15. Socio-psychological nature and content of the phenomena in groups

The essence of the phenomenon of group pressure on an individual consists in the acceptance of the already existing norms of group life by each individual entering into it.

This phenomenon has received in social psychology the name of the phenomenon of conformism .

More often they speak not about conformism, but about conformity or conformal behavior , having in mind a purely psychological characteristic of the position of the individual relative to the position of the group.

The measure of conformity is a measure of subordination to a group in the case when the opposition of opinions was subjectively perceived by the individual as a conflict.

There are external conformance, when the group’s opinion is accepted by the individual only externally, he continues to resist him, and internal (genuine conformism), when the individual really learns the majority opinion.

Negativism occurs when a group puts pressure on an individual who resists this pressure and demonstrates independence.

Negativism is not true independence, it is a specific case of conformity.

If an individual aims to oppose the opinion of the group at any cost, then in fact he depends on the group again, he has to actively produce anti-group behavior, that is, be tied to group opinion.

Conformity contrasted with independence, independence.

The model of conformity was first demonstrated in the experiments of S. Asch , carried out in 1951.

The degree of conformity is influenced by: a less developed intellect, a lower level of development of self-consciousness, etc.

The degree of conformity also depends on such factors as the nature of the experimental situation and the composition and structure of the group.

The model of behavioral models accepted by S. Hashem is very simplified, since only two types of behavior appear in it: conformal and non-conformal.

In real situations of such activity, a third type of behavior may arise.

He will demonstrate a conscious recognition of the norms and standards of the group.

There are three types of behavior:

1) intra-group suggestibility , that is, conflict-free acceptance of the group's opinion;

2) conformality - conscious external agreement with an internal discrepancy;

3) collectivism , or collectivistic self-determination, is the relative uniformity of behavior as a result of the conscious solidarity of the individual with the assessments and tasks of the collective.

The phenomenon of group pressure as one of the mechanisms of forming a small group (the individual’s entry into the group) will inevitably remain a formal characteristic of group life until, when it is identified, the substantial characteristics of group activities that define a particular type of relationship between group members are taken into account.

Not only large groups, but also a minority can put pressure on an individual. M. Deutsch and G. Gerard identified two types of group influence: regulatory (the pressure is exerted by the majority, and his opinion is perceived by the group member as the norm) and informational (the pressure is exerted by the minority, and the member considers his opinion only as information on the basis of which must make his own choice).

Group cohesion is the process of forming a special type of connections in a group that allow an externally defined structure to be turned into a psychological community of people, into a complex psychological organism that lives by its own laws.

The study of the problem of group cohesion is based on the understanding of the group as a certain system of interpersonal relations with an emotional basis.

In the sociometric direction, cohesion is directly associated with the level of development of interpersonal relations, when they have a high percentage of elections based on mutual sympathy.

Sociometry proposed a group cohesion index — the ratio of the number of positive reciprocal choices to the total number of possible choices.

Another approach was proposed by L. Festinger , when cohesion was analyzed on the basis of the frequency and strength of the communication links found in the group.

Cohesion was defined as "the sum of all forces acting on the members of a group to keep them in it."

“Forces” were interpreted either as an attractiveness of a group for an individual, or as satisfaction with group membership.

There are a number of experimental work to identify group cohesion.

In studies A. Beyvelas and special importance is attached to the nature of group goals.

The operational goals of the group are to build an optimal communication system; symbolic goals are goals consistent with the individual intentions of the group members.

Cohesion depends on the implementation of both goals.

A new approach to the study of cohesion: the process of forming a group and its further development is presented as a process of increasingly rallying this group, but not on the basis of increasing only its emotional attractiveness, but on the basis of the increasing inclusion of individuals in the process of joint activity.

Compatibility of group members means that this group is possible to ensure that the group fulfills its functions, integrated in such a way that it achieves a special degree of development of relations in which all members of the group share the goals of group activities.

In Russian social psychology, the new principles of cohesion research were developed by A. V. Petrovsky .

The basic idea: the entire structure of a small group can be represented as consisting of three (in the latest edition of four) basic layers, the stratum: the external level of the group structure (direct emotional interpersonal relations); the second layer is a deeper education, “value-orientation unity” (relations here are mediated by joint activities, coincidence of orientation of the core values ​​related to the process of joint activities among members of the group).

The third layer assumes an even greater inclusion of the individual in joint group activities (group members share the goals of group activities, and here the most serious, significant motives for choosing each other by the group members can be identified).

The third layer of the relationship was called the “core” of the group structure.

Motives of choice at this level are associated with the acceptance of common values.

The process of group decision making is associated with the problem of leadership and leadership, since decision making is one of the important functions of a manager.

Group solutions are in many cases more effective than individual ones.

Among the various methods of making group decisions, the role of group discussion is great.

Its patterns:

1) allows you to push opposite positions and thereby help participants to see the different sides of the problem;

2) if the decision is initiated by a group, then it is a logical conclusion from the discussion, supported by all those present, its value increases, as it turns into a group norm .

One of the forms of group discussions introduced by A. Osborne is “brainstorming” (“ brainstorming ”).

To develop a collective decision, the group is divided into two parts: “generators of ideas” and “critics”.

The task of the “generators of ideas” is to sketch more proposals for solving the problem under discussion.

At the second stage, "critics" begin to criticize the proposals received: weed out unsuitable, set aside controversial ones, accept successful ones. The group gets a set of solutions to the problem.

Another method of group discussion, developed by W. Gordon , is the method of synectic , a compound heterogeneous.

The main idea is to develop as many as possible various and directly opposite, mutually exclusive proposals.

"Sinectors" stand out.

Their task is to articulate the most opposite opinions.

During the discussion, extremes are rejected, a decision is made that satisfies everyone.

When studying the question of the comparative value of group and individual decisions, a phenomenon was discovered that was called the “risk shift” .

Previously, when studying small groups, the fact was used that the group discards the most extreme decisions and takes a kind of average of the individual ( group normalization ).

The provision on the normalization of decisions of individual members of the group was not confirmed in cases where the decision made included a moment of risk.

The experiment by J. Stoner showed that a group decision involves more risk at a time than individual decisions.

The advantage of a group decision over an individual depends on the level of decision-making: in the phase of finding a solution, an individual solution is more productive, and in the development phase group decisions benefit.

Improving the group decision-making process depends on the ability to lead an effective group discussion, which is developed through social and psychological training.

Of the three forms of training - open communication, role-playing, group discussion - the latter is one of the most developed.

The quality of the decision is influenced by one more factor, called the “group spirit,” such a high degree of involvement in the system of group ideas and values ​​that hinders the adoption of the right decision.

Group discussion leads to the polarization of the group .

The essence of this phenomenon is that in the course of the group discussion, the opposing opinions held by the various groups not only reveal themselves, but also cause their acceptance or rejection by the majority of the group.

People can withstand the pressure of the group and often do. A few minorities may persist and refuse to agree with others.

There are situations where individuals or groups may change roles with the majority and have a social impact on others, rather than being subjected to it themselves.

History gives us many examples of this: great scientists - G. Galileo , L. Pasteur , Z. Freud - faced a unanimous majority, which sharply rejected their views.

Over time, they had more and more supporters, until finally their views began to dominate.

This is the case when a minority succeeds in exerting a social influence on the majority.

Research data suggests that the most likely chance of success appears in certain conditions.

First, the members of such groups must be consistent in their opposition to the opinion of the majority. If they doubt or show a tendency to submit to the views of the majority, their influence will diminish.

Secondly, members of a minority should not take a tough and categorical position. Minorities who insist on their own are less convincing than those who demonstrate a certain degree of compliance.

Thirdly, the general social context in which the minority operates is important.

If a minority approves a position consistent with current social trends, its chances of influencing the majority are greater than if members of this minority asserted a position that is at odds with such tendencies.

Even in cases where the minority is consistent, compliant and its position is consistent with current social trends, it is still forced to wage a tough fight.

The power of the majority is great in part because in unambiguous or complex social situations, people view the majority as a source of more reliable information about reality.

One possible explanation for the fact that a minority is sometimes able to express itself is this: when people encounter a minority whose views they do not share at first, they have a certain interest, they are intrigued, they have to make cognitive efforts to understand why minority representatives take this position and why they are so clearly unwilling to submit to widespread views.

Some people, when confronted with a minority opinion, are beginning to devote more and more time to a careful study of the ideas they propagate.

Research data from Zdanyuk and K. Levin suggests that a simple anticipation of what needs to be influenced, being a member of a minority, is sufficient to enhance mental abilities.

During real group debates, there is the possibility that a minority will force people to consider ideas and their alternatives that they had previously ignored.

Franklin Roosevelt said: "No democracy will last long if it does not pay enough attention to minority issues."

All dynamic processes occurring in a small group ensure the effectiveness of group activities, which can be studied at various levels.

When a small group is understood as a laboratory group, the effectiveness of its activity means the effectiveness of the activity in carrying out a specific task.

In such groups, the general characteristics of the efficiency of activity were revealed: the dependence of efficiency on group cohesion, on leadership style, the impact on the effectiveness of group decision-making, etc.

These studies do not examine the impact on group performance of the nature of this activity.

The problem turns into a reduction in the efficiency of the group's activities to its productivity, to labor productivity in it.

Of the two indicators of efficiency - labor productivity and satisfaction of the members of the group with labor, the latter is practically not investigated.

The results of experimental studies are contradictory: in some cases, this kind of satisfaction increased the efficiency of the group, in other cases it did not.

Here efficiency was associated with the group's joint activities, and satisfaction with the system of interpersonal relations.

The problem of satisfaction has another side - the problem of satisfaction with work, that is, it acts directly in relation to joint group activities.

The adoption of the principle of joint activity as the most important integrator of the group dictates the requirements for studying efficiency.

It should be investigated at each stage of the group’s development. Groups at different stages of development have different efficiencies in solving various tasks.

At the early stages of development, the group is not able to successfully solve tasks that require complex skills of joint activity, but it has easy tasks that can be decomposed into components.

The next stage of development gives a greater group effect, but subject to the personal significance of the group task for each participant in joint activities.

If all members of a group share socially significant goals of activity, efficiency is also manifested when tasks solved by a group do not bring immediate personal benefit to the members of the group.

A new criterion for the success of the group’s solution to the problem arises - a criterion of the social significance of the problem.

Among the criteria for group effectiveness, there is “over-standard activity” - the desire of group members to achieve high rates of the super-necessary task.

It is necessary to take into account both phases that are present in any work activity: preparatory and instrumental.

The focus on the instrumental phase does not take into account the fact that at a certain level of development of the group, the first phase takes on special significance - here the new qualities of the group can most clearly manifest themselves in their influence on each individual member of the group.

As well as other problems associated with the dynamic processes of a small group, the problem of efficiency should be related to the idea of ​​group development.