Studying Small Groups

In an unusual example of small-group research, social scientists have examined the communica­tions processes and social interactions between members of airline flight crews. One study con­ducted for the federal government found that 70 percent of all civil-aviation incidents during a five-year period were attributable to human error, primarily where information was improp­erly transmitted from one crew member to an­other or was not transmitted at all. According to psychologist Robert Helmrich, a substantial num­ber of airline accidents arise from the flight crews' failure to work well as a team. Yet close cooperation is difficult to achieve in large airlines because pilots and copilots frequently fly with crew members whom they have never met before (Burrows, 1982).

Studying small groups is an important aspect of sociological research. The term small group is used to refer to a group small enough for all members to interact simultaneously, that is, to talk with each other or at least be acquainted with one another. Certain primary groups, such as families, may also be classified as small groups. However, small groups differ from primary groups in that they do not necessarily offer the intimate personal relationships characteristic of primary groups. For example, a manufacturer may bring together its seven-member regional sales staff twice a year for an intensive sales con­ference. The salespersons, who live in different cities and rarely see one another, constitute a small group but not a primary group.

We may think of small groups as being infor­mal and unpatterned; yet, interactionist research­ers have revealed that there are distinct and pre­dictable processes at work in the functioning of small groups. As sociologist Cecilia Ridgeway (1987) has shown, even nonverbal behavior plays a role in a person's dominance or influence within a group. Moreover, like formal organiza­tions—which will be examined later in the chapter—small groups have a definite structure (Back, 1981; Nixon, 1979.).

Methods of Small-Group Research How do so­ciologists study interactions within small groups? In a sense, they must develop useful instruments such investigations, just as natural scientists rely on microscopes and telescopes. Few methods of studying groups are as clearly devised or as widely utilized as interaction process analysis (IPA), developed by Robert F. Bales (1950a, 1950b, 1968, 1970).

IPA is a technique for classifying every gesture, remark, and statement that occurs within a group in order to analyze the group's structure and processes. It permits observers to draw conclu­sions about how a group establishes norms, con­fers leadership on members, performs ceremo­nial tasks, and solves problems. While many coding systems have been developed for small-group research since IPA was first introduced, the general categories in most of these coding sys­tems are similar to those used by Bales in IPA (Trujillo, 1986).

Another technique used in the study of small-group dynamics is the sociogram. A sociogram is a depiction of preferred associations among group members. It is a preliminary step in understand­ing either group dynamics or individual behavior within a small-group setting. A sociogram is con­structed by symbolically indicating each group member and his or her preferences according to some stated criterion.

Sociograms were systematically used during World War II to determine the most effective composition for naval air squadrons. Currently, such devices are routinely employed to pictorially illustrate and help establish productive work crews on a job. As these examples (and the study of interactions between members of airline flight crews) illustrate, small-group research can have a concrete practical value (Jenkins, 1948; Palazzolo, 1981:178-182; see also Moreno, 1953, regarding the origins of sociograms).

Size of a Group Itis not exactly clear at what point a collection of people becomes too large to be called a small group. If there are more than 20 members, it is difficult for individuals to interact regularly in a direct and intimate manner. Even within a range of 2 to 20 persons, group size can substantially alter the quality of social relation­ships. For example, as the number of group par­ticipants increases, the most active communica­tors become even more active relative to others. Therefore, a person who dominates a group of 3 or 4 members will be relatively more dominant in a 15-person group (Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951; Hare, 1976:275-276; Secord and Backman, 1974:292-293; Slater, 1958).

Group size also has noticeable social implica­tions for members who do not assume leadership roles. In a larger group, each member has less time to speak, more points of view to absorb, and a more elaborate structure within which to func­tion. At the same time, an individual has greater freedom to ignore certain members or viewpoints than he or she would in a smaller group. Clearly, it is more difficult to disregard someone in a 4-person work force than in an office with 30 employees or a high school band with 50 mem­bers.

German sociologist Georg Simmel (1858—1918) is credited as the first sociologist to empha­size the importance of interaction processes within groups. Reflecting on group size, Simmel (1950:87, original edition 1917) suggested that smaller groups have distinctive qualities and pat­terns of interaction which inevitably disappear as they expand in size. Larger groups, in Simmel's view, develop particular forms of interaction which are unnecessary in small groups. Subse­quent research has clarified the social significance of group size on behavior.

The simplest of all social groups or relation­ships is the dyad, or two-member group. The con­ventional marital relationship between a wife and a husband is an example of a dyad, as is a business partnership or a singing team. In a dyad, one is able to achieve a special level of intimacy that can­not be duplicated in larger groups. However, as Simmel (1950) noted, a dyad, unlike any other group, can be destroyed by the loss of a single member. Therefore, the thought of termination hangs over a dyadic relationship perhaps more than over any other type.

Obviously, the introduction of one additional person to a dyad dramatically transforms the character of the small group. The dyad now be­comes a three-member group, or triad. The new member has at least three basic ways of interact­ing with and influencing the dynamics of the group. The new person may play a unifying role within a triad. When a married couple has its first child, the baby may serve to bind the group closer together. A newcomer may also play a mediating role within a three-person group. If two room­mates in an apartment are perpetually sniping at each other, the third may attempt to remain on good terms with each and arrange compromise solutions to problems. Finally, a member of a triad can choose to employ a divide-and-rule strat­egy. This is the case, for example, with a coach who hopes to gain greater control over two assist­ants by making them rivals (Nixon, 1979:9-13).

Coalitions As groups become the size of triads or larger, coalitions can be expected to develop. A coalition is a temporary or permanent alliance toward a common goal. For example, in 1987 a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republi­cans joined forces to defeat the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to fill a vacancy on the Su­preme Court. How do coalitions work within a small group? Elena Rivera, Frank DiStefano, and Smith are all hoping to become editor-in-chief of their college newspaper. The editor-in-chief is selected by a majority vote of the 15 out­ing editors. A few days before the election, appears that Rivera is a strong favorite. She is: mated to have seven supporters, while iStefano has five, and Smith only three. DiStefano and Smith have the option of form-g a coalition to stop Rivera. For example, Smith could drop out of the contest and urge his supporters to vote for DiStefano. In return, DiStefano might promise to appoint Smith as his assistant or to some other prestigious job. Such a coalition might be particularly likely if these two candidates have some personal or ideological bond or some common reason for wanting to keep Rivera from becoming editor-in-chief.

On the other hand, a different type of coalition could be developed. In order to assure her vic­tory, Rivera could try to make a deal with Smith. If she receives the support of his three backers, her election would be assured. Thus, in any polit­ical, organizational, or small-group setting, there are numerous ways in which coalitions can be cre­ated. Repeated experiments by social scientists confirm the complex nature of coalition forma­tion (Caplow, 1956, 1959, 1969; Gamson, 1961a, 1961b; M. Shaw, 1981:107-114).

Physical Environment Small groups do not function in isolation. They meet and interact within physical environments which have implica­tions for group dynamics. Rooms, chairs (as op­posed to benches), and even the shape of a table can influence a group's performance and ex­changes in important ways. For example, if a group is seated at a rectangular table and is al­lowed to discuss a topic freely, members across the table from each other will direct comments to one another more than they will to those on ei­ther side (Hearn, 1957; Steinzor, 1950). Use of I PA procedure has confirmed this research find­ing (Strodtbeck and Hook, 1961).

Seating arrangements can also influence lead­ership status. One controlled experiment in­volved five-person groups seated at a rectangular table, with three members on one side of the table and two on the other. Since interactions are more likely to occur across the table, researchers ex­pected that more leaders would emerge from the two-person side (Howells and Becker, 1962). This was because persons on the two-person side would have easy access to three group members across the table; those on the three-person side would have easy access to only two group mem­bers. The data later confirmed these predictions; 70 percent of the leaders emerged from the two-seat side even though it accounted for only 40 percent of the participants. Thus, physical environment can have a clear impact on the dynamics of small groups (M. Shaw, 1981).

The effects of group size, coalitions, and physical environment on group dynamics are but three of the many aspects of the small group which have been studied by sociologists. Of course, while it is clear that small-group encounters have a considerable in­fluence on our lives, we are also deeply affected by much larger groupings of people.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-21