Boundless Sociology: "Group Dynamics: Effects of Group Size on Stability and Intimacy"
Boundless Sociology: "Group Dynamics: Effects of Group
Size on Stability and Intimacy"
By the end of this reading, you should be able to relate grup size to group cohesiveness. In
general, the smaller the group, the easier it will be for its members to come to a consensus
on goals, and thus possess a stronger bond.
Effects of Group Size on Stability and Intimacy
Since it is easier for fewer people to agree on goals and to coordinate their work, smaller
groups are more cohesive than larger groups.
LEARNING OBJECTIVE
• Relate group size to group cohesiveness
KEY POINTS
o A group is said to be in a state of cohesion when its members possess bonds
linking them to one another and to the group as a whole.
o An intimate community is one in which some members recognize and are
ecognized by all of the others, and most of the members recognize and are
ecognized by many of the others. Relationships in intimate communities tend
to be more stable and the groups more cohesive.
o Dunbar's number is the suggested cognitive limit to the number of people
with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. It is usually estimated
to be around 150, and this serves as an upper bound on the size of intimate
communities.
TERMS
• dunbar's number
Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom
one can maintain stable social relationships.
• cohesiveness
The state of being cohesive.
EXAMPLE
o Facebook presents an interesting example of how modern technology may or
may not impact Dunbar's number. As people have more and more online
friends, how does this effect group stability and intimacy?
A group is said to be in a state of cohesion when its members possess bonds linking them
to one another and to the group as a whole. According to Festinger, Schachter, and Back
(1950), group cohesion develops from a field of binding social forces that act on members
to stay in the group. Groups that possess strong unifying forces typically stick together over
time, whereas groups that lack such bonds between members usually disintegrate.
The Role of Group Size
Since it is easier for fewer people to agree on goals and to coordinate their work, smaller
groups are often more cohesive than larger groups. Group cohesiveness may suffer, though,
if the group lacks enough members to perform its tasks well.
An intimate community is one in which some members recognize and are recognized by all
of the others, and most of the members recognize and are recognized by many of the
others. This is in contrast to (usually larger) communities where members are known and
interact mostly within their own subgroup, such as a neighborhood, department, or
occupation. The contrast between the two types is illustrated by comparing hamlet with
town, military company with battalion, parish church with diocese, or a country school with
a huge u
an one.
The Limits of Group Size
Intimate communities seldom have more than about 150 members, a number derived from
the "Dunbar's Number" concept. This is the suggested cognitive limit to the number of
people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in
which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other
person. While no precise value has been unanimously agreed upon, it has been proposed to
lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150. The concept is based on
studies of social animals, which have shown a co
elation between the typical frontal
ain
capacity the members of a species has and the maximum size of the groups in which they
live. Like animals, the number of relationships the human
ain can handle is large but not
unlimited.
Boundless Sociology: "Group Dynamics: Effects of Group Size on Stability and Intimacy"
Effects of Group Size on Stability and Intimacy
LEARNING OBJECTIVE
KEY POINTS
TERMS
EXAMPLE
The Role of Group Size
The Limits of Group Size
Small Group Communication
Small Group Communication
When you think of small groups, you probably think of the much dreaded “group
assignment” that you’ve endured in high school and college. You are less likely to think
of the numerous other groups to which you belong that
ing more positive experiences,
such as your family and friendship groups or shared-interest groups. Group
communication scholars are so aware of this common negative sentiment toward group
communication that they coined the term grouphate to describe it.Susan M. Sorensen,
“Group-Hate: A Negative Reaction to Group Work” (paper presented at the annual
meeting of the International Communication Association, Minneapolis, MN, May,
1981). Small groups, however, aren’t just entities meant to torture students; they have
served a central purpose in human history and evolution. Groups make it easier for us to
complete a wide variety of tasks; help us establish meaningful social bonds; and help us
create, maintain, and change our sense of self.Owen Hargie, Skilled Interpersonal
Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice, 5th ed. (London: Routledge, 2011),
433. Negative group experiences are often exace
ated by a lack of knowledge about
group communication processes. We are just expected to know how to work in groups
without much instruction or practice. This lack of knowledge about group
communication can lead to negative group interactions, which creates a negative cycle
that perpetuates further negative experiences. Fortunately, as with other areas of
communication, instruction in group communication can improve people’s skills and
increase people’s satisfaction with their group experiences.
13.1 Understanding Small Groups
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Define small group communication.
2. Discuss the characteristics of small groups.
3. Explain the functions of small groups.
4. Compare and contrast different types of small groups.
5. Discuss advantages and disadvantages of small groups.
Most of the communication skills discussed in this book are directed toward dyadic
communication, meaning that they are applied in two-person interactions. While many
of these skills can be transfe
ed to and used in small group contexts, the more complex
nature of group interaction necessitates some adaptation and some additional
skills. Small group communication refers to interactions among three or more people
who are connected through a common purpose, mutual influence, and a shared identity.
In this section, we will learn about the characteristics, functions, and types of small
groups.
Characteristics of Small Groups
Different groups have different characteristics, serve different purposes, and can lead to
positive, neutral, or negative experiences. While our interpersonal relationships
primarily focus on relationship building, small groups usually focus on some sort of task
completion or goal accomplishment. A college learning community focused on math and
science, a campaign team for a state senator, and a group of local organic farmers are
examples of small groups that would all have a different size, structure, identity, and
interaction pattern.
Size of Small Groups
There is no set number of members for the ideal small group. A small group requires a
minimum of three people (because two people would be a pair or dyad), but the upper
ange of group size is contingent on the purpose of the group. When groups grow
eyond fifteen to twenty members, it becomes difficult to consider them a small group
ased on the previous definition. An analysis of the number of unique connections
etween members of small groups shows that they are deceptively complex. For
example, within a six-person group, there are fifteen separate potential dyadic
connections, and a twelve-person group would have sixty-six potential dyadic
connections.Owen Hargie, Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and
Practice, 5th ed. (London: Routledge, 2011), 452–53. As you can see, when we double
the number of group members, we more than double the number of connections, which
shows that network connection points in small groups grow exponentially as
membership increases. So, while there is no set upper limit on the number of group
members, it makes sense that the number of group members should be limited to those
necessary to accomplish the goal or serve the purpose of the group. Small groups that
add too many members increase the potential for group members to feel overwhelmed
or disconnected.
Structure of Small Groups
Internal and external influences affect a group’s structure. In terms of internal
influences, member characteristics play a role in initial group formation. For instance, a
person who is well informed about the group’s task and/or highly motivated as a group
member may emerge as a leader and set into motion internal decision-making
processes, such as recruiting new members or assigning group roles, that affect the
structure of a group.Donald G. Ellis and B. Au
ey Fisher, Small Group Decision
Making: Communication and the Group Process, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1994), 57. Different members will also gravitate toward different roles within the group
and will advocate for certain procedures and courses of action over others. External
factors such as group size, task, and resources also affect group structure. Some groups
will have more control over these external factors through decision making than others.
For example, a commission that is put together by a legislative body to look into ethical
violations in athletic organizations will likely have less control over its external factors
than a self-created weekly book club.
A self-formed study group likely has a more flexible structure than a city council committee.
© Thinkstock
Group structure is also formed through formal and informal network connections. In
terms of formal networks, groups may have clearly defined roles and responsibilities or
a hierarchy that shows how members are connected. The group itself may also be a part
of an organizational hierarchy that networks the group into a larger organizational
structure. This type of formal network is especially important in groups that have to
eport to external stakeholders. These external stakeholders may influence the group’s
formal network, leaving the group little or no control over its structure. Conversely,
groups have more control over their informal networks, which are connections among
individuals within the group and among group members and people outside of the