Editing Group dynamics (section)

==Intragroup dynamics==
''Intragroup dynamics'' (also referred to as ingroup-, 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 characterize 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.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Wageman | first1 = R. | title = Interdependence and Group Effectiveness | journal = Administrative Science Quarterly | volume = 40 | issue = 1 | pages = 145–180 | doi = 10.2307/2393703 | year = 1995 | jstor = 2393703 }}</ref> 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 ''subgroups'' 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 honor'', which is associated with norms of toughness, honour-related violence, and self-defence.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Cohen | first1 = D. | last2 = Nisbett | first2 = R. E. | last3 = Bowdle | first3 = B. F. | last4 = Schwarz | first4 = N. | title = Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An "experimental ethnography." | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.945 | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 70 | issue = 5 | pages = 945–959 | year = 1996 | pmid =  8656339| hdl = 2027.42/92155 | hdl-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Cohen | first1 = D. | title = Culture, social organization, and patterns of violence | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.408 | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 75 | issue = 2 | pages = 408–419 | year = 1998 | pmid =  9731316| citeseerx = 10.1.1.458.621 }}</ref>

===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]].<ref name=HoggW/> 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.<ref name=HoggW/> 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 internalized to influence behaviour.<ref>Sherif, M. (1936). ''The psychology of social norms.'' New York: Harper.</ref>

''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 characterized as having no preexisting structure (e.g. group membership, allocated roles) or prior experience working together.<ref name=Emergent>{{Cite journal | last1 = Majchrzak | first1 = A. | last2 = Jarvenpaa | first2 = S. L. | last3 = Hollingshead | first3 = A. B. | title = Coordinating Expertise Among Emergent Groups Responding to Disasters | doi = 10.1287/orsc.1060.0228 | journal = Organization Science | volume = 18 | pages = 147–161 | year = 2007 | s2cid = 43354804 }}</ref> Yet, these groups still express high levels of interdependence and coordinate knowledge, resources, and tasks.<ref name=Emergent/>

=== Joining groups ===
Joining a group is determined by a number of different factors, including an individual's personal traits;<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lucas |first1= Richard E.|last2=Diener|first2=Ed|title=Understanding extraverts' enjoyment of social situations: The importance of pleasantness. |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=81 |issue=2 |pages=343–356|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.343|year= 2001|pmid= 11519937}}</ref> gender;<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Gore |first1= Jonathan S.|last2=Cross|first2=Susan E. |last3= Morris|first3=Michael L.|date=2006-03-01|title=Let's be friends: Relational self-construal and the development of intimacy |journal=Personal Relationships|language=en|volume=13|issue= 1 |pages=83–102|doi=10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00106.x|issn=1475-6811}}</ref> social motives such as need for affiliation,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=McAdams|first1=Dan P.|last2=Constantian|first2=Carol A.|title=Intimacy and affiliation motives in daily living: An experience sampling analysis.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|language=en|volume=45|issue= 4|pages=851–861|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.851|year=1983}}</ref> need for power,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Turner|first=Jonathan|date=1974-12-01|title= THE POWER MOTIVE. By David G. Winter. New York: Free Press, 1973. 373 pp. $12.00|journal=Social Forces|language=en|volume=53|issue=2|pages=363–364|doi= 10.1093/sf/53.2.363 |issn=0037-7732}}</ref> and need for intimacy;<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=McAdams|first1=Dan P.|last2=Constantian|first2=Carol A. |title=Intimacy and affiliation motives in daily living: An experience sampling analysis.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |language= en |volume=45|issue=4|pages=851–861|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.851|year=1983}}</ref> attachment style;<ref>{{Cite journal|last1= Rom|first1= Eldad |last2= Mikulincer|first2=Mario|title=Attachment theory and group processes: The association between attachment style and group-related representations, goals, memories, and functioning.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=84|issue=6|pages=1220–1235|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1220|year= 2003 |pmid= 12793586 }}</ref> and prior group experiences.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bohrnstedt|first1=George W.|last2=Fisher|first2=Gene A.|title=The Effects of Recalled Childhood and Adolescent Relationships Compared to Current Role Performances on Young Adults' Affective Functioning|journal=Social Psychology Quarterly |volume=49|issue=1|pages=19–32|doi=10.2307/2786854|jstor=2786854|year=1986}}</ref> Groups can offer some advantages to its members that would not be possible if an individual decided to remain alone, including gaining [[social support]] in the forms of emotional support,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=McGuire |first=Gail M.|title=Intimate Work|journal= Work and Occupations|volume=34|issue=2|pages=125–147|doi=10.1177/0730888406297313|year=2007|s2cid=145394891}}</ref> instrumental support,<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Social support and physical health : understanding the health consequences of relationships|last= Uchino|first=Bert N.|date=2004|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=9780300102185|location=New Haven|oclc=182530829}}</ref> and informational support.<ref name=":0" /> It also offers friendship, potential new interests, learning new skills, and enhancing self esteem.<ref name = hoggabrams>{{Cite book|title= Group motivation : social psychological perspectives|date= 1993|publisher=Harvester Wheatsheaf|last1=Hogg|first1= Michael A.|last2= Abrams|first2= Dominic |isbn= 978-0745012391 |location=New York|oclc=28963933}}</ref> However, joining a group may also cost an individual time, effort, and personal resources as they may conform to [[social pressure]]s and strive to reap the benefits that may be offered by the group.<ref name = hoggabrams/>

The [[Minimax principle|Minimax Principle]] is a part of [[social exchange theory]] that states that people will join and remain in a group that can provide them with the maximum amount of valuable rewards while at the same time, ensuring the minimum amount of costs to themselves.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=Interpersonal relations : a theory of interdependence|last=H.|first=Kelley, Harold|date=1978|publisher=Wiley|others=Thibaut, John W.|isbn=978-0471034735|location=New York|oclc=3627845}}</ref> However, this does not necessarily mean that a person will join a group simply because the reward/cost ratio seems attractive. According to Howard Kelley and John Thibaut, a group may be attractive to us in terms of costs and benefits, but that attractiveness alone does not determine whether or not we will join the group. Instead, our decision is based on two factors: our comparison level, and our comparison level for alternatives.<ref name=":1" />

In John Thibaut and Harold Kelley's [[social exchange theory]], comparison level is the standard by which an individual will evaluate the desirability of becoming a member of the group and forming new social relationships within the group.<ref name=":1" /> This comparison level is influenced by previous relationships and membership in different groups. Those individuals who have experienced positive rewards with few costs in previous relationships and groups will have a higher comparison level than a person who experienced more negative costs and fewer rewards in previous relationships and group memberships. According to the [[social exchange theory]], group membership will be more satisfying to a new prospective member if the group's outcomes, in terms of costs and rewards, are above the individual's comparison level. As well, group membership will be unsatisfying to a new member if the outcomes are below the individual's comparison level.<ref name=":1" />

Comparison level only predicts how satisfied a new member will be with the social relationships within the group.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book |title=Group Dynamics|author-link1=Donelson R. Forsyth|last=Forsyth|first=Donelson|publisher=Wadsworth|year=2006|location=Belmont, CA}}</ref> To determine whether people will actually join or leave a group, the value of other, alternative groups needs to be taken into account.<ref name=":2" /> This is called the comparison level for alternatives. This comparison level for alternatives is the standard by which an individual will evaluate the quality of the group in comparison to other groups the individual has the opportunity to join. Thiabaut and Kelley stated that the "comparison level for alternatives can be defined informally as the lowest level of outcomes a member will accept in the light of available alternative opportunities.”<ref>{{Cite book|title=The social psychology of groups|last=W.|first=Thibaut, John|date=1986|publisher=Transaction Books|others=Kelley, Harold H.|isbn=9780887386336|location=New Brunswick, U.S.A.|oclc=12662505|page = 21}}</ref>

Joining and leaving groups is ultimately dependent on the comparison level for alternatives, whereas member satisfaction within a group depends on the comparison level.<ref name=":2" /> To summarize, if membership in the group is above the comparison level for alternatives and above the comparison level, the membership within the group will be satisfying and an individual will be more likely to join the group. If membership in the group is above the comparison level for alternatives but below the comparison level, membership will be not be satisfactory; however, the individual will likely join the group since no other desirable options are available. When group membership is below the comparison level for alternatives but above the comparison level, membership is satisfying but an individual will be unlikely to join. If group membership is below both the comparison and alternative comparison levels, membership will be dissatisfying and the individual will be less likely to join the group.

===Types of groups===
{{Main|Types of social groups}}
Groups can vary drastically from one another. For example, three best friends who interact every day as well as a collection of people watching a movie in a theater both constitute a group. Past research has identified four basic types of groups which include, but are not limited to: primary groups, social groups, collective groups, and categories.<ref name=":2" /> It is important to define these four types of groups because they are intuitive to most lay people. For example, in an experiment,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Lickel|first1=B|last2=Hamilton |first2= D. L.|last3=Wieczorkowska|first3=G|last4=Lewis|first4=A|last5=Sherman|first5=S. J.|last6=Uhles|first6=A. N.|title=Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|date=2000|volume=78|issue=2|pages=223–246|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223|pmid=10707331}}</ref> participants were asked to sort a number of groups into categories based on their own criteria. Examples of groups to be sorted were a sports team, a family, people at a bus stop and women. It was found that participants consistently sorted groups into four categories: intimacy groups, task groups, loose associations, and social categories. These categories are conceptually similar to the four basic types to be discussed. Therefore, it seems that individuals intuitively define aggregations of individuals in this way.

====Primary groups====
Primary groups are characterized by relatively small, long-lasting groups of individuals who share personally meaningful relationships. Since the members of these groups often interact face-to-face, they know each other very well and are unified. Individuals that are a part of primary groups consider the group to be an important part of their lives. Consequently, members strongly identify with their group, even without regular meetings.<ref name=":2" /> Cooley<ref name="Charles Scribner's Sons">{{cite book|last1=Cooley|first1=Charles|title=social organization: a study of the larger mind|date=1909|publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons|location=New York}}</ref> believed that primary groups were essential for integrating individuals into their society since this is often their first experience with a group. For example, individuals are born into a primary group, their family, which creates a foundation for them to base their future relationships. Individuals can be born into a primary group; however, primary groups can also form when individuals interact for extended periods of time in meaningful ways.<ref name=":2" /> Examples of primary groups include family, close friends, and gangs.

====Social groups====
A social group is characterized by a formally organized group of individuals who are not as emotionally involved with each other as those in a primary group. These groups tend to be larger, with shorter memberships compared to primary groups.<ref name=":2" /> Further, social groups do not have as stable memberships, since members are able to leave their social group and join new groups. The goals of social groups are often task-oriented as opposed to relationship-oriented.<ref name=":2" /> Examples of social groups include coworkers, clubs, and sports teams.

====Collectives====
Collectives are characterized by large groups of individuals who display similar actions or outlooks. They are loosely formed, spontaneous, and brief.<ref name=":2" /> Examples of collectives include a flash mob, an audience at a movie, and a crowd watching a building burn.

====Categories====
Categories are characterized by a collection of individuals who are similar in some way.<ref name=":2" /> Categories become groups when their similarities have social implications. For example, when people treat others differently because of certain aspects of their appearance or heritage, for example, this creates groups of different races.<ref name=":2" /> For this reason, categories can appear to be higher in entitativity and essentialism than primary, social, and collective groups. Entitativity is defined by Campbell<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Campbell|first1=D. T.|title=Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities|journal=Systems Research and Behavioral Science|date=1958|volume= 3 |issue=1|pages=14–25|doi=10.1002/bs.3830030103}}</ref> as the extent to which collections of individuals are perceived to be a group. The degree of entitativity that a group has is influenced by whether a collection of individuals experience the same fate, display similarities, and are close in proximity. If individuals believe that a group is high in entitativity, then they are likely to believe that the group has unchanging characteristics that are essential to the group, known as essentialism.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Haslam|first1=N|last2=Rothschild |first2=L |last3=Ernst|first3=D|title=Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice?|journal=British Journal of Social Psychology|date= 2002|volume=41|issue=1|pages=87–100|doi=10.1348/014466602165072|pmid=11970776}}</ref> Examples of categories are New Yorkers, gamblers, and women.

===Group membership and social identity===
The social group is a critical source of information about individual identity.<ref name=Crano>{{Cite journal | last1 = Crano | first1 = W. D. | doi = 10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.68 | title = Milestones in the psychological analysis of social influence | journal = Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice | volume = 4 | pages = 68–80| year = 2000 }}</ref> 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, emphasizing the positive qualities of our own group (see [[ingroup bias]]).<ref name=HoggW/> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Spears | first1 = R. | last2 = Ellemers | first2 = N. | last3 = Doosje | first3 = B. | doi = 10.1002/ejsp.248 | title = Let me count the ways in which I respect thee: Does competence compensate or compromise lack of liking from the group? | journal = European Journal of Social Psychology | volume = 35 | issue = 2 | pages = 263–279 | year = 2005 }}</ref> 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).<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Deaux | first1 = K. | last2 = Reid | first2 = A. | last3 = Mizrahi | first3 = K. | last4 = Ethier | first4 = K. A. | title = Parameters of social identity | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.280 | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 68 | issue = 2 | pages = 280–291 | year = 1995 }}</ref>

[[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'').<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Brewer | first1 = M. B. | title = The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time | doi = 10.1177/0146167291175001 | journal = Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin | volume = 17 | issue = 5 | pages = 475–482 | year = 1991 | s2cid = 145294289 }}</ref> 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.<ref name=HoggW/> 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===
{{Main|Group cohesiveness}}
In the social sciences, group cohesion refers to the processes that keep members of a social group connected.<ref name=Dion/> Terms such as attraction, solidarity, and morale are often used to describe group cohesion.<ref name=Dion/> It is thought to be one of the most important characteristics of a group, and has been linked to group performance,<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Gully | first1 = S. M. | last2 = Devine | first2 = D. J. | last3 = Whitney | first3 = D. J. | doi = 10.1177/1046496495264003 | title = A Meta-Analysis of Cohesion and Performance: Effects of Level of Analysis and Task Interdependence | journal = Small Group Research | volume = 26 | issue = 4 | pages = 497–520 | year = 1995 | s2cid = 145303557 }}</ref> [[group conflict|intergroup conflict]]<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Stein | first1 = A. A. | doi = 10.1177/002200277602000106 | title = Conflict and Cohesion: A Review of the Literature | journal = Journal of Conflict Resolution | volume = 20 | pages = 143–172 | year = 1976 | s2cid = 145093926 }}</ref> and therapeutic change.<ref>{{cite book | last = Yalom | first = Irvin | title = The theory and practice of group psychotherapy | publisher = Basic Books | location = New York | year = 1995 | isbn = 978-0-465-08448-7 | url-access = registration | url = https://archive.org/details/theorypracticeo00yalo }}</ref>

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.<ref name=Dion/> 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.&nbsp;37).<ref name=Dion/> Later, this definition was modified to describe the forces acting on individual members to remain in the group, termed ''attraction to the group''.<ref name=Dion/> Since then, several models for understanding the concept of group cohesion have been developed, including Albert Carron's hierarchical model<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Carron | first1 = A. V. | last2 = Brawley | first2 = L. R. | doi = 10.1177/104649640003100105 | title = Cohesion: Conceptual and Measurement Issues | journal = Small Group Research | volume = 31 | pages = 89–106 | year = 2000 | s2cid = 220367599 }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book | last = Driedger | first = Leo | title = Multi-ethnic Canada : identities and inequalities | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = Toronto New York | year = 1996 | isbn = 978-0-19-541161-4 }}</ref>

===Black sheep effect===
Beliefs within the [[ingroup]] 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, making them a separate outgroup. This is called the [[black sheep]] effect.<ref name="Marques, Yzerbyt & Leyens, 1988">{{cite journal |last1=Marques |first1=J. M. |last2=Yzerbyt |first2=V. Y.|last3=Leyens|first3=J. Ph. |year=1988 |title=The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members as a function of ingroup identification |journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=1–16 |doi=10.1002/ejsp.2420180102}}</ref> The way a person judges socially desirable and socially undesirable individuals depends upon whether they are part of the ingroup or outgroup.

This phenomenon has been later accounted for by subjective group dynamics theory.<ref name="Marques, Abrams, Paez, & Taboada, 1998">{{cite journal |last1=Marques |first1=J. M. |last2=Abrams |first2=D. |last3=Paez |first3=D. |last4=Taboada |first4=C. |year=1998 |title=The role of categorization and ingroup norms in judgments of groups and their members |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=75 |issue=4 |pages=976–988 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.976}}</ref> According to this theory, people derogate socially undesirable (deviant) ingroup members relative to outgroup members, because they give a bad image of the ingroup and jeopardize people's social identity.

In more recent studies, Marques and colleagues<ref name="Pinto, Marques, Levine, & Abrams, 2016">{{cite journal |last1=Pinto |first1=I. R. |last2=Marques |first2=J. M. |last3=Levine |first3=J. M. |last4=Abrams |first4=D. |year=2016 |title=Membership role and subjective group dynamics: Impact on evaluative intragroup differentiation and commitment to prescriptive norms |url= http://kar.kent.ac.uk/61201/1/Pinto%2CMarques%2CLevine%26Abrams2016GPIR.pdf|journal=Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, On-Line |doi=10.1177/1368430216638531 |volume=19 |issue=5 |pages=570–590|s2cid=147836059 }}</ref> have shown that this occurs more strongly with regard to ingroup full members than other members. Whereas ''new members'' of a group must prove themselves to the full members to become accepted, full members have undergone socialization 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 rejoin the group if they go through re-socialization. Therefore, full members' behavior is paramount to define the ingroup's image.

Bogart and Ryan surveyed the development of new members' stereotypes about in-groups and out-groups during socialization. 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.<ref name="Ryan 1997 719–732">{{cite journal |last1=Ryan |first1=Carey S. |last2=Bogart |first2=Laura M. |title=Development of new group members' in-group and out-group stereotypes: Changes in perceived variability and ethnocentrism |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|date=Oct 1997|volume=73 |issue=4 |pages=719–732 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.719 |pmid=9325590}}</ref> However, there is no evidence that this affects the way they are judged by other members. Nevertheless, 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.<ref name="Pinto, I. R. 2010">{{cite journal |last1=Pinto |first1=I. R. |last2=Marques |first2=J. M. |last3=Abrams |first3=D. |year=2010 |title=Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=99 |issue=1 |pages=107–119 |doi=10.1037/a0018187 |pmid=20565188}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Ryan 1997 719–732"/>  Outcasts who behave in a way that might jeopardize 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.<ref name=Crano/> 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.<ref name=Crano/> Groups also influence individual's decision-making processes. These include decisions related to [[ingroup bias]], persuasion (see [[Asch conformity experiments]]), obedience (see [[Milgram Experiment]]), and [[groupthink]]. There are 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]]).<ref name=Aronson>{{cite book|last = Aronson|first = Elliot|title = The social animal|publisher = Worth Publishers|location = New York|year = 2008|isbn = 978-1-4292-0316-6}}</ref>

===Group structure===
A group's structure is the internal framework that defines members' relations to one another over time.<ref>Wittenbaum and Moreland. (2008). ''Small-Group Research in Social Psychology: Topics and Trends over Time''.</ref> Frequently studied elements of group structure include roles, norms, values, communication patterns, and status differentials.<ref name=Jex>{{cite book|last=Jex|first=Steve &|title=Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach|year=2008|publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Inc|location=Hoboken, New Jersey|pages=341–365|edition=Second|author2=Britt, Thomas}}</ref> Group structure has also been defined as the underlying pattern of roles, norms, and networks of relations among members that define and organize the group.<ref name=forsyth>Forsyth, D.R. (2009). ''Group Dynamics''. New York: Wadsworth.</ref>

'''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.<ref>Levine. (1998). ''The Handbook of Social Psychology.''{{full citation needed|date=May 2019}}</ref> Role differentiation is the degree to which different group members have specialized functions. A group with a high level of role differentiation would be categorized as having many different roles that are specialized and narrowly defined.<ref name=forsyth/> 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.<ref name=forsyth/> Functional (task) roles are generally defined in relation to the tasks the team is expected to perform.<ref>Senior. (1991). ''Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.''</ref> 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.<ref name=forsyth/> 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, harmonizer, or compromiser.<ref name=forsyth/>

'''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.<ref>Hahn, M. (2010). ''Group Norms in Organizations''.</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=May 2019}} They are a fundamental aspect of group structure as they provide direction and motivation, and organize the social interactions of members.<ref name=forsyth/> Norms are said to be emergent, as they develop gradually throughout interactions between group members.<ref name=forsyth/> 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.<ref name=forsyth/>
* ''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

'''Intermember 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 intermember 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).<ref name=forsyth/> Analysing the intermember relations aspect of a group can highlight the degree centrality of each member in the 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.).<ref name=forsyth/>

'''Values''' are goals or ideas that serve as guiding principles for the group.<ref>Schwarz. (2007). ''Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values?''</ref> 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 decentralized.  With a centralized pattern, communications tend to flow from one source to all group members.  Centralized communications allow standardization of information, but may restrict the free flow of information.  Decentralized communications make it easy to share information directly between group members.  When decentralized, communications tend to flow more freely, but the delivery of information may not be as fast or accurate as with centralized communications. Another potential downside of decentralized 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.<ref name=forsyth/> 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).<ref name=forsyth/> 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.<ref name=forsyth/> 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.<ref name=forsyth/>

====Social facilitation and performance gains====
In a study of dynamogenic stimulation for the purpose of explaining pacemaking and competition in 1898, [[Norman Triplett]] theorized that "the bodily presence of another rider is a stimulus to the racer in arousing the competitive instinct...".<ref>{{Cite journal|doi = 10.2307/1412188|jstor = 1412188|title = The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition|journal = The American Journal of Psychology|volume = 9|issue = 4|pages = 507–533|year = 1898|last1 = Triplett|first1 = N. }}</ref> 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".<ref name=forsyth/>

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.<ref name=forsyth/>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal | pmid = 14300526| jstor = 1715944|title=Social Facilitation|author=Robert B. Zajonc|journal=Science|series=New Series|volume=149| issue = 3681|date=July 16, 1965|pages= 269–274| doi = 10.1126/science.149.3681.269| bibcode = 1965Sci...149..269Z}}</ref>

Zajonc observed two categories of behaviours—'''dominant responses''' to tasks that are easier to learn and which dominate other potential responses and '''nondominant 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 nondominant response from the individual resulting in subpar performance of the task.<ref name=forsyth/>

Several theories analysing performance gains in groups via drive, motivational, cognitive and personality processes, explain why social facilitation occurs.

Zajonc hypothesized 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.<ref name=forsyth/>

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.<ref name=forsyth/>

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.<ref name=forsyth/>

'''[[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. The '''Stroop task''' ([[Stroop effect]]) demonstrated that, by narrowing a person's focus of attention on certain tasks, distractions can improve performance.<ref name=forsyth/>

'''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.<ref name=forsyth/>