The key book for this document is Forsyth's "Group Dynamics". These are lecture notes for BS students of Social Work and Sociology, 1st semester, University of Peshawar.

1. Social Groups
Compiled by: Imran Ahmad Sajid
imranahmad131@gmail.com
Key Book. Group Dynamics by Forsyth.
I am cast upon a horrible, desolate island; void of all hope of recovery. I am singled out and
separated, as it were, from allthe world, to be miserable. I am divided from mankind, a
solitary; one banished from human society. I have no soul to speak to or to relieve me.
Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe
With these words Robinson Crusoe, the hero in Defoe’s classic novel, laments his fate. The
climate of his island is comfortable, the food plentiful, and the animals peaceful. He has seed
for crops, tools for working, weapons to protect himself, and clothes to cover himself. But
despite these comforts, he feels that fate has done him a great wrong, for he is no longer a
member of any human group.
Unlike unfortunate Crusoe most of us live out our lives in the midst of groups. Of the billions
of people populating the world, all but an occasional hermit, outcast, or recluse belong to a
group. In fact, since most of us belong to several groups, the number of groups in the world
probably reaches well beyond 5 billion. Everywhere we turn, we encounter groups: airplane
crews, audiences, choirs, clubs, committees, communes, dance troupes, families, fraternities,
gangs, juries, orchestras, sororities, support groups, teams, and on and on. The world is
literally teeming with groups.
Groups are a fundamental component in our social lives, but in some respects their
pervasiveness prevents us from fully understanding them. In living most of our lives
surrounded by groups, trying to get into groups, and trying to get out of groups, we can
become so accustomed to theme that their influence on our behaviour goes unnoticed. We
take our groups for granted, so much so that we must learn to look at them anew, from a
different, more scientific perspective.
The Nature of Groups
The Impressionists. Art in 19th century France was dominated by the classicists, who
favored paintings depicting mythological, religious, or historical scenes. But not all artists
accepted the standards established by the classical school. In 1860 Claude Monet met Camille
Pissaro, and the two spent long hours airing their radical views. Two years later Edourd
Manet and Edgar Degas, both sons of wealthy families, joined Monet and Pissarro in their
search for alternative forms of artistic expression. Later that year Monet met three other
disillusioned young artists (Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Alfred Sisley, and Frederic Bazille) and
persuaded them to join the informal gathering.
1

2. Over the next few years these young artists worked together in developing a new approach to
painting, often journeying out into the country side to paint landscapes. They sometimes
painted side by side and patiently critiqued one another’s work. They also met regularly, each
Thursday and Sunday, in a café in Paris to discuss technique, subject matter, and artistic
philosophies. For years their art was rejected by critics and they scarcely earned enough
money to survive, but by relying on one another for social support they were able to continue
to develop the ideas. In time their approach was recognized by the art community as new
school of paining and was labeled impressionism (Farrell, 1982).
The Survivors. Piers Paul Read (1974) recounts the grim fate of the members of a rugby
team who survived the crash of their chartered plane only to find themselves stranded in
subzero temperatures high in the Andes Mountains. A lone individual would have certainly
perished in the harsh climate, but by pooling their scant resources and skills, the group
managed to survive. Each individual was responsible for performing certain tasks, including
cleaning their sleeping quarters, tending to the injured, and melting drinking water. These
activities were coordinated by the captain of the rugby team, but when he was killed in an
avalanche much of the business of running the group’s activities fell on the shoulders of a
coalition of three cousins.
The group lived for weeks by eating the bodies of those who had dies in the crash and
avalanche, but when starvation seemed imminent they sent two men down the mountain to
seek help. After walking 14 days and sleeping in the open at night, the two “explorers”
managed to reach a small farm on the edge of the great mountain range. Their sudden
appearance after 70 days was followed by an air-rescue operation that lifted the remaining 14
from the crash-site. Those who had managed to stay alive later pointed out that “it was their
combined efforts which saved their lives” (Read, 1974).
The People’s Temple. Jim Jones was a dynamic speaker who could hold an audience in
rapt attention. In 1963 he formed his own church, the People’s Temple Full Gospel Church.
His persuasiveness influenced many, and his message reached out to the rich and poor, young
and old, and educated and uneducated. The membership soon swelled to 8000, united in their
acceptance of Jones’s political religious, and social teachings. Rumors of improprieties began
circulating, however. Former members reported that at some meetings those who had
displeased Jones were severely beaten before the whole congregation, with microphones used
to amplify their screams. Jones, some said, insisted on being called Father and he demanded
absolute dedication and obedience from his followers. Many member donated all their
property to the church, and one couple even turned over their 6-year-old son on demand.
Jones eventually moved the group to Guyana, in South America, where he established
Jonestwon. Press releases described the settlement as a utopian community, but rumors still
circulated; was Jonestown more like a prison than a utopia? Relatives in the United States
became concerned, and they convinced a member of Congress, Representative Leo Ryan, to
visit Jonestown. Jones’s followers attacked the group, and five people were killed, including
2

3. Ryan. When the assassins returned to tell Jones of their attack, he ordered his followers to
take their own lives. Armed guards prevented all but a few from escaping, and Jones
repeatedly told the members to accepttheir deaths with dignity. When authorities reached the
settlement the next day, they were met by a scene of unbelievable ghastliness. On Jones’s
orders more than 900 men, women, and children had killed themselves. Jones’s body was
found near the “throne” from which he had directed mass suicide. Over the chair remained
the motto “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (Krause, 1978).
The Rattlers and the Eagles. The 22 11-year-olds, all white and all boys, were camping
near Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. The boys were separated into two groups—the
Rattlers and the Eagles—before spending several days hiking, swimming, and playing sports.
During that time friendship bonds, rules, and rituals blossomed within each group, along with
an undercurrent of animosity toward the other group. When the two groups met in a series of
competitive games, in almost no time tempers flared and full-fledged hostility broke out. The
Eagles stole and burned the Rattlers’ makeshift team pennant. The Rattlers counterattacked
that night by breaking into the Eagles’ cabin, and the following day fistfights and small
brawls broke out between members of the two groups.
Unbeknownst to the boys, the camp was part of a field study of relationships between groups,
and the boys’ behaviours were recorded continually by the camp counselors. When hostilities
reached a physical level, the observers intervened and separated the two groups. They then
staged a series of problems that could be solved only if the groups cooperated with each
other. One problem required locating a leak in the camp’s water supply. Another required
them to move a truck that apparently had broken down. During and after the pursuit of these
goals, animosity between the two groups diminished. When camp was over, the boys went
back home on the same bus (Sherif, Harvey, White, hood, & Sherif, 1961).
The Therapy Group. The seven members of the group were outpatients at a university
clinic. All seven reported problems in relating to other people, to the extent that they could
not establish meaningful interpersonal relationships. Dr. R. and Dr. M., two experienced
group psychotherapists, met with the group weekly. During these meetings the group
members shared problems from their daily lives and received support from one another. More
importantly, they learned to disclose information about themselves to others and received
feedback that helped them acquire useful social skills.
Despite the fact that the group was composed entirely of people who had never been able to
maintain friendships or intimate relationships, it became remarkably unified. The members
rarely missed a session, and they grew more confident whenever they disclosed some
previously unmentioned aspect of themselves. The therapists felt that the group seemed to
plod at times, but the clients themselves were excited by their ability to interact successfully.
The group lasted for 30 months, after which clinical testing indicated that the members “did
extraordinarily well and underwent substantial characterologica changes as well as complete
symptomatic remission” (Yalom, 1985).
3

4. What is a Group?
The group in these examples differed from one another in many ways. Some were small,
consisting of fewer than ten members (the therapy group), but others were large (People’s
Temple). Nearly all the groups had leaders, but the power and duties of the leaders varied
greatly. The artists, for example, seemed to take turns at leading. Similarly, some of the
groups formed spontaneously, whereas others were established deliberately for the purpose of
achieving certain goals. Given these differences, can we accurately call all these collection of
people groups?
Kurt Lewin, offered an answer. He felt that despite their difference in size, structure, and
activities, virtually all groups were based on interdependence among their members (Lewin,
1948). We understand intuitively that three persons seated in separate rooms working on
unrelated tasks can hardly be considered a social group, for they cannot influence one another
in any way. If, however, we create the potential for interdependence by letting at least one
person influence or be influenced by others, these three individuals can be considered a
rudimentary group. The impressionists, for example, lived and worked together, influencing
one another’s ideas and techniques. Stranded in the Andes, the group of survivors helped one
another overcome the many hardships they faced. The members of the therapy group
provided one another with the encouragement and support. Each Rattler’s contribution
brought the group closer to triumph over the Eagles. In all these examples, and in most other
groups, members “have relationships to one another that make them interdependent to some
significant degree” (Cartwright & Zander, 1968).
By emphasizing the importance of mutual influence among members we can define a group
as two or more interdependent individuals who influence one another through social
interaction. This definition, however, is fairly arbitrary. It implies that collections of people
can be easily classified into two categories—group and nongroup—when in actuality such
classifications are rarely so clear-cut. Forsyth provided a list of definitions which are given
below.
Defining a Group
A group is two or more interdependent individuals who influence one another through social
interaction. Forsyth.p.7
A group exists when two or more people define themselves as members of it and when its
existence is recognized by at least one other. Brown, 1988.pp.2-3
A group is a collection of individuals who have relations to one another that make them
interdependent to some significant degree. Cartwright and Zender, 1968, p.46.
4

5. For a collection of individuals to be considered a group there must be some interaction. Hare,
1976, p.4
We mean by a group a number of persons who communicate with one another, often over a
span of time, and who are few enough so that each person is able to communicate with all
others, not at second hand, through other people, but face to face. Homans, 195-, p.1.
A group is an aggregation of two or more people who are to some degree in dynamic
interrelation with one another. McGrath, 1984, p.8.
Two or more persons who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person
influences and is influenced by each other person. Shaw, 1981, p.454.
A Group is a social unit which consists of a number of individuals who stand in (more or less)
definite status and role relationships to one another and which possesses a set of values or
norms of its own regulating the behaviour of individual members, at least in matters of
consequences to the group. Sherif and Sherif, 1956, p.144.
Characteristics of Groups
The dictionary defines a cow as “a large female animal kept on farms to produce milk”, but
dairy farmers are likely to be more interested in a cow’s characteristics (four legs, tail, udder)
rather than this definition (Webster, 1976). Similarly, if you wanted to understand one of the
groups we discussed earlier, you would need to be able to say more than “Yes, this aggregate
is a group.” You would need, for example, to describe how much members interact with one
another and how each person is related to other members. You might also need to estimate the
size of the group, catalog the goals that the group members pursued, index the group’s unity,
and chart the way the group changed over time. Interdependence among members is the
hallmark of a group, but we should not overlook other crucial characteristics of groups.
Forsyth identified the following characteristics of social groups:
1. There is interaction among members of the group.
2. The group has a structure based upon role, status, and attraction relations.
3. Groups vary in size.
4. Group usually exists for a reason (goal).
5. There is some degree of cohesiveness in group.
6. The group changes over time.
5