Intragroup Dynamics

Intra-group dynamics (also referred to as in-group-, within-group, or commonly just ‘group dynamics’)
are the underlying processes that give rise to a set of norms, roles, relations, and common goals that
characterise a particular social group. Examples of groups include religious, political, military, and
environmental groups, sports teams, work groups, and therapy groups. Amongst the members of a
group, there is a state of interdependence, through which the behaviours, attitudes, opinions, and
experiences of each member are collectively influenced by the other group members. In many fields
of research, there is an interest in understanding how group dynamics influence individual behaviour,
attitudes, and opinions.
The dynamics of a particular group depend on how one defines the boundaries of the group. Often,
there are distinct sub-groups within a more broadly defined group. For example, one could define U.S.
residents (‘Americans’) as a group, but could also define a more specific set of U.S. residents (for
example, 'Americans in the South'). For each of these groups, there are distinct dynamics that can be
discussed. Notably, on this very broad level, the study of group dynamics is similar to the study
of culture. For example, there are group dynamics in the U.S. South that sustain a culture of honour,
which is associated with norms of toughness, honour-related violence, and self-defence.

Group formation
Group formation starts with a psychological bond between individuals. The social cohesion
approach suggests that group formation comes out of bonds of interpersonal attraction. In contrast,
the social identity approach suggests that a group starts when a collection of individuals perceive that
they share some social category (‘smokers’, ‘nurses,’ ‘students,’ ‘hockey players’), and that
interpersonal attraction only secondarily enhances the connection between individuals. Additionally,
from the social identity approach, group formation involves both identifying with some individuals
and explicitly not identifying with others. So to say, a level of psychological distinctiveness is necessary
for group formation. Through interaction, individuals begin to develop group norms, roles, and
attitudes which define the group, and are internalised to influence behaviour.
Emergent groups arise from a relatively spontaneous process of group formation. For example, in
response to a natural disaster, an emergent response group may form. These groups are characterised
as having no pre-existing structure (e.g. group membership, allocated roles) or prior experience
working together. Yet, these groups still express high levels of interdependence and coordinate
knowledge, resources, and tasks.

Group membership and social identity

The social group is a critical source of information about individual identity. An individual’s identity (or
self-concept) has two components: personal identity and social identity (or collective self).
One’s personal identity is defined by more idiosyncratic, individual qualities and attributes. In
contrast, one’s social identity is defined by his or her group membership, and the general

©Aviation Worldwide Training Ltd 2015

characteristics (or prototypes) that define the group and differentiate it from others. We naturally
make comparisons between our own group and other groups, but we do not necessarily make
objective comparisons. Instead, we make evaluations that are self-enhancing, emphasising the
positive qualities of our own group (see in-group bias). In this way, these comparisons give us a
distinct and valued social identity that benefits our self-esteem. Our social identity and group
membership also satisfies a need to belong. Of course, individuals belong to multiple groups.
Therefore, one’s social identity can have several, qualitatively distinct parts (for example, one’s ethnic
identity, religious identity, and political identity).
Optimal distinctiveness theory suggests that individuals have a desire to be similar to others, but also
a desire to differentiate themselves, ultimately seeking some balance of these two desires (to
obtain optimal distinctiveness). For example, one might imagine a young teenager in the United States
who tries to balance these desires, not wanting to be ‘just like everyone else,’ but also wanting to ‘fit
in’ and be similar to others. One’s collective self may offer a balance between these two desires. That
is, to be similar to others (those who you share group membership with), but also to be different from
others (those who are outside of your group).

Group cohesion
In the social sciences, group cohesion refers to the processes that keep members of a social group
connected. Terms such as attraction, solidarity, and morale are often used to describe group
cohesion. It is thought to be one of the most important characteristics of a group, and has been linked
to group performance, intergroup conflict and therapeutic change.
Group cohesion, as a scientifically studied property of groups, is commonly associated with Kurt Lewin
and his student, Leon Festinger. Lewin defined group cohesion as the willingness of individuals to stick
together, and believed that without cohesiveness a group could not exist. As an extension of Lewin’s
work, Festinger (along with Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back) described cohesion as, “the total field of
forces which act on members to remain in the group” (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950,
p. 37). Later, this definition was modified to describe the forces acting on individual members to
remain in the group, termed attraction to the group. Since then, several models for understanding the
concept of group cohesion have been developed, including Albert Carron’s hierarchical model and
several bi-dimensional models (vertical v. horizontal cohesion, task v. social cohesion, belongingness
and morale, and personal v. social attraction). Before Lewin and Festinger, there were, of course,
descriptions of a very similar group property. For example, Emile Durkheim described two forms of
solidarity (mechanical and organic), which created a sense of collective conscious and an emotion-
based sense of community.

Black sheep effect

Beliefs within the in-group are based on how individuals in the group see their other members.
Individuals tend to upgrade likeable in-group members and deviate from unlikeable group members,

©Aviation Worldwide Training Ltd 2015

making them a separate outgroup. This is called the black sheep effect. A person's beliefs about the
group may be changed depending upon whether they are part of the in-group or outgroup.
New members of a group must prove themselves to the full members, or “old-timers”, to become
accepted. Full members have undergone socialisation and are already accepted within the group.
They have more privilege than newcomers but more responsibility to help the group achieve its
goals. Marginal members were once full members but lost membership because they failed to live up
to the group’s expectations. They can re-join the group if they go through re-socialisation. In a Bogart
and Ryan study, the development of new members' stereotypes about in-groups and out-groups
during socialisation was surveyed. Results showed that the new members judged themselves as
consistent with the stereotypes of their in-groups, even when they had recently committed to join
those groups or existed as marginal members. They also tended to judge the group as a whole in an
increasingly less positive manner after they became full members.
Depending on the self-esteem of an individual, members of the in-group may experience different
private beliefs about the group’s activities but will publicly express the opposite—that they actually
share these beliefs. One member may not personally agree with something the group does, but to
avoid the black sheep effect, they will publicly agree with the group and keep the private beliefs to
themselves. If the person is privately self-aware, he or she is more likely to comply with the group
even if they possibly have their own beliefs about the situation.
In situations of hazing within fraternities and sororities on college campuses, pledges may encounter
this type of situation and may outwardly comply with the tasks they are forced to do regardless of
their personal feelings about the Greek institution they are joining. This is done in an effort to avoid
becoming an outcast of the group. Outcasts who behave in a way that might jeopardise the group
tend to be treated more harshly than the likeable ones in a group, creating a black sheep effect. Full
members of a fraternity might treat the incoming new members harshly, causing the pledges to
decide if they approve of the situation and if they will voice their disagreeing opinions about it.

Group influence on individual behaviour

Individual behaviour is influenced by the presence of others. For example, studies have found that
individuals work harder and faster when others are present (see social facilitation), and that an
individual’s performance is reduced when others in the situation create distraction or conflict. Groups
also influence individual’s decision-making processes. These include decisions related to in-group bias,
persuasion (see Asch conformity experiments -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments), obedience both positive and negative
implications of group influence on individual behaviour. This type of influence is often useful in the
context of work settings, team sports, and political activism. However, the influence of groups on the
individual can also generate extremely negative behaviours, evident in Nazi Germany, the My Lai
Massacre, and in the Abu Ghraib prison (also see Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse).

Group structure
©Aviation Worldwide Training Ltd 2015
A group's structure is the internal framework that defines members' relations to one another over
time. Frequently studied elements of group structure include roles, norms, values, communication
patterns, and status differentials. Group structure has also been defined as the underlying pattern of
roles, norms, and networks of relations among members that define and organise the group.
Roles can be defined as a tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular
way. Roles may be assigned formally, but more often are defined through the process of role
differentiation. Role differentiation is the degree to which different group members have specialized
functions. A group with a high level of role differentiation would be categorised as having many
different roles that are specialised and narrowly defined. A key role in a group is the leader, but there
are other important roles as well, including task roles, relationship roles, and individual
roles. Functional (task) roles are generally defined in relation to the tasks the team is expected to
perform. Individuals engaged in task roles focus on the goals of the group and on enabling the work
that members do; examples of task roles include coordinator, recorder, critic, or technician. A group
member engaged in a relationship role (or socioemotional role) is focused on maintaining the
interpersonal and emotional needs of the groups' members; examples of relationship role include
encourager, harmoniser, or compromiser.
Norms are the informal rules that groups adopt to regulate members' behaviour. Norms refer to what
should be done and represent value judgments about appropriate behaviour in social situations.
Although they are infrequently written down or even discussed, norms have powerful influence on
group behaviour. They are a fundamental aspect of group structure as they provide direction and
motivation, and organise the social interactions of members. Norms are said to be emergent, as they
develop gradually throughout interactions between group members. While many norms are
widespread throughout society, groups may develop their own norms that members must learn when
they join the group. There are various types of norms, including: prescriptive, proscriptive,
descriptive, and injunctive.

 Prescriptive Norms: the socially appropriate way to respond in a social situation, or what group
members are supposed to do (e.g. saying thank you after someone does a favour for you)
 Proscriptive Norms: actions that group members should not do; prohibitive (e.g. not belching
in public)
 Descriptive Norms: describe what people usually do (e.g. clapping after a speech)
 Injunctive Norms: describe behaviours that people ought to do; more evaluative in nature than
a descriptive norm

Inter-member Relations are the connections among the members of a group, or the social network
within a group. Group members are linked to one another at varying levels. Examining the inter-
member relations of a group can highlight a group's density (how many members are linked to one
another), or the degree centrality of members (number of ties between members). Analysing the
inter-member relations aspect of a group can highlight the degree centrality of each member in the
©Aviation Worldwide Training Ltd 2015
group, which can lead to a better understanding of the roles of certain group (e.g. an individual who is
a 'go-between' in a group will have closer ties to numerous group members which can aid in
communication, etc.).
Values are goals or ideas that serve as guiding principles for the group. Like norms, values may be
communicated either explicitly or on an ad hoc basis. Values can serve as a rallying point for the team.
However, some values (such as conformity) can also be dysfunction and lead to poor decisions by the
team.
Communication patterns describe the flow of information within the group and they are typically
described as either centralized or decentralised. With a centralized pattern, communications tend to
flow from one source to all group members. Centralised communications allow consistent,
standardisation information but they may restrict the free flow of information. Decentralised
communications make it easy to share information directly between group members. When
decentralised, communications tend to flow more freely, but the delivery of information may not be
as fast or accurate as with centralised communications. Another potential downside of decentralised
communications is the sheer volume of information that can be generated, particularly with
electronic media.
Status differentials are the relative differences in status among group members. When a group is first
formed the members may all be on an equal level, but over time certain members may acquire status
and authority within the group; this can create what is known as a pecking order within a group.
Status can be determined by a variety of factors and characteristics, including specific status
characteristics (e.g. task-specific behavioural and personal characteristics, such as experience) or
diffuse status characteristics (e.g. age, race, ethnicity). It is important that other group members
perceive an individual's status to be warranted and deserved, as otherwise they may not have
authority within the group. Status differentials may affect the relative amount of pay among group
members and they may also affect the group's tolerance to violation of group norms (e.g. people with
higher status may be given more freedom to violate group norms).

Group Performance
Forsyth suggests that while many daily tasks undertaken by individuals could be performed in
isolation, the preference is to perform with other people.

Social Facilitation and Performance Gains

In a study of dynamogenic stimulation for the purpose of explaining pacemaking and competition in
1898, Norman Triplett theorised that “the bodily presence of another rider is a stimulus to the racer in
arousing the competitive instinct...”. This dynamogenic factor is believed to have laid the groundwork
for what is now known as social facilitation—an “improvement in task performance that occurs when
people work in the presence of other people”.

©Aviation Worldwide Training Ltd 2015

Further to Triplett’s observation, in 1920, Floyd Allport found that although people in groups were
more productive than individuals, the quality of their product/effort was inferior.
In 1965, Robert Zajonc expanded the study of arousal response (originated by Triplett) with further
research in the area of social facilitation. In his study, Zajonc considered two experimental paradigms.
In the first—audience effects—Zajonc observed behaviour in the presence of passive spectators, and
the second—co-action effects—he examined behaviour in the presence of another individual engaged
in the same activity.
Zajonc observed two categories of behaviours—dominant responses to tasks that are easier to learn
and which dominate other potential responses and non-dominant responses to tasks that are less
likely to be performed. In his Theory of Social Facilitation, Zajonc concluded that in the presence of
others, when action is required, depending on the task requirement, either social facilitation or social
interference will impact the outcome of the task. If social facilitation occurs, the task will have
required a dominant response from the individual resulting in better performance in the presence of
others, whereas if social interference occurs the task will have elicited a non-dominant response from
the individual resulting in subpar performance of the task.
Several theories analysing performance gains in groups via drive, motivational, cognitive and
personality processes, explain why social facilitation occurs.
Zajonc hypothesised that compresence (the state of responding in the presence of others) elevates an
individual’s drive level which in turn triggers social facilitation when tasks are simple and easy to
execute, but impedes performance when tasks are challenging.
Nickolas Cottrell, 1972, proposed the evaluation apprehension model whereby he suggested people
associate social situations with an evaluative process. Cottrell argued this situation is met with
apprehension and it is this motivational response, not arousal/elevated drive that is responsible for
increased productivity on simple tasks and decreased productivity on complex tasks in the presence
of others.
In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Erving Goffman assumes that individuals can
control how they are perceived by others. He suggests that people fear being perceived as having
negative, undesirable qualities and characteristics by other people, and that it is this fear that compels
individuals to portray a positive self-presentation/social image of themselves. In relation to
performance gains, Goffman’s ‘‘‘self-presentation theory’’’ predicts, in situations where they may be
evaluated, individuals will consequently increase their efforts in order to project/preserve/maintain a
positive image.
Distraction-conflict theory contends that when a person is working in the presence of other people,
an interference effect occurs splitting the individual’s attention between the task and the other
person. On simple tasks, where the individual is not challenged by the task, the interference effect is
negligible and performance, therefore, is facilitated. On more complex tasks, where drive is not strong
enough to effectively compete against the effects of distraction, there is no performance gain.
©Aviation Worldwide Training Ltd 2015
The Stroop task (Stroop effect) demonstrated that, by narrowing a person’s focus of attention on
certain tasks, distractions can improve performance.
Social orientation theory considers the way a person approaches social situations. It predicts that self-
confident individuals with a positive outlook will show performance gains through social facilitation,
whereas a self-conscious individual approaching social situations with apprehension is less likely to
perform well due to social interference effects.

Intergroup dynamics
Inter-group dynamics refers to the behavioural and psychological relationship between two or more
groups. This includes perceptions, attitudes, opinions, and behaviours towards one’s own group, as
well as those towards another group. In some cases, intergroup dynamics is prosocial, positive, and
beneficial (for example, when multiple research teams work together to accomplish a task or goal). In
other cases, intergroup dynamics can create conflict. For example, Fischer & Ferlie found initially
positive dynamics between a clinical institution and its external authorities dramatically changed to a
'hot' and intractable conflict when authorities interfered with its embedded clinical model. Similarly,
underlying the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado, United States, intergroup
dynamics played a significant role in Eric Harris’ and Dylan Klebold’s decision to kill a teacher and 14
students (including themselves).

Intergroup conflict
According to social identity theory, intergroup conflict starts with a process of comparison between
individuals in one group (the in-group) to those of another group (the out-group). This comparison
process is not unbiased and objective. Instead, it is a mechanism for enhancing one’s self-esteem. In
the process of such comparisons, an individual tends to:

 favour the in-group over the outgroup

 exaggerate and overgeneralise the differences between the in-group and the outgroup (to
enhance group distinctiveness)
 minimise the perception of differences between in-group members
 remember more detailed and positive information about the in-group, and more negative
information about the outgroup

Even without any intergroup interaction (as in the minimal group paradigm), individuals begin to
show favouritism towards their own group, and negative reactions towards the out-group. This
conflict can result in prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. Intergroup conflict can be highly
competitive, especially for social groups with a long history of conflict (for example, the 1994
Rwandan Genocide, rooted in group conflict between the ethnic Hutu and Tutsi). In contrast,
intergroup competition can sometimes be relatively harmless, particularly in situations where there is
little history of conflict (for example, between students of different universities) leading to relatively

©Aviation Worldwide Training Ltd 2015

harmless generalisations and mild competitive behaviours. Inter-group conflict is commonly
recognized amidst racial, ethnic, religious, and political groups.
The formation of intergroup conflict was investigated in a popular series of studies by Muzafer
Sherif and colleagues in 1961, called the Robbers Cave Experiment. The Robbers Cave Experiment was
later used to support realistic conflict theory. Other prominent theories relating to intergroup conflict
include social dominance theory, and social-/self-categorisation theory.

Intergroup conflict reduction

There have been several strategies developed for reducing the tension, bias, prejudice, and conflict
between social groups. These include the contact hypothesis, the jigsaw classroom, and several
categorisation-based strategies.

Contact hypothesis (intergroup contact theory)

In 1954, Gordon Allport suggested that by promoting contact between groups, prejudice can be
reduced. Further, he suggested four optimal conditions for contact: equal status between the groups
in the situation; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and the support of authorities, law, or
customs. Since then, over 500 studies have been done on prejudice reduction under variations of the
contact hypothesis, and a meta-analytic review suggests overall support for its efficacy. In some cases,
even without the four optimal conditions outlined by Allport, prejudice between groups can be
reduced.

Superordinate identities
Under the contact hypothesis, several models have been developed. A number of these models utilise
a superordinate identity to reduce prejudice. That is, a more broadly defined, ‘umbrella’
group/identity that includes the groups that are in conflict. By emphasising this superordinate
identity, individuals in both subgroups can share a common social identity. For example, if there is
conflict between White, Black, and Latino students in a high school, one might try to emphasise the
‘high school’ group/identity that students share to reduce conflict between the groups. Models
utilizing superordinate identities include the common in-group identity model, the in-group projection
model, the mutual intergroup differentiation model, and the in-group identity model.

Interdependence
There are also techniques for reducing prejudice that utilise interdependence between two or more
groups. That is, members across groups have to rely on one another to accomplish some goal or task.
In the Robbers Cave Experiment, Sherif used this strategy to reduce conflict between groups. Elliot
Aronson’s Jigsaw Classroom also uses this strategy of interdependence. In 1971, thick racial tensions
were abounding in Austin, Texas. Aronson was brought in to examine the nature of this tension within
schools, and to devise a strategy for reducing it (so to improve the process of school integration,
mandated under Brown v. Board of Education in 1954). Despite strong evidence for the effectiveness

©Aviation Worldwide Training Ltd 2015

of the jigsaw classroom, the strategy was not widely used (arguably because of strong attitudes
existing outside of the schools, which still resisted the notion that racial and ethnic minority groups
are equal to Whites and, similarly, should be integrated into schools).

©Aviation Worldwide Training Ltd 2015