Psychology Addict # 48 | Groups & The Individual

in #psychology5 years ago (edited)

featured-groups.png

When my now 34-year-old cousin was around 15 he got in trouble with his studies. His scores were so bad that he had to repeat the year. In my family, this is not taken lightly. It is, perhaps, taken a bit too seriously. So, for quite a while during family gatherings this was the topic of choice. Then, soon, the adults decided that the reason why this happened to Felipe was because of his mates, because of the group he was hanging around with.

It is not only the adults of my family who used to see the role groups play in our lives as a negative one, social psychologists and sociologists used to hold this same view too. Something that resulted from the assumptions and research concluding that group influence automatically steer individuals towards perilous and unreasonable actions. The now highly criticized Stanford Prison Experiment 1 illustrates this line of thought. As well as Le Bon’s concept of ‘group mind’ 2, that he posited to be the process during which individual rationality is replaced by a collective drive. The events that unfold at times of civil unrest and riots were the evidence Le Bon used to support his claim.

But, what is a group if not an agglomeration of individuals? And, if that is the correct definition of a group, what brings its members together?

Groups: The Building Blocks

Sim.png

In a previous post 3 of mine, I discussed with some depth why we seek approval from others. There, I explained that, according to Maslow (and other psychologists), humans’ need for approval is an innate necessity that motivates us to seek affiliation. Although, what I didn’t address in that article was that in order to be accepted, we first need to belong.

In that case, how do we know whether we belong to a particular group or community?

To explain this, Festinger 4 proposed what it is now one of the most influential theories in social psychology: The Social Comparison Theory, which suggests that when trying to fit in we look at others in order to evaluate ourselves and to determine our position in the social world (am I better, equal or worse?). And, of course, the more similar these ‘others’ are to us the more accurate our self-evaluation will be. This is why we don’t go about indiscriminately comparing ourselves to everyone we encounter. Rather, we do it to people who we regard to be similar to us (in a process that, hopefully, will highlight our self-worth and either: pave the way towards self-improvement and/or self-esteem).

Opposites attract

So, you understand why Festinger went on to say that we are mostly drawn to individuals with whom we share things in common. In other words, we are more attracted to people who are ‘like us’. Can you relate to that? I can! And this is precisely what an experimental research 5 conducted by him and his colleagues, back in 1952, unveiled. In this study, participants first had to write down their thoughts about a certain topic. Then, they were informed about which other participants held views similar and different from theirs (all through written notes). Finally, upon asking the group members how much they liked the other members, the experimenters found that people were consistently more drawn to those whose opinions resembled their own.

Transporting these findings to the real world you can picture what might naturally happen from here, right? These individuals come together, and together, they share, maintain and develop their tastes, ideals and objectives. Just look around and observe how ‘the bohemians’, ‘the vegans’, or ‘the goths’ hang out with one another.

However, in the real world we also often encounter people unlike us. How do events unfold in such cases? What happens when we find ourselves amidst those who hold different thoughts, beliefs and attitudes from ours?

Based on the results of their experiment, Festinger et al. concluded that there are three alternatives for such cases:

  1. We try to mould ourselves in order to adapt to the group.
  2. We try to change the group’s views to those similar to ours.
  3. We depart from the group, and in extreme cases, even belittle it.

Have you ever been in such a situation, or witnessed it happening?

Why so Hostile?

hostile.png

Admittedly, the latter part of the last alternative is not a very elegant one. Still, there is a reason as to why it happens: social categorization. This is a psychological process whereby we filter and organize ‘in our heads’ the overwhelming information that comprises our social environment. This is very useful! But, this is something that also influences our perceptual judgment, and oftentimes, unfortunately, it does so in a negative way.

See, Tjafel and Wilkes 6 found that just by simply grouping different elements together we extrapolate the difference between the groups and overlook the difference within them. For example, by categorizing Felipe and his friends as ‘A = a hopeless bunch’ and contrasting and comparing them to my brother and his friends (‘B= the successful boys’) my uncle’s perception of each individual boy became distorted. Hence, his opinion about the boys in A was clouded by the category he fitted them in, which stopped him from seeing that among them there was a disciplined teenager who was a piano virtuose, and another one who was really struggling at school not because he was hopeless, but because his parents’ marital issues were worrying him.

For my frustrated uncle those adorable boys were nothing more than a representation of the group he placed them in, which was ”extremely” different from B = the successful boys. But, in my uncle’s defence, I feel compelled to inform you that he isn’t the only one who unconsciously makes sense of the world in this manner. We all do it! 😟

Social Identity Theory 7 explains that this is due to the fact that we borrow the characteristics that defines the groups we (and others) are part of to shape our opinions about them and our own self-identification. As if, we live-up to the label that defines the group. Moreover, the more we see ourselves as belonging to a certain group (this depends on the level of identification we have towards it), the more we tend to disregard the individuality of out-group members.

We generally perceive out-groups as an agglomeration of elements that are very different from us. When this depersonalization takes place; well, belittling them almost becomes second nature. This is when biased opinions and prejudiced views begin to brew.

Yes, but ... Am I an Individual or A Group Member?

me.png

Western cultures nurture the belief that each individual person is self-contained. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines self-contained, as follows: “not requiring help or support from anyone or anything else, complete by itself”. This is a notion that stems from long-established values rooted in the primacy of individual reason, which has recently been reinforced by concerns resulted from twentieth-century collectivist ideologies.

This concept, consequently, has driven psychology to address the individual through approaches designed to deal with them in isolation (systemic is an exception, but @erh.germany is far better equipped to discuss it than me). Personally, I believe that addressing emotional issues at the individual level is an efficacious first stage in psychological treatments; however, it should never be the last one. We all know that rather than existing in a vacuum we are all part of realities that link us to other people. Therefore, seeing a person/ourselves as either an individual or a group member is rather a limited way of trying to understand them/ourselves.

Neither Here, Nor There

On tackling this query Social Identity Theory suggests that our identities exist in a continuum where at one extreme we find our personal identity, and at the other we find our social one 8. While personal identity is comprised by those characteristics that lend us self-definition, for instance: being outgoing, loving indie movies; social identity are those aspects that ‘buys us a seat’ in groups or communities (having a creed or not is an example).

And here is the thing, being a group/community member has profound psychological influences, which permeate people’s thoughts and behaviour irrespective of whether they are on their own, or accompanied by other members. This phenomenon presents an interesting contradiction to what Le Bon proposed, and therefore suggests that a group mind is situated inside the mind of its groups members, and not outside the individuals who, when coming together, give rise to it. This is how group norms take place, by the way, including those underlying shared social habits, fashion and stereotypes. The classic experiment (the autokinetic phenomenon) conducted by Sheriff 9, in 1936, demonstrates just this. Hence, you can see how important the impact groups have in our lives is. And not only those we belong to; but also those which we are not part of. For, they ultimately leave a footprint in the social environment we are included in.

So, this is the right moment to ask you: How many times have you used the membership of this or that group you are part of to try to understand and define who you are?

Has that threatened your individuality? No, it hasn’t. Or, at least, it shouldn’t have.

Because it is the combination of (she is an outgoing Buddhist, who loves indie movies) together with the hierarchical importance you give to each one of these identities that makes you an individual, that makes you: you.

This understanding is an empowering one, which should enable you/us to reasonably and critically evaluate the aspects that define given groups (are they harmful? are they constructive?). Because those aspects are the ones that essentially shape their norms. Norms that, in turn, influence our thoughts and actions, even when we are alone.

redline.png

Image Source : 1, 2, 3, 4

Reference List:
1 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stanford-Prison-Experiment
2 http://www.psychologydiscussion.net/social-psychology-2/group-behavior/study-notes-on-group-mind-psychology/1336
3 https://steemit.com/psychology/@abigail-dantes/need-for-approval-and-external-validation
4 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1955-02305-001
5 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1953-07114-001
6 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1964-00117-001
7,8 https://student.cc.uoc.gr/uploadFiles/%CE%92310/Tajfel%20&%20Turner%2086_SIT_xs.pdf
9 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1937-00871-000


Have you seen our recently launched website: steemstem.io?

redline.png

Thank you so much my dear reader, for taking the time to read yet another post of mine. Your feedback is invaluable to me and truly keeps me going 😊 I will surely, but slowly reply to your comments over the next few days.
I wish a wonderful weekend to each one of you.
Much love to you all.

Sort:  

Greetings, dear Abgail

Grouping has advantages and disadvantages.

The biggest advantage in my opinion is the protection he gives, removing a belief in the person's helplessness.

However, as a disadvantage, whoever is within that group will have to issue opinions similar to his own, regardless of what he thinks, or will no longer belong to that group, being excluded, for example.

In my graduate work, in which I write about investor decision-making, focusing on the psychological issue, I talked about social influence and quoted this research from Salomon Ash.

Well cool your text. Thank you and good morning!

Hello @juliosavio,

Thank you for stopping by. I am glad to see how balanced you views of groups are. I have great respect for those who are able to see things in an unbiased way!

Best.

This post is so rich in ideas--there can be no simple (for me) response to it. One of the first things I did when reading was go back to your previous post on the need for approval. Between them, these two blogs can replace months of 'talk therapy'. As is usual with your writing, the individual (I) reflect as reading progresses. I relate your insights to my own life and actions. I see myself, and don't see myself. But in that process of agreeing and differing, I learn.
I thought, as I read this blog, of how I met my husband. It was an odd situation. We were both members of a clearly defined group. We wore distinctive clothing that set us apart from people who were not in our profession. Mostly, our occupational group was tied together by one common purpose--we all needed to make money. That was the single greatest common denominator. Unfortunately, I think this financial need led to a certain amount of corruption. So my clothing and the drive to earn money tied me to the group, but the corruption isolated me. Two very strong, conflicting associations.
My husband joined after I did. He shared the desire to earn money and the requirement to wear a certain kind of clothing. He also had disdain for corruption. Beyond that, I don't think we had very much in common. And yet we were drawn to each other. A very long marriage has resulted.
Over the years, our differences have become a joke- "Of course you don't like it, because I do"--but the bonds have become stronger.
So, in a way, group identification, or failure to identify with a group, became the glue that made a marriage.
There is, of course, so much more, general insight, in your blog, particularly in these days when the inclination to identify with group has led to hyperbolic public discourse. Not just in the US, but also Europe. Tension over group identification is running high these days. We would all do well to try and understand the underpinning of that identification, I think, as we privately find ourselves positioned in these very consequential public dialogues.
You see, nothing simple in my response to this thought-provoking and helpful blog. A most valuable addition to my thought day.
I hope the sun is shining for you, in Portugal. Great affection going your way...❤

This is an interesting topic isn't it @agmoore? One that I find very complex indeed.

Even more so, when, like you said, we put it in the context of some current events. And, of course, it was one of these very events that drove me to put these thoughts together and share here with you. While these processes underlying our social attitudes frame our thoughts they don't have to determine our behaviour. And I believe that it is through understanding them that we can become more humane, towards everyone. Of course, for that to happen, rather than narrowing our identities (e.g: I see myself as a Buddhist) , we must expand them (e.g: I am a believer). Then, we will see more of ourselves in others, relate to them and nurture a more welcoming mindset.

I liked SO much how you illustrated your understanding of this discussion by going to and fro your experiences as an individual and as a group member, together with your husband. Further, this is a beautiful sentence :)

So, in a way, group identification, or failure to identify with a group, became the glue that made a marriage.

We had a beautiful sunny day here today! :D
And it looks like it will continue like this throughout the coming week. I will have a sunny 37th birthday ;)

Happy Birthday! Dear @abigail-dantes 🎂
Such a young woman (from my perspective), with so much wisdom. I can imagine what the years will bring.
I am so glad the sun is shining. Enjoy today, and all the days ahead. ❤

Great post Abigail (as always)! This is one of those conversations that inevitably leads to the discussion of human free will, or lack thereof. The more I think about how our environment shapes us the less I believe the life choices I personally make are truly my own. It sounds like I’m being harsh on myself, but I think accepting that makes it easier to avoid blame and stigmatisation of others when they act against the norm.

The perception of a lot of the health care issues we’re facing in high-income countries fit nicely into this spectrum. Obviously, people have choice in smoking or overeating behaviours but we have to have some compassion and take into account the social environment that these behaviours are occurring within. If we do, then we can move the discussion towards how to make changes wider changes to society to encourage healthy behaviours rather than placing the burden entirely on an individual.

Hi Richard :) I am so glad you liked it.

I like how you addressed this topic from your own perspective ( [...] I believe the life choices I personally make are truly my own), and that of others ([...] take into account the social environment that these behaviours are occurring within). I mostly appreciate, however, how you invited us to look at others (and ourselves) from a compassionate position.

I suppose that the tricky part is to find the right balance between the responsibility of the individual and the overwhelming influence our social environment has on us. We certainly don't exist in a vaccum, and that is why broader societal changes are a good start when it comes to improving individual lives.

Thank you for taking the time to stop by and share your views here with us. Your insights always widen my thoughts and questions about whatever is being discussed :)

I welcome the mention of systemics in your article. Definitely the Orient and Occident have their tendencies and it fascinates me again and again how to look at them in a general way. The collective characteristics of the Japanese or other Asian peoples are truly not to be overlooked, at least they have cultural-historical meaning and left their imprints, bad and good. It seems to me to be an almost impossible feat to master to unite the helpful and extremely intelligent systems of both cultures.

It is in the diversity and unusualness that there is a challenge and an opportunity. There, as you say, what we recognize as equal in the other is easier for us to accept. To approach the foreign without prejudice is a lifelong practice in which we have to exercise more or less.

We all know that we are all part of the realities that connect us to other people instead of existing in a vacuum.

It sometimes saddens me that I myself as well as others do have in times the impression to be in a vacuum.

After completing my systematic training, I thought, "Oh, my goodness, how little I knew and how complex human communities are in which we want to understand each other as individuals and others at the same time.

How can I ever counsel in the face of these interdependencies, interactions of large and small systems? But how simple it is, on the other hand, to behave modestly and to be in resonance with people as questioners and listeners and to know that there are no definitive answers, only temporary constructs, in whose cause-effect field I have to find a point of decision.

I think isolation is one of the most devastating sensations a person can experience. Integration into a group is vital. Yes, true what you say. The negative associations we make with an out-group may strengthen the sense of we, but it excludes the human being, who is always looking for a sense of security, recognition and love. Since we never always belong to an in-group alone but are also inevitably outsiders, the painful experience of not always belonging is probably necessary to experience that this does not lead to the destruction of the ego.

It was a pleasure to read this article from you.


P.S. your choice of pictures is always done with much care. Here, I really like the "me/we" design.

This is a very beautiful comment Erika :) There are so many insightful lines here.

I was particularly drawn to your thoughts regarding the simplicity of just being in relation to others, and the environment we are part of. Also, I couldn't agree more with your description of isolation. There is plenty evidence to support this claim, both in human and non-human animals.

Thank you for your nice remark about the images featuring this post. In general, looking for material to illustrate my writings is very time consuming. 😅

I wish you a wonderful weekend :*

Loading...

Detected your post a bit late!

The now highly criticized Stanford Prison Experiment

I always seem to have a 'just today' story, and today's just today story is 'just today I was reading this'!

Your argument makes sense. I guess individual and group is like a person with language, in the sense that it's hard to have a language if you're just one person. It might be the group that gives rise to individuals. We only care about individualism in order to compare ourselves to or against something.

The person ➝ language analogy is a great one Alexander. It reminded me of something I either read or heard quite a while ago : "If a tree falls in the forest but there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

And, by the way, I always look forward to your 'just today' stories/articles 😉

Take care :)
(Busy times around here!)I love it!)

Your last post was to old to upvote, so I'll upvote you here instead!

I agree with Festinger's study, because as I can observed everywhere people with same interest came together, here in our plaform I can clearly see that too... Those writers with same interest are in the same group... Maybe the logic opposite attracts applies to romantic relationship only, the one that you want to be with is the one thay totally different from who you are... But those were just my observation no basis hehehehe...

Thank you for another interesting topic Ms. Abi... And thank you for being kind to us...

Love you always...
AVHY💞💞💞

You have given me a very smart evaluation here @avhyaceulip, I also thought of Steemit when I was writing about how people with similar interests are drawn to each other. It happens in the offline and online worlds :D

Romantic relationships are 'another story' altogether aren't they? :) There are some interesting studies on that field that explore couples that came together on the basis of similarity or complementarity. This might even be an idea for another post! :D

Thank you for stopping by my dear.
Take care :)

Thank you so much Ms. Abi I’ll bewaiting for your post about romatic relationships 😊😊😊

And I wanna take this opportunity to greet you belated Happy Happy Birthday!!! Wish you all the best and happiness in the world, you are so kind person that’s why you are so blessed,

Sorry for the late greetings, I’ve been busy this past few days, because my father-in-law is in the ICU recovering from stroke,

Thank you MS. Abi for being Ms. Abi,

Love u with all my heart

Avhy💞💞💞

I do agree that aside from our family , the group or curcle of friends we belong do really affect our behavior , gestures and beliefs, that's why a lot of millenials now adays are like rebels tot heir parents just to be in with their friends or group they want to be . I have been able to experiences belonging to differrnt types of group of friends specially when i was in college , there is this , what we call good ones who studies a lot and dont get late or absences , then the other group is composed of peepz who are cutting classes and who are smokers ang drunking alcohol, but you k ow what i was able to be friends with both group, it's just that it would still deoend on yourself on how you would handle their behavior and your decision if you wanted to be like them or not.

About attraction , i think what applies on me and my hubb y is ,opposite attracks , i think we are opposite in everything hahahaha.

Hello there miss Abi, how are you? happy weekend to you. I hope you will always have lovely moments and very good health. Thank you always and always . much love from me and the minis 😘❤️❤️❤️

Hello my dear @zephalexia :)

Thank you for contributing to this discussion. Yeah, school years are those where we can see with a lot of clarity the effects group influence and peer pressure have on us (and others). Influences that aren't necessarily bad, though. I am also very different from my husband ... Ahaha :P

I am very well thank you for asking. My birthday is next week, and I love celebrating it! :D So, I am extra happy these days ...

Lots of love to you and the minis always and forever ❤️

wow , am so excited for you too, if you don't mind ,may i please know the day next week of your birthday , please please 😘💞

Posted using Partiko Android

Tuesday the 13th 😃
But, I am going to take the day off, ok? And probably not even turn my computer on! :P

Nice piece again Abbey.

My Father used to tell me that "the company you keep determines what accompanies you".
He would also tell us that; "your association with people would either make you or mar you".

Observing these words (and from personal experiences), I have come to a conclusion that they are true. Our associations have more influence on us than we can imagine.

So, you understand why Festinger went on to say that we are mostly drawn to individuals with whom we share things in common. In other words, we are more attracted to people who are ‘like us’.

This does not obey the laws of physics. (We're told that unlike attracts). Well, many things do not obey the laws of physics.😂😂

You did an awesome piece here Abbey.

Much love from here.
Resteemed

That is why I find physics quite tricky Sammy! 😉

I like how balanced your father's views about groups was. In general, people seem see groups' influence as necessarily negative. But, I think that is far from always being the case :)

Thank you so much for once again taking the time to stop by and share you incredible insights with me Sammi. I also appreciate your reesteem very much! :*

Lots of love to you :)

Interesting and thorough as always Abigail.

This quote from George Carlin sums up my view on the subject pretty well:

"People are wonderful. I love individuals. I hate groups of people. I hate a group of people with a 'common purpose'. 'Cause pretty soon they have little hats. And armbands. And fight songs. And a list of people they're going to visit at 3am. So, I dislike and despise groups of people but I love individuals. Every person you look at; you can see the universe in their eyes, if you're really looking."
George Carlin

There is so much truth in this quote @cizzo. Despite being a rather biased view of groups. Thank you for sharing it here with me ;)

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.26
TRX 0.11
JST 0.033
BTC 63869.25
ETH 3055.04
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.88