essay on social groups

Social Groups: Definition, Types, Importance, Examples

Definition : A social group refers to two or more individuals who share a common social identification, and who perceive themselves to be members of the same social category Hence, the shared perception or understanding that the individual feels as though they belong to a group is instrumental in defining a social group. It is this shared perception that distinguishes social groups from aggregates, this shared perception is referred to as social identification . An aggregate is a group of people who are at the same place at the same time, for example, a number of individuals waiting together at a bus stop may share a common identification, but do not perceive themselves as belonging to a group, hence a collection of individuals waiting at a bus stop are an aggregate and not a social group. Another collection of individuals that needs to be distinguished from social groups are categories, categories consist of sets of people who share similar characteristics across time and space. A similar characteristic can be race or gender, again the feeling of belonging amongst the individuals involved is what distinguished individuals in a social group and individuals in a category.

Types of Social Groups

Social groups are of two kinds- primary and secondary groups . The former is small and tightly knit, bound by a very strong sense of belonging, family is a typical example of this kind of social group. In this type of group, the common interest shared amongst the individuals is the emotional attachment to the group in and of itself. Conversely, secondary groups are large impersonal groups, whose members are bound primarily by a shared goal or activity as opposed to emotional ties. For this reason, individuals typically join secondary groups later in life. Employees at a company would constitute as a secondary group. As individuals within a secondary group grow closer they might form a primary group, wherein the individuals are no longer goal-oriented but are instead a group based on emotional connection.

Lastly, reference groups refer to a group to which an individual or another group is compared. Sociologists call any group that individuals use as a standard for evaluating themselves and their own behaviour a reference group. The behaviours of individuals in groups are usually considered aspirational and therefore are grounds for comparison. From the existence of multiple groups, one can also make the distinction between in-groups and out-groups. This distinction is entirely relative to the individuals, hence reference groups are typically out-groups ie. groups that an individual is not a part of, though an individual may aspire to be a part of the reference group.

The acknowledgment of in-groups and out-groups is relevant to an individual’s perception and thus behaviour. Individuals are likely to experience a preference or affinity towards members of their groups,, this is referred to as in-group bias. This bias may result in groupthink, wherein a group believes that there is only one possible solution or mindset which will lead to a consensus. These poor decisions are not the result of individual incompetence when it comes to decision making but instead but instead due to the social rules and norms that exist in the group, such as the nature of leadership and the nature of homogeneity.

A byproduct of in-group bias is intergroup aggression- experience feelings of contempt and a desire to compete to the members of out-groups. This desire to ‘harm’ members of the out-group is a result of dehumanization wherein the members of the out-group are less they deserve the humane treatment. It is a combination of intergroup aggression and groupthink which often results in harmful prejudice. The dehumanization of out-groups is often used as a political agenda. A notable example from history is the way that the Jewish community (out group) were dehumanized by Nazis (in group), through means such as stereotyping. Hence, prejudice can be a result of extreme intergroup aggression.

Group Behaviour and Social Roles

Within a social group individuals typically display group behaviour, which is seen through the expression of cohesive social relationships. This group behaviour is likely the result of social or psychological interdependence for the satisfaction of needs, attainment of goals or consensual validation of attitudes or values. Hence, group behaviour which is expressed through cooperative social interaction hinges on interdependence. It is this group behaviour that yields the development of an organized role relationship. Social roles are the part people play as members of a social group. With each social role you adopt, your behaviour changes to fit the expectations both you and others have of that role. In addition to social roles, groups also create social norms- these are the unwritten rules of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours that are considered acceptable in a particular social group. The ability to develop roles and norms which are guided by a common interest is referred to as social cohesion.  The behaviour attached to the norms and roles fulfilled by individuals within a certain social group is usually not the same behaviours exhibited when that individual is not with their group ie. social interaction theory. For example, in a family (which is a social group) a mother is likely not to behave in the way she would in another social group such as at her place of work.

All social groups have an individual who fulfils the leadership role, a leader is an individual who influences the other members of a group, their position may or may not be explicitly stated.

Leadership function considers the intention by which the leader behaves on, either instrumental or expressive. An instrumental leader is focused on a group’s goals, giving orders and making plans in order to achieve those goals. An expressive leader, by contrast, is looking to increase harmony and minimize conflict within the group. In addition to leadership function, there are also three different leadership styles. Democratic leaders focus on encouraging group participation as obsessed with acting and speaking on behalf of the group. Secondly, laissez-faire leaders take a more hands-off approach by encouraging self-management. Lastly, authoritarian leaders are the most controlling by issuing roles to members and setting rules, usually, without input from the rest of the group.

In secondary groups, every member is has a definitive role, however as secondary groups are goal oriented the roles differ from group to group. It is also not uncommon within secondary groups for roles to change. For example, in a school research assignment, initially individuals may fulful roles such as writer, illustrator, researcher, etc in order to write a report. But in the second half which is focused on presenting the repot, members may take up new roles such as presenter, debator, etc, as the goals of the group shifts.

Norms can be simply defined as the expectations of behaviour from group members. These norms which dictate group behaviour can largely be attributed to the groups’ goals and leadership styles. However norms need not only be the result of in-group occurrences, reference groups oftentimes dictate what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. Typically there are norms that apply to the group as a whole known as general norms . Additionally,  there are also norms that are role-specific. For example consider a family (ie. a primary group) everyone in the family attends dinner at 8 pm, while the father cooks dinner and the child sets the table. Everyone attending dinner is a general norm while the act of cooking dinner and setting the table are role-specific to the father and child, respectively.

The Importance of Social Groups

Social groups, primary groups, such as family, close friends, and religious groups, in particular, are instrumental an individuals socialization process. Socialization is the process by which individuals learn how to behave in accordance with the group and ultimately societies norms and values. According to Cooley self-identity is developed through social interaction. Hence, from an identity perspective, primary social groups offer the means through which an individual can create and mold their identity. The development of identity is most rapid and crucial in childhood, hence the importance of family and friends, but the development of identity does continue throughout one’s life. Additionally, from a psychological perspective, primary groups are able to offer comfort and support. Secondary groups, such as members of a group assignment, tend to have less of an influence on identity, in part because individuals within these types of groups are older and hence have a self-identity as well as are familiar with the socialization process.

Natasha Dmello

Natasha D'Mello is currently a communications and sociology student at Flame University. Her interests include graphic design, poetry and media analysis.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

6.1 Social Groups

Learning objectives.

• Describe how a social group differs from a social category or social aggregate.
• Distinguish a primary group from a secondary group.
• Define a reference group and provide one example of such a group.
• Explain the importance of networks in a modern society.

A social group consists of two or more people who regularly interact on the basis of mutual expectations and who share a common identity. It is easy to see from this definition that we all belong to many types of social groups: our families, our different friendship groups, the sociology class and other courses we attend, our workplaces, the clubs and organizations to which we belong, and so forth. Except in rare cases, it is difficult to imagine any of us living totally alone. Even people who live by themselves still interact with family members, coworkers, and friends and to this extent still have several group memberships.

It is important here to distinguish social groups from two related concepts: social categories and social aggregates. A social category is a collection of individuals who have at least one attribute in common but otherwise do not necessarily interact. Women is an example of a social category. All women have at least one thing in common, their biological sex, even though they do not interact. Asian Americans is another example of a social category, as all Asian Americans have two things in common, their ethnic background and their residence in the United States, even if they do not interact or share any other similarities. As these examples suggest, gender, race, and ethnicity are the basis for several social categories. Other common social categories are based on our religious preference, geographical residence, and social class.

Falling between a social category and a social group is the social aggregate , which is a collection of people who are in the same place at the same time but who otherwise do not necessarily interact, except in the most superficial of ways, or have anything else in common. The crowd at a sporting event and the audience at a movie or play are common examples of social aggregates. These collections of people are not a social category, because the people are together physically, and they are also not a group, because they do not really interact and do not have a common identity unrelated to being in the crowd or audience at that moment.

A social aggregate is a collection of people who are in the same place at the same time but who otherwise have nothing else in common. A crowd at a sporting event and the audience at a movie or play are examples of social aggregates.

Eliud Gil Samaniego – Art – Aguilas de Mexicali – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

With these distinctions laid out, let’s return to our study of groups by looking at the different types of groups sociologists have delineated.

Primary and Secondary Groups

A common distinction is made between primary groups and secondary groups. A primary group is usually small, is characterized by extensive interaction and strong emotional ties, and endures over time. Members of such groups care a lot about each other and identify strongly with the group. Indeed, their membership in a primary group gives them much of their social identity. Charles Horton Cooley, whose looking-glass-self concept was discussed in Chapter 5 “Social Structure and Social Interaction” , called these groups primary , because they are the first groups we belong to and because they are so important for social life. The family is the primary group that comes most readily to mind, but small peer friendship groups, whether they are your high school friends, an urban street gang, or middle-aged adults who get together regularly, are also primary groups.

Although a primary group is usually small, somewhat larger groups can also act much like primary groups. Here athletic teams, fraternities, and sororities come to mind. Although these groups are larger than the typical family or small circle of friends, the emotional bonds their members form are often quite intense. In some workplaces, coworkers can get to know each other very well and become a friendship group in which the members discuss personal concerns and interact outside the workplace. To the extent this happens, small groups of coworkers can become primary groups (Elsesser & Peplau, 2006; Marks, 1994).

Our primary groups play significant roles in so much that we do. Survey evidence bears this out for the family. Figure 6.1 “Percentage of Americans Who Say Their Family Is Very Important, Quite Important, Not Too Important, or Not at All Important in Their Lives” shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans say their family is “very important” in their lives. Would you say the same for your family?

Figure 6.1 Percentage of Americans Who Say Their Family Is Very Important, Quite Important, Not Too Important, or Not at All Important in Their Lives

Source: Data from World Values Survey, 2002.

Ideally, our primary groups give us emotional warmth and comfort in good times and bad and provide us an identity and a strong sense of loyalty and belonging. Our primary group memberships are thus important for such things as our happiness and mental health. Much research, for example, shows rates of suicide and emotional problems are lower among people involved with social support networks such as their families and friends than among people who are pretty much alone (Maimon & Kuhl, 2008). However, our primary group relationships may also not be ideal, and, if they are negative ones, they may cause us much mental and emotional distress. In this regard, the family as a primary group is the setting for much physical and sexual violence committed against women and children (Gosselin, 2010) (see Chapter 11 “Gender and Gender Inequality” ).

A secondary group is larger and more impersonal than a primary group and may exist for a relatively short time to achieve a specific purpose. The students in any one of your college courses constitute a secondary group.

Jeremy Wilburn – Students in Classrooms at UIS – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Although primary groups are the most important ones in our lives, we belong to many more secondary groups , which are groups that are larger and more impersonal and exist, often for a relatively short time, to achieve a specific purpose. Secondary group members feel less emotionally attached to each other than do primary group members and do not identify as much with their group nor feel as loyal to it. This does not mean secondary groups are unimportant, as society could not exist without them, but they still do not provide the potential emotional benefits for their members that primary groups ideally do. The sociology class for which you are reading this book is an example of a secondary group, as are the clubs and organizations on your campus to which you might belong. Other secondary groups include religious, business, governmental, and civic organizations. In some of these groups, members get to know each other better than in other secondary groups, but their emotional ties and intensity of interaction generally remain much weaker than in primary groups.

Reference Groups

Primary and secondary groups can act both as our reference groups or as groups that set a standard for guiding our own behavior and attitudes. The family we belong to obviously affects our actions and views, as, for example, there were probably times during your adolescence when you decided not to do certain things with your friends to avoid disappointing or upsetting your parents. On the other hand, your friends regularly acted during your adolescence as a reference group, and you probably dressed the way they did or did things with them, even against your parents’ wishes, precisely because they were your reference group. Some of our reference groups are groups to which we do not belong but to which we nonetheless want to belong. A small child, for example, may dream of becoming an astronaut and dress like one and play like one. Some high school students may not belong to the “cool” clique in school but may still dress like the members of this clique, either in hopes of being accepted as a member or simply because they admire the dress and style of its members.

Samuel Stouffer and colleagues (Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Star, & Williams, 1949) demonstrated the importance of reference groups in a well-known study of American soldiers during World War II. This study sought to determine why some soldiers were more likely than others to have low morale. Surprisingly, Stouffer found that the actual, “objective” nature of their living conditions affected their morale less than whether they felt other soldiers were better or worse off than they were. Even if their own living conditions were fairly good, they were likely to have low morale if they thought other soldiers were doing better. Another factor affecting their morale was whether they thought they had a good chance of being promoted. Soldiers in units with high promotion rates were, paradoxically, more pessimistic about their own chances of promotion than soldiers in units with low promotion rates. Evidently the former soldiers were dismayed by seeing so many other men in their unit getting promoted and felt worse off as a result. In each case, Stouffer concluded, the soldiers’ views were shaped by their perceptions of what was happening in their reference group of other soldiers. They felt deprived relative to the experiences of the members of their reference group and adjusted their views accordingly. The concept of relative deprivation captures this process.

In-Groups and Out-Groups

Members of primary and some secondary groups feel loyal to those groups and take pride in belonging to them. We call such groups in-groups . Fraternities, sororities, sports teams, and juvenile gangs are examples of in-groups. Members of an in-group often end up competing with members of another group for various kinds of rewards. This other group is called an out-group . The competition between in-groups and out-groups is often friendly, as among members of intramural teams during the academic year when they vie in athletic events. Sometimes, however, in-group members look down their noses at out-group members and even act very hostilely toward them. Rival fraternity members at several campuses have been known to get into fights and trash each other’s houses. More seriously, street gangs attack each other, and hate groups such as skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan have committed violence against people of color, Jews, and other individuals they consider members of out-groups. As these examples make clear, in-group membership can promote very negative attitudes toward the out-groups with which the in-groups feel they are competing. These attitudes are especially likely to develop in times of rising unemployment and other types of economic distress, as in-group members are apt to blame out-group members for their economic problems (Olzak, 1992).

Social Networks

These days in the job world we often hear of “networking,” or taking advantage of your connections with people who have connections to other people who can help you land a job. You do not necessarily know these “other people” who ultimately can help you, but you do know the people who know them. Your ties to the other people are weak or nonexistent, but your involvement in this network may nonetheless help you find a job.

Modern life is increasingly characterized by such social networks , or the totality of relationships that link us to other people and groups and through them to still other people and groups. Some of these relationships involve strong bonds, while other relationships involve weak bonds (Granovetter, 1983). Facebook and other Web sites have made possible networks of a size unimaginable just a decade ago. Social networks are important for many things, including getting advice, borrowing small amounts of money, and finding a job. When you need advice or want to borrow $5 or $10, to whom do you turn? The answer is undoubtedly certain members of your social networks—your friends, family, and so forth.

The indirect links you have to people through your social networks can help you find a job or even receive better medical care. For example, if you come down with a serious condition such as cancer, you would probably first talk with your primary care physician, who would refer you to one or more specialists whom you do not know and who have no connections to you through other people you know. That is, they are not part of your social network. Because the specialists do not know you and do not know anyone else who knows you, they are likely to treat you very professionally, which means, for better or worse, impersonally.

A social network is the totality of relationships that link us to other people and groups and through them to still other people and groups. Our involvement in certain networks can bring certain advantages, including better medical care if one’s network includes a physician or two.

Gavin Llewellyn – My social networks – CC BY 2.0.

Now suppose you have some nearby friends or relatives who are physicians. Because of their connections with other nearby physicians, they can recommend certain specialists to you and perhaps even get you an earlier appointment than your primary physician could. Because these specialists realize you know physicians they know, they may treat you more personally than otherwise. In the long run, you may well get better medical care from your network through the physicians you know. People lucky enough to have such connections may thus be better off medically than people who do not.

But let’s look at this last sentence. What kinds of people have such connections? What kinds of people have friends or relatives who are physicians? All other things being equal, if you had two people standing before you, one employed as a vice president in a large corporation and the other working part time at a fast-food restaurant, which person do you think would be more likely to know a physician or two personally? Your answer is probably the corporate vice president. The point is that factors such as our social class and occupational status, our race and ethnicity, and our gender affect how likely we are to have social networks that can help us get jobs, good medical care, and other advantages. As just one example, a study of three working-class neighborhoods in New York City—one white, one African American, and one Latino—found that white youths were more involved through their parents and peers in job-referral networks than youths in the other two neighborhoods and thus were better able to find jobs, even if they had been arrested for delinquency (Sullivan, 1989). This study suggests that even if we look at people of different races and ethnicities in roughly the same social class, whites have an advantage over people of color in the employment world.

Gender also matters in the employment world. In many businesses, there still exists an “old boys’ network,” in which male executives with job openings hear about male applicants from male colleagues and friends. Male employees already on the job tend to spend more social time with their male bosses than do their female counterparts. These related processes make it more difficult for females than for males to be hired and promoted (Barreto, Ryan, & Schmitt, 2009). To counter these effects and to help support each other, some women form networks where they meet, talk about mutual problems, and discuss ways of dealing with these problems. An example of such a network is The Links, Inc., a community service group of 12,000 professional African American women whose name underscores the importance of networking ( http://www.linksinc.org/index.shtml ). Its members participate in 270 chapters in 42 states; Washington, DC; and the Bahamas. Every two years, more than 2,000 Links members convene for a national assembly at which they network, discuss the problems they face as professional women of color, and consider fund-raising strategies for the causes they support.

Key Takeaways

• Groups are a key building block of social life but can also have negative consequences.
• Primary groups are generally small and include intimate relationships, while secondary groups are larger and more impersonal.
• Reference groups provide a standard for guiding and evaluating our attitudes and behaviors.
• Social networks are increasingly important in modern life, and involvement in such networks may have favorable consequences for many aspects of one’s life.

For Your Review

• Briefly describe one reference group that has influenced your attitudes or behavior, and explain why it had this influence on you.
• Briefly describe an example of when one of your social networks proved helpful to you (or describe an example when a social network helped someone you know).
• List at least five secondary groups to which you now belong and/or to which you previously belonged.

Barreto, M., Ryan, M. K., & Schmitt, M. T. (Eds.). (2009). The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Elsesser, K., & Peplau L. A. (2006). The glass partition: Obstacles to cross-sex friendships at work. Human Relations, 59 , 1077–1100.

Gosselin, D. K. (2010). Heavy hands: An introduction to the crimes of family violence (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.

Maimon, D., & Kuhl, D. C. (2008). Social control and youth suicidality: Situating Durkheim’s ideas in a multilevel framework. American Sociological Review, 73, 921–943.

Marks, S. R. (1994). Intimacy in the public realm: The case of co-workers. Social Forces, 72, 843–858.

Olzak, S. (1992). The dynamics of ethnic competition and conflict . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M., Jr. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during army life (Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sullivan, M. (1989). Getting paid: Youth crime and work in the inner city . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Social Groups

Learning objectives.

• Describe how a social group differs from a social category or social aggregate.
• Distinguish a primary group from a secondary group.
• Define a reference group and provide one example of such a group.
• Explain the importance of networks in a modern society.

Most of us feel comfortable using the word “group” without giving it much thought. In everyday use, it can be a generic term, although it carries important clinical and scientific meanings. Moreover, the concept of a group is central to much of how we think about society and human interaction. Often, we might mean different things by using that word. We might say that a group of kids all saw the dog, and it could mean 250 students in a lecture hall or four siblings playing on a front lawn. In everyday conversation, there isn’t a clear distinguishing use. So how can we hone the meaning more precisely for sociological purposes?

Defining a Group

The term  group   is an amorphous one and can refer to a wide variety of gatherings, from just two people (think about a “group project” in school when you partner with another student), a club, a regular gathering of friends, or people who work together or share a hobby. In short, the term refers to any collection of at least two people who interact with some frequency and who share a sense that their identity is somehow aligned with the group. Of course, every time people are gathered it is not necessarily a group. A rally is usually a one-time event, for instance, and belonging to a political party doesn’t imply interaction with others. People who exist in the same place at the same time but who do not interact or share a sense of identity—such as a bunch of people standing in line at Starbucks—are considered an  aggregate , or a crowd. Another example of a nongroup is people who share similar characteristics but are not tied to one another in any way. These people are considered a  category , and as an example all children born from approximately 1980–2000 are referred to as “Millennials.” Why are Millennials a category and not a group? Because while some of them may share a sense of identity, they do not, as a whole, interact frequently with each other.

Interestingly, people within an aggregate or category can become a group. During disasters, people in a neighborhood (an aggregate) who did not know each other might become friendly and depend on each other at the local shelter. After the disaster ends and the people go back to simply living near each other, the feeling of cohesiveness may last since they have all shared an experience. They might remain a group, practicing emergency readiness, coordinating supplies for next time, or taking turns caring for neighbors who need extra help. Similarly, there may be many groups within a single category. Consider teachers, for example. Within this category, groups may exist like teachers’ unions, teachers who coach, or staff members who are involved with the PTA.

Types of Groups

Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929) suggested that groups can broadly be divided into two categories:  primary groups and  secondary groups  (Cooley 1909). According to Cooley, primary groups play the most critical role in our lives. The primary group is usually fairly small and is made up of individuals who generally engage face-to-face in long-term emotional ways. This group serves emotional needs:  expressive functions  rather than pragmatic ones. The primary group is usually made up of significant others, those individuals who have the most impact on our socialization. The best example of a primary group is the family.

Secondary groups are often larger and impersonal. They may also be task-focused and time-limited. These groups serve an  instrumental function  rather than an expressive one, meaning that their role is more goal- or task-oriented than emotional. A classroom or office can be an example of a secondary group. Neither primary nor secondary groups are bound by strict definitions or set limits. In fact, people can move from one group to another. A graduate seminar, for example, can start as a secondary group focused on the class at hand, but as the students work together throughout their program, they may find common interests and strong ties that transform them into a primary group.

SOCIOLOGY IN THE REAL WORLD

Best friends she’s never met.

Writer Allison Levy worked alone. While she liked the freedom and flexibility of working from home, she sometimes missed having a community of coworkers, both for the practical purpose of brainstorming and the more social “water cooler” aspect. Levy did what many do in the Internet age: she found a group of other writers online through a web forum. Over time, a group of approximately twenty writers, who all wrote for a similar audience, broke off from the larger forum and started a private invitation-only forum. While writers in general represent all genders, ages, and interests, it ended up being a collection of twenty- and thirty-something women who comprised the new forum; they all wrote fiction for children and young adults.

At first, the writers’ forum was clearly a secondary group united by the members’ professions and work situations. As Levy explained, “On the Internet, you can be present or absent as often as you want. No one is expecting you to show up.” It was a useful place to research information about different publishers and about who had recently sold what and to track industry trends. But as time passed, Levy found it served a different purpose. Since the group shared other characteristics beyond their writing (such as age and gender), the online conversation naturally turned to matters such as child-rearing, aging parents, health, and exercise. Levy found it was a sympathetic place to talk about any number of subjects, not just writing. Further, when people didn’t post for several days, others expressed concern, asking whether anyone had heard from the missing writers. It reached a point where most members would tell the group if they were traveling or needed to be offline for awhile.

The group continued to share. One member on the site who was going through a difficult family illness wrote, “I don’t know where I’d be without you women. It is so great to have a place to vent that I know isn’t hurting anyone.” Others shared similar sentiments.

So is this a primary group? Most of these people have never met each other. They live in Hawaii, Australia, Minnesota, and across the world. They may never meet. Levy wrote recently to the group, saying, “Most of my ‘real-life’ friends and even my husband don’t really get the writing thing. I don’t know what I’d do without you.” Despite the distance and the lack of physical contact, the group clearly fills an expressive need.

In-Groups and Out-Groups

One of the ways that groups can be powerful is through inclusion, and its inverse, exclusion. The feeling that we belong in an elite or select group is a heady one, while the feeling of not being allowed in, or of being in competition with a group, can be motivating in a different way. Sociologist William Sumner (1840–1910) developed the concepts of in-group  and  out-group to explain this phenomenon (Sumner 1906). In short, an in-group is the group that an individual feels she belongs to, and she believes it to be an integral part of who she is. An out-group , conversely, is a group someone doesn’t belong to; often we may feel disdain or competition in relationship to an out-group. Sports teams, unions, and sororities are examples of in-groups and out-groups; people may belong to, or be an outsider to, any of these. Primary groups consist of both in-groups and out-groups, as do secondary groups.

While group affiliations can be neutral or even positive, such as the case of a team sport competition, the concept of in-groups and out-groups can also explain some negative human behavior, such as white supremacist movements like the Ku Klux Klan, or the bullying of gay or lesbian students. By defining others as “not like us” and inferior, in-groups can end up practicing ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism—manners of judging others negatively based on their culture, race, sex, age, or sexuality. Often, in-groups can form within a secondary group. For instance, a workplace can have cliques of people, from senior executives who play golf together, to engineers who write code together, to young singles who socialize after hours. While these in-groups might show favoritism and affinity for other in-group members, the overall organization may be unable or unwilling to acknowledge it. Therefore, it pays to be wary of the politics of in-groups, since members may exclude others as a form of gaining status within the group.

BIG PICTURE

Bullying and cyberbullying: how technology has changed the game.

Most of us know that the old rhyme “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is inaccurate. Words can hurt, and never is that more apparent than in instances of bullying. Bullying has always existed and has often reached extreme levels of cruelty in children and young adults. People at these stages of life are especially vulnerable to others’ opinions of them, and they’re deeply invested in their peer groups. Today, technology has ushered in a new era of this dynamic. Cyberbullying is the use of interactive media by one person to torment another, and it is on the rise. Cyberbullying can mean sending threatening texts, harassing someone in a public forum (such as Facebook), hacking someone’s account and pretending to be him or her, posting embarrassing images online, and so on. A study by the Cyberbullying Research Center found that 20 percent of middle school students admitted to “seriously thinking about committing suicide” as a result of online bullying (Hinduja and Patchin 2010). Whereas bullying face-to-face requires willingness to interact with your victim, cyberbullying allows bullies to harass others from the privacy of their homes without witnessing the damage firsthand. This form of bullying is particularly dangerous because it’s widely accessible and therefore easier to accomplish.

Cyberbullying, and bullying in general, made international headlines in 2010 when a fifteen-year-old girl, Phoebe Prince, in South Hadley, Massachusetts, committed suicide after being relentlessly bullied by girls at her school. In the aftermath of her death, the bullies were prosecuted in the legal system and the state passed anti-bullying legislation. This marked a significant change in how bullying, including cyberbullying, is viewed in the United States. Now there are numerous resources for schools, families, and communities to provide education and prevention on this issue. The White House hosted a Bullying Prevention summit in March 2011, and President and First Lady Obama have used Facebook and other social media sites to discuss the importance of the issue.

According to a report released in 2013 by the National Center for Educational Statistics, close to 1 in every 3 (27.8 percent) students report being bullied by their school peers. Seventeen percent of students reported being the victims of cyberbullying.

Will legislation change the behavior of would-be cyberbullies? That remains to be seen. But we can hope communities will work to protect victims before they feel they must resort to extreme measures.

Reference Groups

A  reference group is a group that people compare themselves to—it provides a standard of measurement. In U.S. society, peer groups are common reference groups. Kids and adults pay attention to what their peers wear, what music they like, what they do with their free time—and they compare themselves to what they see. Most people have more than one reference group, so a middle school boy might look not just at his classmates but also at his older brother’s friends and see a different set of norms. And he might observe the antics of his favorite athletes for yet another set of behaviors.

Some other examples of reference groups can be one’s cultural center, workplace, family gathering, and even parents. Often, reference groups convey competing messages. For instance, on television and in movies, young adults often have wonderful apartments and cars and lively social lives despite not holding a job. In music videos, young women might dance and sing in a sexually aggressive way that suggests experience beyond their years. At all ages, we use reference groups to help guide our behavior and show us social norms. So how important is it to surround yourself with positive reference groups? You may not recognize a reference group, but it still influences the way you act. Identifying your reference groups can help you understand the source of the social identities you aspire to or want to distance yourself from.

College: A World of In-Groups, Out-Groups, and Reference Groups

For a student entering college, the sociological study of groups takes on an immediate and practical meaning. After all, when we arrive someplace new, most of us glance around to see how well we fit in or stand out in the ways we want. This is a natural response to a reference group, and on a large campus, there can be many competing groups. Say you are a strong athlete who wants to play intramural sports, and your favorite musicians are a local punk band. You may find yourself engaged with two very different reference groups.

These reference groups can also become your in-groups or out-groups. For instance, different groups on campus might solicit you to join. Are there fraternities and sororities at your school? If so, chances are they will try to convince students—that is, students they deem worthy—to join them. And if you love playing soccer and want to play on a campus team, but you’re wearing shredded jeans, combat boots, and a local band T-shirt, you might have a hard time convincing the soccer team to give you a chance. While most campus groups refrain from insulting competing groups, there is a definite sense of an in-group versus an out-group. “Them?” a member might say. “They’re all right, but their parties are nowhere near as cool as ours.” Or, “Only serious engineering geeks join that group.” This immediate categorization into in-groups and out-groups means that students must choose carefully, since whatever group they associate with won’t just define their friends—it may also define their enemies.

Social Networks

These days in the job world we often hear of “networking,” or taking advantage of your connections with people who have connections to other people who can help you land a job. You do not necessarily know these “other people” who ultimately can help you, but you do know the people who know them. Your ties to the other people are weak or nonexistent, but your involvement in this network may nonetheless help you find a job.

Modern life is increasingly characterized by such social networks , or the totality of relationships that link us to other people and groups and through them to still other people and groups. Some of these relationships involve strong bonds, while other relationships involve weak bonds (Granovetter, 1983). Facebook and other Web sites have made possible networks of a size unimaginable just a decade ago. Social networks are important for many things, including getting advice, borrowing small amounts of money, and finding a job. When you need advice or want to borrow $5 or $10, to whom do you turn? The answer is undoubtedly certain members of your social networks—your friends, family, and so forth.

The indirect links you have to people through your social networks can help you find a job or even receive better medical care. For example, if you come down with a serious condition such as cancer, you would probably first talk with your primary care physician, who would refer you to one or more specialists whom you do not know and who have no connections to you through other people you know. That is, they are not part of your social network. Because the specialists do not know you and do not know anyone else who knows you, they are likely to treat you very professionally, which means, for better or worse, impersonally.

Gavin Llewellyn – My social networks – CC BY 2.0.

Now suppose you have some nearby friends or relatives who are physicians. Because of their connections with other nearby physicians, they can recommend certain specialists to you and perhaps even get you an earlier appointment than your primary physician could. Because these specialists realize you know physicians they know, they may treat you more personally than otherwise. In the long run, you may well get better medical care from your network through the physicians you know. People lucky enough to have such connections may thus be better off medically than people who do not.

But let’s look at this last sentence. What kinds of people have such connections? What kinds of people have friends or relatives who are physicians? All other things being equal, if you had two people standing before you, one employed as a vice president in a large corporation and the other working part time at a fast-food restaurant, which person do you think would be more likely to know a physician or two personally? Your answer is probably the corporate vice president. The point is that factors such as our social class and occupational status, our race and ethnicity, and our gender affect how likely we are to have social networks that can help us get jobs, good medical care, and other advantages. As just one example, a study of three working-class neighborhoods in New York City—one white, one African American, and one Latino—found that white youths were more involved through their parents and peers in job-referral networks than youths in the other two neighborhoods and thus were better able to find jobs, even if they had been arrested for delinquency (Sullivan, 1989). This study suggests that even if we look at people of different races and ethnicities in roughly the same social class, whites have an advantage over people of color in the employment world.

Gender also matters in the employment world. In many businesses, there still exists an “old boys’ network,” in which male executives with job openings hear about male applicants from male colleagues and friends. Male employees already on the job tend to spend more social time with their male bosses than do their female counterparts. These related processes make it more difficult for females than for males to be hired and promoted (Barreto, Ryan, & Schmitt, 2009). To counter these effects and to help support each other, some women form networks where they meet, talk about mutual problems, and discuss ways of dealing with these problems. An example of such a network is The Links, Inc., a community service group of 12,000 professional African American women whose name underscores the importance of networking ( http://www.linksinc.org/index.shtml ). Its members participate in 270 chapters in 42 states; Washington, DC; and the Bahamas. Every two years, more than 2,000 Links members convene for a national assembly at which they network, discuss the problems they face as professional women of color, and consider fund-raising strategies for the causes they support.

Key Takeaways

• Groups are a key building block of social life but can also have negative consequences.
• Primary groups are generally small and include intimate relationships, while secondary groups are larger and more impersonal.
• Reference groups provide a standard for guiding and evaluating our attitudes and behaviors.
• Social networks are increasingly important in modern life, and involvement in such networks may have favorable consequences for many aspects of one’s life.

Barreto, M., Ryan, M. K., & Schmitt, M. T. (Eds.). (2009). The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Elsesser, K., & Peplau L. A. (2006). The glass partition: Obstacles to cross-sex friendships at work. Human Relations, 59 , 1077–1100.

Gosselin, D. K. (2010). Heavy hands: An introduction to the crimes of family violence (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.

Maimon, D., & Kuhl, D. C. (2008). Social control and youth suicidality: Situating Durkheim’s ideas in a multilevel framework. American Sociological Review, 73, 921–943.

Marks, S. R. (1994). Intimacy in the public realm: The case of co-workers. Social Forces, 72, 843–858.

Olzak, S. (1992). The dynamics of ethnic competition and conflict . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M., Jr. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during army life (Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sullivan, M. (1989). Getting paid: Youth crime and work in the inner city . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Introduction to Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

13 The Psychology of Groups

This module assumes that a thorough understanding of people requires a thorough understanding of groups. Each of us is an autonomous individual seeking our own objectives, yet we are also members of groups—groups that constrain us, guide us, and sustain us. Just as each of us influences the group and the people in the group, so, too, do groups change each one of us. Joining groups satisfies our need to belong, gain information and understanding through social comparison, define our sense of self and social identity, and achieve goals that might elude us if we worked alone. Groups are also practically significant, for much of the world’s work is done by groups rather than by individuals. Success sometimes eludes our groups, but when group members learn to work together as a cohesive team their success becomes more certain. People also turn to groups when important decisions must be made, and this choice is justified as long as groups avoid such problems as group polarization and groupthink.

Learning Objectives

• Review the evidence that suggests humans have a fundamental need to belong to groups.
• Compare the sociometer model of self-esteem to a more traditional view of self-esteem.
• Use theories of social facilitation to predict when a group will perform tasks slowly or quickly (e.g., students eating a meal as a group, workers on an assembly line, or a study group).
• Summarize the methods used by Latané, Williams, and Harkins to identify the relative impact of social loafing and coordination problems on group performance.
• Describe how groups change over time.
• Apply the theory of groupthink to a well-known decision-making group, such as the group of advisors responsible for planning the Bay of Pigs operation.
• List and discuss the factors that facilitate and impede group performance and decision making.
• Develop a list of recommendations that, if followed, would minimize the possibility of groupthink developing in a group.

The Psychology of Groups

Psychologists study groups because nearly all human activities—working, learning, worshiping, relaxing, playing, and even sleeping—occur in groups. The lone individual who is cut off from all groups is a rarity. Most of us live out our lives in groups, and these groups have a profound impact on our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Many psychologists focus their attention on single individuals, but social psychologists expand their analysis to include groups, organizations, communities, and even cultures.

This module examines the psychology of groups and group membership. It begins with a basic question: What is the psychological significance of groups? People are, undeniably, more often in groups rather than alone. What accounts for this marked gregariousness and what does it say about our psychological makeup? The module then reviews some of the key findings from studies of groups. Researchers have asked many questions about people and groups: Do people work as hard as they can when they are in groups? Are groups more cautious than individuals? Do groups make wiser decisions than single individuals? In many cases the answers are not what common sense and folk wisdom might suggest.

The Psychological Significance of Groups

Many people loudly proclaim their autonomy and independence. Like Ralph Waldo Emerson, they avow, “I must be myself. I will not hide my tastes or aversions . . . . I will seek my own” ( 1903/2004 , p. 127). Even though people are capable of living separate and apart from others, they join with others because groups meet their psychological and social needs.

The Need to Belong

Across individuals, societies, and even eras, humans consistently seek inclusion over exclusion, membership over isolation, and acceptance over rejection. As Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary conclude, humans have a need to belong : “a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and impactful interpersonal relationships” ( 1995 , p. 497). And most of us satisfy this need by joining groups. When surveyed, 87.3% of Americans reported that they lived with other people, including family members, partners, and roommates ( Davis & Smith, 2007 ). The majority, ranging from 50% to 80%, reported regularly doing things in groups, such as attending a sports event together, visiting one another for the evening, sharing a meal together, or going out as a group to see a movie ( Putnam, 2000 ).

People respond negatively when their need to belong is unfulfilled. For example, college students often feel homesick and lonely when they first start college, but not if they belong to a cohesive, socially satisfying group ( Buote et al., 2007 ). People who are accepted members of a group tend to feel happier and more satisfied. But should they be rejected by a group, they feel unhappy, helpless, and depressed. Studies of ostracism —the deliberate exclusion from groups—indicate this experience is highly stressful and can lead to depression, confused thinking, and even aggression ( Williams, 2007 ). When researchers used a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner to track neural responses to exclusion, they found that people who were left out of a group activity displayed heightened cortical activity in two specific areas of the brain—the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula. These areas of the brain are associated with the experience of physical pain sensations ( Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003 ). It hurts, quite literally, to be left out of a group.

Affiliation in Groups

Groups not only satisfy the need to belong, they also provide members with information, assistance, and social support. Leon Festinger’s theory of social comparison ( 1950 , 1954 ) suggested that in many cases people join with others to evaluate the accuracy of their personal beliefs and attitudes. Stanley Schachter ( 1959 ) explored this process by putting individuals in ambiguous, stressful situations and asking them if they wished to wait alone or with others. He found that people affiliate in such situations—they seek the company of others.

Although any kind of companionship is appreciated, we prefer those who provide us with reassurance and support as well as accurate information. In some cases, we also prefer to join with others who are even worse off than we are. Imagine, for example, how you would respond when the teacher hands back the test and yours is marked 85%. Do you want to affiliate with a friend who got a 95% or a friend who got a 78%? To maintain a sense of self-worth, people seek out and compare themselves to the less fortunate. This process is known as downward social comparison .

Identity and Membership

Groups are not only founts of information during times of ambiguity, they also help us answer the existentially significant question, “Who am I?” Common sense tells us that our sense of self is our private definition of who we are, a kind of archival record of our experiences, qualities, and capabilities. Yet, the self also includes all those qualities that spring from memberships in groups. People are defined not only by their traits, preferences, interests, likes, and dislikes, but also by their friendships, social roles, family connections, and group memberships. The self is not just a “me,” but also a “we.”

Even demographic qualities such as sex or age can influence us if we categorize ourselves based on these qualities. Social identity theory , for example, assumes that we don’t just classify other people into such social categories as man, woman, Anglo, elderly, or college student, but we also categorize ourselves. Moreover, if we strongly identify with these categories, then we will ascribe the characteristics of the typical member of these groups to ourselves, and so stereotype ourselves. If, for example, we believe that college students are intellectual, then we will assume we, too, are intellectual if we identify with that group ( Hogg, 2001 ).

Groups also provide a variety of means for maintaining and enhancing a sense of self-worth, as our assessment of the quality of groups we belong to influences our collective self-esteem ( Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990 ). If our self-esteem is shaken by a personal setback, we can focus on our group’s success and prestige. In addition, by comparing our group to other groups, we frequently discover that we are members of the better group, and so can take pride in our superiority. By denigrating other groups, we elevate both our personal and our collective self-esteem ( Crocker & Major, 1989 ).

Mark Leary’s sociometer model goes so far as to suggest that “self-esteem is part of a sociometer that monitors peoples’ relational value in other people’s eyes” ( 2007 , p. 328). He maintains self-esteem is not just an index of one’s sense of personal value, but also an indicator of acceptance into groups. Like a gauge that indicates how much fuel is left in the tank, a dip in self-esteem indicates exclusion from our group is likely. Disquieting feelings of self-worth, then, prompt us to search for and correct characteristics and qualities that put us at risk of social exclusion. Self-esteem is not just high self-regard, but the self-approbation that we feel when included in groups ( Leary & Baumeister, 2000 ).

Evolutionary Advantages of Group Living

Groups may be humans’ most useful invention, for they provide us with the means to reach goals that would elude us if we remained alone. Individuals in groups can secure advantages and avoid disadvantages that would plague the lone individuals. In his theory of social integration, Moreland concludes that groups tend to form whenever “people become dependent on one another for the satisfaction of their needs” ( 1987 , p. 104). The advantages of group life may be so great that humans are biologically prepared to seek membership and avoid isolation. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, because groups have increased humans’ overall fitness for countless generations, individuals who carried genes that promoted solitude-seeking were less likely to survive and procreate compared to those with genes that prompted them to join groups ( Darwin, 1859/1963 ). This process of natural selection culminated in the creation of a modern human who seeks out membership in groups instinctively, for most of us are descendants of “joiners” rather than “loners.”

Motivation and Performance

Groups usually exist for a reason. In groups, we solve problems, create products, create standards, communicate knowledge, have fun, perform arts, create institutions, and even ensure our safety from attacks by other groups. But do groups always outperform individuals?

Social Facilitation in Groups

Do people perform more effectively when alone or when part of a group? Norman Triplett ( 1898 ) examined this issue in one of the first empirical studies in psychology. While watching bicycle races, Triplett noticed that cyclists were faster when they competed against other racers than when they raced alone against the clock. To determine if the presence of others leads to the psychological stimulation that enhances performance, he arranged for 40 children to play a game that involved turning a small reel as quickly as possible (see Figure 1). When he measured how quickly they turned the reel, he confirmed that children performed slightly better when they played the game in pairs compared to when they played alone (see Stroebe, 2012 ; Strube, 2005 ).

Triplett succeeded in sparking interest in a phenomenon now known as social facilitation : the enhancement of an individual’s performance when that person works in the presence of other people. However, it remained for Robert Zajonc ( 1965 ) to specify when social facilitation does and does not occur. After reviewing prior research, Zajonc noted that the facilitating effects of an audience usually only occur when the task requires the person to perform dominant responses, i.e., ones that are well-learned or based on instinctive behaviors. If the task requires nondominant responses, i.e., novel, complicated, or untried behaviors that the organism has never performed before or has performed only infrequently, then the presence of others inhibits performance. Hence, students write poorer quality essays on complex philosophical questions when they labor in a group rather than alone ( Allport, 1924 ), but they make fewer mistakes in solving simple, low-level multiplication problems with an audience or a coactor than when they work in isolation ( Dashiell, 1930 ).

Social facilitation, then, depends on the task: other people facilitate performance when the task is so simple that it requires only dominant responses, but others interfere when the task requires nondominant responses. However, a number of psychological processes combine to influence when social facilitation, not social interference, occurs. Studies of the challenge-threat response and brain imaging, for example, confirm that we respond physiologically and neurologically to the presence of others ( Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Salomon, 1999 ). Other people also can trigger evaluation apprehension, particularly when we feel that our individual performance will be known to others, and those others might judge it negatively ( Bond, Atoum, & VanLeeuwen, 1996 ). The presence of other people can also cause perturbations in our capacity to concentrate on and process information ( Harkins, 2006 ). Distractions due to the presence of other people have been shown to improve performance on certain tasks, such as the Stroop task , but undermine performance on more cognitively demanding tasks ( Huguet, Galvaing, Monteil, & Dumas, 1999 ).

Social Loafing

Groups usually outperform individuals. A single student, working alone on a paper, will get less done in an hour than will four students working on a group project. One person playing a tug-of-war game against a group will lose. A crew of movers can pack up and transport your household belongings faster than you can by yourself. As the saying goes, “Many hands make light the work” ( Littlepage, 1991 ; Steiner, 1972 ).

Groups, though, tend to be underachievers. Studies of social facilitation confirmed the positive motivational benefits of working with other people on well-practiced tasks in which each member’s contribution to the collective enterprise can be identified and evaluated. But what happens when tasks require a truly collective effort? First, when people work together they must coordinate their individual activities and contributions to reach the maximum level of efficiency—but they rarely do ( Diehl & Stroebe, 1987 ). Three people in a tug-of-war competition, for example, invariably pull and pause at slightly different times, so their efforts are uncoordinated. The result is coordination loss : the three-person group is stronger than a single person, but not three times as strong. Second, people just don’t exert as much effort when working on a collective endeavor, nor do they expend as much cognitive effort trying to solve problems, as they do when working alone. They display social loafing ( Latané, 1981 ).

Bibb Latané, Kip Williams, and Stephen Harkins ( 1979 ) examined both coordination losses and social loafing by arranging for students to cheer or clap either alone or in groups of varying sizes. The students cheered alone or in 2- or 6-person groups, or they were lead to believe they were in 2- or 6-person groups (those in the “pseudo-groups” wore blindfolds and headsets that played masking sound). As Figure 2 indicates, groups generated more noise than solitary subjects, but the productivity dropped as the groups became larger in size. In dyads, each subject worked at only 66% of capacity, and in 6-person groups at 36%. Productivity also dropped when subjects merely believed they were in groups. If subjects thought that one other person was shouting with them, they shouted 82% as intensely, and if they thought five other people were shouting, they reached only 74% of their capacity. These loses in productivity were not due to coordination problems; this decline in production could be attributed only to a reduction in effort—to social loafing (Latané et al., 1979, Experiment 2).

Social loafing is no rare phenomenon. When sales personnel work in groups with shared goals, they tend to “take it easy” if another salesperson is nearby who can do their work ( George, 1992 ). People who are trying to generate new, creative ideas in group brainstorming sessions usually put in less effort and are thus less productive than people who are generating new ideas individually ( Paulus & Brown, 2007 ). Students assigned group projects often complain of inequity in the quality and quantity of each member’s contributions: Some people just don’t work as much as they should to help the group reach its learning goals ( Neu, 2012 ). People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental tasks expend less effort when working in groups, and the larger the group, the more they loaf ( Karau & Williams, 1993 ).

Groups can, however, overcome this impediment to performance through teamwork . A group may include many talented individuals, but they must learn how to pool their individual abilities and energies to maximize the team’s performance. Team goals must be set, work patterns structured, and a sense of group identity developed. Individual members must learn how to coordinate their actions, and any strains and stresses in interpersonal relations need to be identified and resolved ( Salas, Rosen, Burke, & Goodwin, 2009 ).

Researchers have identified two key ingredients to effective teamwork: a shared mental representation of the task and group unity. Teams improve their performance over time as they develop a shared understanding of the team and the tasks they are attempting. Some semblance of this shared mental model is present nearly from its inception, but as the team practices, differences among the members in terms of their understanding of their situation and their team diminish as a consensus becomes implicitly accepted ( Tindale, Stawiski, & Jacobs, 2008 ).

Effective teams are also, in most cases, cohesive groups ( Dion, 2000 ). Group cohesion is the integrity, solidarity, social integration, or unity of a group. In most cases, members of cohesive groups like each other and the group and they also are united in their pursuit of collective, group-level goals. Members tend to enjoy their groups more when they are cohesive, and cohesive groups usually outperform ones that lack cohesion.

This cohesion-performance relationship, however, is a complex one. Meta-analytic studies suggest that cohesion improves teamwork among members, but that performance quality influences cohesion more than cohesion influences performance ( Mullen & Copper, 1994 ; Mullen, Driskell, & Salas, 1998 ; see Figure 3). Cohesive groups also can be spectacularly unproductive if the group’s norms stress low productivity rather than high productivity ( Seashore, 1954 ).

Group Development

In most cases groups do not become smooth-functioning teams overnight. As Bruce Tuckman’s ( 1965 ) theory of group development suggests, groups usually pass through several stages of development as they change from a newly formed group into an effective team. As noted in Focus Topic 1, in the forming phase, the members become oriented toward one another. In the storming phase, the group members find themselves in conflict, and some solution is sought to improve the group environment. In the norming, phase standards for behavior and roles develop that regulate behavior. In the performing, phase the group has reached a point where it can work as a unit to achieve desired goals, and the adjourning phase ends the sequence of development; the group disbands. Throughout these stages groups tend to oscillate between the task-oriented issues and the relationship issues, with members sometimes working hard but at other times strengthening their interpersonal bonds ( Tuckman & Jensen, 1977 ).

Focus Topic 1: Group Development Stages and Characteristics

Stage 1 – “Forming”. Members expose information about themselves in polite but tentative interactions. They explore the purposes of the group and gather information about each other’s interests, skills, and personal tendencies.

Stage 2 – “Storming”. Disagreements about procedures and purposes surface, so criticism and conflict increase. Much of the conflict stems from challenges between members who are seeking to increase their status and control in the group.

Stage 3 – “Norming”. Once the group agrees on its goals, procedures, and leadership, norms, roles, and social relationships develop that increase the group’s stability and cohesiveness.

Stage 4 – “Performing”. The group focuses its energies and attention on its goals, displaying higher rates of task-orientation, decision-making, and problem-solving.

Stage 5 – “Adjourning”. The group prepares to disband by completing its tasks, reduces levels of dependency among members, and dealing with any unresolved issues.

Sources based on Tuckman (1965) and Tuckman & Jensen (1977)

We also experience change as we pass through a group, for we don’t become full-fledged members of a group in an instant. Instead, we gradually become a part of the group and remain in the group until we leave it. Richard Moreland and John Levine’s ( 1982 ) model of group socialization describes this process, beginning with initial entry into the group and ending when the member exits it. For example, when you are thinking of joining a new group—a social club, a professional society, a fraternity or sorority, or a sports team—you investigate what the group has to offer, but the group also investigates you. During this investigation stage you are still an outsider: interested in joining the group, but not yet committed to it in any way. But once the group accepts you and you accept the group, socialization begins: you learn the group’s norms and take on different responsibilities depending on your role. On a sports team, for example, you may initially hope to be a star who starts every game or plays a particular position, but the team may need something else from you. In time, though, the group will accept you as a full-fledged member and both sides in the process—you and the group itself—increase their commitment to one another. When that commitment wanes, however, your membership may come to an end as well.

Making Decisions in Groups

Groups are particularly useful when it comes to making a decision, for groups can draw on more resources than can a lone individual. A single individual may know a great deal about a problem and possible solutions, but his or her information is far surpassed by the combined knowledge of a group. Groups not only generate more ideas and possible solutions by discussing the problem, but they can also more objectively evaluate the options that they generate during discussion. Before accepting a solution, a group may require that a certain number of people favor it, or that it meets some other standard of acceptability. People generally feel that a group’s decision will be superior to an individual’s decision.

Groups, however, do not always make good decisions. Juries sometimes render verdicts that run counter to the evidence presented. Community groups take radical stances on issues before thinking through all the ramifications. Military strategists concoct plans that seem, in retrospect, ill-conceived and short-sighted. Why do groups sometimes make poor decisions?

Group Polarization

Let’s say you are part of a group assigned to make a presentation. One of the group members suggests showing a short video that, although amusing, includes some provocative images. Even though initially you think the clip is inappropriate, you begin to change your mind as the group discusses the idea. The group decides, eventually, to throw caution to the wind and show the clip—and your instructor is horrified by your choice.

This hypothetical example is consistent with studies of groups making decisions that involve risk. Common sense notions suggest that groups exert a moderating, subduing effect on their members. However, when researchers looked at groups closely, they discovered many groups shift toward more extreme decisions rather than less extreme decisions after group interaction. Discussion, it turns out, doesn’t moderate people’s judgments after all. Instead, it leads to group polarization : judgments made after group discussion will be more extreme in the same direction as the average of individual judgments made prior to discussion ( Myers & Lamm, 1976 ). If a majority of members feel that taking risks is more acceptable than exercising caution, then the group will become riskier after a discussion. For example, in France, where people generally like their government but dislike Americans, group discussion improved their attitude toward their government but exacerbated their negative opinions of Americans ( Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969 ). Similarly, prejudiced people who discussed racial issues with other prejudiced individuals became even more negative, but those who were relatively unprejudiced exhibited even more acceptance of diversity when in groups ( Myers & Bishop, 1970 ).

Common Knowledge Effect

One of the advantages of making decisions in groups is the group’s greater access to information. When seeking a solution to a problem, group members can put their ideas on the table and share their knowledge and judgments with each other through discussions. But all too often groups spend much of their discussion time examining common knowledge—information that two or more group members know in common—rather than unshared information. This common knowledge effect will result in a bad outcome if something known by only one or two group members is very important.

Researchers have studied this bias using the hidden profile task . On such tasks, information known to many of the group members suggests that one alternative, say Option A, is best. However, Option B is definitely the better choice, but all the facts that support Option B are only known to individual groups members—they are not common knowledge in the group. As a result, the group will likely spend most of its time reviewing the factors that favor Option A, and never discover any of its drawbacks. In consequence, groups often perform poorly when working on problems with nonobvious solutions that can only be identified by extensive information sharing ( Stasser & Titus, 1987 ).

Groups sometimes make spectacularly bad decisions. In 1961, a special advisory committee to President John F. Kennedy planned and implemented a covert invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs that ended in total disaster. In 1986, NASA carefully, and incorrectly, decided to launch the Challenger space shuttle in temperatures that were too cold.

Irving Janis ( 1982 ), intrigued by these kinds of blundering groups, carried out a number of case studies of such groups: the military experts that planned the defense of Pearl Harbor; Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs planning group; the presidential team that escalated the war in Vietnam. Each group, he concluded, fell prey to a distorted style of thinking that rendered the group members incapable of making a rational decision. Janis labeled this syndrome groupthink : “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (p. 9).

Janis identified both the telltale symptoms that signal the group is experiencing groupthink and the interpersonal factors that combine to cause groupthink. To Janis, groupthink is a disease that infects healthy groups, rendering them inefficient and unproductive. And like the physician who searches for symptoms that distinguish one disease from another, Janis identified a number of symptoms that should serve to warn members that they may be falling prey to groupthink. These symptoms include overestimating the group’s skills and wisdom, biased perceptions and evaluations of other groups and people who are outside of the group, strong conformity pressures within the group, and poor decision-making methods.

Janis also singled out four group-level factors that combine to cause groupthink: cohesion, isolation, biased leadership, and decisional stress.

• Cohesion : Groupthink only occurs in cohesive groups. Such groups have many advantages over groups that lack unity. People enjoy their membership much more in cohesive groups, they are less likely to abandon the group, and they work harder in pursuit of the group’s goals. But extreme cohesiveness can be dangerous. When cohesiveness intensifies, members become more likely to accept the goals, decisions, and norms of the group without reservation. Conformity pressures also rise as members become reluctant to say or do anything that goes against the grain of the group, and the number of internal disagreements—necessary for good decision making—decreases.
• Isolation. Groupthink groups too often work behind closed doors, keeping out of the limelight. They isolate themselves from outsiders and refuse to modify their beliefs to bring them into line with society’s beliefs. They avoid leaks by maintaining strict confidentiality and working only with people who are members of their group.
• Biased leadership . A biased leader who exerts too much authority over group members can increase conformity pressures and railroad decisions. In groupthink groups, the leader determines the agenda for each meeting, sets limits on discussion, and can even decide who will be heard.
• Decisional stress. Groupthink becomes more likely when the group is stressed, particularly by time pressures. When groups are stressed they minimize their discomfort by quickly choosing a plan of action with little argument or dissension. Then, through collective discussion, the group members can rationalize their choice by exaggerating the positive consequences, minimizing the possibility of negative outcomes, concentrating on minor details, and overlooking larger issues.

You and Your Groups

Most of us belong to at least one group that must make decisions from time to time: a community group that needs to choose a fund-raising project; a union or employee group that must ratify a new contract; a family that must discuss your college plans; or the staff of a high school discussing ways to deal with the potential for violence during football games. Could these kinds of groups experience groupthink? Yes they could, if the symptoms of groupthink discussed above are present, combined with other contributing causal factors, such as cohesiveness, isolation, biased leadership, and stress. To avoid polarization, the common knowledge effect, and groupthink, groups should strive to emphasize open inquiry of all sides of the issue while admitting the possibility of failure. The leaders of the group can also do much to limit groupthink by requiring full discussion of pros and cons, appointing devil’s advocates, and breaking the group up into small discussion groups.

If these precautions are taken, your group has a much greater chance of making an informed, rational decision. Furthermore, although your group should review its goals, teamwork, and decision-making strategies, the human side of groups—the strong friendships and bonds that make group activity so enjoyable—shouldn’t be overlooked. Groups have instrumental, practical value, but also emotional, psychological value. In groups we find others who appreciate and value us. In groups we gain the support we need in difficult times, but also have the opportunity to influence others. In groups we find evidence of our self-worth, and secure ourselves from the threat of loneliness and despair. For most of us, groups are the secret source of well-being.

Text Attribution

Media attributions.

• AFF Level 1 – Skydive Langar
• Another Three
• Figure 13.1: The “competition machine”
• Figure 13.2
• Dragon Boat Races
• Figure 13.3
• USMC Sitting Volleyball Team wins gold

Excluding one or more individuals from a group by reducing or eliminating contact with the person, usually by ignoring, shunning, or explicitly banishing them.

The process by which people understand their own ability or condition by mentally comparing themselves to others.

Social identity theory notes that people categorize each other into groups, favoring their own group.

Feelings of self-worth that are based on evaluation of relationships with others and membership in social groups.

A conceptual analysis of self-evaluation processes that theorizes self-esteem functions to psychologically monitor of one’s degree of inclusion and exclusion in social groups.

When performance on simple or well-rehearsed tasks is enhanced when we are in the presence of others.

The reduction of individual effort exerted when people work in groups compared with when they work alone.

The process by which members of the team combine their knowledge, skills, abilities, and other resources through a coordinated series of actions to produce an outcome.

Knowledge, expectations, conceptualizations, and other cognitive representations that members of a group have in common pertaining to the group and its members, tasks, procedures, and resources.

The solidarity or unity of a group resulting from the development of strong and mutual interpersonal bonds among members and group-level forces that unify the group, such as shared commitment to group goals.

The tendency for members of a deliberating group to move to a more extreme position, with the direction of the shift determined by the majority or average of the members’ predeliberation preferences.

The tendency for groups to spend more time discussing information that all members know (shared information) and less time examining information that only a few members know (unshared).

A set of negative group-level processes, including illusions of invulnerability, self-censorship, and pressures to conform, that occur when highly cohesive groups seek concurrence when making a decision.

An Introduction to Social Psychology Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Edison State University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 10. Working Groups: Performance and Decision Making

10.1 Understanding Social Groups

Learning Objectives

• Define the factors that create social groups and perceptions of entitativity.
• Define the concept of social identity, and explain how it applies to social groups.
• Review the stages of group development and dissolution.

Although it might seem that we could easily recognize a social group when we come across one, it is actually not that easy to define what makes a group of people a social group. Imagine, for instance, a half dozen people waiting in a checkout line at a supermarket. You would probably agree that this set of individuals should not be considered a social group because the people are not meaningfully related to each other. And the individuals watching a movie at a theater or those attending a large lecture class might also be considered simply as individuals who are in the same place at the same time but who are not connected as a social group.

Of course, a group of individuals who are currently in the same place may nevertheless easily turn into a social group if something happens that brings them “together.” For instance, if a man in the checkout line of the supermarket suddenly collapsed on the floor, it is likely that the others around him would begin to work together to help him. Someone would call an ambulance, another might give CPR, and another might attempt to contact his family. Similarly, if the movie theater were to catch on fire, a group would form as the individuals attempted to leave the theater. And even the class of students might come to feel like a group if the instructor continually praised it for being the best (or worst) class that he or she has ever had. It has been a challenge to characterize what the “something” is that makes a group a group, but one term that has been used is entitativity (Campbell, 1958; Lickel et al., 2000). Entitativity refers to something like “groupiness”— the perception, either by the group members themselves or by others, that the people together are a group .

The concept of entitativity is an important one, both in relation to how we view our ingroups, and also in terms of our perceptions of and behavior toward our outgroups. For example, strong perceptions of ingroup entitativity can help people to retain their sense of collective self-esteem in the face of difficult circumstances (Bougie, Usborne, de la Sablonniere, & Taylor, 2011). Seeing our ingroups as more entitative can also help us to achieve our individual psychological needs (Crawford & Salaman, 2012). With our outgroups, our perceptions of their entitativity can influence both our prosocial and antisocial behaviors toward them. For instance, although in some situations individuals may feel more xenophobic toward outgroups that they perceive as more entitative  (Ommundsen, van der Veer, Yakushko, & Ulleberg, 2013), they may in other contexts choose to donate more money to help more entitative outgroups (Smith, Faro, & Burson, 2013).

One determinant of entitativity is a cognitive one—the perception of similarity. As we saw in our discussions of liking and loving, similarity is important across many dimensions, including beliefs, values, and traits. A group can only be a group to the extent that its members have something in common; at minimum, they are similar because they all belong to the group. If a collection of people are interested in the same things, share the same opinions and beliefs, or work together on the same task, then it seems they should be considered—by both themselves and others—to be a group. However, if there are a lot of differences among the individuals, particularly in their goals, values, beliefs, and behaviors, then they are less likely to be seen as a group.

Given the many differences that we have discussed in other chapters between members of individualistic and collectivistic cultures in terms of how they see their social worlds, it should come as no surprise that different types of similarity relate more strongly to perceptions of entitativity in each type of culture. For instance, similarity in terms of personal traits has been found to be more strongly associated with entiativity in American versus Japanese participants, with the opposite pattern found for similarity in terms of common goals and outcomes (Kurebayashi, Hoffman, Ryan, & Murayama, 2012).

People, then, generally get together to form groups precisely because they are similar. For example, perhaps they are all interested in playing poker, or follow the same soccer team, or like martial arts. And groups are more likely to fall apart when the group members become dissimilar and thus no longer have enough in common to keep them together (Crump, Hamilton, Sherman, Lickel, & Thakkar, 2010; Miles & Kivlighan, 2008).

Communication, Interdependence, and Group Structure

Although similarity is important, it is not the only factor that creates a group. Groups have more entitativity when the group members have frequent interaction and communication with each other (Johnson & Johnson, 2012). Although communication can occur in groups that meet together in a single place, it can also occur among individuals who are at great distances from each other. The members of a research team who communicate regularly via Skype, for instance, might have frequent interactions and feel as if they are a group even though they never or rarely meet in person.

Interaction is particularly important when it is accompanied by interdependence — the extent to which the group members are mutually dependent upon each other to reach a goal . In some cases, and particularly in working groups, interdependence involves the need to work together to successfully accomplish a task. Individuals playing baseball are dependent upon each other to be able to play the game and also to play well. Each individual must do his or her job in order for the group to function. We are also interdependent when we work together to write a research article or create a class project. When group members are interdependent, they report liking each other more, tend to cooperate and communicate with each other to a greater extent, and may be more productive (Deutsch, 1949).

Still another aspect of working groups whose members spend some time working together and that makes them seem “groupy” is that they develop group structure—the stable norms and roles that define the appropriate behaviors for the group as a whole and for each of the members. The relevant social norms for groups include customs, traditions, standards, and rules, as well as the general values of the group. Particularly important here are injunctive norms, which specify how group members are expected to behave . Some of these are prescriptive norms, which tell the group members what to do , whereas some are proscriptive norms, which tell   them what not to do . In general, the more clearly defined and the widely agreed upon the norms in a group are, the more  entitativity that the group members will feel.

Effective groups also develop and assign social roles (the expected behaviors) to group members. For instance, some groups may be structured such that they have a president, a secretary, and many different working committees. Different roles often come with different levels of status, or perceived power, and these hierarchies. In general, groups are more effective when the roles assigned to each member are clearly defined and appropriate to those individuals’ skills and goals. Also, if members have more than one role, for example, player and coach, it is important that these roles are compatible rather than contradictory. High-performing groups are thus able to avoid placing members under role stress . This   occurs when individuals experience incompatible demands and expectations within or between the roles that they occupy , which often negatively impacts their ability to be successful in those roles (Forsyth, 2010).

Social Identity

Although cognitive factors such as perceived similarity, communication, interdependence, and structure are often important parts of what we mean by being a group, they do not seem to always be necessary. In some situations, groups may be seen as groups even if they have little independence, communication, or structure. Partly because of this difficulty, an alternative approach to thinking about groups, and one that has been very important in social psychology, makes use of the affective feelings that we have toward the groups that we belong to. As we have read, social identity refers to the part of the self-concept that results from our membership in social groups (Hogg, 2003). Generally, because we prefer to remain in groups that we feel good about, the outcome of group membership is a positive social identity—our group memberships make us feel good about ourselves.

According to the social identity approach, a group is a group when the members experience social identity—when they define themselves in part by the group that they belong to and feel good about their group membership (Hogg, 2010). This identity might be seen as a tendency on the part of the individual to talk positively about the group to others, a general enjoyment of being part of the group, and a feeling of pride that comes from group membership. Because identity is such an important part of group membership, we may attempt to create it to make ourselves feel good, both about our group and about ourselves. Perhaps you know some people—maybe you are one—who wear the clothes of their sports team to highlight their identity with the group because they want to be part of, and accepted by, the other group members. Indeed, the more that we see our social identities as part of our membership of a group, the more likely we are to remain in them, even when attractive alternatives exist (Van Vugt & Hart, 2004).

The Stages of Group Development

Although many groups are basically static, performing the same types of tasks day in and day out, other groups are more dynamic. In fact, in almost all groups there is at least some change; members come and go, and the goals of the group may change. And even groups that have remained relatively stable for long periods of time may suddenly make dramatic changes; for instance, when they face a crisis, such as a change in task goals or the loss of a leader. Groups may also lose their meaning and identity as they successfully meet the goals they initially set out to accomplish.

One way to understand group development is to consider the potential stages that groups generally go through. One widely used approach here is the model developed by Tuckman and Jensen (1977). As you can see in Figure 10.3, “Stages of Group Development,” the different stages involve forming, storming, norming and performing, and adjourning .

The  forming stage  occurs  when the members of the group come together and begin their existence as a group . In some cases, when a new group, such as a courtroom jury, forms to accomplish a goal, the formation stage occurs relatively quickly and is appropriately considered the group’s first stage. In other cases, however, the process of group formation occurs continually over a long period of time, such as when factory workers leave their jobs and are replaced by new employees.

The forming stage is important for the new members, as well as for the group itself. During this time, the group and the individual will exchange knowledge about appropriate norms, including any existing group structures, procedures, and routines. Each individual will need to learn about the group and determine how he or she is going to fit in. And the group may be inspecting the individual’s characteristics and appropriateness as a group member. This initial investigation process may end up with the individual rejecting the group or the group rejecting the individual.

If the forming stage can be compared to childhood, there is no doubt that the next stage— storming —can be compared to adolescence. As the group members begin to get to know each other, they may find that they don’t always agree on everything. In the storming stage, members may attempt to make their own views known, expressing their independence and attempting to persuade the group to accept their ideas . Storming may occur as the group first gets started, and it may recur at any point during the group’s development, particularly if the group experiences stress caused by a negative event, such as a setback in progress toward the group goal. In some cases, the conflict may be so strong that the group members decide that the group is not working at all and they disband. In fact, field studies of real working groups have shown that a large percentage of new groups never get past the forming and storming stages before breaking up (Kuypers, Davies, & Hazewinkel, 1986).

Although storming can be harmful to group functioning and thus groups must work to keep it from escalating, some conflict among group members may in fact be helpful. Sometimes the most successful groups are those that have successfully passed through a storming stage, because conflict may increase the productivity of the group, unless the conflict becomes so extreme that the group disbands prematurely (Rispens & Jehn, 2011). Groups that experience no conflict at all may be unproductive because the members are bored, uninvolved, and unmotivated, and because they do not think creatively or openly about the topics of relevance to them (Tjosvold, 1991). In order to progress, the group needs to develop new ideas and approaches, and this requires that the members discuss their different opinions about the decisions that the group needs to make.

Assuming that the storming does not escalate too far, the group will move into the norming stage, which is when the appropriate norms and roles for the group are developed.  Once these norms have been developed, they allow the group to enter the performing stage, which is when group members establish a routine and effectively work together . At this stage, the individual group members may report great satisfaction and identification with the group, as well as strong group identity. Groups that have effectively reached this stage have the ability to meet goals and survive challenges. And at this point, the group becomes well tuned to its task and is able to perform the task efficiently.

In one interesting observational study of the group development process in real groups, Gersick (1988, 1989) observed a number of teams as they worked on different projects. The teams were selected so that they were all working within a specific time frame, but the time frame itself varied dramatically—from eight to 25 meetings held over periods ranging from 11 days to six months. Despite this variability, Gersick found that each of the teams followed a very similar pattern of norming and then performing. In each case, the team established well-defined norms regarding its method of attacking its task in its very first meeting. And each team stayed with this approach, with very little deviation, during the first half of the time it had been allotted. However, midway through the time it had been given to complete the project (and regardless of whether that was after four meetings or after 12), the group suddenly had a meeting in which it decided to change its approach. Then, each of the groups used this new method of performing the task during the rest of its allotted time. It was as if an alarm clock went off at the halfway point, which led each group to rethink its approach.

Most groups eventually come to the adjourning stage, where group members prepare for the group to end . In some cases, this is because the task for which the group was formed has been completed, whereas in other cases it occurs because the group members have developed new interests outside the group. In any case, because people who have worked in a group have likely developed a strong identification with the group and the other group members, the adjournment phase is frequently stressful, and participants may resist the breakup. Faced with these situations, individuals frequently plan to get together again in the future, exchanging addresses and phone numbers, even though they may well know that it is unlikely they will actually do so. Sometimes it is useful for the group to work ahead of time to prepare members for the breakup.

Keep in mind that this model represents only a general account of the phases of group development, beginning with forming and ending with adjourning, and will not apply equally well to all groups . For instance, the stages are not necessarily sequential: some groups may cycle back and forth between earlier and later stages in response to the situations they face. Also, not all groups will necessarily pass through all stages. Nevertheless, the model has been useful in describing the evolution of a wide range of groups (Johnson & Johnson, 2012).

Key Takeaways

• Social groups form the foundation of human society—without groups, there would be no human culture. Working together in groups, however, may lead to a variety of negative outcomes as well.
• Similarity, communication, interdependence, and group structure are variables that make a collection of individuals seem more like a group—the perception of group entitativity.
• Most groups that we belong to provide us with a positive social identity—the part of the self-concept that results from our membership in social groups.
• The more we feel that our identities are tied to the our group memberships, the less likely we are to leave the groups we belong to.
• One way to understand group development is to consider the potential stages that groups generally go through. The normal stages are forming, storming, norming and performing, and adjourning.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• Compare some of the social groups that you belong to that you feel have high and low levels of entitativity. How do these groups differ in terms of their perceived similarity, communication, interdependence, and structure?
• Describe a situation where you experienced role stress. What were the causes of that stress and how did it affect your performance in that role?
• Think about a group that you belong to now, which is very important to you. Identify one prescriptive and one proscriptive norm for this group. How do you think that these norms help the group to function effectively? What do you think would happen if a group member violated those norms?
• Consider groups that provide a particularly strong social identity for their members. Why do you think social identity is so strong in these groups, and how do you think that the experience of identity influence the group members’ behavior?
• Think about a group that you have been a member of for a long time. Which of Tuckman and Jensen’s stages do you think that the group is currently in? Overall, how well do you think that their stage model helps to explain how this group has developed over time?

Bougie, E., Usborne, E., de la Sablonnière, R., & Taylor, D. M. (2011). The cultural narratives of Francophone and Anglophones Quebecers: Using a historical perspective to explore the relationships among collective relative deprivation, in‐group entitativity, and collective esteem.  British Journal Of Social Psychology ,50 (4), 726-746.

Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregate persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3,  14-25.

Crawford, M. T., & Salaman, L. (2012). Entitativity, identity, and the fulfilment of psychological needs.  Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology ,48 (3), 726-730.

Crump, S. A., Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., Lickel, B., & Thakkar, V. (2010). Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups.  European Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (7), 1212–1230. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.716.

Deutsch, M. (1949). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group processes.  Human Relations, 2 , 199–231.

Forsyth, D. (2010). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development.  Academy of Management Journal, 31 (1), 9–41.

Gersick, C. J. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups.  Academy of Management Journal, 32 , 274–309.

Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.),  Handbook of self and identity  (pp. 462–479). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hogg, M. A. (2010). Human groups, social categories, and collective self: Social identity and the management of self-uncertainty. In R. M. Arkin, K. C. Oleson, & P. J. Carroll (Eds.),  Handbook of the uncertain self  (pp. 401–420). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F.P. (2012). Joining Together – Group Theory and Group Skills (11th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kurebayashi, K., Hoffman, L., Ryan, C. S., & Murayama, A. (2012). Japanese and American perceptions of group entitativity and autonomy: A multilevel analysis.  Journal Of Cross-Cultural Psychology ,43(2), 349-364.

Kuypers, B. C., Davies, D., & Hazewinkel, A. (1986). Developmental patterns in self-analytic groups.  Human Relations, 39 (9), 793–815.

Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2), 223–246.

Miles, J. R., & Kivlighan, D. M., Jr. (2008). Team cognition in group interventions: The relation between coleaders’ shared mental models and group climate.  Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12 (3), 191–209. doi: 10.1037/1089–2699.12.3.191

Ommundsen R, van der Veer K, Yakushko O, Ulleberg P. Exploring the relationships between fear-related xenophobia, perceptions of out-group entitativity, and social contact in Norway.  Psychological Reports  [serial online]. February 2013;112(1):109-124.

Rispens, S., & Jehn, K. A. (2011). Conflict in workgroups: Constructive, destructive, and asymmetric conflict. In D. De Cremer, R. van Dick, & J. K. Murnighan (Eds.),  Social psychology and organizations  (pp. 185–209). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Smith, R. W., Faro, D., & Burson, K. A. (2013). More for the many: The influence of entitativity on charitable giving.  Journal Of Consumer Research , 39(5), 961-975.

Tjosvold, D. (1991). The conflict-positive organization. Reading, MA:   Addison-Wesley.

Tuckman, B., & Jenson, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427.

Van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identities as glue: The origins of group loyalty.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,  585-598.

Media Attributions

• “ Randy, Ruth & Sarah ” by Eric Peacock is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 licence .
• “ Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) (201208050011HQ) ” by NASA HQ PHOTO is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 licence .
• “ The Cultural Competency team get to work ” by Poughkeepsie Day School is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 licence .

The perception, either by the group members themselves or by others, that the people together are a group.

The extent to which the group members are mutually dependent upon each other to reach a goal.

How group members are expected to behave.

Tell the group members what to do.

Tell them what not to do.

When individuals experience incompatible demands and expectations within or between the roles that they occupy, which often negatively impacts their ability to be successful in those roles.

When the members of the group come together and begin their existence as a group.

Members may attempt to make their own views known, expressing their independence and attempting to persuade the group to accept their ideas.

When the appropriate norms and roles for the group are developed.

When group members establish a routine and effectively work together.

Group members prepare for the group to end.

Principles of Social Psychology - 1st International H5P Edition Copyright © 2022 by Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani and Dr. Hammond Tarry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

5.3 Agents of Socialization

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Evaluate the roles of families and peer groups in socialization
• Describe how people are socialized through institutions like schools, workplaces, and the government

Socialization helps people learn to function successfully in their social worlds. How does the process of socialization occur? How do we learn to use the objects of our society’s material culture? How do we come to adopt the beliefs, values, and norms that represent its nonmaterial culture? This learning takes place through interaction with various agents of socialization, like peer groups and families, plus both formal and informal social institutions.

Social Group Agents

Social groups often provide the first experiences of socialization. Families, and later peer groups, communicate expectations and reinforce norms. People first learn to use the tangible objects of material culture in these settings, as well as being introduced to the beliefs and values of society.

Family is the first agent of socialization. Mothers and fathers, siblings and grandparents, plus members of an extended family, all teach a child what he or she needs to know. For example, they show the child how to use objects (such as clothes, computers, eating utensils, books, bikes); how to relate to others (some as “family,” others as “friends,” still others as “strangers” or “teachers” or “neighbors”); and how the world works (what is “real” and what is “imagined”). As you are aware, either from your own experience as a child or from your role in helping to raise one, socialization includes teaching and learning about an unending array of objects and ideas.

Keep in mind, however, that families do not socialize children in a vacuum. Many social factors affect the way a family raises its children. For example, we can use sociological imagination to recognize that individual behaviors are affected by the historical period in which they take place. Sixty years ago, it would not have been considered especially strict for a father to hit his son with a wooden spoon or a belt if he misbehaved, but today that same action might be considered child abuse.

Sociologists recognize that race, social class, religion, and other societal factors play an important role in socialization. For example, poor families usually emphasize obedience and conformity when raising their children, while wealthy families emphasize judgment and creativity (National Opinion Research Center 2008). This may occur because working-class parents have less education and more repetitive-task jobs for which it is helpful to be able to follow rules and conform. Wealthy parents tend to have better educations and often work in managerial positions or careers that require creative problem solving, so they teach their children behaviors that are beneficial in these positions. This means children are effectively socialized and raised to take the types of jobs their parents already have, thus reproducing the class system (Kohn 1977). Likewise, children are socialized to abide by gender norms, perceptions of race, and class-related behaviors.

In Sweden, for instance, stay-at-home fathers are an accepted part of the social landscape. A government policy provides subsidized time off work—480 days for families with newborns—with the option of the paid leave being shared between mothers and fathers. As one stay-at-home dad says, being home to take care of his baby son “is a real fatherly thing to do. I think that’s very masculine” (Associated Press 2011). Close to 90 percent of Swedish fathers use their paternity leave (about 340,000 dads); on average they take seven weeks per birth (The Economist, 2014). How do U.S. policies—and our society’s expected gender roles—compare? How will Swedish children raised this way be socialized to parental gender norms? How might that be different from parental gender norms in the United States?

Peer Groups

A peer group is made up of people who are similar in age and social status and who share interests. Peer group socialization begins in the earliest years, such as when kids on a playground teach younger children the norms about taking turns, the rules of a game, or how to shoot a basket. As children grow into teenagers, this process continues. Peer groups are important to adolescents in a new way, as they begin to develop an identity separate from their parents and exert independence. Additionally, peer groups provide their own opportunities for socialization since kids usually engage in different types of activities with their peers than they do with their families. Peer groups provide adolescents’ first major socialization experience outside the realm of their families. Interestingly, studies have shown that although friendships rank high in adolescents’ priorities, this is balanced by parental influence.

Institutional Agents

The social institutions of our culture also inform our socialization. Formal institutions—like schools, workplaces, and the government—teach people how to behave in and navigate these systems. Other institutions, like the media, contribute to socialization by inundating us with messages about norms and expectations.

Most U.S. children spend about seven hours a day, 180 days a year, in school, which makes it hard to deny the importance school has on their socialization (U.S. Department of Education 2004). Students are not in school only to study math, reading, science, and other subjects—the manifest function of this system. Schools also serve a latent function in society by socializing children into behaviors like practicing teamwork, following a schedule, and using textbooks.

School and classroom rituals, led by teachers serving as role models and leaders, regularly reinforce what society expects from children. Sociologists describe this aspect of schools as the hidden curriculum , the informal teaching done by schools.

For example, in the United States, schools have built a sense of competition into the way grades are awarded and the way teachers evaluate students (Bowles and Gintis 1976). When children participate in a relay race or a math contest, they learn there are winners and losers in society. When children are required to work together on a project, they practice teamwork with other people in cooperative situations. The hidden curriculum prepares children for the adult world. Children learn how to deal with bureaucracy, rules, expectations, waiting their turn, and sitting still for hours during the day. Schools in different cultures socialize children differently in order to prepare them to function well in those cultures. The latent functions of teamwork and dealing with bureaucracy are features of U.S. culture.

Schools also socialize children by teaching them about citizenship and national pride. In the United States, children are taught to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Most districts require classes about U.S. history and geography. As academic understanding of history evolves, textbooks in the United States have been scrutinized and revised to update attitudes toward other cultures as well as perspectives on historical events; thus, children are socialized to a different national or world history than earlier textbooks may have done. For example, information about the mistreatment of African Americans and Native American Indians more accurately reflects those events than in textbooks of the past.

Big Picture

Controversial textbooks.

On August 13, 2001, twenty South Korean men gathered in Seoul. Each chopped off one of his own fingers because of textbooks. These men took drastic measures to protest eight middle school textbooks approved by Tokyo for use in Japanese middle schools. According to the Korean government (and other East Asian nations), the textbooks glossed over negative events in Japan’s history at the expense of other Asian countries.

In the early 1900s, Japan was one of Asia’s more aggressive nations. For instance, it held Korea as a colony between 1910 and 1945. Today, Koreans argue that the Japanese are whitewashing that colonial history through these textbooks. One major criticism is that they do not mention that, during World War II, the Japanese forced Korean women into sexual slavery. The textbooks describe the women as having been “drafted” to work, a euphemism that downplays the brutality of what actually occurred. Some Japanese textbooks dismiss an important Korean independence demonstration in 1919 as a “riot.” In reality, Japanese soldiers attacked peaceful demonstrators, leaving roughly 6,000 dead and 15,000 wounded (Crampton 2002).

The protest affirms that textbooks are a significant tool of socialization in state-run education systems.

The Workplace

Just as children spend much of their day at school, many U.S. adults at some point invest a significant amount of time at a place of employment. Although socialized into their culture since birth, workers require new socialization into a workplace, in terms of both material culture (such as how to operate the copy machine) and nonmaterial culture (such as whether it’s okay to speak directly to the boss or how to share the refrigerator). In the chapter introduction, Noel did not fully embrace the culture of their new company. Importantly, the obligation of such socialization is not simply on the worker: Organizational behavior and other business experts place responsibility on companies; organizations must have strong onboarding and socialization programs in order to build satisfaction, productivity, and workplace retention (Cebollero 2019).

Different jobs require different types of socialization. In the past, many people worked a single job until retirement. Today, the trend is to switch jobs at least once a decade. Between the ages of eighteen and forty-six, the average Baby Boomer of the younger set held 11.3 different jobs (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). This means that people must become socialized to, and socialized by, a variety of work environments.

While some religions are informal institutions, here we focus on practices followed by formal institutions. Religion is an important avenue of socialization for many people. The United States is full of synagogues, temples, churches, mosques, and similar religious communities where people gather to worship and learn. Like other institutions, these places teach participants how to interact with the religion’s material culture (like a mezuzah, a prayer rug, or a communion wafer). For some people, important ceremonies related to family structure—like marriage and birth—are connected to religious celebrations. Many religious institutions also uphold gender norms and contribute to their enforcement through socialization. From ceremonial rites of passage that reinforce the family unit to power dynamics that reinforce gender roles, organized religion fosters a shared set of socialized values that are passed on through society.

Although we do not think about it, many of the rites of passage people go through today are based on age norms established by the government. To be defined as an “adult” usually means being eighteen years old, the age at which a person becomes legally responsible for him- or herself. And sixty-five years old is the start of “old age” since most people become eligible for senior benefits at that point.

Each time we embark on one of these new categories—senior, adult, taxpayer—we must be socialized into our new role. Seniors must learn the ropes of Medicare, Social Security benefits, and senior shopping discounts. When U.S. males turn eighteen, they must register with the Selective Service System within thirty days to be entered into a database for possible military service. These government dictates mark the points at which we require socialization into a new category.

Mass media distribute impersonal information to a wide audience, via television, newspapers, radio, and the Internet. With the average person spending over four hours a day in front of the television (and children averaging even more screen time), media greatly influences social norms (Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 2005). People learn about objects of material culture (like new technology and transportation options), as well as nonmaterial culture—what is true (beliefs), what is important (values), and what is expected (norms).

Sociology in the Real World

Girls and movies.

Movies aimed at young people have featured a host of girls and women leads. Snow White , Cinderella , and Sleeping Beauty gave way to The Little Mermaid , Beauty and the Beast, and Mulan . In many of those cases, if the character is not a princess to begin with, she typically ends the movie by marrying a prince or, in the case of Mulan, a military general. Although not all “princesses” in Disney movies play a passive role in their lives, they typically find themselves needing to be rescued by a man, and the happy ending they all search for includes marriage.

Alongside this prevalence of princesses, many parents are expressing concern about the culture of princesses that Disney has created. Peggy Orenstein addresses this problem in her popular book, Cinderella Ate My Daughter . Orenstein wonders why every little girl is expected to be a “princess” and why pink has become an all-consuming obsession for many young girls. Another mother wondered what she did wrong when her three-year-old daughter refused to do “nonprincessy” things, including running and jumping. The effects of this princess culture can have negative consequences for girls throughout life. An early emphasis on beauty can lead to reduced interest in math and science among girls, as well as avoiding educational scenarios that are "typically feminine" (Coyne 2016).

Others acknowledge these issues, but find princess movies and "princess culture" less alarming. Some remind concerned parents that children have an array of media and activities around them, and the children may be happy wearing their princess outfit while digging for worms or going to hockey practice, which run counter to feminine stereotypes (Wagner 2019). Others indicate that rather than disallowing princess movies and merchandise, engaging with the children as they enjoy them might be more effective. And many people acknowledge that girls and women are often currently portrayed differently than they were in years past.

Disney seems to have gotten the message about the concerns. Its 2009 Tiana and the Frog was specifically billed as "a princess movie for people who don't like princess movies," and features a talented chef and business owner—who didn't need a man to rescue her—as its main character. Brave 's Merida and the title character in Moana seem to go out of their way to separate themselves from traditional princesses, and undertake great acts of bravery to help others. Frozen focuses on sisterly love rather than romantic love. And though she was never meant to be a princess, Star Wars ' Rey was the go-to girls Halloween costume for years after she was introduced in the movies.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/5-3-agents-of-socialization

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

50 Social Groups Examples

A social group is a collection of individuals who share aims and routines, a sense of unity, and a common identity (Tischler, 2011, p. 121).

In a social group, people regularly interact with one another on the basis of shared aims and identity. A social group can be a family, colleagues in a company, people living in a city district, a nation, and other similar collections. A shared sense of belonging is an important feature of social groups.

Social Groups Definition

When two or more people interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity, they form a social group. Social groups have very different sizes and varieties.

Sociologists differentiate between two categories of social groups:

• Primary Groups , and
• Secondary Groups

Primary Groups describe a small, set of tight, long-lasting, direct, and intimate relationships. They are bound by a strong sense of belonging, such as those within a family or group of close friends.

The group does not have any other purpose than being together. They provide emotional warmth and comfort, with a sense of loyalty and belonging.

Secondary groups gather to achieve a specific and shared goal or to have a common interest and a sense of belonging.

Yet, they have a limited sense of belonging and last for a shorter period of time.

The relationships are impersonal, and interaction and emotional bonding are weaker.

People in your college class are examples of secondary groups. Other examples include relationships among people in businesses, governments, religious institutions, and civic associations.

Social Groups Examples

• A sociology class at a university
• Family  
• A yoga club
• A music band
• Colleagues in a corporate company
• An athletic team
• Association of business people
• Close friends
• Patron circles at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

More Examples

• animal rights organizations
• anime clubs
• artist cooperatives
• bridge clubs
• chess clubs
• co-curricular social clubs at university
• community organizations
• community theater organizations
• cooking clubs
• dance clubs
• Dungeons and Dragons groups
• environmental activism organizations
• film enthusiast clubs
• fitness clubs
• fraternities or sororities
• genealogy and family history groups
• health and wellness groups
• labor unions
• LAN gaming clubs
• language learning and exchange meetups
• LGBTQ+ support organizations
• military teams, batallions, etc.
• musical bands
• online hobby forums
• outdoor adventure groups
• parenting groups
• philanthropic organizations
• philosophy discussion forums
• poker clubs
• political parties
• professional organizations
• racial or ethnic communities
• religious congregations
• role-playing and cosplay groups
• seniors groups
• social clubs
• sports teams
• support groups
• tabletop gaming groups
• trade guilds
• travel clubs
• urban gardening establishments
• veteran organizations
• volunteer and community support networks
• women’s groups
• workplace cooperatives
• writers’ co-ops
• youth groups

Key Social Groups Explained

Type: Primary Group

A family is a group of one or more parents and their children living together as a social and emotional unit.

Family is one of the important social groups. It is an example of a primary group in which family members are emotionally invested in one another and are well acquainted with one another.

Support, love, and caring are among the major features of families. The members are intimately familiar with and emotionally invested in one another.

Family communication is based on the entirety of members’ personalities rather than just their social identities or positions as community leaders, students, or athletes.

2.  A sociology class at a university

Type: secondary group

Students attend classes in colleges and form a social group with fellow students in those particular classes.

Students coming together at a sociology class do so only for a specific academic semester and with the purpose of learning about society through a sociological prism.

Social groups have their own set of standards and norms, which may or may not be the same as those of the broader community.

Sociology students may also share some norms such as the willingness to express their own emotions or ideas, interrupting or even challenging the professor, avoiding conflict in the classroom, discussing the paper topics, and the length and frequency of their contributions.

These are all related to the group dynamics and when the standards are broken, sanctions are applied and these may take the form of remarks, disapproving stares, or avoiding the offender. (Tischler, 2011, p.121)

3.  Yoga Club

Type: Secondary group

A yoga club is an association that provides or teaches yoga-related practices such as physical activity, mindfulness and stress management exercises, and healthy eating suggestions.

A yoga club is of the secondary groups. There are several types of yoga practices. Members of a particular yoga style have a specific purpose.

The yoga groups can be Asthanga, Vinyasa, Hatha, Yin Yoga, Kundalini. A particular yoga group can differentiate itself from the rest of the groups as they each have a different set of practices, core values,  and goals.

Thus the group members communicate through and follow certain predetermined rules, as well as established statuses and duties.

4. An athletic team

An athletic team is a group of people, mostly representing sports organizations. The team may play baseball, basketball, football, and volleyball.

The athletic team is also one of the secondary groups. It is mainly big and permanent, and the members of the team and its fans can identify with the group’s core values and goals and can view the out-groups with hostile emotions.

These groups can be dispersed and might have methods for enlisting new members and have a specific set of objectives and purposes.

Less intimacy characterizes these groups. However, they might have strong emotional bonds as they associate themselves with the team’s core values.

5. A music band

A music band is an ensemble of musicians that performs music. It can be defined as a primary group since it has a common purpose, sense of belonging, common identity, and direct and intimate relationships.

It is usually composed of a small group of people who gather together regularly, and the members of the group interact with one another, sharing feelings and ideas.

Music bands follow different genres, such Jazz, Rock, Funk etc. and each band can differentiate itself from others through the genre and its standards.

A social group is made up of two or more people who interact with one another within a set of patterns. Its members have a sense of belonging and a common purpose.

Social groups can be of various types.

A primary group is typically a small gathering. It exhibits intense social engagement and long-lasting emotional bonds. Group members care for one another and passionately identify with the group. Strong emotional bonds are an important feature of this category.

Secondary groups are larger but exhibit less intimate relationships, and play a more significant role in our lives. They enable people to gather for brief periods in order to accomplish a specific objective.

Members of secondary groups do not feel as closely connected to a group as do members of primary groups. Moreover, their emotional bonds with one another are weaker. Secondary organizations are necessary for society to function but unable to provide their members with the potential emotional benefits that primary groups can.

Cooley, C. H., & Rieff, P. (2017). Social organization: A study of the larger mind . London: Routledge.

Elliot, D. L. (2017). Primary groups. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology . Los Angeles: Blackwell. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/97814 05165518.wbeosp092.pub2

Lee, S. C. (1964). The primary group as Cooley defines it. The Sociological Quarterly , 5 (1), 23-34.

Litwak, E., & Szelenyi, I. (1969). Primary group structures and their functions: Kin, neighbors, and friends. American Sociological Review , 465-481.

McCormack, M., Anderson, E., Jamie, K., & David, M. (2021).  Discovering sociology . New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Ritzer, G. (2015).  Essentials of sociology . London: Sage Publications.

Tischler, Henry L. (2011). Introduction to Sociology. Wadsworth, California.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

1 thought on “50 Social Groups Examples”

When studying social groups, it can be helpful to take a holistic approach. This means considering the group’s history, values, and norms. It can also be useful to observe the group in action and take note of any patterns or behaviors. Remember to approach your research with an open mind and avoid making assumptions. Good luck with your studies!

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: Social groups

Essay details and download:.

• Subject area(s): Sociology essays
• Reading time: 5 minutes
• Price: Free download
• Published: 6 February 2019*
• File format: Text
• Words: 1,402 (approx)
• Number of pages: 6 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 1,402 words. Download the full version above.

Outline The prescribed question for this written task is “How and why is a social group represented in a particular way?” and it explores the persuasive techniques being employed in Michelle Obama’s Convention Speech. The task refers to part 1 (language and power) of the course. In this task, the representation of different social groups mentioned in Obama’s speech and the effects achieved by representing the social groups in certain ways will be examined. The task will focus on exploring four key points: the first one is representation of US military men and women, which are the people being mentioned in Obama’s speech, referred as her inspirations. Then it is going to discuss the way American women are being represented in the speech through the recount of Obama’s grandmother’s experience, and the impact it has on female voters. Furthermore, the representation of American parents in the speech, mainly highlighting their selflessness toward their children. It must be noted that Ohm-la’s main purpose of representing these social groups in a positive light is to increase her popularity among the people and this consequently helps to increase Obama’s votes. The speech was given 2 months prior to the actual presidential election; one can therefore argue that it primarily aimed to attract votes and support for her husband’s campaign. Throughout the analysis, it will also identify the persuasive techniques being employed throughout the speech, such as anecdotes, pathos and more, but more importantly reviewing the effects they have on the speech’s persuasiveness. The language of the speech will be deconstructed to allow a thorough analysis of the text, and the reason for its success as a persuasive speech. 1. How and why is a social group represented in a particular way? Analysis of Michelle Obama’s Convention Speech 2012 Throughout the United States presidential election of 2012, one of the speeches that impressed the public greatly was one given by the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, at the Democratic National Convention. The speech received astonishing amount of positive feedback across social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, praising the way Michelle Obama tied personal history to political policy in a seamless and masterful way; along with her thoughtful portrayal towards these social groups in America: soldiers who came back from war wounded, women at workplace and parents who are of working class. The speech was given 2 months prior to the actual presidential election; one can therefore argue that these social groups are represented positively to attract votes for Obama’s campaign. In Obama’s speech, the US soldiers who came back from war is presented positively by the use of hyperbolic statements, repetition and parallelism to emphasise on their courage and selflessness. the loss of the soldiers are being emphasised using words that have connotations of sacrifice and selflessness, such as “wounded” and “blinded”. The physical losses of the soldiers are marked to highlight their altruistic behaviour of fighting for their county despite their own safety. Hyperbolic statements such as “I’d give my eyes a thousand times again” are used to convey a sense of selflessness by showing their willingness to contribute to the country explicitly with the use of exaggeration. Aside from that, Obama discloses how the wounded soldiers react to their losses and that they are her “inspiration”: “they’re not just going to walk again, they’re going to run, and they’re going to run marathons”. The use of parallel construction reinforces the soldiers’ perseverance and determination; since they are strong enough to go on and live their lives as energetic as before despite the disabilities they may have now. Furthermore, the word “inspirations” carries the connotations of motivation and enlightenment; it suggests that the soldiers are the people who influence Obama’s thoughts and actions. This contributes to her image as being down-to-earth since she communicates her admiration towards the ‘ordinary’ people in the country, moreover states that they are in fact her inspiration, regardless of her status as the First Lady of the country. This establishes the bond between her and the audience at the beginning of the speech, so that they are more likely to accept her words and empathise with her experiences as the speech proceeds. The reason for the US soldiers to be represented in a positively way is because by acknowledging the sacrifice made by the military, it is more likely to win votes from not only the soldiers, but also the retired military people and their families. Moreover, approximately 4% of the United States’ GDP is spent on military, it is evident that the role of military is significant; therefore, it is crucial to gain the support from one of the most powerful groups in the country. American women at workplace are another social group that is represented positively, by integrating anecdotes into the speech and evoking empathy, it shows the diligence and patience of women. Obama portrays women favourably by recounting his husband’s grandmother’s experience of hitting “the glass ceiling”, “like so many women”. By emphasising “so many women” hit the glass ceiling, Obama evokes empathy in the audience; and by acknowledges this issue publicly it also reassures the women experiencing the same problem that their voices have not gone unheard. Obama is tying an issue that is experienced by thousands of women to someone close to Obama, it again reminds the audience that although her family is living in the White House, they still face similar problems as everyone else. Obama also mentions the way her grandmother coped with the issue: she still kept on “waking up at dawn to catch the bus”, “arriving at work before anyone else”, and “giving her best without complaint or regret.” 2In this particular anecdote, women are portrayed as persistent and tough instead of resentful toward the inequalities. This allows women out there who are experiencing this problem to resonate, as well as feeling that their effort is recognised. Moreover, by constantly linking the anecdotes to bigger issues in the society, it assures the public that these issues are just as personal to the Obama family as they are to every other family in the United States, therefore they will not disappoint them when they are creating policies to help. These impacts on the audience ultimately achieve the purpose of urging them to vote for Obama. Lastly, parents who are working to support their children is another social group being represented positively throughout Michelle Obama’s speech by the use of personal anecdotes and anaphora. Many personal anecdotes are featured to portray this social group; for example, Obama reveals that she was worried about her daughters if her husband becomes the president, she questioned “How would we keep them grounded under the glare of the national spotlight?”, “How would they feel being uprooted from their school, their friends, and the only home they’d ever known?” Anaphora is used to emphasise her role as a mother who prioritise her Children before anything else; although she is the First Lady, but just like all the other mothers, she is constantly worrying about their children; this allows all the parents to resonate with her. Obama also narrates how her father “hardly ever missed a day of work” despite the pain he was in due to Multiple Sclerosis, so that he could support Obama and her brother to go to college, because for him, “that’s what it meant to be a man”. The reason for parents to be represented favourably is because it can remind them of their parents’ unconditional love for them, or their devotion toward their children; and by evoking an emotion that is shared by so many people, it allows them to connect to her and vote for Obama, because people are more likely to prefer and vote for someone they can resonate with. In conclusion, Michelle Obama’s Convention speech is able to win popularity due to her skilfulness in representing several social groups positively while maintains a sense of sincerity through integrating anecdotes and the depictions of her own life in the speech. It also ensures the audience who are of those social groups to empathise and resonate with the speech. This consequently allows bond to be established between Obama and the audience, thus leaving a strong impression in the audiences’ mind and possibly, gaining more votes for her husband’s campaign. Word Count: 999

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Social groups . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/sociology-essays/social-groups/> [Accessed 29-04-24].

These Sociology essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

• Accounting essays
• Architecture essays
• Business essays
• Computer science essays
• Criminology essays
• Economics essays
• Education essays
• Engineering essays
• English language essays
• Environmental studies essays
• Essay examples
• Finance essays
• Geography essays
• Health essays
• History essays
• Hospitality and tourism essays
• Human rights essays
• Information technology essays
• International relations
• Leadership essays
• Linguistics essays
• Literature essays
• Management essays
• Marketing essays
• Mathematics essays
• Media essays
• Medicine essays
• Military essays
• Miscellaneous essays
• Music Essays
• Nursing essays
• Philosophy essays
• Photography and arts essays
• Politics essays
• Project management essays
• Psychology essays
• Religious studies and theology essays
• Sample essays
• Science essays
• Social work essays
• Sociology essays
• Sports essays
• Types of essay
• Zoology essays

Stereotypes in Social Groups Essay

Introduction, background information, pro-con argument, my position, works cited.

Stereotypes are virtually present in any social group because they form part of the social identities that people assign each other basing on beliefs, norms, traditions, and physical features.

Fundamentally, stereotypes are attributes that people assign to specific groups of people depending on their social, cultural, traditional, and physical attributes. In essence, stereotypes are erroneous attributes that people have assigned unto others for purposes of identification. Stereotypes can be positive or negative depending on the attributes that they assign on to the people.

Positive stereotypes assign good attributes while negative stereotypes assign bad attributes. According to McGarty, Yzerbyt, and Spears, perception of positive and negative stereotypes is subjective because negative attributes of the majority tend to be negative, whereas positive attributes of the minority tend to be positive (12).

The existence of positive stereotypes benefits members of a given group because they identify good attributes and provide social recognition. Moreover, positive stereotypes are beneficial because they motivate group members to perform well by nurturing their positive attributes.

However, positive attributes hurt members of a group because they distort reality and alienate people in the society. In this view, positive stereotypes are not only beneficial, but also hurtful depending on how a given group takes them. Therefore, this begs a question: Are positive stereotypes beneficial?

In my life, I have encountered a number of stereotypes, which people have made against the Chinese. When I attended class with diverse students from various racial backgrounds, they took me as a great mathematician, yet I was poor in mathematics. As I was not good in mathematics, the stereotype motivated me to be a mathematician, so that I could fit into their perceptions.

With great struggle in class, I had to prove my identity to be a Chinese with great mathematical skills. During my high school education, we were many Chinese in the school, and thus people had difficulties recognizing us because they had stereotyped that all Chinese are alike. Other students claimed that we shared common features like skin color, walking styles, weight, and hair color.

Basing on these features, people have stereotyped that the Chinese are related because they look alike. In the film industry, artists have portrayed Chinese as martial artists (Zinzius 266). In this view, people perceive walking styles and weights of the Chinese as appropriate for martial arts. Therefore, I have experienced aforementioned stereotypes in the course of my life, which associate me with my racial background of Chinese.

Positive stereotypes are beneficial to members of social groups because they enhance their pride and confidence in their respective cultures. Given that diverse cultures exist in the society, some cultures appear to have more privileges than others. Cultures with positive stereotypes have good attributes, which make people from other cultures to emulate the positive attributes.

For example, the stereotype that the Chinese are better than the Americans in mathematics gives the Chinese an impetuous to perform well because they have confidence in their culture. In age-related stereotypes, Boduroglu et al. state that old Chinese can perform memory tasks better than old Americans.

Such positive stereotypes of Chinese are beneficial because they portray Chinese as people with intelligent brains, as they are not only good in mathematics, but also have sharp brains in their old age. In his experience, Steele insinuates that restrictions imposed on them regarding when they were to swim in the pool reduced their confidence as African Americans, while the White Americans were very confident because they did not have any restrictions (2).

In essence, positive stereotypes indicate the extent of social privileges that people enjoy in a diverse society. Thus, the privileged groups have more confidence than unprivileged groups.

Positive stereotypes are also beneficial to members of a social group because they identify positive attributes and thus aid in recognition of people and their respective cultures. Since diverse cultures across the world exist, they have different norms and traditions that define how people behave in society.

Cultural diversity is an important aspect of modern society because people from diverse cultural backgrounds interact in workplaces, schools, markets, cities, and social places. The existence of the majority and the minority groups in the society means that the attributes of the majority are more dominant than the attributes of the minority groups.

McGarty, Yzerbyt, and Spears argue that positive stereotypes are important among the minority groups because they enable the majority groups to identify and recognize their good attributes, and consequently their presence in the diverse society (12). The minority groups always experience a challenge when shaping their identity in a society that the majority dominates.

For example, the Whites can recognize African Americans when they perform extraordinary tasks. The experience of Brent Staples depicts how positive stereotypes, as portrayed in the whistled Vivaldi, changed perceptions of the Whites from perceiving him as an African American man, who is uneducated, unrefined, and violent (Steele 6).

As a mere African American man in the Street, the Whites could not have bothered to identify and recognize, but the stereotype of whistling Vivaldi reversed their perceptions.

Although it is beneficial, positive stereotypes are hurtful because they distort reality by holding on baseless claims. Positive stereotypes depend on false perceptions, which give a person a false sense of importance, which distort the reality. The reality is that people virtually have similar capacities to perform certain tasks provided the conditions are the same.

However, stereotypes give a false impression that one certain group performs better than another certain group, without any scientific basis to back up the assertion. For instance, the stereotype that the Chinese are good mathematicians does not mean all Chinese are good mathematicians whine non-Chinese are poor mathematicians.

According to McGarty, Yzerbyt, and Spears, positive stereotypes are hurtful since “distortions are self-enhancing because they reflect self-serving biases” (7). Fundamentally, positive stereotypes assign unrealistic attributes to individuals in a certain social group.

According to Steele, the White students who knew that the golf task aimed at measuring their natural athletic ability performed poorer than students who knew nothing (7). This implies that positive stereotypes distorted their perceptions and consequently their abilities.

Additionally, positive stereotypes are hurtful because they use personal experiences in setting an example. Blum argues that positive stereotypes emanates from personal beliefs and experiences, which are very subjective and biased (253).

For instance, A White American meets an African American drug addict and concludes that all African Americans are drug addicts. Another example is that an African American encounters a rich White American and infers that all White Americans are rich. Such experiences create positive stereotypes, which are hurtful in the sense that they demean good attributes that others hold and uplift non-existent attributes.

The personal experiences and beliefs, which form the basis of positive stereotypes, alienate people from the mainstream society as they perceive themselves as a special group with unique attributes. Steele notes that positive stereotypes create social problems because they disintegrate society into gender, social, and racial classes. Therefore, positive stereotypes are hurtful to the individuals and society.

Positive stereotypes are beneficial to members of social groups because they enhance confidence that people have in their culture and promote the identification and recognition of other cultures. As aforementioned, positive stereotypes make people to gain confidence in their respective cultures in that they are proud about the unique attributes that they uphold and cherish.

Moreover, stereotypes are beneficial as they make people identify and recognize good attributes that other social groups hold. Comparatively, it is evident that positive stereotypes distort reality by creating false impressions about attributes of people in a certain social group. The personal experiences and beliefs, which form the basis of positive of positive stereotypes, create diverse social groups, and thus cause some forms inequality in society.

Despite the negative impacts, positive stereotypes have overwhelming benefits to members of various social groups. Therefore, people should avoid negative stereotypes and create positive stereotypes since they make people feel confident of their culture and gain recognition in the diverse society, which comprises of the minority and the majority groups.

The stereotypes are relevant in the society because they shape how humans interact and behave. Since the society comprises of diverse races, cultures, and traditions, the nature of stereotypes depicts virtues and values that the society uphold.

In this case, the argument that positive stereotypes are beneficial is relevant because it supports the formation of stereotypes in the society and their application in transforming cultural norms and values. Thus, social groups should embrace positive stereotypes and shun negative stereotypes.

Blum, Lawrence. “Stereotypes and stereotyping: A moral analysis.” Philosophical Papers 33.3 (2004): 251-289. Print.

Boduroglu, Aysecan, Carolyn Yoon, Ting Luo, and Denise Park. “Age-related Stereotypes: A Comparison of American and Chinese Cultures.” Gerontology 52.1 (2006): 324-333. Print.

McGarty, Craig, Vincent Yzerbyt, and Russell Spears. Stereotypes as Explanations. London: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print.

Steele, Claude. “An Introduction: At the root Cause of Identity.” Whistling Vivaldi and Other Clues to How Stereotypes Affect Us. Ed. Claude Steele. New York: W.W. Norton, 2011. Print.

Zinzius, Birgit. Chinese America: Stereotype and Reality: History, Present, and Future of the Chinese Americans. London: Peter Lang, 2005. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, March 19). Stereotypes in Social Groups. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotypes-in-social-groups/

"Stereotypes in Social Groups." IvyPanda , 19 Mar. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/stereotypes-in-social-groups/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Stereotypes in Social Groups'. 19 March.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Stereotypes in Social Groups." March 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotypes-in-social-groups/.

1. IvyPanda . "Stereotypes in Social Groups." March 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotypes-in-social-groups/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Stereotypes in Social Groups." March 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotypes-in-social-groups/.

• Violence and Justice in Mahabharata
• Nursing and the law
• Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy
• Reducing Complex Individuals and Cultures
• “Black Men and Public Space” and “The Middle Class Black’s Burden”
• Personal Character Analysis Results
• Controversy About Free Speech on College Campuses
• Forgiveness in Martin Luther's Movement for Rights Blacks
• "Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes" by Holly Devor
• Is there a right time to lie?
• Social Issues: Corporal Punishment
• Social Issues: Teen Pregnancy
• Celebrities and their Effects on the American Society
• Structural Functionalism and Social Conflict Theories
• Social Issues: Police Protection of the Ku Klux Klan

Essay on Social Groups

In the modern society individuals during lifetime, voluntarily or involuntarily, are bound to numerous social groups that affect their lives in various ways. At birth and for some time after they only belong to their family, but then they face a variety of opportunities of social belonging.

As a little boy, I was greatly influenced by my family members, who constructed the primary social group that affected and is still changing my life. If one should consider a family concerning a social entity – namely a social organization – mine was the basis for my understanding of basic principles of life, human relations and psychological peculiarities of communication between individuals. My family’s influence was a cornerstone of my mental and social growth. It had also made an enormous impact on my attitudes, relationships with other individuals and groups of individuals and different social behavior.

Read more about custom essay writing about Social Groups here!

For millions of people, religion, in any form or trend, is an essential social group that significantly affects their everyday life, personality, behavior, attitudes, and many other aspects of life. The church my family goes to, the community in there, and the religion we share in my family is an essential secondary social group that has elements of the primitive society because as a kid I used to have numerous face-to-face discussions and lessons on religious aspects held by the local church priest. Religious institutions are among the most influential social groups worldwide because they provide a social basis for communication and understanding between the individuals nationwide. The churches and other religious organizations also perform functions of problem-solution and communication centers for numerous followers. They are the “last hope” institutions and serve as a supportive force for people in need.

The second most influential social group was the youth sports organization I had participated ever since childhood. It served as a primary source of friends and life experience for more than eight years, and I consider it to be one of the most influential social groups in my life. First of all, because sport and team playing develop communication and interpersonal skills, which are being very useful in socialization and future growth. I also believe my instructors, co-players formed my views and outlook and the development programs introduced along the course of numerous sports and entertainment events with took part in. My love for games, team spirit, and understanding of hard work, efforts and persistence helped in personal and professional life.

Although it is a formal institution, I treat my youth sports organization as a primary social group, because the participation in it provided a lot of face-to-face interaction and kin-based relationships with my friends and coaches.

The most influential secondary group in my life is the university I am planning to graduate from with a BA in Aviation Management. The school is, to some extent a bureaucratic institution, because it has a mission given by law, it has a strict hierarchical authority, prescribed roles, and routines, a lot of paperwork, professional codes of conduct and a focus of Loyalty. The bureaucracy in the educational institutions is a valuable source of order and high levels of performance.

Another secondary social group I benefited from was my job. My first job was connected with the IT Company that had several characteristics of ideal bureaucracy stated by Max Weber. The company I worked for had quite a rigid hierarchical authority system and distinct prescribed roles and routines. The positive side of such bureaucratic approach was that every employee had a certain set of responsibilities and a predefined authority and always knew what and when to do.

The negative consequence we have experienced several times was that if some specialist was out of office due to some reasons the work process was slowing down, and numerous problems increased. The same situation occurred when new issues, not assigned to anyone before, were raised. The job I had influenced my life and professionalism in numerous ways. It improved my understanding of general business performance, communication principles within and outside the organizational institution, gave views and public knowledge of my future performance and improved communication and professional skills.

These were the most influential social groups I belonged to for the last 28 years of my life.

Primary social groups like my family and sport club friends had more impact on forming of my attitudes and perceptions, as well as future behaviors. The secondary was less influential in the global context, but they all affected me in a different way and to a different extent and changed my social belonging, world perception and outlook. Free essay samples and research paper examples available online are plagiarized. They cannot be used as your own paper, even a part of it. You can order a high-quality custom essay on your topic from expert writers:

EffectivePapers.com is a professional essay writing service committed to writing non-plagiarized custom essays, research papers, dissertations, and other assignments of top quality. All academic papers are written from scratch by highly qualified essay writers. Just proceed with your order, and we will find the best academic writer for you!

Related Posts:

• Literary Analysis Essay Example
• Descriptive Portrait of the Middle East and South Asia
• Middle Class Essay

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

How Pew Research Center will report on generations moving forward

Journalists, researchers and the public often look at society through the lens of generation, using terms like Millennial or Gen Z to describe groups of similarly aged people. This approach can help readers see themselves in the data and assess where we are and where we’re headed as a country.

Pew Research Center has been at the forefront of generational research over the years, telling the story of Millennials as they came of age politically and as they moved more firmly into adult life . In recent years, we’ve also been eager to learn about Gen Z as the leading edge of this generation moves into adulthood.

But generational research has become a crowded arena. The field has been flooded with content that’s often sold as research but is more like clickbait or marketing mythology. There’s also been a growing chorus of criticism about generational research and generational labels in particular.

Recently, as we were preparing to embark on a major research project related to Gen Z, we decided to take a step back and consider how we can study generations in a way that aligns with our values of accuracy, rigor and providing a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue.

A typical generation spans 15 to 18 years. As many critics of generational research point out, there is great diversity of thought, experience and behavior within generations.

We set out on a yearlong process of assessing the landscape of generational research. We spoke with experts from outside Pew Research Center, including those who have been publicly critical of our generational analysis, to get their take on the pros and cons of this type of work. We invested in methodological testing to determine whether we could compare findings from our earlier telephone surveys to the online ones we’re conducting now. And we experimented with higher-level statistical analyses that would allow us to isolate the effect of generation.

What emerged from this process was a set of clear guidelines that will help frame our approach going forward. Many of these are principles we’ve always adhered to , but others will require us to change the way we’ve been doing things in recent years.

Here’s a short overview of how we’ll approach generational research in the future:

We’ll only do generational analysis when we have historical data that allows us to compare generations at similar stages of life. When comparing generations, it’s crucial to control for age. In other words, researchers need to look at each generation or age cohort at a similar point in the life cycle. (“Age cohort” is a fancy way of referring to a group of people who were born around the same time.)

When doing this kind of research, the question isn’t whether young adults today are different from middle-aged or older adults today. The question is whether young adults today are different from young adults at some specific point in the past.

To answer this question, it’s necessary to have data that’s been collected over a considerable amount of time – think decades. Standard surveys don’t allow for this type of analysis. We can look at differences across age groups, but we can’t compare age groups over time.

Another complication is that the surveys we conducted 20 or 30 years ago aren’t usually comparable enough to the surveys we’re doing today. Our earlier surveys were done over the phone, and we’ve since transitioned to our nationally representative online survey panel , the American Trends Panel . Our internal testing showed that on many topics, respondents answer questions differently depending on the way they’re being interviewed. So we can’t use most of our surveys from the late 1980s and early 2000s to compare Gen Z with Millennials and Gen Xers at a similar stage of life.

This means that most generational analysis we do will use datasets that have employed similar methodologies over a long period of time, such as surveys from the U.S. Census Bureau. A good example is our 2020 report on Millennial families , which used census data going back to the late 1960s. The report showed that Millennials are marrying and forming families at a much different pace than the generations that came before them.

Even when we have historical data, we will attempt to control for other factors beyond age in making generational comparisons. If we accept that there are real differences across generations, we’re basically saying that people who were born around the same time share certain attitudes or beliefs – and that their views have been influenced by external forces that uniquely shaped them during their formative years. Those forces may have been social changes, economic circumstances, technological advances or political movements.

When we see that younger adults have different views than their older counterparts, it may be driven by their demographic traits rather than the fact that they belong to a particular generation.

The tricky part is isolating those forces from events or circumstances that have affected all age groups, not just one generation. These are often called “period effects.” An example of a period effect is the Watergate scandal, which drove down trust in government among all age groups. Differences in trust across age groups in the wake of Watergate shouldn’t be attributed to the outsize impact that event had on one age group or another, because the change occurred across the board.

Changing demographics also may play a role in patterns that might at first seem like generational differences. We know that the United States has become more racially and ethnically diverse in recent decades, and that race and ethnicity are linked with certain key social and political views. When we see that younger adults have different views than their older counterparts, it may be driven by their demographic traits rather than the fact that they belong to a particular generation.

Controlling for these factors can involve complicated statistical analysis that helps determine whether the differences we see across age groups are indeed due to generation or not. This additional step adds rigor to the process. Unfortunately, it’s often absent from current discussions about Gen Z, Millennials and other generations.

When we can’t do generational analysis, we still see value in looking at differences by age and will do so where it makes sense. Age is one of the most common predictors of differences in attitudes and behaviors. And even if age gaps aren’t rooted in generational differences, they can still be illuminating. They help us understand how people across the age spectrum are responding to key trends, technological breakthroughs and historical events.

Each stage of life comes with a unique set of experiences. Young adults are often at the leading edge of changing attitudes on emerging social trends. Take views on same-sex marriage , for example, or attitudes about gender identity .

Many middle-aged adults, in turn, face the challenge of raising children while also providing care and support to their aging parents. And older adults have their own obstacles and opportunities. All of these stories – rooted in the life cycle, not in generations – are important and compelling, and we can tell them by analyzing our surveys at any given point in time.

When we do have the data to study groups of similarly aged people over time, we won’t always default to using the standard generational definitions and labels. While generational labels are simple and catchy, there are other ways to analyze age cohorts. For example, some observers have suggested grouping people by the decade in which they were born. This would create narrower cohorts in which the members may share more in common. People could also be grouped relative to their age during key historical events (such as the Great Recession or the COVID-19 pandemic) or technological innovations (like the invention of the iPhone).

By choosing not to use the standard generational labels when they’re not appropriate, we can avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes or oversimplifying people’s complex lived experiences.

Existing generational definitions also may be too broad and arbitrary to capture differences that exist among narrower cohorts. A typical generation spans 15 to 18 years. As many critics of generational research point out, there is great diversity of thought, experience and behavior within generations. The key is to pick a lens that’s most appropriate for the research question that’s being studied. If we’re looking at political views and how they’ve shifted over time, for example, we might group people together according to the first presidential election in which they were eligible to vote.

With these considerations in mind, our audiences should not expect to see a lot of new research coming out of Pew Research Center that uses the generational lens. We’ll only talk about generations when it adds value, advances important national debates and highlights meaningful societal trends.

• Age & Generations
• Demographic Research
• Generation X
• Generation Z
• Generations
• Greatest Generation
• Methodological Research
• Millennials
• Silent Generation

Kim Parker is director of social trends research at Pew Research Center

As Biden and Trump seek reelection, who are the oldest – and youngest – current world leaders?

How teens and parents approach screen time, who are you the art and science of measuring identity, u.s. centenarian population is projected to quadruple over the next 30 years, older workers are growing in number and earning higher wages, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy