Behavior in Groups
An individual’s social world is comprised largely
of group affili-ations (Levine and Moreland, 1998). A group is a social unit in
which members interact and are interdependent, such that there is mutual
influence among the members. Groups vary across such dimensions as size,
duration, purpose, tasks, goals, and patterns and rules of communication.
Involvement in familial, work, social and/or activity groups provides several
potential benefits, includ-ing the satisfaction of survival, psychological,
informational and identity needs. In some instances, however, the group
dynamics and organization may compromise or hinder the gratification of these
needs. As such, groups can both positively and adversely influence
psychological adjustment (Forsyth and Elliott, 1999; Levine and Moreland,
1992).
Research on groups has revealed specific structural
di-mensions (Levine and Moreland, 1998). One such dimension is the status
system, which reflects the power status of each group member relative to the
other members. Additionally, groups are characterized by group norms, consisting
of rules and expecta-tions for behavior and interaction in the group.
Individual group members typically adopt specific roles in the group vis-à-vis other group members and the
group as a whole. Further, groups vary in their degree of cohesion, which refers
to the extent to which group members experience a sense of connectedness to the
group. Each of these structural dimensions affect the group cul-ture, which can
be broadly conceptualized as the group’s shared knowledge systems and customs.
The study of group influence on behavior has
elucidated several dynamics of group influence (Table 17.10).
An important function of many groups is that of
decision-making (Levine and Moreland, 1998). It has been suggested that groups
often are more effective than individuals in making decisions or solving
problems, particularly when the collective and cooperative efforts of the
individuals in the group are needed to accomplish the various components of the
task at hand. In general, however, research suggests that the nature of a given
task makes a differ-ence in whether a group shows greater decision-making
effective-ness than an individual. Successful group performance is aided
by a cooperative, rather than competitive, group
atmosphere in which members work together to attain goals that benefit the
group as a whole. Group conflict may arise when there is disagreement about
decisions, tasks, roles and objectives of a group, prompting the emergence of
specific group processes to address group differ-ences (e.g., negotiation,
coalition formation) (Levine and Moreland, 1998). Groups are susceptible to
specific social processes that may exert a potentially deleterious influence on
the process of making thoughtful and productive decisions (Table 17.11).
The family is one of the most powerful and
important group structures in our society (for a review of family theory, see
Kaslow et al., 1999), and there are
many similarities between the functioning of familial and nonfamilial groups
(McGrath, 1984). Further, one’s roles and functions in social groups are
influenced by one’s roles and functions in one’s family of origin (i.e.,
par-ents, grandparents, extended family, siblings) and family of crea-tion
(i.e., partner, children, grandchildren).
General systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968),
which provides the theoretical underpinnings of family systems theory, is also
applicable to nonfamilial groups. According to systems theory, a system is a
group of interacting elements. Family sys-tems attempt to find a balance
between change and homeostasis to facilitate adaptation of the family and its
individual members across the life-cycle. Family systems exchange information
via feedback loops, circular response patterns in which there is a re-turn flow
of information within the system. Interactions reflect circular causality, in
which single events are viewed as both cause and effect. Families may be
characterized in terms of their structure (i.e., organization) and function. The
key structural property is wholeness (i.e., the whole is greater than the sum
of its parts). Family units consist of interdependent subsystems that carry out
distinctive functions to maintain themselves and sus-tain the system as a
whole. Boundaries separate these subsystems and protect their integrity, while
allowing interaction between subsystems. To maintain their structure, family
systems have rules that enable them to function productively. Within each unit,
individuals play a number of roles, exhibiting a predictable set of behaviors
that may be influenced by family of origin, gender and generation within the
nuclear family. All family behavior (e.g., roles, communication patterns,
symptoms) is presumed to serve a systemic function.
Collaboration among medical providers is central to
effec-tive patient care. As medical providers routinely make important
decisions in the context of work groups, it is important for health providers
to be cognizant of the dynamics of group behavior. Where decisions are being
made about such matters as delicate health procedures that have life and death
ramifications, efforts should be made to foster a group environment that
minimizes the likelihood of faulty group decision-making stemming from group
polarization or groupthink phenomena. This process will increase the chances
that an integrated biopsychosocial strategy will be adopted and maintained.
Cognizance of group process also is important in
fam-ily medicine, where major patient-care decisions often are best managed by
involving patients, their families and health care providers in a collaborative
process (McDaniel et al., 1992).
Given the systemic phenomena that typify family functioning as described above,
the family context within which illness progres-sion unfolds is a key component
in developing and implementing effective treatment strategies as well as
maximizing treatment adherence. Further, families can provide significant
social sup-port resources for patients living with illness-related challenges.
Groups can serve an important social support
function for individuals with severe illnesses. One example is the peer-led
support group. Such groups include members who share common concerns, and tend
to be characterized by group autonomy, self-governance, freedom of expression,
equal distributions of power and mutual helping, including problem-solving and
support (Forsyth and Elliott, 1999). Clinician-led group psychotherapy also has
been shown to benefit patients with diseases such as cancer, both in terms of emotional
adjustment and health effects (Spiegel and Kimerling, 2001; Spira, 1997).
Given the profound influence of group involvement
on one’s sense of self and interpersonal relationships, it is reasonable to
assume that membership in family groups, groups at work or school, or
community-based groups are associated with the qual-ity of one’s mental health
functioning (Forsyth and Elliott, 1999; Levine and Moreland, 1992). Group
involvement often is sought as a means of gaining help in managing personal and
social prob-lems. In clinical mental health practice settings, various forms of
both group therapy (Yalom, 1995) and family therapy (Gurman and Kniskern, 1981,
1991) have been employed routinely to treat psychiatric disorders.
Psychotherapy groups are organized for the specific
pur-pose of dealing with intrapsychic, behavioral and interpersonal
difficulties encountered in daily living. For illustrative purposes, a brief
review of the interpersonal or transactional approach to group psychotherapy
will be presented, as social psychological principles can be applied easily to
understanding the nature and efficacy of this commonly used approach. Yalom
(1995), who has contributed substantively to the understanding and
implemen-tation of psychotherapy groups, posits that groups provide an
interpersonal context within which the members manifest their maladaptive
interpersonal patterns, receive feedback about these patterns, and gain
opportunities to learn new and more authentic modes of relating to others. In
this regard, groups function as social microcosms reflecting each participant’s
social universe. According to Yalom, there are a number of therapeutic factors
that facilitate change in group therapy. These include the instil-lation of
hope, universality, imparting of information, altruism, corrective
recapitulation of the primary family group, develop-ment of socializing
techniques, imitative behavior, interpersonal learning, group cohesiveness,
catharsis and existential factors. Forsyth (1991) has evaluated these change
factors from a social psychological perspective, suggesting that social
comparison,social learning, self-insight, social influence and social
provi-sions processes are all relevant to the understanding of change processes
in therapeutic groups.
Many social psychological concepts regarding small
group behavior may have particular applicability to group psychother-apy. For
example, it is essential for the therapist to facilitate es-tablishment of
group norms that maximize the likelihood that the therapeutic factors
associated with change will exert full influ-ence. Such norms may pertain to
group procedure (e.g., attend-ance, participation and communication rules,
length, frequency and duration of sessions), communication of support and
empa-thy, values (e.g., self-disclosure, honesty, acceptance) and goals (e.g.,
improved psychological adjustment, enhanced relationship satisfaction).
Additionally, group cohesiveness is a key compo-nent to a successful
therapeutic group in that group cohesion is associated with acceptance and
support among group members, along with the formation of authentic intragroup
relationships. Further, high levels of group cohesion are associated with more
stable group functioning (Yalom, 1995).
The therapist’s awareness of some potential
pitfalls of group decision-making processes also is essential (i.e., group
polarization, groupthink). For instance, the group polarization phenomenon
(e.g., risky shift) may be addressed effectively by the presence of a cotherapy
team rather than a single therapist, as the two therapists may assist group
members in arriving at more moderate positions (Yalom, 1995). Careful attention
to mini-mizing the conditions under which groupthink may occur also is
important in order to sidestep potentially catastrophic group decisions. In
this regard, it is crucial that group leaders monitor their own inclinations to
dominate group processes and suppress intragroup dissent.
Related Topics
Privacy Policy, Terms and Conditions, DMCA Policy and Compliant
Copyright © 2018-2024 BrainKart.com; All Rights Reserved. Developed by Therithal info, Chennai.