Notes on the introduction to “Theories of Group Behavior”, Brian Mullen, George R. Goethals (Eds.) (1987). New York: Springer-Verlag
p.6
Topographical Aspects of Groups
Topographical aspects include group size, density, and interrelatedness of group members. It can be thought of as the type of information one might try to obtain from a photograph.
It has been noted that free-forming groups tend to be small (mean size of 3, range of 2-7 people).
Density, proximity, and crowding are all features resulting from the mere number of people in a group.
Density = a measure of the number of people divided by the area they occupy.
Proximity increases with density given a constant area.
Crowding is a reaction to increased density. Crowding is perceived when increased density is accompanied by a perceived loss of control.
p.7
Bossard found that the number of possible symmetrical relationships (PR) between two individuals in a group is PR = (N2-N)/2
Kephart found that the number of possible relationships bewteen an individual and a sub-group, or between two sub-groups in a given group is PR = (3N – 2N-1 + 1)/2
This means that the complexity of a group increases drastically with the number of individuals. It might add reasons of efficacy and convenience to the noted tendency of people to form subgroups of “us” and “them” rather than viewing each individual as a seperate entity. The “us” and “them” distinction can be stimulated or exaggerated by differences such as gender (McGuire & McGuire, 1982), handedness , attitudes (Gerard & Hoyt, 1974), and roles (Mullen, 1983; Wegner & Schaefer, 1978).
A communications perspective characterizes a group in terms of who communicates, or shares information, with who.
An example is the adjacency density, which is a calculation of the percentage of all possible links which actually do exist in a given network.
Adjacency Density = a/[N(N-1)/2]
where a is the number of links between group members, and N is the number of group members. You can see this is based on Kephart’s formula. It is a measure using the group as the basic unit of analysis.
p.8
The centrality index is an index of the interrelatedness of a group member. Unlike adjacency, centrality uses the individual as the basic unit of analysis.
Centrality Index = Σdjk/Σdxk
where djk is the shortest distance between any two group members, and dxk is the shortest distance bewteen group member x and any other group member.
Centrality measures the connectedness of an individual to all others. An individual with a high centrality index communicates with most people. Individual satisfaction is highest at positions of high centrality. A high centrality is only possible in a group of low adjacency since centrality is a relative quantity – a high adjacency leads to an even centrality across individuals.
p.10
Temporal Aspects of Groups
Temporal aspects are changes in a group over time. They can be thought of as the sorts of things you might notice listening to a tape recording of a group.
Members must change together in order to be seen as a group – covariation.
p.11
Most researchers looking into the temporal phases of group activity have artificially created groups and then halted them at a various phases in their development. Most groups follow the general phases set out by Tuckman (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977):
forming = group concerned with orientation and defining tasks and requirements.
storming = a phase of polarization and conflict, dissatisfaction with the group or individuals within the group.
norming = conflicts are resolved, and members agree on members’ tasks and requirements.
performing = members actively strive toward goals, and work toward task achievement.
adjourning = the group is expected or required to disband upon task completion.
Steiner analyzed groups at the performance phase (Steiner, 1972).
Blake & Mouton halted groups in order to study cooperation and competition (Blake & Mouton, 1979).
References
Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1979) Intergroup problem solving in organizations: From theory to practice. In W.G.Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Bossard, J.H.S. (1945). Law of family interaction. American Journal of Sociology, 50, 292-294
Gerard , H.B., & Hoyt, M.F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude toward ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 836-842.
Kephart, W.M. (1950). A quantitative analysis of intragroup relationships. American Journal of Sociology, 55, 548.
McGuire, W.J., & McGuire, C.V. (1982). Significant others in self-space: Sex differences and development trends in the social self. In J. Suls (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: A self-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 295-322.
Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.
Tuckman, B.W., & Jensen, M.A.C. (1977). Stages in small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 3, 419-427.
Wegner, D.M., & Schaefer, D. (1978). The concentration of responsibility: An objective self-awareness analysis of group size effects in helping situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 147-155.