History of the study of groups in social psychology. Small social groups

As for social psychology, it turned to the problem of group, mass behavior only several decades after mass psychology, namely in the 30s of the twentieth century. The fact is that the prevailing tradition in social psychology prescribed the study of social behavior at the level of action of individuals, and not groups. Psychologists focused on personal perception, individual attitudes, actions, interpersonal relationships, etc. Moreover, some psychologists even argued that groups, as carriers of a special psychology, do not really exist at all, that groups are some kind of fiction created by the imagination. Thus, in particular, Floyd Allport argued that a group is only a set of values, thoughts, habits shared by people, i.e. everything that is simultaneously present in the heads of several people.
In the history of social psychology, such a point of view was called a personalistic or purely psychological approach. Of course, it was not only F. Allport who adhered to it. N. Tritlett and W. McDougall also shared this point of view. Later, this tradition was continued by W. Dixon, M. Sheriff, S. Asch, L. Festinger and even J. Homans at the beginning of their scientific careers. True, the personalist emphasis of these authors was less radical than that of their predecessors.
But, as Barry Collins and Bertrand Raven note, in parallel with personalism in social psychology, a sociological tradition has also developed, coming from E. Durkheim, V. Pareto, M. Weber, G. Tarde. It was adhered to by T. Newcome, C. Cooley, J. G. Mead, T. Parsons, Y. Moreno, J. Thibault and H. Kelly, and a number of other researchers (Collins B. & Raven B., 1969).
Proponents of this approach argued that all social behavior cannot be adequately explained and understood if it is studied only at the level of individual behavior. They insisted that groups were more than random
Semechkin N.I. Social Psychology
a connection of people who share some common goals and values. Therefore, groups and group processes need to be studied in themselves, since the psychology of groups cannot be understood on the basis of individual psychology.
Active research of groups begins in the 30s. XX century. It was then that Kurt Lewin conducted the first laboratory studies of group processes (“group dynamics”) in the United States. In social psychology, thanks to K. Lewin, such concepts as “type of leadership” and “group cohesion” appeared. He also formulated one of the first definitions of a group in social psychology (Shikherev P.N., 1999).
In the 50-60s. There was an intensive convergence of the above-mentioned traditions in social psychology - personalist (psychological) and sociological (structuralist). The existing contradictions between them were gradually overcome. Newcomb, Turner, Converse, Secord, Beckman and others began “building bridges” between psychology and sociology (Collins B. & Raven B., 1969).
It seems that this unifying trend did not arise by chance. By that time, the problem of studying the patterns of group processes had acquired urgent practical significance. P.N. Shikherev notes in this regard that over three quarters of all small group research was funded by industrial firms and military organizations. The interest of government agencies, businessmen and financiers in the study of groups was dictated by the need to improve methods of managing groups - organizations, and through them, individuals.
The rapid growth of group research in the 20th century demonstrates how in demand knowledge about groups has proven to be. The number of publications concerning group problems in world literature for the period from 1897 to 1959, i.e. over 62 years there were 2112 titles. But in the next decade (1959 - 1969) it increased by 2000, and from 1967 to 1972 (in just 5 years) another 3400 studies were added. By the way, the United States accounts for more than 90% of all publications related to group research (Shikherev P.N., 1999).

More on topic 1.1. History of group research in social psychology:

1. 1.5. History of the emergence and development of legal psychology

An important task of socio-psychological analysis of a group is to study the processes that occur in its life. Considering the phenomenology of the process of generation and development of a small group, it is necessary to: indicate the reasons underlying it; consider the sequence of stages of a group’s movement along the path of acquiring the characteristics of a collective; describe the mechanisms of group dynamics.

The term “group dynamics” was first used by K. Levin in the article “Experiments in Social Space” in the Harvard Pedagogical Review for 1939 (USA). In this article, the author came to the conclusion that each group member recognizes his dependence on other members. In general, the term “group dynamics” itself can be used in three different meanings.

1. A certain direction of research of small groups in social psychology, i.e. K. Levin's school.

2. A specific type of laboratory experiment in which various characteristics of groups are revealed.

3. The set of those dynamic processes that simultaneously occur in a group in a certain unit of time and which mark the movement of the group from stage to stage, i.e. its development.

The following presentation will be associated primarily with the third, broad interpretation of this term. So, group dynamics- these are the processes of integration and disintegration of a group, changes in the level of its psychological cohesion, changes in the form and content of the main phenomena of group psychology in the process of implementing interpersonal relationships within the framework of group activities and communication.

The most important of these processes are the following. First of all, this is the very process of formation of small groups (group formation), and this can include not only direct methods of group formation, but also such psychological mechanisms that make a group a group, for example, the phenomenon of group pressure on an individual (which in traditional social psychology is "Group dynamics" does not apply).

In addition, group processes include the processes of implementation and regulation of group social interaction:

a) joint activities: motivational and value exchange; processes of group goal setting and decision making; joint executive actions of group members; socio-psychological activation and combination in activities; management of group activities;

b) communication: information and communication, social-perceptual processes and processes of interpersonal role interaction and mutual influence; role and microgroup differentiation; group cohesion and conflict; formation and implementation of group norms and sanctions;

c) intragroup behavior of the individual: socio-psychological adaptation; intragroup self-affirmation; role identification; leadership; conformist and deviant behavior; collectivistic self-determination of personality.

Thus, dynamic processes characterize the situation in a group at each specific moment of its existence.

Reasons for the emergence of a small group can be conditionally divided into objective, given by a certain need for the social division of labor and the functioning of society, and psychological. In the case of formal (organized) groups, the reasons for their emergence lie outside the groups themselves and are determined by the broader social system. Psychological determinants of the emergence of a small group include the needs of: communication, a sense of belonging, mutual assistance, mutual protection, etc. An informal group arises spontaneously, within or outside an already existing formal group.

Mechanisms of group dynamics. Group dynamics researchers identify several mechanisms for this process.

1. Resolution of intragroup contradictions.

There are several types of intragroup contradictions. These are contradictions: between the growing potential capabilities of the group and its current activities; between the growing desire of group members for self-realization and self-affirmation and, at the same time, increasing tendencies to include the individual in the group structure and integrate it with the group (A.G. Kirpichnikov). Constructive resolution of contradictions leads to the development of the group.

2. "Idiosyncratic Credit"(the term was introduced by E. Hollander) is associated with the problem of the relationship between the level of normative behavior (in a narrower sense - conformity) and the magnitude of the status of the subject in the group. Such a “credit” represents a kind of permission from the group to its leader or individual members to deviate from group norms (deviant) behavior. “Idiosyncratic credit” is one of the conditions for the introduction of new elements (innovations) into the life of a group.

3. Psychological exchange- This is one of the mechanisms of group dynamics. A type of psychological exchange is value exchange. At the same time, the psychological content of value exchange consists in the mutual satisfaction of the parties participating in the interaction of each other’s certain social needs through the mutual provision of each of them with corresponding values ​​to the other party. Group members can exchange material and spiritual values. Such values ​​can be, for example, the actions of students, their personal qualities that are essential for the productivity of group activities, etc.

Stages of small group development. In social psychology, several models of group formation have been developed, taking into account various bases and characteristics that make it possible to judge a qualitatively different level of development of the group.

First of all, the idea of ​​developing the group was outlined in psychoanalytic concept, the impetus for which was given by the work of 3. Freud “Group psychology and analysis of the ego.” This idea took shape on the basis of an analysis of psychotherapeutic practice, dealing, although with specific, but very real groups. Within the framework of psychoanalytic orientation, the theory of group development by L. Bennis and G. Sheppard arose. It is built on understanding the processes that occur in the so-called T-groups, or training groups (see unit 1). In this theory, the existence of a group is divided into two phases, in each of which the group solves a specific set of problems. It is noted that each specific group can implement the general development model differently: demonstrate some deviations or simply disintegrate if the set goal is not achieved.

2D model development of the group was proposed by B. Tuckman. It was the result of an analysis of 50 foreign publications devoted to the study of the stages of development of therapeutic, training, natural professional and laboratory groups. B. Tuckman describes the dynamics of the group process, based on the conditions in which the group is formed:

The presence of spheres (dimensions, factors) of group activity - business (solving a group problem) and interpersonal (development of a group structure);

The positions of the group in the hypothetical developmental sequence, i.e. at the appropriate stage.

According to this model, in each of these areas, a group is expected to go through four successively replacing stages (or stages). In the sphere of interpersonal activity, these include the following stages:

1) the stage of “testing and dependence”, which involves the orientation of group members in the nature of each other’s actions and the search for mutually acceptable interpersonal behavior in the group;

2) the stage of “internal conflict”, the main feature of which is disruption of interaction and lack of unity between group members;

3) the stage of “development of group cohesion”, achieved through the gradual harmonization of relationships and the disappearance of interpersonal conflicts;

4) the stage of “functional-role correlation”, mainly associated with the formation of the role structure of the group, which is a kind of “resonator” through which the group task is “played out”.

In the field of business activity, B. Tuckman identifies the following stages:

1) stage of “orientation to the task”, i.e. search by group members for the optimal way to solve a problem;

2) the stage of “emotional response to the demands of the task,” which consists in the opposition of group members to the demands placed on them by the content of the task, due to the discrepancy between the personal intentions of individuals and the instructions of the latter;

3) the stage of “open exchange of relevant interpretations,” understood as the stage of group life at which maximum information exchange takes place, allowing partners to penetrate deeper into each other’s intentions and offer an alternative interpretation of information;

4) stage of “decision making” - a stage characterized by constructive attempts to successfully solve the problem.

B. Tuckman points out the connection between both spheres of group activity, but does not reveal the content of this connection. As research shows, in extreme conditions it is often not possible to differentiate between instrumental and expressive components of group activity. Under such conditions, the proportion of expressive moments in group life increases sharply.

Describing the process of group formation R. Moreland and J. Levine introduced a special concept of “group socialization”, with the help of which, by analogy with the process of socialization of an individual, the process of group development is considered. The criteria by which different stages in the development of a group can be compared are:

Assessment (of the group’s goals, its position among other groups, the meaning of the group’s goals for its members);

Obligations of the group towards members (conditions under which group members are more “obligated” to it, the consequences of these mutual obligations);

Transformation of the roles of group members (more or less involvement of group members, their identification with it).

Based on these criteria, the so-called periods in the life of the group and the various positions of the members corresponding to them are recorded. Combinations of periods and positions are reflected in the “systemic-processual” model of group development proposed by M. Chemers and called it. Thus, in this theory:

Firstly, the concept of “stages” (or “periods”) of group development was introduced, which differ from each other according to a set of criteria. One way or another, each stage is associated with a change in the composition of the group (the arrival and departure of its members, a change of roles, etc.).

Secondly, the idea is formulated that the socialization of a group does not occur in a vacuum: changes in the group are influenced by the nature of the culture and social relations within which the group exists. The mechanism of this influence is revealed through the introduction by each new member of the group of the values ​​of society, which are reflected by him and applied to the assessment of the situation in the group, his position in it, etc.

As another block of research, where the idea of ​​group development is indicated, we can name studies comparing such orientations of the individual and the group as collectivism - individualism. Collectivism and individualism are viewed as polar values ​​that have different distributions in different societies. In this case, the cultural and historical traditions of countries and their concrete embodiment in the behavior of people in small groups are taken into account.

Both orientations are directly related to the process of group development: the transition from one phase to another largely depends on which specific style of orientation, and therefore behavior, will “win” in the group and thereby facilitate or hinder the transition to new phase. The description of the development of a group from the standpoint of the relationship between these values ​​is associated with the psychological theory of the collective.

A real small group is a kind of living organism, which over time undergoes certain changes and transformations. In social psychology, this process is called the process of group development, according to which it moves from stage to stage, but in each specific case the sequence of these stages and the speed of movement are not strictly defined.

In social psychology, there are many concepts of development that relate to both general patterns of group development and those that relate only to certain groups, for example, educational, therapeutic, or those in conditions of extreme activity. However, in any case, the starting point is the moment of group formation. Most often this happens when there is a need in society for the existence of a specific entity - a work team, department, school class or sports team. In this case, a nominal structure is created with vacancies that are subsequently filled by real people who begin to build mutual relationships and bring into the group “their personal aspirations, their life experiences and their ideas about how group life should be structured” 1 . It is from this moment that the social process of group formation transitions to the psychological plane. The main determinant of group formation in the psychological meaning of the word is joint activity.

Many domestic and foreign authors proceed from the idea that the process of group development is carried out in two directions - in the sphere of both business and interpersonal activity, movement along which most often occurs unevenly. B. Tuckman describes a model of group process dynamics, taking into account these two dimensions - business(solving a group problem) and interpersonal(development of group structure). In each of these dimensions, the group sequentially passes through four stages in its development.

In the parametric concept of L. I. Umansky, the development of a group is a complex and not always progressive process, during which the group goes through a number of stages. The starting point is the stage of a conglomerate (a newly formed formation), the highest stage of development of a small group is team(Fig. 3.4). The concept has this name because it is based on the idea of ​​the socio-psychological parameters of the group, which are unique criteria - distinctive features of the development of the group as a collective.

Team

Rice. 3.4.

L. I. Umaiskogo 3

Accordingly, a group as a collective is determined by the following parameters: the integrative unity of its goals, motives, and value orientations; organizational unity and preparedness in the field of a particular activity; psychological unity, expressed in intellectual, emotional and volitional communication, characterizing the process of interpersonal cognition and mutual understanding in the group, interpersonal contacts of an emotional nature, stress resistance and reliability of the group in extreme situations 1.

As the group moves toward the collective stage, it goes through the stages of cooperation and autonomy. A corporation can be characterized as a closed community, which is a transitional form from a positive to a negative vector of development. It is also characterized by a high degree of preparedness, organization, intellectual, emotional and volitional unity, but at the same time, group egoism, opposing oneself to other similar groups, and pursuing group goals at any cost, even to the detriment of others.

Based on the stratometric concept proposed by A. V. Petrovsky, the collective also serves as the highest point of development of the group. The development process itself is presented within two dimensions - social/asocial orientation, as well as a measure of the extent to which interpersonal relationships in the group are mediated by the content of joint activities. According to the concept, a group as a collective is multi-level structure, consisting of four strata (layers) of intragroup activity (Fig. 3.5).

Rice. 3.5.

The central place is occupied by the stratum, which includes the group activity, its content, socio-economic and socio-political characteristics. The stratum immediately adjacent to it is formed the attitude of each member of the group to group activities, its goals and objectives, the motivation of the activity and what its social meaning is for each participant; here the so-called value-orientation unity is formed. In the next stratum, the third from the center, are concentrated interpersonal relationships, arising in activity, mediated by activity and directly manifested in activity. This layer records the coincidence of values ​​regarding joint activities and the degree of emotional identification with the group. The outermost layer contains superficial connections between group members, built mainly on direct emotional contacts.

One of the characteristics that allows us to draw some conclusions about the level of development of a group is cohesion (the degree of its unity or commonality). As its basis, it can have both the mutual emotional attractiveness of the participants and the similarity in their attitudes towards the most important objects for the group 1. In the school of A. V. Petrovsky, the idea of ​​cohesion is formed as value-oriented unity of the team, which manifests itself, first of all, in the convergence of assessments in the moral and business spheres, in the approach to the goals and objectives of joint activities. Thus, value-oriented unity is a consequence of the active joint activities of group members. Cohesion to a certain extent contributes to the growth of the efficiency of the group as a whole and the satisfaction of each of its members with membership in it.

The mechanisms of group development are usually considered to be constructive resolution of intragroup conflicts and contradictions minority influence, “psychological exchange”, in which the group gives higher status to those who make the greatest contribution to its life activities, as well as those associated with the latter idiosyncratic leader credit, which consists in the possibility of deviation of high-status members (leaders) from group norms and their introduction of changes into the life of the group.

The number of experimental studies of group development is not very large, which is associated with objective difficulties. According to G. M. Andreeva, for the empirical study of the development of small groups, two aspects are of greatest importance: 1) the search for methods that allow us to adequately diagnose the severity of certain characteristics of specific groups, which can serve as criteria for the level of its development, and 2) a specific description of modifications known processes occurring at different stages of group development.

Workshop

Methodological materials for practical classes

Intact. complement and deepen the knowledge gained at the lecture about group development, promote mastery of skills in analyzing socio-psychological various concepts, and practice psychodiagnostic skills of group development and cohesion.

Operating procedure

• 1. Listening to two reports on the topics “Parametric concept of development of L. I. Maysky’s group” and “Stratometric concept of development of A. V. Petrovsky’s group.”
• 2. Comparative analysis of these concepts.
• 3. Psychodiagnostic.
• 4. Discussion of the results.

Stage 1. Listening to messages on the topics “Parametric concept

development of the group of L. I. Maysky" and "Stratometric concept of the development of the group of A. V. Petrovsky»

Students give prepared messages on this topic. Messages should cover the following issues:

• history of the concept;
• the essence of the concept, its basic principles;
• stages of group development;
• famous studies.

• Dontsov, A. I. Group - collective - team. Models of group development / A. I. Dontsov, E. M. Dubovskaya, Yu. M. Zhukov // Social psychology in the modern world / ed. G. M. Andreeva, A. I. Dontsova. - M.: Aspect Press, 2002. - P. 96-114.
• Petrovsky,IN.A. Arthur Vladimirovich Petrovsky: Scientific developments

and discoveries of recent years [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.bim-bad.ru/biblioteka/article_full.php?aid=267.

• Sarychev, V. S. Parametric theory of the collective: history of creation and development trends [Electronic resource] / V. S. Sarychev, A. S. Chernyshov // Scientific notes. Electronic scientific journal of Kursk State University. - 2009. - No. 11-12. URL: http://www.scientific-notes.ru/pdf/01 l-15.pdf.
• Sidorenkov, A.V. Psychological mechanism of small group dynamics: integration and disintegration / A. V. Sidorenkov // Questions of psychology. - 2004. - No. 5. - P. 63-71.

Stage 2. Comparative analysis of these concepts While listening to the report, students are asked to prepare answers to the following questions:

• 1. What is common to the concepts of group development by L. I. Umansky and A. V. Petrovsky?
• 2. What are the specifics of each concept?
• 3. What questions, if possible, would you ask the authors? Each student individually fills out the following table.

After listening to the reports, students share their impressions and analytical comments. At the end of the discussion, the teacher complements and summarizes the students' answers.

Stage 3. Psychodiagnostic

Students become familiar with diagnostic techniques for determining Seashore's group cohesion and for determining the level of development of the group.

• 1. Seashore's method for determining group cohesion 1.
• 2. Methodology for determining the level of development of a small group.

Diagnostics of the level of development of a small group

Purpose. The technique makes it possible, by summarizing the answers of all group members, to determine the level of its development, as well as to compare different groups with each other.

Instructions. You are offered a number of statements that cover a variety of aspects of relationships in the primary group. Group members need to evaluate the extent to which each of the statements proposed for evaluation is characteristic of this group. The assessment should be based on one of four options:

• a) this statement fully corresponds to the nature of the relations that have developed in our group;
• b) this statement is generally characteristic of our group;
• c) this statement is only slightly applicable to our group;
• d) this statement is not typical for the system of relations that has developed in our group (with us it’s the other way around).

Questionnaire

• 1. In our group, the main criterion of a person’s value is his attitude to work, to the team.
• 2. In our group, a newcomer most likely will not feel like a stranger, but will be greeted with goodwill and cordiality.
• 3. There are no scapegoats or favorites in our group.
• 4. Members of our group will not pass by someone’s misfortune indifferently; the morality “my house is on the edge” is alien to them.
• 5. The spirit of selflessness and mutual assistance distinguishes our group.
• 6. Each of us is proactive enough to take responsibility for something if necessary.
• 7. The principle “your shirt is closer to your body” is unacceptable to us.
• 8. The success of each of us sincerely pleases everyone and does not cause envy in anyone.
• 9. Most of us can always sacrifice personal things for the sake of a common cause.
• 10. Our group usually does not wait for instructions; it does not take the initiative.
• 11. In our group, everyone feels responsible for its success.
• 12. As a rule, when deciding important issues, we are always unanimous.
• 13. Our group is quite united and organized.
• 14. In case of failures and defeats, we do not rush to blame each other, but try to calmly understand their reasons.
• 15. When our leader is not with us, we do not get lost and work no less effectively than in his presence.
• 16. When a leader comes to our group, everyone is usually happy.
• 17. Our group’s leadership style is smooth and friendly.
• 18. It is not typical for us that both the right and the wrong get a hot hand from the leadership.
• 19. It is not customary for us to sit back or hide behind the backs of others.
• 20. Knowing that in its desire to act in a certain way the group would take the wrong path, each of us would have enough strength to stop it from taking a rash step.
• 21. We will not remain silent if they see that you are wrong.
• 22. After work we often spend free time together.
• 23. It is customary for us to share our family joys and concerns.
• 24. We also have “dyads” and “triads,” but this does not prevent us from feeling like a single, friendly family.
• 25. In our group, the violator of discipline will be held accountable not only to the leader, but also to the entire group.
• 26. In our group, strength, external attractiveness, and possession of prestigious things are not enough to enjoy respect and popularity.
• 27. Our cohesion will most likely not suffer if several new members join the group at once.

Processing and interpretation of results

Data processing can be done in two ways. The first method involves differentiated quantitative counting and comparison of letter characters (a, b, c, d).

The predominance of answers according to item a) indicates that the group, according to the opinion of all members, can be classified as a collective, according to item b) - to an average level of development, according to item c) - to a low level of development, according to item d) - to a group of nominal or corporate type.

The second method is to convert letter answers into points according to the following scheme: a) - 3 points; b) - 2 points; c) - 1 point; d) - 0 points.

After determining the overall summary result, it is correlated with the level of development of the small group. Based on the experience of diagnosing and assessing the dynamics of small groups, the following levels of group development correspond to the obtained quantitative data (L. I. U Maisky, A. N. Lutoshkin):

• 67-81 - team - “Burning Torch”;
• 66-50 - autonomy - “Scarlet Sail”;
• 49-34 - cooperation - “Flickering Lighthouse”;
• 33-20 - association - “Soft clay”;
• 19 and less - diffuse group - “Sand placer”.

Determination of Seashore's group cohesion index

Group cohesion - an extremely important parameter showing the degree of integration of a group, its cohesion into a single whole - can be determined not only by calculating the corresponding sociometric indices. It is much easier to do this using a technique consisting of 5 questions with multiple answer options for each. Answers are coded in points according to the values ​​​​given in brackets (maximum amount: +19 points, minimum: -5). You do not need to provide scores during the survey.

• 1. How would you rate your group membership:
  • a) I feel like a member, part of the team (5);
  • b) participate in most activities (4);
  • c) I participate in some types of activities and do not participate in others (3);
  • d) I don’t feel like I’m a member of the group (2);
  • e) I live and exist separately from her (1);
  • e) I don’t know, it’s difficult to answer (1)?
• 2. Would you move to another group if such an opportunity presented itself (without changing other conditions):
  • a) yes, I would really like to go (1);
  • b) would rather move than stay (2);
  • c) I don’t see any difference (3);
  • d) most likely would have remained in his group (4);
  • e) would really like to stay in my group (5);
  • e) I don’t know, it’s hard to say (1)?
• 3. What is the relationship between the members of your group:
  • c) worse than in most classes (1);
  • d) I don’t know, it’s hard to say (1)?
• 4. What is your relationship with management:
  • a) better than in most teams (3);
  • b) approximately the same as in most teams (2);
  • d) don’t know (1)?
• 5. What is the attitude towards work (studies, etc.) in your team:
  • a) better than in most teams (3);
  • b) approximately the same as in most teams (2);
  • c) worse than in most teams (1);
  • d) I don’t know (1)?

Levels of group cohesion are defined as follows:

• 15.1 points and above - high;
• 11.6-15 points - above average;
• 7- 11.5 - average;
• 4 - 6.9 - below average;
• 4 and below - low.

The teacher must prepare the required number of questionnaire forms without keys; students record their answers in notebooks. Then the teacher announces the counting algorithm, after which each student calculates their individual results.

Stage 4. Discussion of results

After each student determines his individual results, group average values ​​are calculated using both methods. Next, students are asked to compare their individual and group performance for each technique, thinking about what causes the resulting discrepancies (if they exist). In addition, it is also important to compare the results of both methods with each other. Those interested can express their thoughts on this matter. In conclusion, the teacher offers written assignments for independent work, which can be completed in the form of an essay.

Practical tasks

• 1. Can cohesion have negative consequences and effects? What are they? Give examples of such situations.
• 2. Identify factors that can promote and hinder the development of cohesion.
• 3. Read W. Golding's story "Lord of the Flies" or watch its film adaptations ("Lord of the Flies" (1963) - film by Peter Brook, "Lord of the Flies" (1990) - film by Harry Hook). Analyze what happened to the group of children discussed in the work.

Krichevsky, R. L. Social psychology of a small group: textbook, manual for universities / R. L. Krichevsky, E. M. Dubovskaya. - M.: Aspect Press, 2001.

Petrovsky, V. A. Arthur Vladimirovich Petrovsky: Scientific developments and discoveries of recent years [Electronic resource] / V. A. Petrovsky. URL: http://www. hi m-bad. ru/biblioteka/articlefu 11 .php?aid=267.

Psychological theory of the collective / ed. A. V. Petrovsky. - M„ 1979.

In the book: Fundamentals of socio-psychological research: a textbook for universities / edited by A. A. Bodalev and A. A. Derkach. M.: Gardariki, 2007. pp. 279-281.

Classification of small groups: conditional, real, formal, contact, open, diffuse, referent. Dynamics of development of small groups - from nominal to collective

HISTORY OF SMALL GROUP RESEARCH

The study by the American psychologist N. Triplett of the effectiveness of individual action performed alone and in a group is considered to be the first experimental study in social psychology.

Several decades passed before the experimental (more broadly, empirical) direction of research received further development in foreign social psychology. In the 20s of the XX century. The desire for empirical research intensified, and an empirical boom began in the social sciences, especially in psychology and sociology. Dissatisfaction with speculative schemes contributed to the search for objective factors. Two major works of those years (by V. Mede, Germany and F. Allport, USA) largely continued the line of research begun by N. Triplett 1 .

F. Allport formulated a very unique understanding of the group as “a set of ideals, ideas and habits that are repeated in each individual consciousness and exist only in these consciousnesses.” Allport attributed his refusal to consider the group as a definite reality to the lack of adequate research methods, which was consistent with his positivist principles.

In the process of accumulating scientific knowledge and developing research methods, the idea of ​​a group as a certain social reality, qualitatively different from the individuals that compose it, became dominant.

An important stage in the development of small group psychology abroad, dating back to the 30s and early 40s, was marked by a number of original experimental studies in laboratory and field conditions and the first serious attempts to develop

Andreeva G.M. Foreign social psychology of the 20th century: Theoretical approaches: Textbook, manual / G.M. Andreeva, N.N. Bogomolova, L.Ya. Petrovskaya. - M.: Aspect Press, 2001.

theories of group behavior. Thus, M. Sherif conducts laboratory experiments to study group norms; T. Newcome explores a similar problem, but in the field; V. White, using the method of participant observation, is implementing a program to study “living” groups in the slums of a large city; a “trait theory” of leadership is emerging, etc. During the same period, based on a study of management activities in an industrial organization, Charles Bernard puts forward the idea of ​​a two-dimensional consideration of the group process (from the point of view of solving group problems and maintaining internal balance and cohesion).

A special role in the development of the psychology of small groups belongs to K. Levin, who was the founder of the scientific direction known as “group dynamics”. Under his leadership, a study was carried out of the group atmosphere and leadership styles, changes in the standards of group behavior during the discussion, etc. Levin was one of the first to study the phenomenon of social power (influence), intragroup conflicts, and the dynamics of group life.

The Second World War was a turning point in the development of small group psychology. During this period, a practical need arises to study the patterns of group behavior and effective techniques for managing groups.

By the beginning of the 70s of the XX century. Nine approaches to the study of group psychology have been identified: field theory, systems theory, interactionist, sociometric, psychoanalytic, general psychological, empirical-statistical and formal model approaches, and reinforcement theory.

In our country, the study of small groups (or teams) has a long tradition. Some empirical facts of group behavior of people in combat conditions are contained in the publications of a number of participants in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. The scientific works and practical activities of V.M. played a decisive role in the development of small group psychology. Bekhtereva, A.S. Zaluzhny.

After the Civil War, researchers' interest in the problem of leadership began to intensify. Among the numerous developers of this problem, the names of such psychologists as P.P. stand out. Blonsky and D.B. Elkonin, whose views on some aspects of leadership (typology, role, mechanism, dynamics) still attract the attention of specialists today.

The works of A.S., published in the 30-40s. Makarenko marked a fundamentally new stage in the development of the psychological and pedagogical problems of the team. Makarenko’s works implement (albeit in a simplified form) the most important methodological principles of studying a social group: activity, consistency, development. These studies examined the phenomenology of a small group, its organization, structure and management (including management and leadership), normative regulation of behavior, cohesion, psychological climate, motivation of group activity, emotional and business relationships, personality in the dynamics of the acquisition of qualitative new formations in connection with the development of the groups.

The post-war years are characterized by a predominantly empirical focus of work, active acquaintance with foreign experience in the study of small groups, and a rethinking of domestic experience in the study of groups and collectives. During this period, socio-psychological centers are formed, focused on the problems of small groups and teams operating in the fields of production, sports, education, in conditions of particular difficulty and increased risk, etc.

70s of XX century. made up second phase in the development of domestic psychology of group activity. At this time, several major research approaches took shape, among which the stratometric and parametric concepts of the team acquired the greatest fame and influence. Both rely on a large body of empirical data relating to a wide range of group phenomena. The problems of small group research have undergone a significant expansion in these years, in which, among others, sections related to management activities, intergroup relations, group ecology, socio-psychological training, group cohesion and effectiveness, and psychotherapy have appeared.

For third stage(80s) the trends of raising and solving methodological issues of group psychology, strengthening and expanding its theoretical foundation continued and intensified. A number of final publications have appeared on certain problems of group psychology: management and leadership, group integration and effectiveness, socio-psychological training, psychological climate, individual behavior in a group, intra-group and inter-group relations.

Fourth stage associated with the events of the 90s, changes in the social system in Eastern Europe and the CIS, increased interest in the ethnic, political and religious aspects of the functioning of social groups.

An analysis of research in the field of group psychology in our country allows us to identify a number of approaches to the study of social group phenomena that have developed over the past decades and largely influence the development of scientific thought. These are activity-based, sociometric, parametric and organizational-managerial approaches.

• Makarenko L.S. Project the best in people. - Minsk: Universitetskoe, 1989.

MG- a small group in composition, whose members are united by a common goal of their activities and are in direct personal contact.

A small group turns into a large one when personal contacts are severed.

MG dimensions. Lower limit: from a dyad or from a triad. Upper limit: compliance of group size with activity requirements.

Classifications of small groups:

1. The first distinction was proposed Charles Cooley – primary and secondary, which differ in the possibility and impossibility of group members coming into contact. Primary– there is direct contact between members; secondary- indirect.

2. American sociologist Elton Mayo – formal and informal. It is proposed to distinguish between formal and informal structure. Formal– social hierarchy in the group, fixed role positions. Informal group structure - the real statuses of people in the relationships between them, which may not intersect with the hierarchy of power. Formal groups are based on social necessity, and informal groups are based on personal preference.

3. The third basic classification was proposed by Herbert Hyman - membership groups and reference groups (significant). The function is normative and the comparison function. Within a membership group, subgroups can be distinguished - some can serve as a reference group.

4. Andreeva - conditional and real (real laboratory groups). The real natural groups identified in sociological analysis are of greatest importance. These natural groups are divided into large and small. Large groups: unorganized, spontaneously arose; others are organized, long-standing groups. Small groups: becoming; others are developed.

It is advisable to highlight three main directions in the study of small groups that have developed in the mainstream of various research approaches:

1) sociometric;

2) sociological;

3) school of “group dynamics”.

Sociometric direction in small group studies is associated with the name J. Moreno. According to his theory, all conflicts are caused by a discrepancy between the systems of sympathy and antipathy. The challenge is to reconcile likes and dislikes. This technique is considered as the main method for studying MG. The technique makes it possible to study psychological relationships in small groups, as well as highlight the hierarchy of dominant roles and positions, determine situations of interpersonal communication and the needs for it.

Sociological direction in the study of small groups is associated with the tradition that was established in experiments E. Mayo. Showed the importance of communication between group members, the importance of informal relationships, the presence of a special feeling sociability - the need to feel “belonging” to a group. After the Hawthorne experiments, a whole direction in the study of small groups arose, primarily associated with the analysis of each of the two types of group structures, identifying the relative importance of each of them in the group management system. School of "group dynamics" represents the most “psychological” direction of small group research and is associated with the name K. Levin. He created “field theory”. The most important method of analyzing the psychological field was the creation in laboratory conditions of groups with given characteristics and the subsequent study of the functioning of these groups. The entirety of these studies is called “group dynamics.” Much attention was paid to the problems of forming such group characteristics as norms, cohesion, the relationship between 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, compared the effectiveness of group activities in conditions of cooperation and competition, and methods for making group decisions. History of foreign small group research. In 1897, American psychologist N. Triplett published the results of an experimental study in which he compared the effectiveness of an individual action performed alone and in a group setting. The next major stage in the development of small group psychology abroad concerns to the period of the 30s and early 40s. and is marked by a number of original experimental studies carried out in laboratory and field conditions, and the first serious attempts to develop a theory of group behavior. At that time M. Sheriff conducts laboratory experiments to study group norms, and T. Newcome explores a similar problem in the field. Small groups in industry are being studied, and a sociometric direction of group research is being developed.

He made a special contribution to the development of small group psychology K. Levin . He was the founder of a major scientific direction, widely known as "Group Dynamics". World War II was a turning point V development of small group psychology abroad. It was during this period that the question of the need to study the patterns of group behavior and the search for effective methods of managing groups arose with particular urgency.

Interactionist concept. According to this approach, a group is a system of interacting individuals, whose functioning in the group is described by three basic concepts: individual activity, interaction and attitude. It is assumed that all aspects of group behavior can be described based on an analysis of the relationships between the three named elements.

Psychoanalytic orientation. Based on ideas 3. Freud and his followers, focusing primarily on motivational and protective mechanisms of the individual. 3. Freud was the first to incorporate the ideas of psychoanalysis into a group context. Beginning since the 50s In connection with the increased interest in group psychotherapy, some provisions of the psychoanalytic approach received theoretical and experimental development within the framework of group psychology and formed the basis of a number of theories of group dynamics.

General psychological approach. The assumption that many of the ideas about human behavior accumulated in general psychology are applicable to the analysis of group behavior. This applies mainly to such individual processes as learning, cognitive phenomena, motivation.

Formal model approach. Researchers representing this direction are trying to construct formal models of group behavior using mathematical apparatus of graph theory and set theory.

Reinforcement theory. This line of research, very influential abroad, is based on the ideas of Skinner's concept of operant conditioning. The behavior of individuals in a group is a function of two variables: rewards(positive reinforcement) and punishments(negative reinforcements). The ideas of reinforcement theory formed the basis of at least two approaches, the authors of which are: D. Homans, D. Thibault And G. Kelly.

History of domestic small group research.

Scientific works and practical activities played a decisive role in its formation in our country. V. M. Bekhterev, in 1910 the first in Russian psychological science to formulate the subject and tasks of social psychology about increasing the motivation of collective work activity by introducing into it competitive moment. He also believed that the interaction and unity of individuals is the most important characteristic of a social group. He was the first in our country to begin experimental socio-psychological research. They studied a problem that could be described as the relationship between individual and group problem solving.

In the 30-40s, the works of A. S. Makarenko- a fundamentally new stage in the development of psychological and pedagogical problems of the collective, where the most important methodological principles of the study of a social group are clearly implemented, namely activity, consistency, development. A. S. Makarenko’s idea of ​​democratizing the life of the team through the introduction of self-government, election of leaders and activists, and increasing the interest of all members in the affairs and successes of the team has received theoretical justification and practical implementation.

60s- predominantly empirical focus of the work. There was an active familiarization with foreign experience in studying small groups, in particular with experimental and methodological achievements. At the same time, the domestic experience of studying groups and collectives, accumulated previously, was also rethought.

70s- Several major research approaches have taken shape: stratometric And parametric team concept. Both rely on a large body of empirical data relating to a wide range of group phenomena.

80s- development in line with the Marxist tradition of methodological issues of group psychology, strengthening and expanding its theoretical foundation. A number of final publications appear on individual problems of group psychology: management and leadership, group integration and effectiveness, socio-psychological training, psychological climate, individual behavior in a group, intra-group and inter-group relations.

Activity approach. Based on the activity principle: the stratometric concept of group activity A. V. Petrovsky, program-role approach to research of scientific team M.G. Yaroshevsky and being developed G. M. Andreeva model of social-perceptual processes in joint activities, Umansky's parametric concept. The main idea of ​​the approach is the assumption that the gradual development of a small group is carried out thanks to the development of its most important socio-psychological parameters.

Ticket number 89 Dynamic processes in a small group. The problem of group cohesion.

Dynamic processes mark the movement of a group from stage to stage, i.e. its development. The most important of these processes are: the formation of small groups, the processes of group cohesion, leadership, group decision-making, group pressure.

Group cohesion. The first empirical studies of group cohesion began in Western social psychology in schools group dynamics.

L. Festinger defined group cohesion as the result of the influence of all the forces acting on the members of the group in order to keep them in it. This approach considered the emotional attractiveness of the group for its members, the usefulness of the group for the individual, and the associated satisfaction of individuals with their membership in this group as the forces that keep the individual in the group.

Small group cohesion level determined by the frequency and stability of direct interpersonal (primarily emotional) contacts in it. Therefore, the study of group cohesion and the influence on it, based on the ideas developed by L. Festinger, should be carried out through the study of communicative interactions between group members and the influence on communications in the group.

T.Newcome connected the definition of group cohesion with the concept "group agreement", which was defined as similarity, coincidence of views of group members in relation to phenomena that are significant to them. The main mechanism is the achievement of agreement among group members, the convergence of their social attitudes, opinions, etc., which occurs in the process of direct interaction between individuals.

Two-dimensional or two-factor model of B. Tuckman, where the dynamics of the group process are described, taking into account the conditions in which the group is formed. He identified two areas of group activity - business(solving a group problem) and interpersonal.

In the sphere of interpersonal activity:

1) the “testing and dependence” stage, which involves group members orienting themselves to the nature of each other’s actions and searching for mutually acceptable interpersonal behavior in the group;

2) the stage of “internal conflict”, the main feature of which is disruption of interaction and lack of unity between group members;

3) the stage of “development of group cohesion”, achieved through the gradual harmonization of relationships and the disappearance of interpersonal conflicts;

4) the stage of “functional-role correlation” - the formation of a role structure of the group, which is “a kind of resonator” through which the group task is “played out”.

In the field of business activity:

1) the stage of “orientation to the problem,” i.e., the search by group members for the optimal way to solve the problem;

2) the stage of “emotional response to the demands of the task,” which consists in the opposition of group members to the demands placed on them by the content of the task due to the discrepancy between the personal intentions of individuals and the instructions of the latter;

3) the stage of “open exchange of relevant interpretations”, understood by the author as the stage of group life at which maximum information exchange takes place, allowing partners to penetrate deeper into each other’s intentions and offer an alternative interpretation of information;

4) the stage of “decision making” - a stage characterized by constructive attempts to successfully solve the problem.

General principle of approach to a group in a domestic joint venture.

1. Psychological theory of the collective. The highest stage of group development was called the collective. The most important feature of a team A.S Makarenko– this is not any joint activity, but a socially positive activity that meets the needs of society.

2. Cohesion as value-orientation unity of the group, proposed A.V.Petrovsky, by which we mean the similarity, the coincidence of the attitudes of group members to the basic values ​​associated with joint activities. The group structure consists of 3 levels:

a) central layer group activity – core structure, which includes group goals and goals related to joint activities;

b) value-orientation unity– a layer of group relations associated with the sharing of values ​​by group members. A person's position in a group is determined by how great his contribution to group activities is;

c) direct emotional relationships - on the principles of sympathy and antipathy.

Stratometric concept of the team of A. V. Petrovsky takes as criteria for constructing a hypothetical typology of groups:

The degree of mediation of interpersonal relationships in a group by the content of joint activities,

The social significance of the latter, meaning the level of its positivity - negativity from the point of view of social progress.

The development of the group is described as movement in a kind of continuum, the positive and negative poles of which are, respectively, the collective (high positive indicators on both criteria) and the corporation (high positive indicator on the first and high negative indicator on the second criterion), at the central point is the so-called diffuse group (a community in which there is practically no joint activity), and an intermediate position between the diffuse group and the positive and negative poles of the continuum is occupied by prosocial and asocial associations, respectively, i.e. groups with a low degree of mediation of interpersonal relationships by joint activities.

Parametric approach of L. I. Umansky. The basis is the idea of ​​the socio-psychological parameters of the group, which are unique criteria - distinctive features of the development of the group as a collective (the content of the moral orientation of the group - the integrative unity of its goals, motives, value orientations; the organizational unity of the group; group preparedness in the field of a particular activity; psychological unity).

Depending on the severity of each of the parameters, the group is arranged according to the degree of its development: diffuse, nominal, association, cooperation, collective.

Thus, domestic concepts of group development are based on the fact that all group processes are mediated by activity.