Contents
Why Study Groups?
Thinkers of different nations have been discussing the nature of man since ancient times. At the same time, it was explicitly or implicitly implied that an individual person is rather a kind of abstraction, because it is impossible to imagine a person outside of society, outside of communication with his own kind. No wonder Aristotle, recognizing the natural essence of human beings, defined man as an animal, but a social animal. Only belonging to a circle of its own kind, active involvement in this circle distinguishes a two-legged animal from the world of fauna, elevates it above natural instincts, turns it into a person. And throughout the history of philosophical thought, in line with which psychological views developed, almost every thinker noted this fundamental position in one way or another. Compare: “The one who, by virtue of his nature, and not as a result of random circumstances, lives outside of society is either an underdeveloped creature in the moral sense, or a superman …” (Aristotle); “Man is meant to live in society; he is not fully human and contradicts his essence if he lives as a hermit ”(Fichte) …
Nevertheless, over the centuries, philosophical discussions about man have been predominantly addressed precisely to this abstraction — individuality, a single person. A group of people appeared only as a kind of arithmetic sum of individuals. The specifics of its influence on a particular person, the features of intragroup and intergroup relations almost did not attract the attention of researchers. Although historians of social psychology manage to trace the origins of their science back to antiquity, it is much more difficult for them to do so than for historians of general psychology. After all, at the so-called pre-scientific stage of the development of psychology, which lasted for millennia, the subject of research, but rather reasoning, was either (at the beginning) the soul, a purely individual substance, or (later) consciousness, and not social (this was discussed much later), but personal.
Small groups
Studies of small groups (the question of their quantitative content to this day remains the subject of heated discussions) began only in the second quarter of the XNUMXth century, but rather soon acquired a wide scope and formed the main content of socio-psychological research in the West. In the earliest works, the question was clarified whether the individual acts better alone than in the presence of others, or, on the contrary, the fact of the presence of others stimulates the efficiency of each. The emphasis was placed precisely on the fact of the simple presence of others, and the group itself was interpreted primarily as this fact of presence: it was not the interaction (interaction) of people in the group that was studied, but the fact of their simultaneous action side by side (coaction). The results of the study of such «coact» groups showed that in the presence of other people, the speed increases, but the quality of the individual’s actions deteriorates (even if, according to the conditions of the experiment, the moment of rivalry was removed). These results have been interpreted as the occurrence of an increased sensory stimulation effect when the performance of an individual is influenced by the very sight and «sound» of other people working side by side on the same task. This effect is called social facilitation in social psychology. In a number of experiments, however, the presence in a number of cases of the opposite effect was also shown — a certain restraint, inhibition of the actions of the individual under the influence of the presence of others, which was called the inhibition effect. However, the study of precisely social facilitation became much more widespread, and the main result of the first stage of research on small groups was, apparently, the discovery of precisely this phenomenon.
Group interaction
The second stage in the development of research marked the transition from the study of coact groups to the study of group interaction.
So, in one of the studies it was shown that, under the condition of joint activity in a group, the same problems are solved more correctly than when they are individually solved: especially in the early stages of solving problems, the group makes fewer mistakes, demonstrates a higher speed of solving problems, etc. On a more detailed analysis, however, it was found that the results also depend on the nature of the activity.
One way or another, the fact was established that an important parameter of group activity is precisely the interaction (and not just “co-presence”) of group members.
In the third stage, small group studies became much more ramified. They began to reveal not only the influence of the group on the individual, but also the characteristics of the group as such: its structure, the types of interaction of individuals in the group, approaches to the description of the general activity of the group have developed. Methods for measuring various group characteristics were also improved. In addition, specific angles of view on a small group were identified for sociology, social psychology and general psychology.
These three different «perspectives» of small group studies are schematically depicted as follows:
- when the group is studied as a kind of medium within which the behavior of the individual is carried out (“the behavior of the individual in the setting of the group”); this is the content of the general psychological approach;
- when properties of groups and various manifestations of these properties are specially investigated; this is the predominant content of the sociological approach;
- when the interaction between the group as a special functional entity and individuals as its members is investigated; it is predominantly an expression of the socio-psychological approach.
From the point of view of theoretical foundations in social psychology of the second half of the XNUMXth century. There are three main directions in the study of small groups, which have developed in line with three different research approaches:
- sociometric,
- sociological,
- school of group dynamics.
The sociometric direction in the study of small groups is associated with the name of J. Moreno. Moreno proceeded from the idea that two structures of relations can be distinguished in society: a macrostructure (which for Moreno meant a kind of “spatial” placement of individuals in various forms of their life activity) and a microstructure, which, in other words, means the structure of psychological relations, an individual with others his people. According to Moreno, all tensions, conflicts, including social ones, are due to the mismatch of micro- and macrostructure. For him, this discrepancy means that the system of likes and dislikes, expressing the psychological attitudes of the individual to people, often does not fit into the framework of the macrostructure given to the individual: the immediate environment is not necessarily an environment consisting of psychologically acceptable people. Therefore, the task is to rearrange the microstructure in such a way as to bring it into line with the macrostructure. This goal is served by the sociometric technique, which reveals likes and dislikes in order to find out what movements need to be made. Based on the application of this technique (although not necessarily within the framework of the theoretical concept outlined), a whole area of research on small groups arose. This direction became quite popular, especially in applied fields, but at the same time, the purely scientific perspective of studying small groups fell into a rather limited framework. The entire block of studies of small groups within the framework of the sociometric direction suffers from a significant limitation, expressed in the fact that the aspect of the activity of small groups is not only not presented in it, but the silence about it is of a fundamental nature. Thus, the idea is born of the sufficiency of research in small groups of only the layer of emotional relations proper.
Hawthorne experiments
The sociological direction in the study of small groups is usually associated with the tradition that was laid down in the experiments of E. Mayo, who received the name of the Hawthorne experiments in the scientific literature. Mayo’s research was purely applied and commissioned by Western Electric to increase the productivity of electrical relay assemblers. At different stages of the experiment (and it was carried out for several years — from 1924 to 1936), various innovations were introduced to increase productivity. The required result was achieved, but when, according to the conditions of the experiment, all innovations were canceled, the productivity, although somewhat decreased, remained at a level higher than the original one.
Mayo suggested that some other variable manifests itself in the experiment. And he considered the very fact of participation of female workers in the experiment as such a variable: awareness of the importance of what is happening, their participation in some event, attention to themselves led to greater “inclusion” in the production process and gave an increase in labor productivity even in cases where there were no objective improvements. Theoretically, Mayo interpreted this as a manifestation of a special sense of sociality — the need to feel «belonging» to a group. But at the same time, the second line of interpretation, perhaps even more interesting, was the idea of the existence of special informal relations within the work teams, which were precisely indicated as soon as attention was paid to the needs of the workers, to their personal fate in the course of the production process. Mayo concluded not only that, along with the formal, there is also an informal structure in work teams, but also about the significance of the latter, in particular, about the possibility of using it as a factor in influencing the team in the interests of the company. It is no coincidence, therefore, that subsequently, on the basis of the recommendations received in the Hawthorne experiment, a special doctrine of «human relations» arose, which turned into an official production management program and is now taught in business schools.
School of «group dynamics» K. Levin
The school of «group dynamics» is the most «psychological» direction in the study of small groups and is associated with the name of K. Levin. The American period of Levin’s activity after emigration from Germany began with the creation of a special Center for the Study of Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (after Levin’s death in 1948, the center was transferred to the University of Michigan, where it exists to this day). The direction of research at this center was based on a number of Lewin’s theoretical ideas. Going from orthodox Gestalt psychology, Levin created his «field theory», which was the basis for the study of small groups. The central idea of field theory, that the laws of social behavior should be sought through knowledge of the psychological and social forces that determine it, was developed in relation to the science of groups, which was supposed to contribute to the analysis of these forces, their localization and measurement. The most important method for analyzing the forces of the psychological field was the creation in the laboratory of groups with given characteristics and the subsequent study of the functioning of these groups. The totality of these studies is called «group dynamics».
The main problems of research were as follows: what is the nature of groups, what are the conditions for their formation, what is their relationship with individuals and other groups, what are the conditions for their successful functioning. Much attention was also paid to the formation of such group characteristics as norms, cohesion, the correlation of individual motives and group goals, and finally, leadership in groups.
Answering the main question about what needs drive people’s social behavior, «group dynamics» closely examined the problem of intragroup conflicts and compared the effectiveness of group activity in conditions of cooperation and competition, methods of making group decisions. This list can be continued for a long time, since almost the entire set of problems of a small group is presented in the works of this direction.
Activity approach
In Soviet science, for decades, the problems of group psychology were practically not developed, and Western studies were subjected to strongly ideologized criticism for «psychologization of social phenomena.»
Group psychotherapy
A special area of group psychology is purely applied, existing mainly within the framework of psychotherapy. Its origins can be traced back to the experiments of Franz Mesmer, who is sometimes called the creator of the theory and practice of psychotherapy, including group psychotherapy. In the future, many prominent doctors and scientists used various psychotherapeutic methods in a group of patients, substantiating the feasibility and effectiveness of this approach. The first to pay attention to the therapeutic possibilities of using group interaction was the American physician J. Pratt, who in 1905 first organized psychotherapeutic groups for tuberculosis patients. Initially, Pratt viewed the group as the most convenient way to inform patients about health and disease, about lifestyle and relationships that contribute to recovery, and did not single out its own therapeutic possibilities. Later, he came to the conclusion that in psychotherapy the main role belongs to the group, the impact of which lies in the effective influence of one person on another, in the mutual understanding and solidarity that arise in the group, contributing to overcoming pessimism and a sense of isolation.
Almost all psychotherapeutic directions of the XNUMXth century used group forms in one way or another and made a certain contribution to the development of group therapy. A special place in this series belongs to the psychoanalytic and humanistic areas. So, A. Adler drew attention to the importance of the social environment in the manifestation of disorders in patients. He believed that the group is an appropriate context for identifying emotional disorders and their correction. Believing that the source of the patient’s conflicts and difficulties is in the wrong system of values and life goals, he argued that the group not only can form views and judgments, but also helps to modify them. Working with a group of patients, Adler sought to achieve an understanding of the genesis of their disorders by patients, as well as to transform their positions.
Humanistic direction
Carl Rogers occupies a special place among the representatives of the humanistic direction. Singling out empathy, unconditional positive acceptance and authenticity as the main variables of the psychotherapeutic process, Rogers attached great importance to group forms, believing that the psychotherapist in them is a model for participants, thereby contributing to the elimination of anxiety and the development of self-disclosure. Rogers believed that the huge interest in the group movement, which manifested itself from the mid-50s and especially in the 60s, and its growing popularity are associated with the growing dehumanization of culture, when a person as a person is not only talking about his social and financial position, and with the growth of wealth, allowing the individual to deal with their psychological problems.
There is a psychological «hunger» for warm, intimate, and sincere relationships in which direct experiences can be expressed without repressing or «processing» them; share joys and sorrows, try new forms of behavior. When participants are accepted as they are, there is an opportunity for development, personal growth.