What is group structure?
The arrangement and organization of a group’s members, interrelations, and
interactions define a group’s structure.
Three important elements of group structure are norms, roles, and networks of
relationships among the members.
What are norms, how do they develop, and how do they work to regulate behavior?
Norms are implicit, self-generating, and stable standards for group behavior.
Prescriptive norms set the standards for expected group behavior.
Proscriptive norms identify behaviors that should not be performed.
Descriptive norms define what most people do, feel, or think in the group (the
principle of social proof; Cialdini, 2009).
Injunctive norms differentiate between desirable and undesirable actions.
Norms are both shared standards and internalized standards (Fine, 2012). Milgram
(1992) confirmed the surprisingly high level of discomfort experienced when one
violates a social norm.
Sherif’s study, involving the autokinetic effect, indicated that norms develop
gradually over time as members align their actions with those displayed by others
(social tuning).
Because norms are transmitted to other group members, they tend to be
consensual, implicit, self-generating, and stable. Norms influence the actions of
children as young as three years, as well as individuals using social networking
sites, such as Facebook.
Norms influence a wide range of group processes, including some unhealthy
behaviors, such as alcohol consumption, overeating, and eating disorders.
Individuals consume more alcohol when their group’s norms support
overindulgence.
In some cases, individuals misperceive their group’s norms, and this pluralistic
ignorance can further contribute to alcohol consumption.
Crandall (1988) documented the influence of norms in his study of eating disorders
in groups.
What kinds of roles are common in groups, and how do they influence the
members?
Roles specify the types of behaviors expected of individuals who occupy particular
positions within the group.
As members interact with one another, their role-related activities become
patterned (role differentiation): task roles pertain to the work of the group and
relationship roles pertain to relations among members.
Studies conducted by Bales (1950) and his colleagues suggest that the same person
rarely holds both the task role and the relationship role in the group.
A number of theories examine roles and role-related processes.
Benne and Sheats’s (1948) functional theory identified 27 distinct roles in
discussion groups, including task roles, relationship roles, and individualistic roles.
Interactionist role theories draw on Goffman’s (1959) analyses of impression
management in their descriptions of the dynamic processes involved in role
negotiation. Bechky (2006) applied this model to her analysis of production crews.
Moxnes (1999) draws on Freud’s psychodynamic theory to identify the deep roles
in groups, such as “mother” and “father” roles.
Bales’ (1970) Systematic Multiple Level Observation of Groups (SYMLOG)
assumes that role patterning is sustained by three basic dimensions:
dominance/submissiveness (Up/Down), friendliness/unfriendliness
(Positive/Negative), and acceptance of task-orientation of authority/nonacceptance
of task-orientation of authority (Forward/Backward).
Moreland and Levine’s (1982) theory of group socialization describes the ways
roles are allocated to individuals and the ways in which members transition
through the roles of prospective member, new member, full member, marginal
member, and former member.
The role differentiation and socialization processes often create stress and tension
for groups and group members.
Role ambiguity occurs when the behaviors associated with a role are poorly
defined.
Role conflict occurs when group members occupy two or more roles that call for
incompatible behaviors (interrole conflict) or when the demands of a single role
are contradictory (intrarole conflict).
When role fit is low, members do not feel that they match the demands of their
roles.
How do social networks shape status, attraction, and communication processes in
groups?
Groups develop a stable pattern of variations in authority and power (e.g., status
networks and chains of command) through a status differentiation process. Groups
naturally gravitate toward hierarchical, centralized status networks.
Groups develop a stable pattern of variations in attraction through sociometric
differentiations.
Sociometric structures display reciprocity, transitivity, and homophily.
Paxton and Moody’s (2003) study indicated members bonded more closely to a
subgroup within the larger group were less committed to their group as a whole.
Heider’s balance theory assumes sociometric structures tend to reach a state of
equilibrium in which likes and dislikes are balanced within the group.
A group’s communication network may parallel formally established paths, but
most groups also have an informal network that defines who speaks to whom most
frequently.
Centralized networks are most efficient, but as Shaw’s (1964) concept of
information saturation suggests, not if tasks are too complex and require high
levels of information exchange.
Individuals who occupy more central positions in communication networks are
often more influential than those located at the periphery, but because members are
usually less satisfied if in decentralized positions, overall satisfaction is lower in
centralized networks.
More information generally flows downward in hierarchical networks than flows
upward, and the information that is sent upward is often unrealistically positive.
As Moreno’s (1934) sociometric studies demonstrated, SNA is useful in identifying
unnoticed, latent aspects of the group’s structure. SNA describes a group’s
structure both visually and quantitatively.
Individual-level (egocentric) indexes used in SNA include degree centrality,
indegree, outdegree, betweenness, and closeness.
Group-level (sociocentric) indexes include size, density, cliques, and holes.
Network analyses often reveal discrepancies between the group’s formal status
network and its informal (actual) status network (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993).
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
