small groups.txt

• -patterns in group behavior
• -ex: status systems (who has more influence), norms, roles, networks (friendship, communication, etc.)
• -structure is preventative-cuts down on some of the confusion over roles, leadership, etc.

• -tactics and influence
• -ex: power, bargaining, coalition formation, conformity/deviance
• -dynamics is curative-helps the group solve conflicts once they occur

majority try to make people do things their way

minority tries to make people do things their way

The structure of a group may be too weak to be effective, or it may become maladaptive as conditions change.

• -change in Group Composition ex: flood of new members; leaders may not know how to communicate to new members
• -change in Group Goals/Tasks ex: tasks may become too complex
• -change in Environment ex: old structure of a small restaurant may have to change if a huge chain opens nearby

Every group has some structure, but structural features vary across groups.

Groups structure develops quickly, as if people are anxious about interacting freely.

Once established, group structure can be slow to change.

People often seem to be unaware of group structure and its effects.

• -groups members vary in their ability to influence on another
• -status differences can be measured by surveys or through behavioral observations

• -preferable
• -more accurate than surveys b/c people may lie or may not know/think about status

Ascribed Status-why is status ascribed rather than earned in so many groups? Strodtbeck and his colleagues have found (for years) that on juries, males and people with better SES tend to have higher status

Quick Status-status systems can develop very quickly. Fisek and Ofshe (1970) asked small groups to solve human relations problems. Participation rates which were positively correlated with status stabilized almost immediately in some groups.

• -affective factors
• -cognitive factors
• -behavioral factors

higher status members are more committed to the group (and happier)

all members view themselves and others in ways to justify their status (people buy into the system, whether happy (high status) or not (low status))

higher members get more opportunities to exert influence and are more successful in their influence attempts (also, ideas from a low status member are judged more harshly than (even the same) ideas from higher status members