¶ Group
In sociology and psychology, a social group is generally considered as a community of at least three individuals who maintain regular contact over an extended period, pursue common goals, and develop a sense of belonging. Within this group, common norms, collective values, and a specific distribution of roles emerge, as emphasized by Friedhelm Neidhardt. A crucial distinguishing feature is that groups are based on diffuse relationships between members. In certain contexts, a group lower limit of two persons is also mentioned, but only within the framework of establishing a mathematical limit.
The Danish sociologist Theodor Geiger highlights a fundamental difference between a group and a pair (dyad as a relationship between two people). In a pair, all members are necessarily involved together in all interactions at all times. The German sociologist Georg Simmel emphasizes the special significance of the triad as the lower limit of group size for the formation of societies.
A group composed of multiple social groups is referred to as an association (in the field of sociology). In the scientific definition, there is generally no upper limit to the number of individuals that can be considered a social group. Instead, there are corresponding definitions that set a limitation.
¶ Definitions
A widely accepted definition of the term “social group” comes from the social psychologist Henri Tajfel in 1986:
“We can conceptually define a group, in this sense, as a collection of individuals who perceive themselves as members of the same social category, share an emotional bond related to this shared self-categorization, and achieve some level of consensus about the evaluation of the group and its membership.”
Tajfel’s definition applies to small groups such as ethnic groups as well as very large groups such as entire nations.
Sociologically, a group is defined by the fact that all members are in immediate social relationships with each other, each member is aware of the others, and social interaction is possible among all members. Due to these interactions, a social group is fundamentally limited in size compared to an organization, which can have a large number of members and a complex social structure. Large organizations often have an anonymous structure with formalized and impersonal encounters. In contrast, a social group is limited in size due to the necessary interactions.
Additionally, a distinction is made between formal groups or secondary groups, which are created from the outside, and informal groups or primary groups, which form based on individual contact and emotional bonds.
Formal groups are formed by the organization’s management according to specific requirements and objectives to fulfill certain planned and defined tasks and achieve sub-goals, such as work groups, teams, committees, or quality circles.
Informal groups are characterized by emotional bonds among members. Members have independent relationships with the formal organization, such as friendship circles, peer groups, or cliques. They satisfy social needs both in the workplace and in their leisure time.
A common characteristic of many groups is their differentiation from non-members.
Friedhelm Neidhardt’s sociological definition states: “A group is a social system whose coherence is determined immediately by diffuse member relationships as well as by relative durability.” A recurring interaction between members is often characteristic of a group, although this is not necessarily the case. Groups are not limited to instrumental rational action expectations but also involve a “multitude of references on a formally undefined reference level.” A social actor belongs to a group:
- if he/she perceives himself/herself as part of the group,
- if this sense of belonging is accepted by the group.
To fulfill the first condition, this group must exist at least in the actor’s imagination. It can then serve as a frame of reference for social comparisons and thus act as his/her reference group, even if it does not have to consist solely of living actors (such as “my kinship group”) or its members may not be aware that they act as a reference group.
To distinguish between ingroup and outgroup, a group may have developed a group identity with group cohesion (the “we-feeling”) and groupthink. Group cohesion, sometimes referred to as esprit de corps, is an essential constitutive factor for the maintenance and continuity of groups, as this group feeling is based on feelings of belonging and togetherness. Immediate interaction of a member with every other, familiarity, and intimacy are also qualities of the group.
¶ Group Membership
By defining belongingness, a group distinguishes its members from individuals outside the group. Membership is recognizable through recurring patterns of interaction but extends beyond mere interaction. Unlike organizations, the entry of new members into a group (as well as the exit) does not always occur through an explicit decision but can rather happen gradually. The perception of belongingness is closely related to building personal trust, creating a sense of predictability.
The outward manifestation of belonging to a specific group can occur in various ways, ranging from language to visible signs such as clothing.
¶ Group Structure
Within a group, social interaction is shaped by long-term social relationships, individual and collective actions, shared values and interests, immediate relationships, mutual perception of members, physical presence, as well as direct interactions and coordinated social roles.
The structure of a group is significantly influenced by the various social roles of individuals and their social status, which refers to the distribution of power, competence, influence, authority, or other significant social resources. Hierarchies or other specific structures may emerge, characterized by individual behaviors such as submission or adaptation.
Another essential aspect is the relationship between the internal and external aspects of the group. This includes how the group defines itself internally as a community, whether through content, emotions, rituals, or values, as well as how the group differentiates itself externally from its environment, other groups, or society. The manner of this differentiation is a crucial factor in analysis.
¶ Group Norms – Action and Behavior in Groups
Group norms that regulate action and behavior in groups emerge through participation in group interactions, especially through the dynamic development of the group system. However, these norms often become apparent or are pronounced only in cases of conflict. For example, someone who does not explicitly object to the behavior of other group members during an interaction establishes that they accept this behavior, without being able to legitimately protest against it in the future.
¶ Roles Within Groups
Over time, certain positions typically emerge within groups, which can be taken on by individual members and filled differently. Social roles can be consciously or unconsciously assumed by individuals or attributed to others, and the assumption and attribution of roles are socially negotiated.
The emergence of “decision-making hierarchies,” i.e., the instrumental differentiation of roles, can be influenced by the pressure of action exerted by the external environment on a group and by the purposefulness of the group. In groups for which external action pressure is less relevant, roles differentiate through the development of personalized stereotypes (e.g., the nurturing one). Generally, the pressure from the external and internal environment to ensure the group’s continued existence through role differentiations and integration efforts must be balanced. It is crucial that roles in groups often remain latent and are not explicitly defined.
¶ Theoretical Perspectives in Group Research
¶ Psychological Perspective
Within the psychodynamic perspective on small groups, two approaches can be distinguished: psychoanalytic and humanistic approaches. The psychoanalytic approaches are based on the theories of Sigmund Freud and the research of Melanie Klein, on which Wilfred Bion developed group analysis. In the 1970s, Horst-Eberhard Richter significantly influenced the psychoanalytic approach in Germany. Among the humanistic approaches, the T-group (Training Group) method by Kurt Lewin and the perspective of psychodrama by Jacob Levy Moreno can be distinguished. Lewin’s T-group method is based on the assumption of unconscious processes that produce forces influencing interactions within a group. Individual group members are to be empowered through training to solve problems within the group itself. The psychodramatic perspective focuses on actions within the group. The goal is to use the portrayal of suppressed emotions of the individual and the group (role-playing, etc.) to utilize their creativity to solve problems.
The Social Identity Approach assumes that a person’s identity consists of two components: personal identity, which is based on idiosyncratic personality traits, and social identity. Group membership is crucial for the constitution of this second component. There is no clear definition of the group. Once group identity can be assumed, a social connection becomes the subject of investigation of the Social Identity Approach; thus, “group” includes both small groups, sports teams, and work collectives in organizations as well as ethnicities, religious communities, subgroups within a religious community, and gender categories. The central focus of the approach is on “the relationship between human psychological functioning and the large-scale social processes and events which shape this functioning and are shaped by it.”
¶ Systems Theoretical Perspective
In system theory, there are approaches that capture influences of the environment on the group. However, some authors argue that the special relevance of the inner world or internal environment regarding the group members and the possibility of controlling group processes through emotions as media can be more precisely described with psychoanalytical concepts than with sociological constructs such as interest, intention, or motivation. To define the relationship between the psychological and the social conceptually, the term interpenetration suggests itself: “Interpenetration is accordingly present when […] both systems mutually enable each other by bringing their preconstituted own complexity into the other.” In this conception, the psychological and the social remain separate. Luhmann’s system theory initially considers the group completely independent of the environment. However, there are now also considerations of complex systems and thus larger groups.