Figure 2. Group Size and Relationships

Social groups with more than three members tend to be more stable because the lack of interest on the part of one or even several members does not directly threaten the group’s existence. Furthermore, larger social groups tend to develop more formal social structure - with a variety of statuses and roles - which stabilize their operation. However, larger social groups inevitably lack the increase of personal relationships that are possible in the smallest groups.

A number of studies have suggested that the ideal size for a discussion group is 5 members (Hare,1952).

Conformity and Group Decision Making.

If a group is to function properly, its members must co­operate. Leaders can help define and coordinate group activities, but something more is needed if groups are to achieve their goals: individuals must conform to the opinions and expectations of the group. One of the most important discoveries in the area of small group dynamics is that there are intense pressures on individuals to conform.

In an early study of conformity, Muzafer Sherif (1936) asked subjects to stare at a stationary point оf light that appeared to be moving. First, individuals were asked how far they thought the light had moved and their estimates were plotted. Next, small groups of two or three people were asked the same thing. Sherif found that when subjects were uncertain about their own judgments, they relied heavily on the opin­ions of others, and that estimates in groups converged on a common judgment. The classic experiment on group conformity, however, is the Asch experiment. Asch found that pressures to conform were so intense that one-third of the subjects, though convinced that their judgments were correct, changed them anyway, just to accommodate a group of people who before the experiment had been perfect strangers.

If individuals can be persuaded by strangers, then in primary groups, in which individuals are deeply committed to others, there should be even greater pressures to conform. Irving Janis (1972) argued that in tightly knit groups, pressures to conform are reinforced by intense feelings of loyalty. According to Janis, this can result in groupthink, a decision-making process in which group members ignore alternative solutions in order to maintain group consensus and harmony. Janis wrote that groupthink can have disastrous results. His favorite example is the decision of President John F. Kennedy and small group of his advisers to attempt to overthrow Cuba’s Castro regime in the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Janis discovered that although several members had serious reservations about many aspects on the plan, after a consensus was reached they neither voiced their concerns nor sought outside opinions. The result was a swift and embarrassing defeat for 1,400 CIA-trained Cuban refugees, and public criticism of U.S. actions from around the world.

The Cuban invasion supports the popular notion that groups are inherently conservative, but this is true only in certain situations. Experiments have shown that during the decision-making process, group members often shift toward extreme positions - either conservative or high-risk. This ten­dency is called the group polarization phenomenon.

When the choice is culturally favored, a risky shift occurs and people take greater risks in groups than they would if they acted independently. For example, James Stoner presented subjects with a hypo­thetical case in which an engineer could either con­tinue in a secure but low-paying job or take a high-risk job in a newly formed company. He found that after group discussion, individuals were willing to recommend a more extreme course of action, and hence take greater risks, than they would have had they acted alone. In contrast, when a group must de­cide on a socially disapproved or unpopular course mf action, group members become more cautious than individuals acting alone, because group discus­sion and debate bring up problems an individual might never anticipate. As Andrew Michener and his associates wrote, “Subjects who are ex­posed to mostly risky arguments become more risk-taking, whereas those who hear mostly conservative arguments become more cautious.”

Taking a Closer Look

II. Find in the text the definitions of:

• group dynamics;

• authoritarian leadership;

• democratic leadership;

• an arithmetic increase;

• a geometric increase.

III. Answer the following questions.

1. How do social groups vary?

2. What are the ways by which a person may be recognized as a leader?

3. What is the difference between authoritarian and democratic leaders?

4. What do large social groups tend to develop?

5. What group do you think is regarded to be an ideal one?

4. Characterize in brief.

1. The core of group dynamics.

2. An ideal social group.

3. The importance of group size.

4. The group polarization phenomenon.

V. Choose the qualities you think to be necessary for an ideal leader:

emotional, aggressive, active, brave, clever, strong, intuitive, tall, handsome, good with money, mechanically-minded, tender.

You may expand the list. But give reasons of your choice.

VI. Read the text and state its general idea.

In-groups and Out-groups

By the time children are in the early grades of school, much of their activity takes place within social groups. They eagerly join some groups, but avoid - or are excluded from - others. Based on sex as a master status, for example, girls and boys often form distinct play groups with patterns of behaviour culturally defined as feminine and masculine.

On the basis of sex, employment, family ties, personal tastes, or some other category, people often identify others positively with one social group while opposing other groups. Across the United States, for example, many high school students wear jackets with the name of their school on the back and place school decals on their car windows to symbolize their membership in the school as a social group. Students who attend another school may be the subject of derision simply because they are members of a competing group.

This illustrates the general process of forming in-groups and out-groups. An in-group is a social group with which people identify and toward which they feel a sense of loyalty. An in-group exists in relation to an out-group, which is a social group with which people do not identify and toward which they feel a sense of competition or opposition. Defining social groups this way is commonplace. A sports team is an in-group to its members and an out-group to members of other teams. The Democrats in a certain community may see themselves as an in-group in relation to Republicans. In a broader sense, Americans share some sense of being an in-group in relation to Russian citizens or other nationalities. All in-groups and out-groups are created by the process of believing that “we” have valued characteristics that “they” do not.

This process serves to sharpen the boundaries among social groups, giving people a clearer sense of their location in a world of many social groups. It also heightens awareness of the distinctive characteristics of various social groups, though not always in an accurate way. Research has shown, however, that the members of in-groups hold unrealistically positive views of themselves and unfairly negative views of various out-groups. Ethnocentrism, for example, is the result of overvaluing one's own way of life, while simultaneously devaluing other cultures as out-groups.