11. Problems of a small group in social psychology

A small group is a small group whose members are united by common social activities and are in direct personal communication, which is the basis for the emergence of emotional relationships, group norms and group processes.

A small group is a group that actually operates not in a vacuum, but in a certain system of social relations; it acts as the subject of a specific type of social activity.

The perception of the number of members of a small group varies between two and seven.

Some studies by J. Moreno , the author of a sociometric method designed for use in small groups, mention groups of thirty to forty people when it comes to school classes.

It is also considered that if a group is set in a system of public relations in a particular size and if it is sufficient to carry out a specific activity, then it is this limit that can be taken in the study as the upper one.

A variety of reasons for classifying small groups are permissible: groups differ in the time of their existence (long-term and short-term), in the degree of contact between members, in the way an individual enters, and so on.

The classification of division of small groups into:

1) "primary" and "secondary";

2) "formal" and "informal";

3) “membership groups” and “reference groups”.

The division of small groups into primary and secondary was proposed by C. Cooley, who at first gave just a descriptive division of the primary group, naming such components as a family, a group of friends, a group of closest neighbors.

Later, C. Cooley suggested a certain feature that would allow to define the characteristics of the primary groups - the immediacy of contacts.

The division of groups into formal and informal was proposed by E. Mayo .

According to E. Mayo, the formal group differs in that it clearly defines all the positions of its members, they are prescribed by group norms.

In the formal group, the roles of all members of the group in the system of subordination of the so-called power structure are also strictly distributed.

Inside the formal groups, E. Mayo discovered more informal groups that add up and arise spontaneously, where neither statuses nor roles are prescribed, where there is no predetermined system of relationships along the vertical.

An informal group can be created inside the formal.

But an informal group can arise by itself, not inside the formal group, but outside it.

There are also the concepts of the formal and informal structure of a group, then it is not the groups that differ, but the type, nature of the relations within them.

The classification of groups into groups of membership and reference groups was introduced by G. Hymen , who owns the discovery of the phenomenon of the reference group itself.

In the experiments of G. Hymen, it was shown that a part of the members of small groups shares the norms of behavior adopted not in this group, but in some other one, on which they are oriented.

Those groups in which individuals are not really included, but the norms of which they adopt, G. Hymen called reference groups.

There are three main areas in the study of small groups:

1) sociometric;

2) sociological;

3) School "group dynamics."

American psychologist D. Moreno , considering the totality of the emotional preferences of group members, developed the theory of sociometry.

Sociometry is both a psychological theory of communication and intragroup relationships, and at the same time a method used to evaluate interpersonal relationships.

D. Moreno believed that psychological comfort and mental health of a person depend on his position in the informal structure of relations in a small group.

The sociometric structure of a group is a set of coordinated positions of group members in the system of interpersonal relations.

It is determined by the analysis of the most important sociometric characteristics of the group: the sociometric status of its members, reciprocity of emotional preferences, the presence of stable groups of interpersonal preferences, the nature of rejection in the group.

Each individual in the group has its own sociometric status , which can be determined by analyzing the sum of preferences and rejections received from other members.

The collection of all statuses sets the status hierarchy in the group.

The most high-status sociometric stars are members of the group who have the maximum number of positive choices with a small number of negative choices.

Next come the high-status , middle - status and low-status members of the group, determined by the number of positive choices and not having a large number of negative ones.

At a lower level of intergroup relations are isolated - the subjects who do not have any choices, both positive and negative.

Next come the outcasts - such members of the group who have a large number of negative choices and few preferences.

At the last stage of social preferences, those neglected , or outcasts, are members of a group who do not have any positive choice in the presence of negative ones.

Sociometric star, as a rule, is not a leader, because leadership is associated with intervention in the process of action, and sociometric status is determined by feelings.

High-status, medium-status and low-status members of the group are usually its majority.

K. Levin proved that a negative attitude towards a person in a group is a more favorable social factor than the absence of any attitude.

Knowledge of sociometric status does not provide complete information about the position of a person in the system of interpersonal relations.

It is necessary to know whether the choice of the subject is mutual. The reciprocity of the emotional preferences of group members is an important qualitative characteristic of the group itself.

The more mutual choices a member of a group has, the more stable and favorable is his position in the system of interpersonal relations.

If there are few mutual elections in a group, then it can be concluded that its integral psychological characteristics are unfavorable.

The sociological trend in the study of small groups is associated with the tradition that was laid down in E. Mayo's experiments.

Their essence is as follows.

The company "Western Electric" was faced with the fact of lowering the labor productivity of collectors of the relay.

Research has not led to a satisfactory explanation of the reasons.

In 1928, E. Mayo was invited, who set up his experiment, initially with the aim of finding out the effect on the labor productivity of such a factor as the illumination of the working room.

Experiments at Hawthorne lasted from 1924 to 1936.

In the experimental and control groups identified by E. Mayo, various working conditions were introduced: in the experimental group, the light level increased and the growth of labor productivity was indicated; in the control group, with constant illumination, labor productivity did not increase.

At the next stage, a new increase in illumination in the experimental group gave a new increase in labor productivity; but in the control group - with constant illumination - labor productivity also increased.

In the third stage, in the experimental group, improvements in illumination were canceled, and labor productivity continued to grow; the same happened at this stage in the control group.

The results forced E. Mayo to modify the experiment and carry out several additional studies: now not only the illumination changed, but a wider range of working conditions (placing six workers in a separate room, improving pay, introducing additional interruptions, etc.).

With the introduction of these innovations, labor productivity increased, but when innovations were canceled, it, although somewhat reduced, remained at a level higher than the original.

E. Mayo suggested that some other variable manifests itself in the experiment, and considered the very fact of the participation of female workers in the experiment as such a variable: awareness of the importance of what is happening, of its participation in an event led to greater involvement in the production process and productivity growth even in cases where there were no objective improvements.

E. Mayo interpreted this as a manifestation of a special sense of sociability — the need to feel oneself belonging to a group.

The second line of interpretation was the idea of ​​the existence of special informal relations within the working brigades, which were precisely designated.

Mayo drew a conclusion not only about the presence, along with the formal yet informal structure in the brigades, but also about the significance of the latter, in particular about the possibility of using it as a factor of influence on the brigade in the interests of the company.

Subsequently, on the basis of these recommendations, a special doctrine of human relations emerged, which turned into a formal management program.

The theoretical significance of E. Mayo's discoveries consists in obtaining a new fact - the existence in a small group of two types of structures, which initiated a new direction in the study of small groups, associated with the analysis of each of the two types of group structures.

School "group dynamics" is associated with the name of K. Levin .

The American period of K. Levin’s activities after emigration from Germany began with the creation of a special center for the study of group dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The direction of research in this center was based on the creation of field theory by K. Levin.

Its main position is the idea of ​​interaction between the individual and the environment (environment), where the structure in which the behavior takes place takes on meaning, she called it K.Levin field.

It embraces in inseparability the motivational aspirations (intentions) of the individual and the subjects of his aspirations existing outside the individual.

The central idea of ​​field theory is that the causes of social behavior should be sought through the knowledge of the psychological and social forces that determine it.

The most important method of analyzing the psychological field was the creation in the laboratory of groups with certain characteristics and the subsequent study of the functioning of these groups.

The whole set of these studies was called group dynamics.

The main issues were as follows:

1) what is the nature of the groups;

2) what are the conditions for their formation;

3) what is their relationship with individuals and with other groups;

4) what are the conditions for their successful functioning.

Much attention was also paid to the problems of formation of the characteristics of the group: norms, cohesion, the ratio of individual motives and group goals, leadership in groups.

Another idea of ​​K. Levin is the idea of ​​valence. With this concept, K. Levin explained the orientation of the individual in the living space: the positive valence ensures the aspiration of the individual to a certain region of the force field, the negative valence - the movement in the opposite direction from him.

Answering the main question, what needs are driven by the social behavior of people, the “group dynamics” closely studied the problem of intragroup conflicts, compared the effectiveness of group activities under conditions of cooperation and competition, and ways of making group decisions.

Almost the entire set of problems of a small group was presented in the works of this direction.

“Group dynamics” had a great influence on the subsequent development of socio-psychological thought.

Within this framework, important ideas were expressed regarding group processes, some of them were thoroughly researched, and techniques were developed that retain their significance until now.

On the other hand, the theoretical context of the field theory construct is largely obsolete.

To a greater degree than in the case of any other field of social psychology, the rejection of K. Levin’s theoretical concept is combined with the full or almost complete acceptance of the methods created by him.

They work in other theoretical frameworks.

The problem of identifying the degree of their admissible acceptance along the lines of a new theoretical scheme has not yet been completely solved.