The Factors Influencing Social Group Dynamics Essay Example

our abstract is far from empirical but is indeed very abstract and based on some very fundamental human reasons.

This is why we decided to radiate our observations from a psychological centre outwards and explore the tendrils (so to speak) of their effects on the more outward spheres of social, cultural and economic reasons as opposed to the common opposite (to explore from an external point and deduce the internal reasons for behaviour).This is to say since behaviour is a human being’s conditioned reaction to the external environment and that the judgement made based on this is made internally as well as is the processing of the initial stimuli that started the reaction

We will first observe the psychological, abstract, factors first and then their impressions in the more external realms of the social, cultural and economic environments as well as the movement backwards. e. the inner sphere: the intangible: psychosocial factors the first sphere: character conflict and relation According to John Yeager, PhD, a member of the NLPI, the Neuro-linguistical Programming Institute which deals with the psychological interpretation of physical behaviours mainly speech and inflection (but not excluding others such as posture and facial expressions). Within a social group, three character types define the parties. These are: Passive, Aggressive and Assertive.He goes further to explain that a lot of social groups activities and philosophies are determined and formulated by the relationships between these three groups. Due to the fact that these groups are actually containers into which a larger, more detailed variety of personality types exist their definitions are very diverse and subjective to the perspective of the user. They are best illustrated as such.

Passive people

do not attempt to influence their external environment with his actions as much as they allow their external environment to affect their actions and attitudes to aid in the issues of self-gain.Aggressive people make more of the attempt and do it in a very direct manner which does not allow for much compromise unless that compromise serves the purpose of bettering their image and status within a group for reasons related to self-worth and gain. Assertive people are the same as aggressive people but allow more compromise in their suggestions, they will manipulate rather than implement. Please note that when a person is referred to being either of these it means only that their dominant part is the trait specified.All of us have parts of all three acting at the same time but one takes dominance. Below are outlines of the relationships.

It was observed that passive people tended to agree with suggestions made by the rest of the group with much less opposition or alteration than the other two types did. It was also observed that passive people when they did attempt to influence the group did so more with suggestion than action and that the suggestion was repeated less and less if any opposition was encountered that is to say without much hope of success.In a situation with an aggressive person, passive people will let themselves be influenced to a large degree by the suggestions of aggressive people even if the suggestions may not benefit them to a larger degree.

With assertive people, the amount of influence was much less and a passive person tended to become more assertive in an individual manner rather than

become aggressive through copying when an aggressive person was involved. Passive people also tend to be happier with assertive rather than aggressive where latent aggression is seen more through sulking or such behaviour indicating silent displeasureAnalysis: Passive people will not form their own groups but rather tend to be the ones who congregate groups formed by a smaller number of either of the other types. They will also be the ones who migrate less easily from one group to another and so tend to be in larger numbers within their specific groups. They will also by nature have less of an impact on group activities.

It was noted that aggressive people tended to be the first to suggest their opinions on group activities. They tended to be very outspoken and always sought agreement on their suggestions. When opposition was encountered they would then steer opinion back to their side of thought by questioning and demeaning the reasons and intentions of those opposing them.

On a more positive note they are also the ones who would waste least time in implementing actions that were needed to be implemented. In one occasion a female member during an emergency was the first always to call the relevant parties and begin to sort the problem while other members still pondered the decisions or closed up without suggestion. They tend not to doubt their decisions. They best get along with passive people to varying degrees. Some feel like elder siblings while others have a more dominating concept. With assertive people there is more conflict but also a lot of grudging compromises based on reasoning.

For example, one member of a group would only

back down from a point when all other members were seen to be against the suggestion and their opinion of the member could be seen to be degrading. There is much more conflict and a lot less compromise with aggressive people as both will try to force their opinions on each other.

Analysis:

Aggressive people form groups through their own will and will use those groups to further their own self-interest as well at the same time the interest of the group as a whole as the group furthers themselves. There is much more conflict and a lot less compromise with aggressive people as both will try to force their opinions on each other.

Assertive people tend to be the majority of people observed. Or rather it is a trait that showed up more frequently than the rest. Assertive people tend to discuss opinions in a more reasoned manner tending not to over agree or over oppose but always striving to seem appropriate and not offend the ones they are in discussion with. They will not totally compromise but start compromising at a much earlier stage than aggressive people. They also tend to influence passive In groups that were assertive people are a majority there may exist several smaller group units consisting of a mix of either of the other types as well as assertive.

They however get best along with other ‘assertives’ using a group consensus method. They get along least with aggressive persons however Assertive people form groups easily and also migrate between groups both internally and externally Analysis: Assertive people are most conducive to more relaxed and peaceful environments, they also are better for passive people

to be with since they foster expression rather than compliance.

This has aided in a very slow but peaceful environment whereby groups can for the most part interact with a degree of freedom and comfort. The exceptions do of course exist but they are more influenced by much external factors like cultural, economic and social factors. Those that do have conflicts due to psychosocial reasons such as character clashes do not have a large surface effect on the whole group dynamic but exist at much smaller macro and microspheres the second sphere: social facilitation and the amoeba effect According to the Society of Social Psychology based in America Social facilitation has been redefined as the increased likelihood of the individual performing already likely tasks when in the company of others.

This effect has been shown to be strongest among those who are most concerned about the opinions of others, and when the individual is being watched by someone they do not know. This is also known as peer pressure has been observed mainly in groups with more passive people and assertive people whereby there is a large concern with the opinion of others about themselves. Aggressive people tend to try and manipulate the opinion to their favour before performing those tasks. Certain USIU groups do this forming to the consensus of the group they are in.This consensus may be in turn the consensus of a larger group and so and so on until the largest groups tend to have certain homogeneity in the activities and in their behaviour.

There are also however a larger number of groups which are very heterogeneous. These groups are mainly formed by a

counter reaction to the major social facilitation behaviour and so despite being larger in number they are less in a number of congregants. Their behaviours also tend to be homogenous within their ‘rebel’ groups, as the binding activities tend to be very polarising.For example there is a group, which has commonality in the fact that they are all facilitating to listen to a certain musical genre, Hard Rock as well as a liking for Japanese style animation - also known as ‘manga’ they also share a very radical philosophical outlook .

These groups however do not just have dissimilar qualities with the larger majorities but with closer observation it appears that they also form a link with other groups with activities similar to themselves as well as other activities not only dissimilar with themselves but similar to the larger group from which this group formed out and alienated from.For example the above-mentioned group shares at times similarities in sports, movie, and partying preferences with the group from which it alienated – the group which prefers more mainstream musical tastes.

Musical and philosophical tastes are however more eclectic and although they are more influential in the more independent heterogeneous masses the more collaborative heterogeneous masses are explained a lot more by lifestyle habits especially those undertaken outside of the university that are similar.In principal, this is actually a greater similarity with the heterogeneous groups and is what is seen as the larger whole of individual groups. This linkage and motion is what we have coined the Amoeba Effect whereby if we imagine the different groups as bubbles we see their interaction of a large number of homologous masses

intermingling and separating and coalescing again and then intermingling in larger sizes again at quite a slow pace and at very similar locations and scenarios, Much like a much slowed down version of an amoeba colony.In conclusion, because this factor controls to a large extent behaviour and not attitude it acts a bridge coalescing with both the internal – psychosocial factors – and the external – socio-economic, political and cultural influences – while still remaining separate enough to be a factor with its own influence in both spheres.

However, because its root cause is actually the finding of comfort with similar people which is in turn born of the psychological fear of the unknown present in all beings.We consider it as a psychosocial factor, which controls the grouping of people with similar behavioural characteristics. We know move to the external spheres and firstly the one closest to this which would be the socio-economic factors. e.

2 the outer sphere: The tangible factors These can be considered the factors which can be observed directly through the senses and are the surface result of the more psychosocial factors. e. 2. 1 the first sphere: socio-economic factors these factors are controlled mainly by social facilitation and the fear of the unknown mentioned above. Though some may doubt that the latter is actually a controlling factor. Hume argues, quite correctly, that the reason we make judgements on anything or anyone is that we are testing its value to our own self-preservation and well being constantly.

This judgement is what is known as the fear of the unknown. USIU is compromised of students and staff from all walks of life and ages. One

of the larger categories into which people fit is that of their social status. This may also be called their relationship status but since relationships are the core of everything social we shall group them under social status.

The first is that of the romantic status of the people in USIU. This is a very powerful force that has two areas of influence one direct and another a by-product of itself. It is very evident that married people will tend to form stronger and larger social bonds with people of the same status and with people who are similar but not as committed. Single people tend to be better involved with non-married couples and other single members. This is due to similarity and dissimilarity in priorities, experiences and the support group that they form.

The by-product of this is that friends of either sides of a couple will also tend to mingle due to that one commonality being the couple in question. Single parenthood is another status that affects the social fabric of USIU. Once again single parents congregate stronger with those who are parents as well. For almost the same basic reasons as do couples.To reiterate them: priorities, similar experiences and support.

Thirdly is occupation. Though not as powerful as the above it plays a fact in that more often than not working-class students will have bonds with non-working class students but mainly if they are in closely related fields or come into contact with each other outside work. Another issue is best understood if we consider the aspect of auras. Do not mistake this term for its other more quasi-mystical usage but think of it more

as fields of influence.Due to other factors such as personality blend, appearance, economic status or fame certain people influence a larger number of people with their activities both positively and negatively.

They will either attract or repulse other individuals from themselves This is where. The economic factors come into play. Someone once said everyone wants something. People with higher economic abilities than the majority tend to influence group activities stronger than those who do not unless they are of a very passive nature.They may still do so but to a more subtle level.

This is because they act as a facilitative means for group activities by having a larger spending power or by being able to provide transport to and from university. This means that a larger number of people would benefit greater directly from their companionship and so they will congregate a larger number of people towards them. The bonds in a group where this is the main factor actually form in two ways. They may appear strong but actually be weak when closely examined. This is where those benefiting do not feel an attraction to the character of the facilitator but only to his facilitative abilities. On the other hand, their ability may be a stepping-stone to relationships with a greater depth.

This is especially true when the facilitator is of a humble personality and does not impose his views but would either be passive or mildly assertive. E the second sphere: thought At first this may seem to be a very obscure factor without many definitions to be a tangible factor. Consider however the fact that it is thought that governs a person’s religious, cultural,

and philosophical outlook. It is thought that then also expresses itself through language and attitude.

The reason why these are grouped together is that when considering the external influences of each of these factors they are intermingled and affect on the same spheres such as: dress, language, further places of interaction and most importantly lifestyle habits. To take the last sphere first. Campus life being a time for self-expression and exploration for a large number of students and so they involve themselves in activities with many aspects that were once forbidden. These may be still forbidden but the remote location and relative independence of the students means that they indulged at a more frequent rate and with more degrees. These include such activities as consumption of alcohol, consumption of narcotics and sexual relations.Those students of a stronger religious persuasion, which prohibits such activities, will avoid such activities and in so doing will avoid those other students who indulge in them by coincidence as well as choice.

An example of when choice is used is when we consider those of the Christian faith who refer to themselves as being ‘born again’. Some born again Christians will associate much less with people of different philosophies and spiritual leanings because they feel such associations would damage their faith and may compromise their principles.Others avoid mainly out of coincidence since they feel more companionship and more opportunities for spiritual growth amongst people of similar leanings. Others however mingle more in order to propagate their way of thinking amongst those of different leaning. Another reason, which encompasses the others, is that people will seek people of their own religion, culture or philosophy

because of the sense of security they feel in their presence. This can be described as a sense of familiarity and satisfaction of the need to belong and identify.

Another reason is that people of similar thought leanings group together to defend against any form of stigma or prejudice that may be directed against them from other groups. This also occurs on a racial aspect within USIU but to a lesser degree than would be expected. The last factor is quite simple and obvious: the language barrier. Students will mainly congregate together with those with whom they can communicate freely with and so will seek companionship with those who can speak the same main language as themselves the third sphere: spatial Within this sphere we are considering all other factors that bring people together in USIU that have as a root cause a similarity in location, time and experience. The first we will consider is that of past educational experience.

From the fact that we observed that the majority of students in USIU have lived in Nairobi all their lives we concluded that a large majority of them would have undergone their pre-university education within Nairobi.As we investigated this in the interviews we found that not only did they school in Nairobi during the time period but a significant number have had or are friends with people within USIU who had schooled within the same school and within the same periods of time.

The result of this can be seen by several groups, which are comprised to a large degree of members who came from the same secondary schools within a similar period of time. These members interact on

various different levels depending on their bonds in their previous institution and their current bonds with other members of a dissimilar educational background. Where the bonds in the past were strong we noticed that the friendships were strong if not stronger. However, there were many cases were due to students having taken a long break before joining USIU and so losing contact with their former schoolmates for a large period of time the friendships rarely reform.

Another spatial concern is that some students live within the same locations and so come into contact with each other much often than their other peers. Once again this is not a defining factor but does play a part in facilitating social activities. The majority of spatial factors, and there are many others such as past encounters in activities such as camping, acting, socialising and more, can be termed as factors of convenience. From our observations, it was noted that though these factors of convenience facilitate contact between parties within USIU they do not play a major role in continuing and deepening relationships. That is to say the groups formed from solely this, unless other factors play a part, tend to be very fluid and break apart and reform much easier than groups formed from similar lifestyles and facilitation.

The data gathered, the observations made and the conclusions that this research have made have led us to see the social structure of USIU in a much different light from when the study first started. What was initially thought to be a social landscape of numerous isolated groups of individuals of similar leanings turned out to be a much more dynamic and

interrelated mingling of individuals on many planes of interests and activities.Many people admitted to having more than one group of strong friends existing separately from each other but yet due to a commonality (the person in question) many of these individuals who would probably not intermingle do so and in doing so end up forming new social groups themselves that exist now as both bridges between two groups causing further interaction between previously isolated individuals and groups as well as new social entities which in turn attract people form groups separate from the two or three that started the offshoot group.

The causes for this range from the new group having a difference in time schedules than its parents and so having a commonality with new members of USIU to the new group sharing a commonality in habits and activities which the parent groups of all do not share. It should not however be thought that this pattern extends indefinitely through the social fabric with everyone being linked through strong social bonds. The pattern stops at certain points and the links break.

The reason for this is by no coincidence the same reason for the many offshoot groups to form and that is diversity.USIU is in relative terms a very diverse university when taking in the nationalities, philosophies, cultures and lifestyles of its students. This diversity works in two opposite ways. In one way because of the law of averages if a large number of people have a large number of interests, personalities and activities they will relate to a larger number of people on many more varying topics and so a more complex arrangement of interactions

occur. This will begin to explain the migrating tendencies of many USIU students who will form relationships based on time, class and habitual commonalities. On the other hand, we see the selfsame diversity hindering social interrelation by causing disinterest between individuals and groups of varying tastes.

These differences then cause inhibition when chance interactions occur between members of social groups that are polarised or differing views and habits. This is not to say that these inhibitions cause a seizure in further interaction but rather unless a commonality is found to override the dissimilarities then we observe that the inhibitions stay in place and the contact and interaction is minimal if existent at all. On the topic of diversity, a question is being asked if prejudice and stereotyping occurs on the level that is sometimes talked about. The answer to this is a simple no and yes. No to there being apparent and tangible prejudice in the speech and behaviour of the majority of USIU students but a yes if we consider the segregation of individuals of differing race, culture and religion.

Let us investigate this further. Throughout our investigations, no incident of direct prejudice on the above areas was talked about or observed. There were no incidences of verbal abuse or physical action of a bigoted nature being used directly to an individual of another creed, race or culture. What was observed was what was brought out in Section E.

People of similar activities, thought processes and spatial concerns will by nature relate find it easier to relate to each other and so will tend to congregate together and be less welcoming to individuals different to the factor

which binds the group together than they would be to people who are similar. Interaction does occur and does so without much visible strain on the different individuals. The interaction that will occur will mainly be superficial and be based, as said before, on a commonality distinct and separate from the differences.

If there is any bigotry occurring it does so on either an internal level which has a very slight effect on the external or it occurs on levels of intimacy that our study could not reach. The reason for this is that due to other factors that are outside this study an atmosphere of tolerance is promoted strongly within USIU and so any act which would be deemed as intolerant or bigoted by the general population is inhibited and kept below the surface. f. conclusionIn conclusion we conclude that the factors that affect the social group dynamics within USIU act within two distinct yet inseparable spheres. The factors in this sphere play a part in the dynamics at USIU at varying levels and times resulting in a fluid movement of interaction between individuals and groups with any conflict or strain being avoided and instead being either shoved under the surface or being expressed outside the university.

References

1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. 1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social behavior. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2. Rusbult, C.E. , Arriaga, X. B. , & Agnew, C. R. (2001).Interdependence in close relationships. In G. J. O.Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds. ). Oxford: Blackwell.
3. Hume, D (1740). A Treatise Of Human Nature. England: Penguin. •Kearl, M. and Chad Gordon. (1992). Social Psychology. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon. Below are a list
   

of internet resources and journals from which information was picked: