example of this. It would be expected that different kinds of groups would have rather different tasks. A committee needs a secretary, a coffee group needs someone to make the coffee. On this theory, if the person who usually fills the role is absent, another person should step in. The experimental removal of individuals from groups would therefore show whether a role was essential or not. Page 236. Number 2. There is extensive evidence that individuals with different personalities have differently, behave differently in groups.

[63:10]

Chapter 8. The observed differences in behavior would simply be due to personality factors. Clearly, this is not the whole story, since there can only be one task leader, and other dominant individuals would have to find somewhat different parts to play. If there was a choice of roles, people tried to take the one which is most congenial. Mann, 1967, found that there are seven common roles in T groups. That's a capital T hyphen the word groups. Page 269F. Bossard and Ball, 1956, found eight common roles for the children of large families. Page 244F. It is not known how far these roles represent group tests or how far they represent the main preferences by different personalities. The two leader roles are probably roles that have to be done by someone, but the same may not be true of the others. 3. A third possible source of role differentiation is the desire of members to present themselves as unique individuals.

[64:15]

It is found that there is greater specialization in different aspects of the group in larger groups, Thomas and Fink, 1963, though this could be accounted for by the first theory. On the individuation hypothesis, if a number of very similar personalities are put together in a group, there should be divergence of behavior. The affective structure. There are three main kinds of human group. Family, work, and friendship groups. Friendship groups exist entirely because the members like one another. There are attitudes of liking and disliking in the other kinds of groups, too. Primates spend much of their time playing with or grooming their friends. Friendship groups are composed largely of peers. and it has been suggested that they have a function in society of integrating families and organizations and providing channels of communication as well as satisfying various social needs for individuals. At different phases in the life cycle, individuals spend different amounts of time with the three kinds of groups.

[65:20]

The most accessible subjects for research purposes, students, are at a time of life when friendship groups are the most important and research on affective structure has been mainly concerned with these groups. One way of analyzing the internal structure of a small social group is in terms of likings and dislikings, attractions and repulsions between pairs of members. The most widely used technique for measuring these is that of sociometry, devised by Moreno, 1953. Each member simply asks which other members he would choose or reject as companions for some joint activity. Page 237. Moreno's rules, which have not always been followed, are that 1. The choice should be made from a limited group. 2. Subjects should be given an unlimited number of choices or rejections. In practice, they are often given from 1 to 3. 3. Choices are made in terms of specific activities. 4. The results of the sociometric survey are actually used to rearrange the group, often omitted in research studies.

[66:27]

Five, choices are private, and six, members should understand the question. The criteria or activities used are usually of three main kinds, choosing the other for A, leisure time activities, B, work, or C, leadership. Leadership nominations have been considered above. Leisure and work choices correspond to the two main aspects of groups distinguished previously, socio-emotional and task. Socio-emotional choices correspond to the satisfaction of affiliative and other interpersonal needs, while task choices reflect achievement and other task motivations and others' capacity. To contribute to the group task, factor analyses of interpersonal attitudes have confirmed the value of this approach. Three dimensions commonly appear. Influence and initiative. task, competence, and like, dislike. Tagiuri, 1958. While leisure or socioemotional choices reflect the third, work and leadership reflect the other two.

[67:35]

Figure 6.2. First figure in figure 6.2 is composed of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 points. 6 points, excuse me. There are two triangles. The point of both triangles is C. ABF is the baseline, which is at the top of the larger triangle, with point C. And then ED is the baseline of the bottom smaller triangle, whose point is C. And there's arrows pointing... To and from A to C. From A to B. From B to A. From B to F. From F to B. From F to C. And from C to B. There's a line from E to C. An arrow from D to C. And an arrow from E to D. And then there's an arrow from D to F.

[68:50]

And those are both points on the baselines on the same side, on the right side of the figure, but on different triangles. Then the second figure in figure 6.2 is just a triangle whose, you might say, point is at the bottom. It's x, y, z. x, y is the baseline. There's an arrow to and from everything, like here's an arrow from x to y and from y to x. from X to Z, from Z to X, from X to Y, Y to Z. Back to text. The total set of choices between members can be plotted to form a sociogram as in Figure 6.2. Some of the main structural features which may be found in a sociogram can be seen there. C is popular, a star. E is not chosen by anyone, an isolate. XYZ is a triangle, an ABCF, is a larger click.

[69:51]

There is a cleavage between XYZ and the rest. There is mutual choice between A and B and several other pairs. When the rejections are plotted as well, the plot thickens. A number of quantitative indices have been devised for summarizing sociometric data. The most useful is that for cohesiveness, taken as a percentage of total choices made to other members of a particular subgroup. When a group... First forums, members choose the same people for all activities. As they get to know each other, they choose different people for leisure, work, and other criteria. Most of the leisure choices are reciprocated. Negative 70% versus 35% for work choices and leisure choices are more evenly distributed through the group. Jennings, 1950, page 238. Mutuality is more common for choices such as sit-next-to than for leadership or advancement-oriented criteria. Griswell, 1949. There's no doubting that this simple technique provides a very valuable method of studying groups, and it is often used by teachers and administrators for selecting subgroups and for finding out what is happening.

[70:58]

Lindsay and Borgata, 1954. There are several criticisms that could be made. Firstly, the sociometric method fails to bring out the immense differences between different types of choice, between husband and wife, committee member and chairman, adolescent friends, etc. These relationships will be discussed later in the chapter. Secondly, like all measures and indices, it abstracts certain things and overlooks the rest. Whether or not A chooses B as a companion for some activity does not tell us much about the relationship, even though this is one of the most important dimensions of interpersonal attitudes. The complexities of interaction between two people are very great, as we have seen, and it may be doubted how far these simple attitudinal variables are adequate. Thirdly, sociometry teaches... treats a group as the sum of a number of dyadic relationships. However, this is only part of the story. A's relation to B may be quite changed if C is going to be there, too. When a number of people are present in a social situation, the group often divides up into smaller groups. Even in groups of three, a subgroup of two may separate off.

[72:02]

Mills, 1953, studied 48 three-man groups, which were asked to produce a single story from three TAT pictures. He found that most communications were exchanged between the two most active members, and the third was virtually isolated. Robson, 1967, repeated the study using different sex combinations. He found that in mixed sex triads, the two members of the same sex competed to form a lesion with the other member. Lesion. In three female triads, there was more mutual support than in a three-male group. There were correlations, but the least active females receive the most support of any member. These results are consistent with other bindings to the effect that females are more affiliative, more concerned with socio-emotional problems, and less competitive than males. One reason for the formation of subgroups is that in larger groups there is a highly skewed distribution of participation. Many members cannot participate as much as they would like to, and they have very little to say in decisions.

[73:04]

For many purposes, a group size of about five is preferred. Members can talk as much as they like, and there is sufficient variety of interests and diversity of talents in the group. Here, 1962, page 239. Subgroups may form because of common interests or because there is an in-group of people with something in common. A group may in time divide permanently into subgroups. Such subgrouping comes about much the same way as friendship choices and group formation, frequency of interaction, similar attitudes, attributes, etc. In work settings, subgroups may divide because they are doing different work or are differently located. Roethlisberger and Dixon, 1939 In leisure groups, there may be more a matter of mutual compatibility and similarity of interests. Subgroups may divide vertically or horizontally. It is common for a miniature class system to develop, most interaction taking place between people of equal status. On the other hand, both communications and sociometric choices are skewed slightly upwards, i.e.

[74:07]

are directed to people slightly more popular, Reichen and Hammonds, 1954, or a powerful Mulder et al., 1964. There is a difference between a subgroup forming because of common interests, for example, business or political interests, and a subgroup forming temporarily because interaction is more congenial that way, although ease of interaction is certainly one basis for a permanent association. A Coalition is the number of people who act jointly to improve their outcomes at the expense of other members. Gamson 1964 argues that the experiments by Mills and Robson are not strictly studies of coalitions, since it is not clear that outcomes were affected, though it could be argued that a mutually supportive subgroup is a coalition by virtue of the interpersonal rewards involved. Experimental analysis of coalitions have been set up mostly consisting of dice-throwing games where different players multiply their scores by different weights. As in other experimental games, all interaction was excluded. This research is reviewed by GamSynoptSit.

[75:08]

It is found that if A has a weight of 2, B of 2, and C of 3, then A and B will form a correlation against C. The knock in Arco of 1957 may be suggested that this kind of experiment is... very far removed from social interaction. However, the behavior observed in the dice game experiments is not entirely without interest to social psychologists. While male subjects behave in a Machiavellian manner to maximize their own gains, female subjects do not. Bond and Vanak, 1961, conclude that females... try to arrive at a fair and just division of outcomes that avoid competition. Males are exploitive and females are accommodative. Furthermore, such anti-competitive behavior was found to pay off in the course of a long series of games since mutual trust was established. How is the sociometric stretcher related to social interaction? The most important link is simply that there is more interaction between people who choose each other. Interaction leads to liking, and liking leads to interaction, and they are two aspects of the same relationship.

[76:09]

Page 211f. Reading on page 240. The nature of the interaction almost certainly varies, too, with sociometric choice, and between work and leisure choices, and between single and mutual choices, but this has not been yet documented. It has, however, been found that more aggressive... More aggression can occur when there are stronger sociometric links, probably because there is less fear of disrupting the relationship. In cohesive groups, there is less absenteeism and labor turnover. People are less likely to leave a group when sociometric links are strong. Conformity pressures are stronger, and it is usually found that more conformity occurs in cohesive groups. Lot and Lot, 1965. Five kinds of small social group. The concentration of research on laboratory groups has diverted attention away from the very varied kinds of interaction taking place in real-life groups.

[77:11]

We shall describe interaction in the three most important types of groups, the family, work groups, and groups of friends. We shall concentrate on adolescent friendship groups. In addition, an account will be given of some other kinds of group which have been extensively studied, committees, tea groups, and therapy groups. We shall describe the environmental settings of these groups, the motivation of the members, the task, the social structure, and the special patterns of interaction found in them. To do this, we draw on descriptive sociological and clinical studies, some of them not particularly rigorous, and we shall not shrink from stating the obvious. Recent books about groups have overlooked the obvious but extremely important differences between these different kinds of groups. The family is a small group. There is something like a family in all species of mammals. The mother has to care for the young, and the father often provides food and protection during this period.

[78:13]

Only in humans does the father become an enduring member of the family, and only in humans is there a lifelong link between children and parents. What is probably the most important kind of small group in human society is often overlooked by small group researchers, and consequently there are... There are important features of the family group which have never been embodied in small group experiments or theorizing. Page 241. The nuclear family consists of two parents, sons and daughters, and can thus be regarded as a four-role system divided by generation and sex, Parsons and Bales, 1955. There are also characteristic relations between older and younger brothers and between older and younger sisters, so that it may be better to see the family as potentially a six-role system, though not all the positions may be filled. Murdoch, 1949. The basic features of the relationship between each pair of positions are much the same in all human societies.

[79:14]

For example, between older and younger brothers, there is a relationship of playmates developing into that of comrades, economic cooperation under leadership of elder, Moderate responsibility of elder for instruction and discipline of younger. The family have some of the features of a formal organization. A set of positions, each associated with the role, including patterns of interaction with occupants of other positions. See Chapter 7. There are considerable cross-cultural variations in the composition of the family unit. There are variations in the number of wives or husbands in the role of uncles, aunts, and grandparents, and in the living arrangements. In rural Ghana, for example, the domestic unit consists of a compound presided over by a grandmother with sheds or huts for her daughters and their families. It is common in primitive societies for the domestic unit to be larger than in Western society and for extended kinship ties to assume greater importance. In Western society, these relationships are generally more important in the working class and are taken more seriously by women.

[80:20]

The parents are drawn together by a combination of sexual and other motivations. They have protective and nurtured motivations towards the children. The children have dependent motivations toward the parents at least until adolescence. The parents join up voluntarily in most societies. The children do not. Indeed, their mode of entry into the group is rather unusual. It is also very difficult for members of the family group to leave it. The relations between family members depend not only on their personalities, but also on their positions in a role structure and possession of different degrees of power. In this respect, the family resembles a formal organization like a school or hospital, rather than an informal group of equals with no appointed leader. The pattern of this role structure that prescribe relationship between family members and their relative power vary greatly between societies, social classes, and historical periods. Herbst, 1952, studied the roles of husband and wife by asking children who did what. He found that activities could be ordered from wives, e.g. ironing, to husbands, e.g.

[81:24]

paying for holiday, and that there was most conflict over activities in the middle. Page 242. If a husband dealt with any one area, he would deal with all those below it in the list, as in a Guttman scale. Blood and Wolf, 1960. did a field study of 731 wives in Detroit. They too found that husbands and wives control different domains and also that husbands were more likely to be dominant if they were economically successful. The wife did not have a job. The wife needed love and affection, and if the wife was younger. Strahd Beck in 1951 created disagreements experimentally between husbands and wives from different cultures and found that among Mormons the husband usually won, among Navajo Indians the wife did, while Texans were intermediate. The detailed analysis of culture variations and kinship relations has been a major preoccupation of anthropologists. The traditional British working-class family had a rigid division between the husband, who was the wage earner, was given the best food, and was waited on by the female members and the wife, who had to manage the home and the children, with what money the husband gave her.

[82:34]

This pattern has been changing in the direction of the middle-class family, with less rigid role division, more shared interests, and more cooperative more cooperation over running the home, McGregor and Roundtree, 1962. This role differentiation corresponds to the task and maintenance functions found in leaders of other kinds of small groups. Zelditch, 1955, has found that it exists in most societies, though the differentiation of father and mother roles is least in the American middle class. The power relations of family members are greatly dependent on money. The main wage earner generally has the most power. The control of parents over children is, in addition, strengthened by the law so that they can call in external authorities to help deal with the children if necessary. Unlike groups of friends, family members have tasks to perform. In primitive societies, these are mainly the growing and preparation of the food, the rearing and education of children, and the maintenance of the house.

[83:36]

In modern society, some of these activities are performed by outside agencies, but there are still the domestic jobs connected with eating, sleeping, and care of the young. In addition, there are leisure activities such as TV, gardening, games, and family outings. Some of these are like activities of friends in that they are performed because of the interaction involved. Interaction in the family is closely connected with these joint activities, eating, watching, or playing together. Interaction is also brought about through the members pursuing their private goals under conditions of physical proximity, and whether joint activities have to be more or less closely coordinated, this is an extension of the necessity for meshing. Page 243. The physical environment and technology have an important effect on family life. Overcrowding of other animals results in aggression in the murder rate is greater in overcrowded areas. Henry N. Short, 1954. The family tasks include looking after one another, in particular caring for the bodily needs of members.

[84:41]

In addition to close physical proximity, there is also intimacy and interdependence. Family groups are linked to other groups. There are relations who are peripheral members of the family group and who may live nearby and be the people most frequently seen. This is common in primitive society and has also been found among working-class British families. Young and Wilmot, 1957. Members of the family group belong to other groups of friends and neighbors at work and school, in which they lead a second life with more emphasis on self-presentation and, for the last two, on task activities. Elizabeth Bott, 1957. found that these links make up a network rather than a social group, except in small, closed communities. She also found some evidence that families with greater segregation of marital roles were more involved with the network of social links outside the family. What goes on inside the family is private and not really subject to external control.

[85:43]

Models of how family should behave are however provided by magazines and TV and by the previous families of the parents. The actual elements of interaction of which family life consists differ from all other groups in that greater intimacy, aggression, affection, and emotional violence occurs. Family members see each other undressed or naked and there is almost no attempt at self-presentation. They know each other's weaknesses and understand each other extremely well. Family life is very much offstage in Kaufman's terminology, 1956a. There is physical aggression mainly of parents toward children, but also between children. There is aggression between parents, but it is mainly verbal. Affection is equally violent and often takes the form of bodily contact between parents and between parents and children until they get too old for it. Members of laboratory groups do not usually take their clothes off, lap uproarously, cry, attack, or kiss each other, or quarrel all over each other as members of families commonly do.

[86:48]

Interaction in the family is more complex and subtle than most other interaction because of the intense and complex relationships between members and their long history of previous interaction. Spiegel, 1956, describes cases of tense mother-daughter interaction and suggests that Various unconscious fantasies and predictions are taking place in addition to what seems to be occurring. Page 244. This is similar to the interpersonal behavior found in some neurotics. Page 348. The subtler nonverbal communications may be very important, as in the possible effect of double-bind parents in making children schizophrenic. Page 340f. The dimensions of parent behavior, which have the strictest effect on children, are how Error, Probably, Warmth vs. Rejection, Strictness vs. Permissiveness, and Type of Discipline, Sears Maccabi, End 11, 1957. The family group is in a state of some degree of equilibrium much of the time, but there are continual crisis, illness, difficulties with the children, financial, and so on.

[87:58]

With each crisis, there is a temporary period of dislocation, followed by a gradual return to the previous equilibrium, or to a shift. to a new one. Waller and Hill, 1951. Sometimes it is possible to reestablish equilibrium. A common result is that one member of the family leaves the home temporarily or permanently. The family group displays the structural features of other kinds of groups, but in special ways. The hierarchical structure of power and influence depends mainly on cultural roles, but there can be variations depending on attributes of the members. Coos, 1946, found among New York tenement families that the father could lose his position of dominance if he failed to deal with an emergency and that the mother or even a child would replace him. The sibling hierarchy is fairly rigid, though inequalities of intelligence, earning power, or other kinds of competence can change it. We showed above that role differentiation occurs between fathers and mothers in a way similar to all other small groups.

[89:04]

There may be also role differentiation between the children. Bossert and Ball, 1956, studied 100 families with six or more children and found that the following roles were most common in this order. 1. Responsible. Looks after others, often oldest daughter. 2. Most popular. Often second-born. 3. Socially ambitious. Social butterfly. usually later-born daughter. 4. Studious. 5. Self-centered isolate, often the only one of a sex. 6. Irresponsible. 7. Not well. 8. Spoiled, often the last-born. Most of them are not roles in the sense that someone has to play them, though in a large family the first two may be like this, corresponding to the task and socio-emotional leaders of other groups.

[90:07]

The sociometric structure of a family group differs from that of all other groups in the quality and intensity of the bonds. The two parents were initially drawn together by sexual desire and other complex dyadic processes, making up romantic life. The parents see their children as part of themselves, and the children are closely dependent on them. Both bonds are extremely strong, affectionate ties. Parents and children may not like one another particularly, but there is still a powerful bond. It is found that parents never really recover from the death of a child. 1965, and the death of a parent is highly damaging to the later mental health of a child. Page 344. Relations between siblings are rather different. Their essentially competitive relationship can produce intense hostility, and the links in later life can be weak.

[91:11]

Adams, 1967, points out that kinship relations are quite different from friendship outside the family. There is a feeling of obligation and concern for the other. The link is very long-lasting, and there is a feeling both of responsibility for the other and of sharing in his activities. Adams suggests that the early intimacy and shared emotional experience create this kind of social bond. There may be, however, a similar feeling for the relations outside the nuclear family, the so-called blood tie. There may be a feeling of shared identity with a person who carries the same name or who has some of the same physical features. The family is usually divided into two subgroups, the parents and the children. The older children may cross the line into the parental group, and the grouping may cut across generations, especially in an incestuous way, and this is associated with later schizophrenia in the children. Page 340. Families have norms about a very wide range of matters.

[92:12]

The parents usually decide how everything shall be done, set the style of life, and have a shared outlook on life. This is all picked up by the children so that by 11 to 12 they have accepted and learned the parental ways. During adolescence there is an attempt to become independent in the family, and some or most of these conventions are rejected for at least... Time at least. Families also develop rituals, especially about what happens at meals, on holidays, at anniversaries, and during leisure time. These are particularly marked when there are young children and in middle-class families. Bossard and Ball, 1950, maintain that rituals serve the functions of binding the family together, keeping discipline, maintaining traditional values, and promoting a feeling of social well-being. Parsons and Bales, 1955, argue that the family group is like other small groups, such as laboratory discussion groups, and showing the same kind of role differentiation, etc. There are, however, a number of features of family groups which are absent from most other kinds of small group.

[93:18]

One, there is a formal structure whose patterns is defined by culture. Two, there is little self-presentation while there is greater intimacy and intensity of interpersonal feelings, both of love and hate. 3. The links between members have extra qualities lacking in other groups, romantic love, parent-child relations, and the blood tie. These go beyond the basis for sociometric choice considered so far. 4. The family group lasts in a changing form for a great many years. The bonds are very long-lasting. Page 246. Adolescent Groups. Friendship groups are one of the basic forms of social grouping in animals and men. They are distinguished by the fact that members are brought together primarily through interpersonal motivations and attractions, not through concern with any task. Of all friendship groups, adolescent groups are the most interesting.

[94:20]

During adolescent work and family, attachments are weak and strongest attachments are to friends. These groups are formed of young people between the ages of 11, 12, up to 21, 23. When the members marry and settle down in jobs, then other kinds of group become more important to them. The motivations of members are partly to engage in various joint activities, but more important are interpersonal needs, sexual affiliative, and the establishment of identity. It has been suggested that there are certain developmental tasks during this period of life to develop an identity independent of the family and to establish a changed relation with adults, Erickson 1956, Mose 1962. The environmental setting of adolescent groups tends to be public places such as coffee bars, clubs, and dance halls, and to a lesser extent schools and the homes of members. Adolescent social activity is often thought to fill a gap which exists in modern societies between the world of children in families and school and the world of work and the establishment of another family some years later.

[95:28]

Sharif and Cantrell, 1947. Adolescent groups are established outside the regular institutions of family life and work. They are also established independently of the influence of adults. Adolescents are trying first to become independent of parents and other adults, and then to meet them on terms of equality. It is in groups of other adolescents that this independence is established. Sometimes young adults can play a role in these groups as club leaders, for example, if they behave as sympathetic older members of the group. These phenomena vary with the cultural setting. There is no gap between childhood and adulthood in most primitive societies, and a rapid transition is assisted by initiation rites. Teenage culture appeared in the USA shortly before World War II and has since spread to many other countries. In Great Britain, the evolution of teenage society has been one of the greatest social changes since 1950 and is thought to be responsible for the increase in crime over this period, Argyle 1964b.

[96:33]

The mass media play an important role in the diffusion of styles of teenage behavior. Reisman et al. 1950 and opinion leaders in these groups pass on the latest ideas. Page 247. Advertisements aimed at teenagers have had a big effect by creating a demand for clothes, records, scooters, and so on, and have thus helped to develop a special teenage culture. Eugene Gilbert in the USA made a fortune from developing advertisements Advertising techniques directed toward teenagers. McDonald, 1958. The activities of adolescent groups vary with the culture. In the USA, groups of boys are concerned with cars, entertainment, sport, and girls. Sharif and Sharif, 1964. There is avoidance of the tasks of home and school. Many group activities are invented, whose chief point is the social interaction involved, such as dancing, listening to records, and drinking coffee.

[97:37]

The forms of social interactions involved are rather different from those in other groups. There is more bodily contact, joking, aggressive horseplay, and just being together, less problem-centered discussion. Schmuck and Lohmann, 1965, observe that adolescents in a group often engage in infantile behavior and pranks. while giggling and laughing hilariously, and are encouraged to feel silly together and to withhold evaluation from such experiences. Page 27. They suggest that this behavioral abandon... has a great regressive element. There is an easy intimacy and social acceptance of those who wear the right uniform. Conversation is mainly about other adolescents, parents, interpersonal feelings, and social interaction. These are probably the only natural groups that discuss social interaction. Tea groups do it too. Such topics are discussed because adolescents have problems to solve in the area, as well as working out an identity and establishing a changed relationship with adults.

[98:43]

They have to acquire the social skills of dealing with the opposite sex to come to terms with the difficulty of playing different roles on different occasions and having relationships of different degrees of intimacy with different people. Fleming, 1963. Adolescent groups show the three main forms of social structure which have been discussed. Informal hierarchy, sociometric structure, and norms, but in special ways. There is no marked hierarchy of power of leadership or leadership since there is no central task activity. There are leaders for particular activities, and leadership is found to rotate as the group does different things, such as football and crime in the case of delinquent groups. The person best did each activity... becoming temporarily the leader. There are also opinion leaders whose guidance is accepted on such matters as clothes or films, cuts, and lazars, Feld, 1955. More important is the sociometric structure. Adolescent groups are small, often three to six in size, and the friendships are intense, more so than those formed later in life.

[99:52]

Thus, an important aspect of the structure of adolescent group concerns who is in and who is out. Page 248. Adults, children, and other kinds of adolescents, e.g. mods versus rockers versus hippies, etc., are out and can instantly be seen to be out by their appearance. Social acceptance is a matter of great concern, and most adolescents are concerned with it. Subgroups and opposite sex pairs make up the internal structure of the group. Sociometric choice is partly determined by similarity and proximity. Popularity goes to those who realize the adolescent values most fully. Coleman, 1963, in his study of American high schools, found that boys who were athletic and girls who were beautiful were most popular. Those who were brainy, not quite so popular. Conformity to norms is one of the most striking features of these groups. The norms of adults or of the outside world may be violently rejected and replaced by various kinds of informality, deviance, or even criminality, but the norms of the group are slavishly conformed to.

[101:05]

Sharif and Sharif opposite observe that members do not conform through fear of sanctions, but willingly... commit themselves to the norms because they belong to the group and the group is very important to them. Sanctions are used, however, if a member's deviation threatens the existence of the group. There are norms in three main areas. 1. Those regulating interpersonal matters such as dating. Page 224F. Interpersonal behavior, sexual and affiliative, is the main purpose of these groups and norms are needed to regulate it. 2. those relating to group activities such as dancing, sport, or pop music. 3. There are strong norms about clothes and hair, probably because they define who belongs to the group and thus convey identity. Adolescents are often worried about their physical appearance. 31% of boys and 41% of girls think at some time during adolescence that their bodies are inadequate in some way.

[102:09]

Stoltz and Stoltz, 1944. Appropriate clothes are part of the solution to this problem. Adolescents are very self-conscious and a free rejection by the group and collapse of identity if their appearance is wrong. Garrison, 1951. Adolescent groups are of interest to us because of a number of special processes that can be seen, which are not present in laboratory groups. 1. There is no specific task, but joint activities are devised, which entail the kinds of interaction which meets the needs of the members. 2. One of these needs is the establishing of an ego identity, independent of the family of origin. Erickson, 1956. This explains the emphasis on clothes that great self-consciousness and the concern about acceptance by members of these groups. 3. Sexual motivation is a major factor in adolescent groups and is partly responsible for the intensity of attraction to the groups and for their pairing structure.

[103:11]

4. There is a group task of acquiring together the social skills of dealing with the opposite sex and dealing with adults. Page 249. Work Groups. In groups of animals, the work of gathering food and building homes is often carried out by males. In ancestors, a specialized and highly organized group activity. In primitive society, this work may be carried out by males or females and follows a seasonal cycle. In modern communities, work outside the home has become a highly specialized activity, mainly performed by adult males for financial reward and is done in special social organizations. Work is performed in groups for several reasons. 1. One man alone may not be able to perform the task in primitive societies. This is the case with hunting and building. Two, there can be division of labor so that different people can use or develop specialized skills. This is a central feature of work in modern communities.

[104:13]

Three, people prefer to work together because of their social motivations. Four, another factor is social facilitation. The presence of others is arousing, so more work is done. Even ants work harder when there is more than one of them on the job. Zajonk, 1965. Work groups are at the opposite pole from adolescent groups in that their primary concern is with carrying out a task. They are the other main kind of group outside the family in which adults spend most of their time. They are not so well defined as the other two kinds and often have no clear membership. It is sometimes difficult in a factory, for example, to decide which of the group. All that can be seen are a lot of people, some of them collaborate over work or interact informally from time to time. Such groups can be defined in terms of the formal organization, having the same supervisor or being paid jointly, or in terms of informal group formation, sociometric cliques, or people who think of themselves as a group.

[105:18]

Much research in this area has been done on groups of manual workers, gangs of men engaged in the maintenance of railway track, men on assembly lines. There has also been research on the more technically skilled men in charge of automated plant, and recently attention has turned to the work of engineers, accountants, scientists, and managers. In these latter cases, much of the social interaction is between people at two at a time, so there is a network rather than a group. They may also meet in committees and similar talking and decision-taking groups, which will be discussed separately in the following section. In this section, we are concerned with groups which have a definite task to do and where the social interaction arises out of the task activity. Page 250. The members of work groups are usually adults, and the majority of them are male, apart from secretaries and other occupants of female roles. The organization exists to complete certain tasks, and members are partly motivated by task-related motivations, such as the need for money and achievement motivation.

[106:23]

In addition, members... bring to the work situation a number of social needs. Schein, 1965, suggests that these are the needs for affiliation, for identity and self-esteem, to check attitudes and perceptions against social reality, for security and power, and for mutual help, e.g. when tired or ill. The behavior of work groups is thus a joint product of task-related... and purely social motivation, and consists of extra-social interaction superimposed on the formal interaction necessary for the job. Workgroups exist in a complex environmental setting, only part of which can be dealt with here. There is usually a formally appointed leader or supervisor. The effects of appointed leaders on groups will be considered in the next chapter. The nature of the task and its physical layout will affect interaction between members, page 306FF. Task activity is the primary purpose of work groups, and most research has been with the social conditions for maximum productivity.

[107:26]

The Hawthorne experiment, in which five girls in a test room showed large increases in output over a five-year period, produced high hopes for the effects of various social factors on outputs. Rothlisberger and Dixon, 1939. The results of that experiment could, however, be accounted for entirely in terms of uncontrolled factors, such as the changed incentive arrangements, the replacement of the two slowest girls by two faster ones, and the reduced variety of work done over in 1953, although fallacious and its conclusions, this experiment was nevertheless... of great historical importance. Another part of the Hawthorne studies is also interesting. Workers in the bank wiring observation room develop strong norms of output restriction. Numerous studies have shown that work groups can develop goals which are opposed to those of the organization, and that cohesive work groups can enforce relevant behavior on members.

[108:31]

It has been argued that industrial organizations often fail to satisfy the affiliative and other motivations of their members, are Gairus, 1957. Where this is so, groups are liable to devise means of satisfying them. Examples of this are social interaction, where this entails leaving the workplace and output restriction. When social needs are satisfied, job satisfaction is greater. Studies of manual workers show that those who belong to small and cohesive work groups are more satisfied. Furthermore, when workers are higher in job satisfaction... Their labor turnover and voluntary absenteeism are reduced. Argyle, 1957a, page 251. However, Herzberg et al., 1959, have produced evidence to show that engineers, accountants, and a variety of other workers receive most positive satisfaction from achievement and recognition. Social factors, they say, only produce dissatisfaction. It is often found that cohesive groups have more favorable attitudes towards the supervisor and the company.

[109:36]

Higher output and higher job satisfaction, lower absenteeism, and labor turnover. Lott & Lott, 1965. Likert, 1961. The term morale, M-O-R-A-L-E, is sometimes used to refer to one or some combination of these variables, but we think it better to use this term to refer to a positive attitude to the goals of the organization. Argyle, 1964-C. However, cohesive groups do not always do more work. If the task prevents social interaction, cohesive groups may do less work as a result of stopping work to talk. When the work requires interaction, as in groups of bricklayers, cohesive groups do more work than Zost. 1952. If the task activity satisfies social needs, cohesive groups do show strong conformity to norms, and there may be a norm of high productivity for... or for output restriction. Salus, 1958, found four main kinds of work groups in a car factory, cohesiveness being one of the key variables.

[110:43]

1. Apathetic groups. Low cohesion and no clear leadership. No strong grievances, but low output found among men doing jobs with low pay and skills, for example on long assembly lines. 2. Erotic groups. Cohesive with centralized leadership, which may swing suddenly to violent pro-union or pro-management activity, seem to have deep-seated grievances found among men doing identical jobs. Three, strategic groups, highly cohesive, high union activity, and continuous pressure about grievances found among highly skilled and paid workers doing individual jobs. Four, conservative groups... Moderately cohesive, few grievances, high output, found among men in highest-status jobs. If they have a sufficiently cooperative attitude, cohesive groups are more productive, especially at tasks requiring cooperation, sheds 1958, presumably because coordination over the joint task is more easily accomplished.

[111:46]

What form does interaction take in work groups? In the first place, the task performance may partly consist of interaction. If A passes a brick to B, this is both task behavior and interaction. If A lacks B, more bricks will be passed. Then, zelstopsit, he will pass them with accompanying verbal and nonverbal signals, not strictly necessary for the task, but which sustain the social relationship. If A talks to B, where B is his supervisor or colleague, it is impossible to disentangle the task and the information Informal interaction elements of the conversation. Much work, in fact, consists almost entirely of social interaction. The work of supervisors, interviewers, teachers, and many others. Page 252. In addition to interaction linked to the task, interaction may take place during coffee breaks, in the lunch hour, after hours, and during unauthorized pauses from work. Nonverbal communication, such as gestures, may occur during the work processes. Social interaction of the usual kind is perhaps more limited in work groups than in groups of other kinds.

[112:50]

The relationships established may only operate in the work situation, as when good working relations exist between members of different racial and social class groups. Only part of the personality is involved, but it is an important part, and work relations can be very important to people. Friendships are made at work, especially when people of different interests pardon, of equal status in the organization. Many of the links joining family members to the outside world are made in the work situation. Relationships at work may also on occasion resemble the relaxing formality of the family. This is most common among young people who know each other very well and have shared emotional experiences. Life in the services has something of this quality. There is often considerable intensity of failing in work groups because the economic position, the career, the self-image, and sometimes the safety of members is at stake. Work groups show many of the same principles of social organization as laboratory groups, which have often been replicas of work groups.

[113:57]

They usually have an appointed leader, but in addition to him, one or more informal leaders may emerge well. If the foreman is ineffective, a straw boss may do part of its job. A second kind of informal structure may be associated with trade union activities, or there may be a spokesman chosen for his skill in dealing with management, Salus, 1958. This is a kind of leader not encountered in other kinds of group we have discussed, a leader of the opposition. The sociometric structure is greatly affected by ecological considerations. Numerous studies show that sociometric choice depends on the proximity of seating at work. The norms established by work groups are, of course, about work, how much to do, how it should be done, attitudes to management, and so on. Severe sanctions may be brought to bear on those who fail to these norms, including physical violence and sending to Coventry. The reason for this intensity of feeling is easy to understand.

[114:57]

The level of pay of the rest of the group is thought to be threatened by such deviation. What special interaction processes are found in work groups? 1. Interaction arises out of cooperation and communication over task activity and can be regarded as a secondary or informal system that sustains working relationships and satisfies interpersonal needs, too. Now reading on page 253. Social relationships at work differ from those in the family or in adolescent groups in that they are based on concern for the task, tend to be less permanent and less intimate, and often do not operate outside the work situation. Three, the boundaries of work groups are vague, and these groups may in fact consist of networks, for in addition to one or more informal leaders, there may be a leader of the opposition. Committees, Problem Solving, and Creative Groups This kind of group does its work entirely by talking and consequently is not found in any species apart from man.

[116:02]

Committees are concerned with taking decisions and solving problems. There are other kinds of working group, for example, groups of research workers who are more concerned with the creative solution of problems. There is no sharp division between two kinds of groups. Committees are small groups of a rather special kind, while their devotion to problem-solving and their degree of formality make them different from other groups. These features are found to some extent in most other groups, too. Committees normally consist of 3 to 20 members, though essentially similar processes are found in larger public meetings like the annual general meetings of societies. The members are usually in the 30 to 60 age group, and as in work groups, are typically male rather than female. They are motivated by the usual interpersonal motivations, dominance, affiliations, etc. They are also, to varying degrees, concerned about the task, which consists of solving problems and arriving at decisions.

[117:03]

They may stand to gain or lose personally. They may have their own ideas about the policy the committee should pursue and may be committed to the success of the enterprise. They may be representatives of other bodies which elected them to the committee and feel under obligation or pressure to defend their views. Committees always have a chairman who is empowered to control the discussion and is able to influence the decisions taken in various ways. There may also be other officers, such as secretary or treasurer, Committees usually exist in an organizational setting, so the tasks are assigned to them. If these are not done, the committee may be abolished or its members changed. Meetings usually follow a formal agenda, and there are certain rules of procedure. All remarks must be addressed to the chairman. Voting is taken on an amendment. Before voting on the original motion, particular committees may have their own rules.

[118:05]

No members may speak more than twice on any one item in the agenda. Meetings end by 11 p.m., etc. Page 254. Interaction in committees is unlike interaction in most other groups. It is primarily verbal. Furthermore, it consists of a number of carefully delivered utterances in the formal mode of speech. The 12 categories of the bail system, see page 116, were devised to record interaction in groups of this kind. as well as pure task activities, asking for and giving opinions and suggestions. It includes socio-emotional categories, agreeing and disagreeing, showing tension, showing antagonism, and solidarity. As with work groups, interpersonal relations are established and maintained during the execution of the task. There is considerable use of nonverbal signals. To speak it may be necessary to catch the chairman's eye and the regulation of who speaks... and for how long is achieved by eye movements, head nods, and smiles. Comments on what A is saying may be indicated by B's facial and gestural signals.

[119:09]

These may be directed to A or to another listener's C. When the nonverbal channel proves inadequate, written messages may be passed along the table. To be an effective committee member requires special skills. This includes squaring other people before the meeting, studying the papers before the meeting, and usual social skills of persuasion and handling groups. There also appear to be skills unique to committees. A member should not seem to be emotionally involved with an issue, but be concerned with what will be acceptable to the others. A chairman should do his best to come to solutions which are acceptable to all members rather than coming to a majority decision. The activities of a committee is problem-solving and decision-taking. These terms refer to two different elements, arriving at new solutions to problems and coming to agreements. These are rather different matters which are, however, closely bound up together in committee work. Coming to an agreement has already been considered in connection with conformity.

[120:11]

Each agenda item produces in miniature a non-norm formation situation. The item will be more or less closely related to more general norms held by the group and to issues on which subjects have their own views. The problem-solving process can be divided into two stages, information exchange and the study of hypothesis. Tybott and Kelly, 1969, discussed the conditions under which information is offered and accepted in groups and what happens when the information is complementary, conflicting, or simply heterogeneous. A number of experiments have been carried out in which the task of the group consists in putting together information related in these ways. In rural committees, this is certainly part of the story, but information exchange is usually followed by the study of its suggestions and is affected by conformity processes. There is a great deal of experimental work in this area, of which one sample will be given.

[121:16]

Page 255. Friedman and Sears, 1965, reviewing experiments by themselves and others, show that people do not just seek information that supports their existing views, as dissonance theory would seem to predict but actually want to find out the facts. Tybott and Kelling, opposite, argued that both individuals and groups start to engage in problem-solving activity when they think they may be able to deal with the external world to better advantage. The problem-solving process proper is performed by the identification of the problem and its elements, the putting forward of relevant information and hypothesis, and the examination of these. No doubt, committees go through the phases of group development described earlier. On any particular problem, a faster cycle is observed. At first, there is formation, pardon, information exchange, and discussion of the problem. Solutions are suggested and discussed. Finally, there is agreement over a solution. C.F. Bales, 1950. But what... Pardon, but do groups, in fact, do any better than individuals would have done?

[122:22]

Groups may do worse than some of the individuals could have done. This has been found with certain type of problem where it is difficult to demonstrate the solution to others. Davis and Restwell, 1963. Groups may also be hindered by the normal social pressures of group... presence of a status hierarchy, and conformity pressures, as will be shown below. In addition, groups are certainly very much slower than individuals, as well as taking up more man-hours. Groups are found to do better than most individuals for reasons which have nothing to do with interaction or discussion. The averaged judgments of a number of people who do not interact are found to be more correct than those of many individuals, simply because averaging removes error. Stroop, 1932. Groups are also more likely to contain one member who can solve a given problem. Both of these are usually known as pseudo-group effects. A number of studies have found that when interaction takes place, a more accurate or qualitatively superior solution is arrived at, compared with the solutions arrived at, by a similar number of members, individuals working alone.

[123:34]

Interaction seems to affect the outcome in three main ways. Perhaps the main advantage of interacting groups over individuals is that the problem can be divided up in each part dealt with by the member best able to do it. When members have different and complementary skills or information, and this can be coordinated, the group has an advantage over individuals. Lorge and Solomon, 1955, proposed a model of group problem-solving simply in terms of the combination of abilities in this way. Thibaut and Kelly, 1969, conclude that there is no clear evidence that anything further happens as a result of interaction in the group. Page 256. Number 2. It seems very possible, however, that interaction can have further benefits. Individuals may be able to correct errors, though this would only affect the weaker members, and the ideas produced by one member may stimulate associations in the minds of others so that new ideas can emerge from the discussion.

[124:38]

Jones and Gerard, 1967. Number three, as in other groups, there is greater motivational arousal. Group members put more effort into their contributions and formulate their suggestions more carefully. Boss, 1937. On the other hand, there is evidence that the presence of others inhibits the production of new responses and restrains creativity. The Junk, 1965. it would be expected that conformity pressures would have a similar effect. Committees show the same structural principles as other groups. Status in the group is often based on status in the surrounding organization and in the other bodies which members represent and their security of tenure on the committee in addition to the usual factors of personality and expertise. This is rather important as the power structure, if... affects the interaction and the solution. The group spends more time discussing the ideas of a high-status person, status differences inhibit discussion, and constitute barriers to problem-solving.

[125:45]

Hoffman, 1965. Those members with more status or power will carry most weight in the final decision. But will this make it more or less accurate? If their position reflects their ability to deal with the problem, as is often the case in an informal group, this should help to produce a better answer. If their position does not reflect their relevant abilities, the solution will be worse, as was found in a study of air crews where the commander was less well-informed about survival techniques than the instructor in the subject. Torrance, 1955. Similarly, Mayer, 1952, found that a hint about the solution to a problem led to its being used and adopted by the group only when it had been given to a talkative member of the group. Since the... Normal processes of interaction may prevent the most useful answer appearing. It is important to have a good chairman. You should follow the usual principles of democratic control expounded in the next chapter. You should see that minority views are represented.

[126:48]

It has been found that this leads to a more accurate group solution. Mayer and Solemn, 1952. You should see that the right people deal with each problem and sub-problem. The mayor has devised a number of leadership skills for committees and has obtained evidence of their value. These are 1. Identify the problem. Consider the available facts. Ask each member for his views about the important factors. Page 257. 2. Focus on disagreements in the group and try to arrive at a creative solution. 3. Evaluate different solutions in relation to criteria if these can be agreed upon. 4. Ask stimulating questions to make the group question its approach or consider other aspects. 5. Divide a problem into sub-problems, which are taken in turn. 6. Get the group to consider two possible solutions. It has been found that the second one is often superior to the first. Hoffman, 1965.

[127:50]

Committee members are usually elected by others outside the group, apart from those co-opted. Some members may not know one another initially, and sociometric choices and rejections develop during the life of the committee. Often these bonds are very weak compared with those in other groups. There may, however, be subgroups and coalitions, though there may be rapidly... as different topics are discussed. It is well known that a determined minority group can carry a committee, especially if the others have no firm views or have not done their homework. The problem becomes more difficult if there are opposed interests in the group, as when there are limited goods to be divided. Such cases of mixed cooperation competition or of pure bargaining may be discussed quite calmly, often in a disguised form, as when impersonal arguments are brought forward. Committees have norms, especially about the general policies, to be pursued. They must also come to agreement on particular items when this purely is a question of opinion, taste, or values.

[129:00]

But do conformity pressures help the members to come to the right answer? When the majority view is correct or if the correct judgment lies within the range of individual judgments, convergence improves the average accuracy. When the majority are wrong, the reverse can be the case. However, those perceived to be most competent will usually be allowed to carry most weight with the decision as described above, and others will hold back. Gurney, 1937. A feature of decision-taking which has attracted a lot of experimental interest is that of risk-taking. When solutions of varying and riskiness have to be decided between, groups often come to riskier decisions than individuals, as many studies have now shown. Kogan and Wallach, 1967. The experimental procedure used in these studies is to ask individual subjects to say what level of risk and probability of terms they would advise a number of people in hypothetical situations to accept, such as taking risky moves at chess.

[130:04]

or investing money in unreliable companies. Subjects are then assembled into groups as to discuss the problems one by one and make a second set of judgments about them. Page 258. The general finding is that there is a risky shift in the second set of judgments. Wallach, Kogan, and Bem, 1964, obtained a similar result with... a rather different task in which subjects stood to win different amounts of money. There was some conflict between the findings about the conditions in which the risky shift will occur. While Wallach and Kogan, 1967, consider that group discussion is an essential ingredient... Bateson, 1966, found a risky shift for individuals who spend as long thinking about the problems as groups spend talking about them, and Tugger and Pruitt, 1967, found a risky shift when subjects merely revealed their previous decisions to one another, though discussion produced a greater shift. There are three main theories about the risky shift.

[131:05]

One, Kogan and Wallach opposite, maintain that this... is due to the diffusion of responsibility among group members. This is supported by an experiment in which there was a shift toward choosing a less risky problem if one member was to be chosen at random to solve it, and the winnings of all members would depend on this. Wallach, Kogan, and Bem, 1968. Further support for this theory was obtained by Hilary Nicholson and the present author in an experiment in which some groups were de-individuated by wearing uniform white coats. As predicted, there was a greater risky shift for the de-individuated groups where there would be more diffusion of responsibility for females only who would be more de-individuated by the concealing of their distinctive clothing. 2. Brown, 1965, suggests that people take greater responsibility risks in group because of the cultural norm in favor of taking risks. This is supported by the finding that most subjects think they are taking a greater than average risk in their initial decisions and that the shift occurs as soon as they hear the judgments of the other subjects.

[132:14]

Tager and Fruit, 1967. It has also been found that there are certain problems which produce a non-risky shift. Brown argues that these problems arouse the opposite cultural value of caution and that group processes simply accentuate the impact of whichever cultural value is salient. 3. Study of the behavior of individual group members shows that some are more risky in the first place, those who are higher in extroversion and achievement motivation. RIM 1966. Several studies have found that these people are regarded as more influential, especially in female groups. Cogan and Wellick, 1967. Brown opposite suggests that the pro-risk position can be argued in a richer and more dramatic manner. Bateson's findings, 1966, that individual familiarization leads to a risky shift, could be accounted for by supposing that an individual dramatizes the risky arguments to himself. Page 259.

[133:17]

Committees differ from other groups in several important ways. 1. Their main task is problem-solving and decision-taking. The task is achieved by verbal interaction. 2. The meetings are often formal, in that an agenda is followed and there are more or less elaborate rules of procedure. 3. Interpersonal attitudes and relationships arise directly out of the work of the group. There may be rapid changes of coalition during a single meeting, and there may be no social contact apart from the meetings. We will now review briefly the main conditions under which it has been found that committees are most effective in arriving at accurate or qualitatively good decisions and in working quickly. One, ability of members. The more able the members, the better the group will solve problems. Often the group can do better than the ableist member. The problem may have component parts which require skills pro... Possessed by different people. Similarly, members may be able to contribute complementary pieces of information. Problem-solving groups should therefore contain members who between them possess the knowledge and skills for the job.

[134:25]

2. Motivation of members. Groups which are cooperative do better at problem-solving as with other tasks. See if page 223. Indeed, this is the kind of group task where it has been most useful to have cooperative activities. and several studies have shown that cooperative problem-solving groups do better than competitive ones. Deutsch, 1949, Marquis, Goizkow, and Heinz, 1950. Taking part in group activity often elicits altruistic striving for the group's goals, especially when members feel that they are fully consulted and are responsible for what happens. 3. Stimulating New Ideas We saw above that groups may on the one hand stimulate new ideas through one member reacting to another, but may also inhibit creative thinking. Osborne, 1957, developed the method of brainstorming in which there is complete suspension of critical judgment. While group members throw off as many ideas as they can, useful or not, and develop one another's suggestions, leaving critical evaluation until later.

[135:35]

This method has been widely used, for example, in advertising firms. However, Taylor, Berry, and Block, 1958, found that nominal groups, or four working independently, produced more and better solutions to problems than did brainstorming groups. Danae et al., 1963, obtained similar results and found that groups tended to follow the same line of thought for too long. though individual members were found to be very productive after taking part in brainstorming. Page 260. Cohen et al., 1960, on the other hand, found brainstorming groups were superior to individuals when the members were able to choose one another. Number four, leadership skills. We have shown that groups require coordination or they become slow and inefficient. We have shown that the chairman should restrain the operation of the informal status hierarchy and allow the expression of minority opinions. Similarly, he should reduce the inhibiting effects of differences in formal status.

[136:40]

He should prevent conformity pressures, producing premature and inferior decisions. He should help the group to arrive at solutions which, as far as possible, are acceptable to all members. The social skills of handling the group to be greatest effect... were discussed above, page 256 up. Number 5, size. A number of experiments have compared the effectiveness of groups of different sizes over the range of 3 to 12. There are conflicting results, though when more complex tasks are used, the larger groups do better. Thomas and Fink, 1963. It has been suggested that there is an optimum size of group for each kind of problem when the group contains all the different skills needed to solve it. Crutch, Crutchfield, and Bollocky, 1962. Other studies show that in larger discussion groups there is less shared distribution of participation that they are slower, and members are less satisfied.

[137:43]

Five to six is the preferred number. T groups and therapy groups. Finally, we turn to a kind of group which did not exist until psychologists invented it. Just as physicists study particles created by special experimental techniques, so it is of interest to study the forms social interaction can take under quite new conditions. In fact, the processes of feedback and analysis of the group found in this setting also take place, although with less intensity, in other groups too. On the other hand, these groups are very different from natural groups in a number of ways, so that the findings cannot simply be generalized to other kinds of group. There has been a certain shift of interest away from laboratory groups toward T-groups, C.F. Mann et al., 1967, simply because the latter last long. and can be studied in greater detail. Apart from the limited generality of the findings, it should be pointed out that most of these studies are essentially clinical investigations of a rather small number of groups.

[138:47]

C.F. Stock, 1964. Page 261. In most T groups, about 12 trainees meet with the trainer for a number of two-hour sessions. They may meet once a week or more frequently for up to two weeks. The Harvard version has 20 to 30 members. The leader introduces himself, explained that there is... that he is there to help the members study the group, and then takes a passive role and leaves the group to get on with the task as best it can. From time to time, he will intervene in various ways. 1. He shows how to make constructive and non-evaluative comments on the behavior of members. 2. He shows how to receive such comments non-defensively and learn from them. 3. He makes interpretations, i.e. explains what he thinks is happening interpersonally in the group. Four, he discusses the relevance and application of the group experiences to behavior in real-life situations. Five, he tries to teach the members a more cooperative and less authoritarian attitude to people in authority. In addition to the T-group sessions proper, there are sometimes lectures, role-playing, and other ancillary training experiences.

[139:55]

C.F. Bradford Gibb and Rennie, 1964. Therapy groups consist of a psychiatrist and usually six to nine mental patients. The main differences from T groups are that, one, the members are emotionally disturbed and at a lower level of social competence, often suffering from real interpersonal difficulties. Two, the content of conversation is the actual symptoms or difficulties of group members. Three, the therapist creates an atmosphere of acceptance for sexual and aggressive material, but makes sure that tension level does not get too high. 4. There is a greater gap between leader and group members. The former is not simply a more experienced member of the group. 5. The behavior of members in the group situation is used to diagnose basic personality disturbances rather than indicating their level of social competence. Powdermaker and Frank, 1953. Folks and Anthony, 1957. The members of T groups are usually managers, social workers, clergymen, or others whose work involves dealing with people.

[140:57]

In practice, they are often middle-aged men. Therapy groups consist typically of neurotics of both sexes and of varied ages, though group counseling is also used with prisoners and has been found successful with schizophrenics. Members of T groups are motivated to improve their sensitivity and social skill, perhaps in the hope of promotion, though the initiative may have come from their organization rather than themselves. Members of therapy groups want to get better to obtain relief from symptoms and distress. Thus, in both kinds of groups, the members may be quite strongly motivated, and are therefore prepared to put up with unpleasant experiences. Page 262. The environmental setting of these groups resembles that of laboratory experimental groups in that the groups meeting in training centers, laboratories, or clinics are removed from the culture of the outside world. They are unlike other groups in that the rules and procedures are novel and unexpected. The leader behaves as no other leaders behave and appears to have largely abdicated from the role of leader.

[141:58]

The task to study the group is very odd, again unlike the tasks of the other groups. The task of T groups, like that of committees, consists of conversation and is difficult to separate from interaction. However, some of the kinds of conversation are regarded as more relevant to the task. Conversation, which is concerned with the interaction and relationships of members of the group and about the symptoms of members of therapy groups. The goal to be attained is insight and understanding of group processes and emotional problems, respectively. An important sub-goal is the formation of a sufficiently cohesive group for this understanding to develop in the group's setting, i.e. the internal and external goals are closely intertwined, Tuchman 1965. Unlike committees, however, these groups have no agenda and proceed in a largely undirected and rambling manner, the leader taking whatever opportunities he can for explaining various phenomena. The content of the conversation is most unusual. Language is the natural world... Language in the natural world is usually about external matters and other people rather than about relations between speaker and hearer or about embarrassing personal matters.

[143:07]

This kind of task is emotionally arousing and awkward for these reasons is often avoided in periods of flight from the task by making jokes, talking about other matters, and silence. The flavor of tea group meetings can be conveyed by this extract from one of man's groups upset. Audrey I think if you didn't push at people all the time, they might relax and reveal themselves in a more natural way. Dr. Dawes, I think people are afraid that I don't like them or care about them when I try to point out some of the things that they are expressing through their actions, and that isn't the case. Don, I think he's got us concerned and boxed up when we're just going to have to sperm around until he's finished with us. Mabel, I hate his guts. Bert, I have more respect for him now than... That I see how hard his job really is. Mabel, he gets paid for it. Page 263. Faith, it's like being in the dentist's chair for an hour a day. It's not the course I thought it was going to be. Ross, I think we're going to have to admit that what Dr. Dawes says is right, even though it hurts.

[144:12]

Don, does a human guinea pig have any choice? Dr. Dawes, are parents too cruel and vengeful to be trusted? From Mann et al., 1967, page 140. This is very different from the conversation of most natural groups, though it can happen in groups of adolescents and in families. In group and individual therapy, it is accepted that the therapist is allowed to talk in this way, and he is also very skilled at commenting on a patient's behavior in a way that is not upsetting and preserves the latter's self-esteem. The intention is that control of impulses and resolution conflicts can be brought about by attaching verbal labels to emotional processes. Dollar and Miller, 1950. The social interaction in T-groups can be thought of as including the task activity. Various classification schemes have been devised to deal with it, which between them provide some account of the forms interaction takes. The character of the interaction can be gathered from the excerpt given above from the account of common styles of individual behavior given below. It should be added that the general atmosphere and flow of interaction are very different from these groups.

[145:15]

from those in other groups which have been considered, while... Committees are formal, and groups of adolescents are relaxed, and intimate tea groups and therapy groups are tense and awkward. Both tea group and therapy group practitioners maintain that some degree of emotionality is necessary for any fundamental changes of behavior to occur. Interaction sequences are reported in these groups, which may be unique to them, for example, an intensification of the process of becoming aware of the self-image from the reactions of others, which are here unusually frank and uninhibited, B. Obtaining insight into oneself through the close observation and study of another person with similar attributes or problems. C. The condenser problem in which interaction loosens group resistances and common emotions normally repressed are suddenly released. Foulkes and Anthony, 1957. We come now to the internal structure of these groups, which have their hierarchies in terms of who speaks most and who has most influence, and there is usually a struggle for dominance and competition for the leader's approval, especially in therapy groups.

[146:20]

Page 264. Some members are silent until drawn into the conversation by the leader or other members. Role differentiation appears, which is more complex than the reported in laboratory groups, though perhaps no more so than... that in natural groups. Mann et al. 1967 carried out a statistical analysis of four Harvard-style T-groups of 20 to 30 members. Seven roles, i.e. styles of interaction in the group, emerged in each group, and these will be reported in some detail as they give the clearest account yet available of the processes taking place in this kind of group. 1. Hero One male member of the group takes over the effective leadership of the role from which the trainer has abdicated in the early stages. While accepting the trainer's suggestion that the group should study itself, he rebels against the trainer's authority and resists accepting a dependent role. The rest of the group is hostile to the hero and asks the trainer to suppress him, which is refused. Eventually, he is integrated into a cooperative and working group. 2. Moralistic Resistor

[147:23]

3. Paranoid Resistor. A similar pattern to the last was found in all groups in a more rebellious and paranoid reaction to the unexpected and incomprehensible behavior of the trainer. The paranoid resistor is not popular, becomes hostile to the group, but is the main spokesman against T group procedures in the group. For distressed females, most females in these groups are less active than the males. They are passive and dependent on the leader and do not accept responsibility to get on with a defined task. Towards the trainer, they tend to be loyal and flirt. lertatious. 5. Sexual scapegoat. An inconspicuous male member becomes the center of attention at one point in the group's development. He is uncertain of his masculinity and asks the group to study him.

[148:26]

He is loyal and dependent towards the trainer while finding the latter rather frightening. He seeks the company of the distressed females and may become their spokesman. Page 265. Number six, male and actors. Some of the male members accept the T group task and work together with the trainer, treating him as a colleague. Their initial rebellion gives way to loyalty. Seven, female and actors. Some female members similarly accept the group task but with a more dependent attitude toward the trainer and show greater anxiety and depression than the males. They are more sensitive and they end up to prevent members of the group being hurt. Role differentiation has also been found in therapy groups. Bayon 1948-251. Classify the main states of these groups and their members as work, pairing, fight, i.e. with the therapist, flight, i.e. from the task, and dependency. Powder Maker and Frank 1953 added a few others, including cloning. Tea groups and therapy groups, like other groups, have a sociometric structure.

[149:29]

In addition to the choice of similar people, it has been found that members may choose others who have what the chooser wants. For example, dependent people choose hostile ones, and vice versa. Brown and Crow 1953 were similar. Similars are chosen. They are people who have similar symptoms or who are similar in orientation towards intimacy and authority. The two main issues to be resolved in a group. Benison, Peabody, 1962. It is common in therapy groups for a subgroup of two or more people to cut itself off for a time from the life of the group, and these subgroups may meet outside the normal hours of the group. Folks in Anthony, 1957. While some groups break up into pairs, others may form cohesive work groups. In therapy groups, members usually meet only in the group and have little opportunity for building up pair relationships. There may also be hostilities in these groups. In the case of therapy groups, A may be hostile to B if B has a characteristic which A also possesses and rejects or has repressed. Powdermaker and Frank, 1953.

[150:30]

There are certainly norms in T groups and therapy groups consisting mainly of the roles of interpersonal behavior imposed by a trainer or therapist. These roles, as we have seen, are at first rejected by most members but are later accepted by a proportion of the group. Different groups have different atmospheres reflecting the personalities of the members. It is found that homogeneous groups seem to reinforce and permit expression of the individual tendency of the members at least initially. Stock 1964, page 2.0. Pardon, 406. Groups may become preoccupied with certain themes which are a matter of common interest to the members. Powdermaker and Frank Opsit report that these are often such topics as feelings of inferiority and desire to be average, inability to handle emotional situations and emotional dependence, hostility, distrust, and fear of people, blaming others versus accepting responsibility. Page 266. What special processes occur in T groups and therapy groups? At first... These groups look very different from other groups, but it is possible that they produce in more concentrated form what also occurs less obviously elsewhere.

[151:38]

One members are confronted by a totally unfamiliar group situation and a person in charge who refuses to give much hope. This is responsible for the initial rebellion of the group and the permanent refusal of some members to cooperate. Two, the task and topic of conversation are very unusual, comments on the behavior and problems of individuals and the interaction in the group. Something of this kind occurs in all groups, though usually at a nonverbal level. We shall discuss further in Chapter 10 how far this is a useful training experience. Three, there is considerable self-disclosure, especially in therapy groups. matters normally concealed. In natural groups, the amount of self-disclosure grows slowly into an upper limit, which is reached after nine weeks of sharing a room in college, for example. Taylor, 1965. Self-disclosure at a much earlier stage is required in therapy groups, and this is one cause of the great emotional tension generated. In T-groups, it is caused by the experience of receiving comments on one's own behavior in the group. 4. The pattern of role differentiation, some of the interaction sequences, and some of the basis of liking and disliking have not been reported in other groups.

[152:46]

Number five, lastly, the motivation of members is to be cured or trained, not through instruction, but from direct social experiences in the group. The only other groups of which this may be true are groups of adolescents, and they are not aware of what is happening. End of chapter six. Page 267. Chapter number seven, social organizations. Concepts and methods. When two apes and monkeys meet the class by one another as members or non-members of the same group in terms of age and sex, and may have some idea of each other standing in the troop, a more or less standard pattern of interaction results. In human societies, the social structure is more complex. In all societies, family relationships are important, and there is some degree of social stratification. One of the marks of an advanced civilization is the development of large-scale social organizations for industrial, governmental, military, educational, religious, and other purposes.

[153:51]

Such organizational structures probably do not have any very direct biological origins, but are more the product of slowly developing ideas about the administration of large groups of people. In previous chapters, we've overlooked the fact that social interactors occupy positions in social structures and play social roles. All social interaction is, to some degree, pre-programmed. It has been worked out by previous occupants of the same positions, and it is expected that similar behavior will occur again. In extreme cases, interaction can depend almost entirely on the formal relations between people, for example, at church services, army drill parades, hospital operations, and so on. In less extreme cases, the relationships between A and B will be different if A is B's boss, doctor, wife, psychoanalysist, priest, etc. It's not only a matter of power and status, but of the way the positions of A and B are related in the organization.

[154:52]

In moving to consideration of the effects of organization, a number of new concepts have to be introduced. Position refers to rank or office within the organization. It may be associated with power and status, and with norms or duties which apply only to occupants of that position. It may place its occupants at a certain point in a communication structure or workflow system. Roal behavior is the normal, i.e. statistically modal, pattern of behavior for occupants of a position. This is partly the result of role expectations on the part of the occupants of other positions. Page 268. When different people or different groups of people hold different role expectations about a given position, the occupant is said to be in a state of role conflict. Two roles are said to be interlocking when there is a regular complementary or cooperative pattern of interaction between the position holders. In some cases, one role cannot be performed unless the complementary role is performed too.

[155:57]

For example, a doctor can't act as a doctor without a patient. Power and status have been introduced earlier. Page 232FF. But in organizations, an individual's power or status derives mainly from his position. Power and status also depend on his personality and on the kind of relationships he establishes with other people. Positions may be linked by power relationships as where A is the supervisor of B and C. They may be linked by communication structures. which restrict who can communicate with whom. They may be linked by the workflow, which may entail that A passes the materials to B when he has finished his part of the work, or that B shall cooperate with C over the task. The above factors are features of the formal organization and might appear on a management organization chart.

[156:58]

In addition, there is communication, friendship, and cooperation which grows up and which is not on charts. This is known as the informal organization and refers to interaction which is extra to the strictly formal structure. Asser and Harari, 1962, devised a method of representing various aspects of both formal and informal organization on the same chart. An example of their method is is shown in Figure 7.1. Special research methods are used in the study of social organizations, and more sociological questions are very hard to tackle. To decide, for example, whether organizations should be flat or hierarchical, large or small, for greater effectiveness, can only be done by comparing a considerable number of organizations, though this can be done, Porter and Lalor, 1965, and is very difficult to hold other factors constant. The study of interaction is easier since the units being compared are smaller.

[158:00]

This means that a reasonable number can be compared statistically and that the phenomena can be reproduced in the lab. Social surveys have been used with some success in this field. They are not very good for finding out how those surveyed interact, but find out how they are affected by the social organization. For example... Kahn, et al., 1964, were able to study the effects of rural conflict on tension and on attitudes to those producing the conflict. Statistical field studies consist of the comparison of individuals or groups which have been carefully selected for the purposes of the investigation. The design of such studies can be quasi-experimental in that it is possible to hold constant everything except the variable being studied. For example, in studies of industrial supervision, comparisons are made of the productivity of a large number of departments differing as far as possible, only in the style of supervision.

[159:03]

The main drawback is the usual one with statistical designs. The direction of causation may be unclear. Page 269. If there's more output in departments with democratic supervisors, this may be because A, democratic supervision produces more output, or B, when men work harder, their supervisors are more democratic, or C, under some conditions. To do the nature of the work, for example, men work harder and supervisors become more democratic. Laboratory experiments have the great advantage that the direction of causation is unambiguous. and that further variables can be controlled with greater vigor. The difficulty with laboratory experiments here is that it is doubtful whether organization variables can really be reproduced in a laboratory setting. When power differences are set up in the course of a 40-minute experiment, are these at all similar to power differences that affect a person's life?

[160:04]

Mulder, 1966, found that legitimacy versus illegitimacy of experimentally imposed power relations had no effect on subjects. Such a negative result may simply be due to subjects not being sufficiently involved in the organizational structure created. Again, people in real organizations spend a number of years during which training and other kinds of influence help them to adjust to their positions. This is not the case in laboratory studies. On the other hand, it's hopeful that if during a fairly long series of trials, the behavior of the subject moves toward an asymptotic steady state, as in Mohana, an Argyle study of communication structure with popular and unpopular central members, 1960. In the center of this page, figure 7.1, caption, Relationship in a Formal Organization, from OSER, O-E-S-E-R, And Harari, H-A-R-A-Y-R, excuse me, H-A-R-A-R-Y, 1962.

[161:10]

Okay, now there's going to be five different types of lines. One that's dotted for meaning personal assignment. There's a dash, dash, dash for task specification. There's a dark straight line for power relation. There's a dash, dot, dash. for liking relation, and there's a squiggle for communication relation. All right. Let's start with the position P sub 5. This is a black dot. Out from P5, there's a certain radi, unbeknownst to us, which don't really matter, there's T4, T5, T6, T7 occurring. And all of these have arrows pointing toward them from P5, and all of them are dash lines or task specification lines.

[162:18]

Now, P5, being a central point, is very nice, but he seems to be overpowered by... P3, there's a solid line or a power relation line pointing to P5, some radi away from P3. P3 is not connected to any other line than P5. Okay, back to P5, and there's a little dot, dot, dot line going up to small h sub 5. And h sub 5 is connected to P5 by a personnel assignment. Okay. From H5, there's an arrow pointing over to H3, and that's a communication relationship between H5 and H3 going in that direction. But from H3 to H5, there is a liking relation. And from H5...

[163:24]

H4, there's another liking relation. And from H4 to H5 is also a liking relation. And then going in either direction, between H5 and H4, there is a communication relation. And H3 and H4 have no connection to P5 or P3 or any of the T sub-numbers, 4 through 7. And the figure... Back to text. Reading on page 270.

[163:57]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_98.06