Page 2 of 13
www.AssignmentPoint.com
Group Dynamics is a system of behaviours and psychological processes occurring within a social
group (intragroup dynamics), or between social groups (intergroup dynamics). The study of group
dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behavior, tracking the spread of diseases in
society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new
ideas and technologies. Group dynamics are at the core of understanding racism, sexism, and other
forms of social prejudice and discrimination. These applications of the field are studied in
psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work,
business, and communication studies.
There are three main things that can affect a team's cohesion (the act of working together well). They
are: environmental factors, personal factors and leadership factors.
History
The history of group dynamics (or group processes) has a consistent, underlying premise: 'the whole
is greater than the sum of its parts.' A social group is an entity, which has qualities that cannot be
understood just by studying the individuals that make up the group. In 1924, Gestalt psychologist,
Max Wertheimer identified this fact, stating ‘There are entities where the behavior of the whole
cannot be derived from its individual elements nor from the way these elements fit together; rather the
opposite is true: the properties of any of the parts are determined by the intrinsic structural laws of the
whole’ (Wertheimer 1924, p. 7).
As a field of study, group dynamics has roots in both psychology and sociology. Wilhelm Wundt
(1832–1920), credited as the founder of experimental psychology, had a particular interest in the
psychology of communities, which he believed possessed phenomena (human language, customs, and
religion) that could not be described through a study of the individual. On the sociological side, Émile
Durkheim (1858–1917), who was influenced by Wundt, also recognized collective phenomena, such
as public knowledge. Other key theorists include Gustave Le Bon (1841–1931) who believed that
crowds possessed a 'racial unconscious' with primitive, aggressive, and antisocial instincts, and
William McDougall (psychologist), who believed in a 'group mind,' which had a distinct existence
born from the interaction of individuals.
Ultimately, it was social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890–1947) who coined the term group dynamics
to describe the positive and negative forces within groups of people. In 1945, he established The
Page 3 of 13
www.AssignmentPoint.com
Group Dynamics Research Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the first institute
devoted explicitly to the study of group dynamics. Throughout his career, Lewin was focused on how
the study of group dynamics could be applied to real-world, social issues.
An increasing amount of research has applied evolutionary psychology principles to group dynamics.
Humans are argued to have evolved in an increasingly complicated social environment and to have
many adaptations concerned with group dynamics. Examples include mechanisms for dealing with
status, reciprocity, identifying cheaters, ostracism, altruism, group decision, leadership, and intergroup
relations.
Intragroup dynamics
Intragroup dynamics (also referred to as ingroup-, within-group, or commonly just ‘group dynamics’)
are the underlying processes that give rise to a set of norms, roles, relations, and common goals that
characterize a particular social group. Examples of groups include religious, political, military, and
environmental groups, sports teams, work groups, and therapy groups. Amongst the members of a
group, there is a state of interdependence, through which the behaviors, attitudes, opinions, and
experiences of each member are collectively influenced by the other group members. In many fields
of research, there is an interest in understanding how group dynamics influence individual behavior,
attitudes, and opinions.
The dynamics of a particular group depend on how one defines the boundaries of the group. Often,
there are distinct subgroups within a more broadly defined group. For example, one could define U.S.
residents (‘Americans’) as a group, but could also define a more specific set of U.S. residents (for
example, 'Americans in the South'). For each of these groups, there are distinct dynamics that can be
discussed. Notably, on this very broad level, the study of group dynamics is similar to the study of
culture. For example, there are group dynamics in the U.S. South that sustain a culture of honor,
which is associated with norms of toughness, honor-related violence, and self-defense.
Group formation
Group formation starts with a psychological bond between individuals. The social cohesion approach
suggests that group formation comes out of bonds of interpersonal attraction. In contrast, the social
Page 4 of 13
www.AssignmentPoint.com
identity approach suggests that a group starts when a collection of individuals perceive that they share
some social category (‘smokers’, ‘nurses,’ ‘students,’ ‘hockey players’), and that interpersonal
attraction only secondarily enhances the connection between individuals. Additionally, from the social
identity approach, group formation involves both identifying with some individuals and explicitly not
identifying with others. So to say, a level of psychological distinctiveness is necessary for group
formation. Through interaction, individuals begin to develop group norms, roles, and attitudes which
define the group, and are internalized to influence behavior.
Emergent groups arise from a relatively spontaneous process of group formation. For example, in
response to a natural disaster, an emergent response group may form. These groups are characterized
as having no preexisting structure (e.g. group membership, allocated roles) or prior experience
working together. Yet, these groups still express high levels of interdependence and coordinate
knowledge, resources, and tasks.
Group membership and social identity
The social group is a critical source of information about individual identity. An individual’s identity
(or self-concept) has two components: personal identity and social identity (or collective self). One’s
personal identity is defined by more idiosyncratic, individual qualities and attributes. In contrast,
one’s social identity is defined by his or her group membership, and the general characteristics (or
prototypes) that define the group and differentiate it from others. We naturally make comparisons
between our own group and other groups, but we do not necessarily make objective comparisons.
Instead, we make evaluations that are self-enhancing, emphasizing the positive qualities of our own
group. In this way, these comparisons give us a distinct and valued social identity that benefits our
self-esteem. Our social identity and group membership also satisfies a need to belong. Of course,
individuals belong to multiple groups. Therefore, one’s social identity can have several, qualitatively
distinct parts (for example, one’s ethnic identity, religious identity, and political identity).
Optimal distinctiveness theory suggests that individuals have a desire to be similar to others, but also
a desire to differentiate themselves, ultimately seeking some balance of these two desires (to obtain
optimal distinctiveness). For example, one might imagine a young teenager in the United States who
tries to balance these desires, not wanting to be ‘just like everyone else,’ but also wanting to ‘fit in’
and be similar to others. One’s collective self may offer a balance between these two desires. That is,
Page 5 of 13
www.AssignmentPoint.com
to be similar to others those who you share group membership with, but also to be different from
others those who are outside of your group.
Group cohesion
In the social sciences, group cohesion refers to the processes that keep members of a social group
connected. Terms such as attraction, solidarity, and morale are often used to describe group cohesion.
It is thought to be one of the most important characteristics of a group, and has been linked to group
performance, intergroup conflict and therapeutic change.
Group cohesion, as a scientifically studied property of groups, is commonly associated with Kurt
Lewin and his student, Leon Festinger. Lewin defined group cohesion as the willingness of
individuals to stick together, and believed that without cohesiveness a group could not exist. As an
extension of Lewin’s work, Festinger (along with Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back) described
cohesion as, “the total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group” (Festinger,
Schachter, & Back, 1950, p. 37). Later, this definition was modified to describe the forces acting on
individual members to remain in the group, termed attraction to the group. Since then, several models
for understanding the concept of group cohesion have been developed, including Albert Carron’s
hierarchical model and several bi-dimensional models (vertical v. horizontal cohesion, task v. social
cohesion, belongingness and morale, and personal v. social attraction). Before Lewin and Festinger,
there were, of course, descriptions of a very similar group property. For example, Emile Durkheim
described two forms of solidarity (mechanical and organic), which created a sense of collective
conscious and an emotion-based sense of community.
Black sheep effect
Beliefs within the ingroup are based on how individuals in the group see their other members.
Individuals tend to upgrade likeable in-group members and deviate from unlikeable group members,
making them a separate outgroup. This is called the black sheep effect. A person's beliefs about the
group may be changed depending upon whether they are part of the ingroup or outgroup.
New members of a group must prove themselves to the full members, or “old-timers”, to become
accepted. Full members have undergone socialization and are already accepted within the group. They
have more privilege than newcomers but more responsibility to help the group achieve its goals.
Marginal members were once full members but lost membership because they failed to live up to the
Page 6 of 13
www.AssignmentPoint.com
group’s expectations. They can rejoin the group if they go through re-socialization. In a Bogart and
Ryan study, the development of new members' stereotypes about in-groups and out-groups during
socialization was surveyed. Results showed that the new members judged themselves as consistent
with the stereotypes of their in-groups, even when they had recently committed to join those groups or
existed as marginal members. They also tended to judge the group as a whole in an increasingly less
positive manner after they became full members.
Depending on the self-esteem of an individual, members of the in-group may experience different
private beliefs about the group’s activities but will publicly express the opposite—that they actually
share these beliefs. One member may not personally agree with something the group does, but to
avoid the black sheep effect, they will publicly agree with the group and keep the private beliefs to
themselves. If the person is privately self-aware, he or she is more likely to comply with the group
even if they possibly have their own beliefs about the situation.
In situations of hazing within fraternities and sororities on college campuses, pledges may encounter
this type of situation and may outwardly comply with the tasks they are forced to do regardless of
their personal feelings about the Greek institution they are joining. This is done in an effort to avoid
becoming an outcast of the group. Outcasts who behave in a way that might jeopardize the group tend
to be treated more harshly than the likeable ones in a group, creating a black sheep effect. Full
members of a fraternity might treat the incoming new members harshly, causing the pledges to decide
if they approve of the situation and if they will voice their disagreeing opinions about it.
Group influence on individual behavior
Individual behavior is influenced by the presence of others. For example, studies have found that
individuals work harder and faster when others are present, and that an individual’s performance is
reduced when others in the situation create distraction or conflict. Groups also influence individual’s
decision-making processes. These include decisions related to ingroup bias, persuasion, obedience,
and groupthink. There are both positive and negative implications of group influence on individual
behavior. This type of influence is often useful in the context of work settings, team sports, and
political activism. However, the influence of groups on the individual can also generate extremely
negative behaviors, evident in Nazi Germany, the My Lai Massacre, and in the Abu Ghraib prison.