Social group

In the social sciences, a social group can

be defined as two or more people who
interact with one another, share similar
characteristics, and collectively have a
sense of unity. Other theorists disagree
however, and are wary of definitions which
stress the importance of interdependence
or objective similarity.[1][2] Instead,
researchers within the social identity
tradition generally define it as "a group is
defined in terms of those who identify
themselves as members of the group."[3]
Regardless, social groups come in a
myriad of sizes and varieties. For example,
a society can be viewed as a large social
group.

Individuals in groups are connected to each other by

social relationships.

Definition

Social cohesion approach …

A social group exhibits some degree of
social cohesion and is more than a simple
collection or aggregate of individuals, such
as people waiting at a bus stop, or people
waiting in a line. Characteristics shared by
members of a group may include interests,
values, representations, ethnic or social
background, and kinship ties. Kinship ties
being a social bond based on common
ancestry, marriage, or adoption.[4] In a
similar vein, some researchers consider
the defining characteristic of a group as
social interaction.[5] According to Dunbar's
number, on average, people cannot
maintain stable social relationships with
more than 150 individuals.[6]
Social psychologist Muzafer Sherif
proposed to define a social unit as a
number of individuals interacting with
each other with respect to:[7]

1. Common motives and goals

2. An accepted division of labor, i.e.
roles
3. Established status (social rank,
dominance) relationships
4. Accepted norms and values with
reference to matters relevant to the
group
5. Development of accepted sanctions
(praise and punishment) if and when
 norms were respected or violated

This definition is long and complex, but it

is also precise. It succeeds in providing
the researcher with the tools required to
answer three important questions:

1. "How is a group formed?"

2. "How does a group function?"
3. "How does one describe those social
interactions that occur on the way to
forming a group?"
Significance of that definition …

The attention of those who use, participate

in, or study groups has focused on
functioning groups, on larger
organizations, or on the decisions made in
these organizations.[8] Much less attention
has been paid to the more ubiquitous and
universal social behaviors that do not
clearly demonstrate one or more of the
five necessary elements described by
Sherif.

Some of the earliest efforts to understand

these social units have been the extensive
descriptions of urban street gangs in the
1920s and 1930s, continuing through the
1950s, which understood them to be
largely reactions to the established
authority.[9] The primary goal of gang
members was to defend gang territory,
and to define and maintain the dominance
structure within the gang. There remains in
the popular media and urban law
enforcement agencies an avid interest in
gangs, reflected in daily headlines which
emphasize the criminal aspects of gang
behavior. However, these studies and the
continued interest have not improved the
capacity to influence gang behavior or to
reduce gang related violence.

The relevant literature on animal social

behaviors, such as work on territory and
dominance, has been available since the
1950s. Also, they have been largely
neglected by policy makers, sociologists
and anthropologists. Indeed, vast literature
on organization, property, law
enforcement, ownership, religion, warfare,
values, conflict resolution, authority, rights,
and families have grown and evolved
without any reference to any analogous
social behaviors in animals. This
disconnect may be the result of the belief
that social behavior in humankind is
radically different from the social behavior
in animals because of the human capacity
for language use and rationality. Of course,
while this is true, it is equally likely that the
study of the social (group) behaviors of
other animals might shed light on the
evolutionary roots of social behavior in
people.

Territorial and dominance behaviors in

humans are so universal and
commonplace that they are simply taken
for granted (though sometimes admired,
as in home ownership, or deplored, as in
violence). But these social behaviors and
interactions between human individuals
play a special role in the study of groups:
they are necessarily prior to the formation
of groups. The psychological
internalization of territorial and dominance
experiences in conscious and
unconscious memory are established
through the formation of social identity,
personal identity, body concept, or self
concept. An adequately functioning
individual identity is necessary before an
individual can function in a division of
labor (role), and hence, within a cohesive
group. Coming to understand territorial
and dominance behaviors may thus help
to clarify the development, functioning,
and productivity of groups.

Social identification approach …

Explicitly contrasted against a social

cohesion based definition for social
groups is the social identity perspective,
which draws on insights made in social
identity theory.[10] Here, rather than
defining a social group based on
expressions of cohesive social
relationships between individuals, the
social identity model assumes that
"psychological group membership has
primarily a perceptual or cognitive basis."[1]
It posits that the necessary and sufficient
condition for individuals to act as group
members is "awareness of a common
category membership" and that a social
group can be "usefully conceptualized as a
number of individuals who have
internalized the same social category
membership as a component of their self
concept."[1] Stated otherwise, while the
social cohesion approach expects group
members to ask "who am I attracted to?",
the social identity perspective expects
group members to simply ask "who am I?"

Empirical support for the social identity

perspective on groups was initially drawn
from work using the minimal group
paradigm. For example, it has been shown
that the mere act of allocating individuals
to explicitly random categories is sufficient
to lead individuals to act in an ingroup
favouring fashion (even where no
individual self-interest is possible).[11] Also
problematic for the social cohesion
account is recent research showing that
seemingly meaningless categorization can
be an antecedent of perceptions of
interdependence with fellow category
members.[2]

While the roots of this approach to social

groups had its foundations in social
identity theory, more concerted exploration
of these ideas occurred later in the form of
self-categorization theory.[12] Whereas
social identity theory was directed initially
at the explanation of intergroup conflict in
the absence of any conflict of interests,
self-categorization theory was developed
to explain how individuals come to
perceive themselves as members of a
group in the first place, and how this self-
grouping process underlies and
determines all problems subsequent
aspects of group behaviour.[13]

Defining characteristics …

In his text, Group Dynamics, Forsyth (2010)

discuses several common characteristics
of groups that can help to define them.[14]

1) Interaction …

This group component varies greatly,

including verbal or non-verbal
communication, social loafing, networking,
forming bonds, etc. Research by Bales
(cite, 1950, 1999) determine that there are
two main types of interactions;
relationship interactions and task
interactions.

1. Relationship interactions: “actions

performed by group members that
relate to or influence the emotional
and interpersonal bonds within the
group, including both positive actions
(social support, consideration) and
negative actions (criticism,
conflict).”[14]
2. Task interactions: “actions performed
by group members that pertain to the
 group’s projects, tasks, and goals.”[14]
This involve members organizing
themselves and utilizing their skills
and resources to achieve something.
2) Goals …

Most groups have a reason for their

existence, be it increasing the education
and knowledge, receiving emotional
support, or experiencing spirituality or
religion. Groups can facilitate the
achievement of these goals.[14] The
circumplex model of group tasks by
Joseph McGrath[15] organizes group
related tasks and goals. Groups may focus
on several of these goals, or one area at a
time. The model divides group goals into
four main types, which are further sub-
categorized

1. Generating: coming up with ideas and

plans to reach goals
Planning Tasks
Creativity Tasks
2. Choosing: Selecting a solution.
Intellective Tasks
Decision-making Tasks
3. Negotiating: Arranging a solution to a
problem.
Cognitive Conflict Tasks
Mixed Motive Task
 4. Executing: Act of carrying out a task.
Contests/Battles/Competitive
Tasks
Performance/Psychomotor
Tasks
3) Interdependence in relation …

“The state of being dependent, to some

degree, on other people, as when one’s
outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and
experiences are determined in whole or
part by others."[14] Some groups are more
interdependent than others. For example, a
sports team would have a relatively high
level of interdependence as compared to a
group of people watching a movie at the
movie theater. Also, interdependence may
be mutual (flowing back and forth
between members) or more
linear/unilateral. For example, some group
members may be more dependent on their
boss than the boss is on each of the
individuals.

4) Structure …

Group structure involves the emergence or

regularities, norms, roles and relations that
form within a group over time. Roles
involve the expected performance and
conduct of people within the group
depending on their status or position
within the group. Norms are the ideas
adopted by the group pertaining to
acceptable and unacceptable conduct by
members. Group structure is a very
important part of a group. If people fail to
meet their expectations within to groups,
and fulfil their roles, they may not accept
the group, or be accepted by other group
members.

5) Unity …

When viewed holistically, a group is

greater than the sum of its individual
parts. When people speak of groups, they
speak of the group as a whole, or an entity,
rather than speaking of it in terms of
individuals. For example, it would be said
that “The band played beautifully.” Several
factors play a part in this image of unity,
including group cohesiveness, and
entitativity (appearance of cohesion by
outsiders).[14]

Types
There are four main types of groups: 1)
primary groups, 2) social groups, 3)
collectives, and 4) categories.[16]

1) Primary groups …
Primary groups[16] are characterized by
high amounts of cohesiveness, member
identification, face-to-face interaction, and
solidarity. Such groups may act as the
principal source of socialization for
individuals as primary groups may shape
an individual’s attitudes, values, and social
orientation. Primary groups are small,
long-term groups

Three sub-groups of primary groups

are:[17]

1. kin (relatives)
2. close friends
3. neighbours.
2) Social groups …

Social groups[16] are also small groups but

are of moderate duration. These groups
are often formed due to a common goal. In
this type of group, it is possible for
outgroup members (i.e., social categories
of which one is not a member)[18] to
become ingroup members (i.e., social
categories of which one is a member)[18]
with reasonable ease. Social groups, such
as study groups or coworkers, interact
moderately over a prolonged period of
time.

3) Collectives …
In contrast, spontaneous collectives,[16]
such as bystanders or audiences of
various sizes, exist only for a very brief
period of time and it is very easy to
become an ingroup member from an
outgroup member and vice versa.
Collectives may display similar actions
and outlooks.

4) Categories …

Categories[16] consist of individuals that

are similar to one another in a certain way,
and members of this group can be
permanent ingroup members or temporary
ingroup members. Examples of categories
are individuals with the same ethnicity,
gender, religion, or nationality. This group
is generally the largest type of group.

Health
The social groups people are involved with
in the workplace directly affect their
health. No matter where you work or what
the occupation is, feeling a sense of
belonging in a peer group is a key to
overall success.[19] Part of this is the
responsibility of the leader (manager,
supervisor, etc.). If the leader helps
everyone feel a sense of belonging within
the group, it can help boost morale and
productivity. According to Dr. Niklas
Steffens "Social identification contributes
to both psychological and physiological
health, but the health benefits are stronger
for psychological health".[20] The social
relationships people have can be linked to
different health conditions. Lower quantity
or quality social relationships have been
connected to issues such as: development
of cardiovascular disease, recurrent
myocardial infarction, atherosclerosis,
autonomic dysregulation, high blood
pressure, cancer and delayed cancer
recovery, and slower wound healing as
well as inflammatory biomarkers and
impaired immune function, factors
associated with adverse health outcomes
and mortality. The social relationship of
marriage is the most studied of all, the
marital history over the course of one's life
can form differing health outcomes such
as cardiovascular disease, chronic
conditions, mobility limitations, self-rated
health, and depressive symptoms. Social
connectedness also plays a large part in
overcoming mental afflictions such as
drug, alcohol, or substance abuse. With
these types of issues, a person's peer
group play a big role in helping them stay
sober. Conditions do not need to be life-
threatening, one's social group can help
deal with work anxiety as well. When
people are more socially connected have
access to more support.[21] Some of the
health issues people have may also stem
from their uncertainty about just where
they stand among their colleagues. It has
been shown that being well socially
connected has a significant impact on a
person as they age, according to a 10-year
study by the MacArthur Foundation, which
was published in the book 'Successful
Aging'[22] the support, love, and care we
feel through our social connections can
help to counteract some of the health-
related negatives of aging. Older people
who were more active in social circles
tended to be better off health-wise.[23]
Group membership and
recruitment
Social groups tend to form based on
certain principles of attraction, that draw
individuals to affiliate with each other,
eventually forming a group.

The Proximity Principle – the tendency

for individuals to develop relationships
and form groups with those they are
(often physically) close to. This is often
referred to as ‘familiarity breeds liking’,
or that we prefer things/people that we
are familiar with [24]
The Similarity Principle – the tendency
for individuals to affiliate with or prefer
individuals who share their attitudes,
values, demographic characteristics,
etc.
The Complementarity Principle – the
tendency for individuals to like other
individuals who are dissimilar from
themselves, but in a complementary
manner. E.g. leaders will attract those
who like being led, and those who like
being led will attract leaders [25]
The Reciprocity Principle – the tendency
for liking to be mutual. For example, if A
likes B, B is inclined to like A.
 Conversely, if A dislikes B, B will
probably not like A (negative reciprocity)
The Elaboration Principle – the tendency
for groups to complexify over time by
adding new members through their
relationships with existing group
members. In more formal or structured
groups, prospective members may need
a reference from a current group
member before they can join.

Other factors also influence the formation

of a group. Extroverts may seek out
groups more, as they find larger and more
frequent interpersonal interactions
stimulating and enjoyable (more than
introverts). Similarly, groups may seek out
extroverts more than introverts, perhaps
because they find they connect with
extroverts more readily.[26] Those higher in
relationality (attentiveness to their
relations with other people) are also
likelier to seek out and prize group
membership. Relationality has also been
associated with extroversion and
agreeableness.[27] Similarly, those with a
high need for affiliation are more drawn to
join groups, spend more time with groups
and accept other group members more
readily.[28]
Previous experiences with groups (good
and bad) inform people’s decisions to join
prospective groups. Individuals will
compare the rewards of the group (e.g.
belonging,[29] emotional support,[30]
informational support, instrumental
support, spiritual support; see Uchino,
2004 for an overview) against potential
costs (e.g. time, emotional energy). Those
with negative or 'mixed' experiences with
previous groups will likely be more
deliberate in their assessment of potential
groups to join, and with which groups they
choose to join. (For more, see Minimax
Principal, as part of Social Exchange
Theory)
Once a group has begun to form, it can
increase membership through a few ways.
If the group is an open group,[31] where
membership boundaries are relatively
permeable, group members can enter and
leave the group as they see fit (often via at
least one of the aforementioned Principles
of Attraction). A closed group [31] on the
other hand, where membership boundaries
are more rigid and closed, often engages
in deliberate and/or explicit recruitment
and socialization of new members.

If a group is highly cohesive, it will likely

engage in processes that contribute to
cohesion levels, especially when recruiting
new members, who can add to a group's
cohesion, or destabilize it. Classic
examples of groups with high cohesion
are fraternities, sororities, gangs, and cults,
which are all noted for their recruitment
process, especially their initiation or
hazing. In all groups, formal and informal
initiations add to a group's cohesion and
strengthens the bond between the
individual and group by demonstrating the
exclusiveness of group membership as
well as the recruit's dedication to the
group.[14] Initiations tend to be more
formal in more cohesive groups. Initiation
is also important for recruitment because
it can mitigate any cognitive dissonance in
potential group members.[32]

In some instances, such as cults,

recruitment can also be referred to as
conversion. Kelman's Theory of
Conversion [33] identifies 3 stages of
conversion: compliance (individual will
comply or accept group's views, but not
necessarily agree with them), identification
(member begins to mimic group's actions,
values, characteristics, etc.) and
internalization (group beliefs and demands
become congruent with member's
personal beliefs, goals and values). This
outlines the process of how new members
can become deeply connected to the
group.

Development
If one brings a small collection of
strangers together in a restricted space
and environment, provides a common goal
and maybe a few ground rules, then a
highly probable course of events will
follow. Interaction between individuals is
the basic requirement. At first, individuals
will differentially interact in sets of twos or
threes while seeking to interact with those
with whom they share something in
common: i.e., interests, skills, and cultural
background. Relationships will develop
some stability in these small sets, in that
individuals may temporarily change from
one set to another, but will return to the
same pairs or trios rather consistently and
resist change. Particular twosomes and
threesomes will stake out their special
spots within the overall space.

Again depending on the common goal,

eventually twosomes and threesomes will
integrate into larger sets of six or eight,
with corresponding revisions of territory,
dominance-ranking, and further
differentiation of roles. All of this seldom
takes place without some conflict or
disagreement: for example, fighting over
the distribution of resources, the choices
of means and different subgoals, the
development of what are appropriate
norms, rewards and punishments. Some
of these conflicts will be territorial in
nature: i.e., jealousy over roles, or
locations, or favored relationships. But
most will be involved with struggles for
status, ranging from mild protests to
serious verbal conflicts and even
dangerous violence.

By analogy to animal behavior,

sociologists may term these behaviors
territorial behaviors and dominance
behaviors. Depending on the pressure of
the common goal and on the various skills
of individuals, differentiations of
leadership, dominance, or authority will
develop. Once these relationships solidify,
with their defined roles, norms, and
sanctions, a productive group will have
been established.[34][35][36]

Aggression is the mark of unsettled

dominance order. Productive group
cooperation requires that both dominance
order and territorial arrangements (identity,
self-concept) be settled with respect to the
common goal and within the particular
group. Some individuals may withdraw
from interaction or be excluded from the
developing group. Depending on the
number of individuals in the original
collection of strangers, and the number of
"hangers-on" that are tolerated, one or
more competing groups of ten or less may
form, and the competition for territory and
dominance will then also be manifested in
the inter group transactions.

Dispersal and transformation

Two or more people in interacting
situations will over time develop stable
territorial relationships. As described
above, these may or may not develop into
groups. But stable groups can also break
up in to several sets of territorial
relationships. There are numerous reasons
for stable groups to "malfunction" or to
disperse, but essentially this is because of
loss of compliance with one or more
elements of the definition of group
provided by Sherif. The two most common
causes of a malfunctioning group are the
addition of too many individuals, and the
failure of the leader to enforce a common
purpose, though malfunctions may occur
due to a failure of any of the other
elements (i.e., confusions status or of
norms).
In a society, there is a need for more
people to participate in cooperative
endeavors than can be accommodated by
a few separate groups. The military has
been the best example as to how this is
done in its hierarchical array of squads,
platoons, companies, battalions,
regiments, and divisions. Private
companies, corporations, government
agencies, clubs, and so on have all
developed comparable (if less formal and
standardized) systems when the number
of members or employees exceeds the
number that can be accommodated in an
effective group. Not all larger social
structures require the cohesion that may
be found in the small group. Consider the
neighborhood, the country club, or the
megachurch, which are basically territorial
organizations who support large social
purposes. Any such large organizations
may need only islands of cohesive
leadership.

For a functioning group to attempt to add

new members in a casual way is a certain
prescription for failure, loss of efficiency,
or disorganization. The number of
functioning members in a group can be
reasonably flexible between five and ten,
and a long-standing cohesive group may
be able to tolerate a few hangers on. The
key concept is that the value and success
of a group is obtained by each member
maintaining a distinct, functioning identity
in the minds of each of the members. The
cognitive limit to this span of attention in
individuals is often set at seven. Rapid
shifting of attention can push the limit to
about ten. After ten, subgroups will
inevitably start to form with the attendant
loss of purpose, dominance-order, and
individuality, with confusion of roles and
rules. The standard classroom with twenty
to forty pupils and one teacher offers a
rueful example of one supposed leader
juggling a number of subgroups.
Weakening of the common purpose once
a group is well established can be
attributed to: adding new members;
unsettled conflicts of identities (i.e.,
territorial problems in individuals);
weakening of a settled dominance-order;
and weakening or failure of the leader to
tend to the group. The actual loss of a
leader is frequently fatal to a group, unless
there was lengthy preparation for the
transition. The loss of the leader tends to
dissolve all dominance relationships, as
well as weakening dedication to common
purpose, differentiation of roles, and
maintenance of norms. The most common
symptoms of a troubled group are loss of
efficiency, diminished participation, or
weakening of purpose, as well as an
increase in verbal aggression. Often, if a
strong common purpose is still present, a
simple reorganization with a new leader
and a few new members will be sufficient
to re-establish the group, which is
somewhat easier than forming an entirely
new group. This is the most common
factor.

See also
Bureaucracy
Club (organization)
Corporate group
Crowd
Crowd psychology
Globalization
Group conflict
Group dynamics
Group emotion
Group narcissism
Institution
Intergroup relations
Loneliness
Mob rule
Public opinion
Secret society
Social class
 Social isolation
Social network
Social organization
Social representation
Sociology of sport
Status group
Types of social groups

References
1. Turner, J.C. (1982). Tajfel, H. (ed.).
"Towards a cognitive redefinition of
the social group". Social Identity and
Intergroup Relations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press: 15–40.
2. Platow, M.J.; Grace, D.M.; Smithson,
M.J. (2011). "Examining the
Preconditions for Psychological Group
Membership: Perceived Social
Interdependence as the Outcome of
Self-Categorization". Social
Psychological and Personality
Science. 3 (1).
3. Reicher, S. D. (1982). "The
determination of collective behaviour."
Pp. 41–83 in H. Tajfel (ed.), Social
identity and intergroup relations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
4. Macionis, John, and Linda Gerber
(2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed.
Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.
5. Hare, A. P. (1962). Handbook of small
group research. New York: Macmillan
Publishers.
. Gladwell 2002, pp. 177–81.
7. Sherif, Muzafer, and Carolyn W. Sherif,
An Outline of Social Psychology (rev.
ed.). New York: Harper & Brothers. pp.
143–80.
. Simon, Herbert A. 1976. Administrative
Behavior (3rd ed.). New York. Free
Press. pp. 123–53.
9. Sherif, op. cit. p. 149.
10. Tajfel, H., and J. C. Turner (1979). An
integrative theory of intergroup
conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel
(eds.), The social psychology of
intergroup relations. pp. 33–47.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole
11. Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R.P. &
Flament, C. (1971). "Social
categorization and intergroup
behaviour". European Journal of Social
Psychology, 2, 149–78,
12. Turner, J.C.; Reynolds, K.H. (2001).
Brown, R.; Gaertner, S.L. (eds.). "The
Social Identity Perspective in
Intergroup Relations: Theories,
Themes, and Controversies". Blackwell
Handbook of Social Psychology. 3 (1).
13. Turner, J. C. (1987) Rediscovering the
Social Group: A Self-Categorization
Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 42–67.
14. Forsyth, Donelson R. (2010). Group
Dynamics (5 ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
15. McGrath, Joseph, E. (1984). Groups:
Interaction and Performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
pp. 61–62.
1 . Forsyth, Donelson R. 2009. Group
Dynamics (5th ed.). New York:
Wadsworth. ISBN 9780495599524.
17. Litwak, Eugene, and Ivan Szelenyi.
1969. "Primary Group Structures and
Their Functions: Kin, Neighbors, and
Friends ." American Sociological
Review 34(4):465–81.
doi:10.2307/2091957 . – via
ResearchGate.
1 . Quattrone, G.A., Jones, E.E. (1980).
"The perception of variability within in-
groups and out-groups: Implications
for the law of small numbers". Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology.
38 (1): 142. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.38.1.141 .
19. "Health determined by social
relationships at work" . phys.org.
Society for Personality and Social
Psychology. Archived from the
original on 2016-11-04.
20. "Workplace leaders improve employee
wellbeing" . phys.org. University Of
Queensland. Archived from the
original on 2016-11-04.
21. Debra Umberson; Karas Montez,
Jennifer (2010). "Social Relationships
and Health: A Flashpoint for Health
Policy" . Journal of Health and Social
Behavior. 51 (Suppl): S54–S66.
doi:10.1177/0022146510383501 .
PMC 3150158 . PMID 20943583 .
22. Rowe, J.W.; Kahn, R.L. (1997).
"Successful Aging" . The
Gerontologist. 37 (4): 433–40.
doi:10.1093/geront/37.4.433 .
PMID 9279031 .
23. Staackmann, Mary. "Social
Connections are a Key to Aging Well" .
Chicago Tribune. The Evanston
Review. Archived from the original on
2016-11-30.
24. Bornstein, Robert F. (1989). "Exposure
and affect: Overview and meta-
analysis of research, 1968, 1987".
Psychological Bulletin. 106 (2): 265–
289. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.106.2.265 .
25. Tracey, Terence, Ryan, Jennifer M.,
Jaschik-Herman, Bruce (2001).
"Complementarity of interpersonal
circumplex traits". Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin. 27 (7):
786–797.
doi:10.1177/0146167201277002 .
S2CID 144304609 .
2 . Gardner, William L., Reithel, Brian J.,
Cogliser, Claudia C., Walumbwa, Fred
O., Foley, Richard T. (2012). "Matching
personality and organizational culture
effects of recruitment strategy and the
five-factor model on subjective person-
organization fit". Management
Communication Quarterly. 24: 585–
622.
doi:10.1177/0893318912450663 .
S2CID 146744551 .
27. Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., Morris, M. L.
(2000). "The relational-interdependent
self-construal and relationships".
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 78 (4): 791–808.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.191 .
PMID 10794381 .
2 . McAdams, Dan P., Constantian, Carol
A. (1983). "Intimacy and affiliation
motives in daily living: An experience
in sampling analysis". Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 45
(4): 851–861. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.45.4.851 .
29. Kruase, Neal, Wulff, Keith M. (2005).
"Church-based social ties, a sense of
belonging in a congregation, and
physical health status". International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
15: 75–93.
30. McGuire, Gail M. (2007). "Intimate
work: A typology of the social support
that workers provide to their network
members". Work and Occupations. 34:
125–147.
doi:10.1177/0730888406297313 .
S2CID 145394891 .
31. Ziller, R. C. (1965). "Toward a theory of
open and closed groups".
Psychological Bulletin. 34 (3): 164–
182. doi:10.1037/h0022390 .
PMID 14343396 .
32. Aronson, E., Mills, J. (1959). "The
effect of severity of initiation on liking
for a group". Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology. 59 (2): 177–181.
doi:10.1037/h0047195 .
33. Kelman, H. (1958). "Compliance,
identification, and internalization:
Three processes of attitude change".
Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2: 51–
60.
doi:10.1177/002200275800200106 .
S2CID 145642577 .
34. Sherif, op. cit. pp. 181–279
35. Scott, John Paul. Animal Behavior, The
University of Chicago Press, 1959,
281pp.
3 . Halloway, Ralph L., Primate
Aggression, Territoriality, and
Xenophobia, Academic Press: New
York, and London 1974. 496 pp.
 Gladwell, Malcolm (2002), The tipping
point: How little things can make a big
difference , Boston: Little, Brown & Co.,
ISBN 0-316-31696-2

External links
Media related to Social groups at
Wikimedia Commons

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Social_group&oldid=1006474306"

Last edited 23 days ago by WhatamIdoing

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.