Integrating Field Work and Laboratory in Small Group Research[1]
The study of small groups has become one of the most flourishing areas of research, involving men in various social sciences and psychology. The influences responsible for the increased preoccupation with small groups spring both from developments within various academic disciplines and from agencies instituted for devising practical solutions for immediate application. Brief mention of influences contributing to the flourishing state of affairs in small group research will be helpful as orientation:
1. Theoretically and empirically, works of sociologists have historical priority in showing persistent concern with the topic of small groups (Faris, 1953). Since the early 1920's a definite research development in sociology related to small groups has been carried on, as represented by the works of men like Thrasher, Anderson, Clifford Shaw, Zorbaugh, Hiller, and Whyte. In the recurrent findings reported in this line of research, which was carried out over a period of a good many years, one cannot help finding crucial leads for a realistic approach to experimentation in this area.
2. Another of the major instigators of the extraordinary volume of small group research stems from the practical concern of business and military agencies. A series of studies initiated by Elton Mayo and his associates at the Harvard Business School in the late 1920's has proliferated in various institutions, both academic and technological. Another impetus along this line came from the concern of military agencies for establishing effective techniques for the assessment of leaders.
3. Another major influence in the development of small [p. 2] group studies comes from psychological research. Regardless of the theoretical treatment, the results of psychological experiments almost always showed differential effects on behavior when individuals undertook an activity in relation to other individuals or even in their presence, as can be ascertained readily by a glance at Murphy, Murphy, and Newcomb's Experimental Social Psychology. F. H.
Allport's experiments which started around 1915 are illustrative of this point. In the l930's, it became increasingly evident that social behavior (cooperation - competition, ascendance -
submission, etc.) could not be properly studied when the individual is considered in isolation.
Psychological "trait" theories or personality typologies fell far short in explaining social relations.
Therefore, when Moreno's work appeared in this country in the mid-thirties presenting his sociometric technique for the study of interpersonal choices and reciprocities among individuals (i. e., role relations), it quickly found wide application. A few years later Kurt Lewin and his associates demonstrated the weighty determination of individual behavior by the properties of group atmosphere. This line of experimentation was the basis of other subsequent studies coming from the proponents of the Group Dynamics school. Some other major influences coming from psychology will be mentioned later.
II
Interdisciplinary Cooperation and the Concept of "Levels"
It becomes apparent even from a brief mention of the background that men from various disciplines contributed to make the study of small groups the going concern that it is today. As a consequence there is diversity of emphasis in formulating problems and hypotheses, and diversity in concepts used. This state of affairs has brought about considerable elbow-rubbing and interdisciplinary bickering among sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists. In this process and through critical appraisal of each others' approaches, the interdisciplinary approach has become a necessity for achieving a rounded picture.
Faced with the task of dealing with both psychological and sociocultural factors in human relations problems, psychologists have too often yielded to the temptation of improvising their own "sociologies" in terms of their preferred concepts. Sociologists, on the other hand, have sometimes engaged in [p. 3] psychological improvisations. While sociological or psychological improvisation at times proves necessary on the frontiers of a discipline, it is difficult to justify on topics for which a substantial body of research exists in sociology or in psychology, as the case may be.
On the whole, interdisciplinary cooperation has usually turned out to mean rallying psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and other social scientists to toss their theories and concepts into the ring. But, mere juxtaposition of utterances made by psychologists, sociologists, etc., in the same room or between the covers of the same book does not bring interdisciplinary cooperation. Nor is interdisciplinary integration possible by laying down segments from each discipline along the same line -- one yard from psychology, one yard from sociology, then a foot each from history and economics.
The outlines of an interdisciplinary approach appear more clearly with the realization that
"psychological" and "sociological" signify different levels of analysis. Men studying human relations are approaching related, similar, or even the same problems at different levels of analysis, necessitating units and concepts appropriate for dealing with events on that level. If we are working on the psychological level, our unit of analysis is the individual; hence our treatment must be in terms of his psychological functioning -- in concepts such as motives, judging, perceiving, learning, remembering, imagining, etc. If we are working on a sociological or cultural level, our concepts are in terms of social organization, institutions, value systems, language, kinship systems, art forms, technology, etc. (Note 1).
The concept of levels holds a fairly obvious but invaluable check on the validity of research findings. If it is valid, a generalization reached on a topic at one level of analysis is not contradicted and, in fact, gains support from valid generalizations reached at another level. For example, the psychologist's findings of differential behavior of an individual when participating in the activities of his group should be (and are) substantiated by findings on the sociological level, namely that collective action in a group has properties peculiar to the group. Checking and cross-checking findings obtained at one level against those obtained at another level on the same topic will make interdisciplinary cooperation the integrative meeting ground that it should [p. 4] be.
During the last century in the social sciences and more recently in psychology, the dependence of sub-units upon the setting or superordinate system of which they are parts has gained increased attention, especially in view of unrewarding attempts to account for the functioning system in an additive way. Understanding part processes is possible only through analysis of their relations within the functioning system, as well as by analysis of unique properties of the part process itself. Unless knowledge of the superordinate or larger functioning system is gained first, before tackling the part processes, there is the likelihood of unwarranted generalizations concerning the parts, and misinterpretation of the true functional significance of the processes observed.
In this connection, an illustration from Malinowski (1922) is instructive. Malinowski describes the complex exchange system of the Argonauts of the Western Pacific called the Kula. The Argonauts themselves "have no knowledge of the total outline of any of their social structure...Not even the most intelligent native has any clear idea of the Kula as a big, organized social construction, still less of its sociological functions and implications. If you were to ask him what the Kula is, he would answer by giving a few details, most likely by giving his personal experiences and subjective views on the Kula...Not even a partial coherent account could be obtained. For the integral picture does not exist in his mind; he is in it, and cannot see the whole from the outside."
This point can be illustrated in relation to small group studies. Since Lewin's experiments in the 1940's comparing lecture and group discussion methods in changing attitudes, various studies have shown that in the American setting skillfully conducted group discussion in which members participate is more effective than lecture presentation of the same material. On the basis of results obtained in the American setting, it would seem that the superiority of group discussion methods might be universal. That this is not the case is indicated by one of the studies in the UNESCO project in India (Murphy, 1953). In an attempt to modify caste attitudes among college students in India using various methods, the greatest changes arose as a result of a lecture method using emotional appeals. The [p. 5] experimenter wrote: "Contrary to our original expectation and hypothesis, these young boys do not seem to be in a position to exploit fully the discussion technique, in bettering their social relationships. Does it indicate that our boys have got to be used to the democratic ways of discussion and at present prefer to be told what are the right attitudes rather than to be allowed to talk them out?" Within a social organization whose values clearly encourage dependence on authority and effectively discourage settling issues on a give-and-take basis in small sub-units, particular dependencies may become so much a part of the individual's ego system that group discussion techniques would be less effective than methods more in harmony with the social organization in which they take place.
Such comparative results illustrate the value of starting first with due consideration of the sociocultural setting with its organization and values before generalizations are made about small groups functioning as parts of that setting (cf. Whyte, 1951; Arensberg, 1951). For small groups are not closed systems, especial y in highly complex and differentiated societies such as the United States.
Facts obtained concerning the group setting are in terms of concepts and units at the social or cultural level of analysis. They will not give the step-by-step analysis of the particular interaction process; they wil not be adequate for the task of dealing with interpersonal relations or the behavior of particular individual members. At this point, psychological concepts are needed for a detailed analysis of reciprocal relations, for handling motives, perceptions, judgments, etc.
III
Experimental Steps toward Integration
The rest of the Chapter will be devoted to a summary statement of the prior attempts on our part toward pulling together some relevant findings in sociology and in psychology in the study of small groups. In these attempts the guiding considerations have been the following: 1. To extract some minimum generalizations from the sociological findings on small groups on the one hand; on the [p. 6] other, to extract relevant principles from the work coming from the psychological laboratory.
2. To formulate problems and hypotheses relating to one another the indications of the two sets of relevant findings, that is, from sociological and psychological research.
3. To test hypotheses thus derived with methods and techniques which are appropriate for the particular problem -- experimental, observational, sociometric, questionnaire, or combinations thereof, as the case may be.
Let us start with the term "small group" itself. The term "small group" is coming to mean al things to all people. If the concept of small groups is considered at the outset, research on small groups will gain a great deal in the way of selection of focal problems for investigation, and hence effective concentration of efforts.
"Small group" may mean simply small numbers of individuals. If this is the criterion, any small number of individuals in a togetherness situation would be considered a small group. But a conception of small groups in terms of numbers alone ignores the properties of actual small groups which have made their study such a going concern today.
One of the objectives of concentrating on small group research should be attainment of valid generalizations which can be applied, at least in their essentials, to any group and to the behavior of individual members. Accordingly, one of our first tasks was that of extracting some minimum essential features of actual small groups from sociological work. In this task there is a methodological advantage in concentrating on informally organized groups, rather than formally organized groups in which the leader or head and other positions with their respective responsibilities are appointed by a higher authority, such as a commanding officer or board. In informally organized groups, group products and the particular individuals who occupy the various positions are determined to a much greater extent by the actual interaction of individuals. If care is taken at the beginning to refer to the general setting in which small groups form and function, their products and structure can be traced through longitudinal observation of the interaction process.
[p. 7] On the basis of an extensive survey of sociological findings, the following minimum features in the rise and functioning of small groups were abstracted: (1) There are one or more motives shared by individuals and conducive to their interacting with one another.
(2) Differential effects on individual behavior are produced by the interaction process, that is, each individual's experience and behavior is affected in varying ways and degrees by the interaction process in the group (Note 2).
(3) If interaction continues, a group structure consisting of hierarchical status and role relationships is stabilized, and is clearly delineated as an in-group from other group structures.
(4) A set of norms regulating relations and activities within the group and with non-members and out-groups is standardized (Note 3).
Interaction is not made a separate item in these minimum features because interaction is the sine qua non of any kind of social relationships, whether interpersonal or group. Since human interaction takes place largely on a symbolic level, communication is here considered part and parcel of the interaction process.
When group structure is analyzed in terms of hierarchical status positions, the topic of power necessarily becomes an integral dimension of the hierarchy. Power relations are brought in as an afterthought only if this essential feature of group hierarchy is not made part of the conception of group. Of course, power does in many cases stem from outside of the group, and in these cases the nature of established functional relations between groups in the larger structure has to be included in the picture.
Our fourth feature relates to the standardization of a set of norms. The term "social norm" is a sociological designation referring generically to all products of group interaction which regulate members' behavior in terms of the expected or even the ideal behavior. Therefore, norm does not denote average behavior (Note 4). The existence of norms, noted by sociologists, has been experimentally tested by psychologists in terms of [p. 8] convergence of judgments of different individuals (Sherif, 1936), and in terms of reactions to deviation (Schachter, 1952). A norm denotes not only expected behavior but a range of acceptable behavior, the limits of which define deviate acts. The extent of the range of acceptable behavior varies inversely with the significance or consequence of the norm for the identity, integrity, and major goals of the group.
With these minimum essential features of small informal y organized groups in mind, a group is defined as a social unit which consists of a number of individuals who, at a given time, stand in more or less definite interdependent status and role relationships with one another, and which explicitly or implicitly possesses a set of norms or values regulating the behavior of the individual members, at least in matters of consequence to the group.
Common group attitudes or sentiments are not included in this definition because social attitudes are formed by individuals in relation to group norms as they become functioning parts in the group structure. At the psychological level, then, the individual becomes a group member to the extent that he internalizes the major norms of the group, carries on the responsibilities, meets expectations for the position he occupies. As pointed out by various authors, his very identity and self conception, his sense of security become closely tied to his status and role in the group through the formation of attitudes relating to his membership and position. These attitudes may be termed "ego-attitudes" which function as constituent parts of his ego system.
On the basis of findings at a sociological level, hypotheses concerning the formation of small in-groups and relations between them were derived and tested in our 1949 camp experiment (Sherif and Sherif, 1953). One of the major concerns of that study was the feasibility of experimental production of in-groups among individuals with no previous role and status relations through controlling the conditions of their interaction.
The hypotheses tested were:
(1) When individuals having no established relationships are brought together to interact in group activities with common goals, they produce a group structure with hierarchical statuses
[p. 9] and roles within it.
(2) If two in-groups thus formed are brought into functional relationship under conditions of competition and group frustration, attitudes and appropriate hostile actions in relation to the outgroup and its members will arise and will be standardized and shared in varying degrees by group members.
As sociologists will readily recognize, testing of these hypotheses is not so much concerned with the discovery of new facts as getting a clearer picture of the formative process under experimentally controlled conditions. It aims rather at singling out the factors involved in the rise of group structure, group code or norms, and in-group---out-group delineations which will make possible their intensive study with appropriate laboratory methods on the psychological level.
To test these hypotheses, 24 boys of about 12 years of age from similar lower middle-class, Protestant backgrounds were brought to an isolated camp site wholly available for the experiment. The early phase (Stage 1) of the study consisted of a variety of activities permitting contact between all the boys and observation of budding friendship groupings. After being divided into two groups of 12 boys each, in order to split the budding friendship groupings and at the same time constitute two similar units, the two groups lived, worked and played separately (Stage 2). All activities introduced embodied a common goal (with appeal value to al ), the attainment of which necessitated cooperative participation within the group.
At the end of this stage, there developed unmistakable group structures, each with a leader and hierarchical statuses within it, and also names and appropriate group norms, including sanctions for deviate behavior. Friendship preferences were shifted and reversed away from previously budding relationships toward in-group preferences. Thus our first hypothesis concerning in-group formation was substantiated.
In the final phase (Stage 3) of the 1949 experiment, the two experimentally formed in-groups were brought together in situations which were competitive and led to some mutual frustration, as a consequence of the behavior of the groups in relation to each other. The result of intergroup contact in these conditions was [p. 10] enhancement of in-group solidarity, democratic interaction within groups, and in-group friendship, on the one hand. On the other hand, out-group hostility, name calling and even fights between the groups developed, indicating that in-group democracy need not lead to democratic relations with outsiders when intergroup relations are fraught with conditions conducive to tension. The resistance which developed to post-experimental efforts at breaking down the in-groups and encouraging friendly interaction indicates the unmistakable effect of group products on individual members. Thus the results substantiated the second hypothesis concerning determination of norms toward outgroups by the nature of relations between groups and demonstrated some effects of intergroup relations upon in-group functioning.
One of the main methodological considerations of this experiment was that subjects were kept unaware of the fact that they were participating in an experiment on group relations. The view that subjects cease to be mindful that their words and deeds are being recorded is not in harmony with what we have learned about the structuring of experience. The presence of a personage ever observing, ever recording our words and deeds in a situation in which our status and role concerns are at stake cannot help coming in as an important factor in the total frame of reference. Therefore, in our work, the aim is to establish definite trends as they develop in natural, life-like situations and to introduce precision at choice points when this can be done without sacrificing the life-like character which gives greatest hope for validity of these trends.
The study just summarized illustrates the testing of hypotheses derived from sociological findings in experimentally designed situations. The next point relates to psychological findings, generalizations, and laboratory techniques relevant for the study of experience and behavior of individual group members. Here our task is to achieve a more refined analysis on a psychological level of individual behavior in the group setting through precise perceptual and judgmental indices. If such data obtained through precise judgmental and perceptual indices and other appropriate techniques are in line with findings concerning group relations on the sociological level, then we shall be moving toward integration of psychological and sociological approaches in the study of group relations.
[p. 11] Here only the bare essentials can be stated of the psychological principles from a major trend in experimental psychology which are utilized in designing the experiments to be reported (Note 5).
Judgments and perceptions are not merely intel ectual and discrete psychological events. All judgments and perceptions take place within their appropriate frame of reference. They are jointly determined by functionally related internal and external factors operating at a given time.
These interrelated factors -- external and internal -- constitute the frame of reference of the ensuing reaction. Observed behavior can be adequately understood and evaluated only when studied within its appropriate frame of reference or system of relations. The external factors are stimulus situations outside of the individual (objects, persons, groups, events, etc.). The internal factors are motives, attitudes, emotions, general state of the organism, effects of past experience, etc. The limit between the two is the skin of the individual -- the skin being on the side of the organism.
It is possible, therefore, to set up situations in which the appraisal or evaluation of a social situation will be reflected in the judgments and perceptions of the individual. In short, under appropriate and relevant conditions, the way the individual sizes up a situation in terms of the whole person he is at the time can be tapped through apparently simple perceptual and judgmental reactions.
An additional principle should be clearly stated because of certain conceptions in psychology which imply that perception is almost an altogether arbitrary, subjective affair. If external stimulus situations are well structured in definite objects, forms, persons, and groupings, perception wil correspond closely to the stimulus structure on the whole. This is not to say that functional y related internal factors do not play a part in the perception of structured situations.
The fact that some well-structured situations are singled out by the individual as "figure" rather than others indicates that they do. Such facts are referred to under the concept of perceptual selectivity.
If, on the other hand, the external field is vague, unstructured, in short, allows for alternatives --
to that extent the relative weight of internal factors (motives, attitudes) and social [p. 12] factors (suggestion, etc.) will increase. It is for this reason that the exhortations of the demagogue are relatively more effective in situations and circumstances of uncertainty. Since perceptions and judgments are jointly determined by external and internal factors, it is possible to vary the relative weights of these factors in differing combinations, giving rise to corresponding judgmental and perceptual variations. This has been done in various experiments. In a study carried out as part of our research program at the University of Oklahoma, James Thrasher co-varied the stimulus situation in gradations of structure and the nature of interpersonal relations of subjects (strangers and friends) to determine the reciprocal effects of these variations on judgmental reactions. It was found that as the stimulus situation becomes more unstructured, the correspondence between stimulus values and judgment values decreases and the influence of social factors (established friendship ties in this case) increases (Thrasher, 1954).
Following the implications of the above, it is plausible to say that behavior revealing discriminations, perceptions, evaluations of individuals participating in the interaction process as group members will be determined ---
- not only by whatever motivational components and unique personality characteristics each member brings with him,
- not only by the properties of external stimulus conditions (social or otherwise),
- but as influenced, modified, and even transformed by these and by the special properties of the interaction process, in which a developing or established state of reciprocities plays no small part. Interaction processes are not voids.
The starting point in our program of research was the experimental production of group norms and their effects on perception and judgment (Sherif, 1936). This stems from our concern for experimental verification of one essential feature of any group -- a set of norms (feature 4 of small groups above). Groups are not transitory affairs. Regulation of behavior in them is not determined by the immediate social atmosphere alone.
Especial y suggestive in the formulation of the problem [p. 13] was F. Thrasher's observation on small groups that behavior of individual members is regulated in a binding way (both through inner attachment and, in cases of deviation, through correctives applied) by a code or set of norms. Equally provocative in this formulation was Emile Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religion, in which a strong point was made of the rise of representations collectives in interaction situations and their effect in regulating the experience and outlook of the individual.
After thus delineating the problem, the next step was to devise an experimental situation which lacked objective anchorages or standards (i. e., was vague or unstructured) in order to maximize the effects of the social interaction process. When individuals face such an unstructured stimulus situation they show marked variations in reaction. However, such marked individual variations will not be found if the stimulus is a definite, structured object like a circle or a human hand. There will be agreement among individuals, on the whole, when they face a circle or a normal hand even if they are five thousand miles apart and members of different cultures. The fact of objective determination of perception and judgment and the ineffectiveness of social influences (suggestion, etc.) in relation to structured stimuli was clearly noted in the original report of this experiment in several contexts. In a later publication, in order to stress cases of objective determination of psychological processes, a chapter was devoted to the effects of technology and its decisive weight in determining social norms and practices, with numerous illustrations from various parts of the world. Among them was our study conducted in the early 1940's of five Turkish villages with varying degrees of exposure to modern technology, specifically dealing with the compelling effects of such differential exposure on judgmental, perceptual, and other psychological processes (Note 6).
The experimental situation chosen for the study of norm formation was the autokinetic situation (the apparent movement of a point of light in a light-proof room lacking visible anchorages). The dimension chosen was the extent of movement. As this study is reported in detail in various places, I shall give only the bare essentials.
First it was established that the judgment of the extent of movement for g