When my now 34-year-old cousin was around 15 he got in trouble with his studies. His scores were so bad that he had to repeat the year. In my family, this is not taken lightly. It is, perhaps, taken a bit too seriously. So, for quite a while during family gatherings this was the topic of choice. Then, soon, the adults decided that the reason why this happened to Felipe was because of his mates, because of the group he was hanging around with.
It is not only the adults of my family who used to see the role groups play in our lives as a negative one, social psychologists and sociologists used to hold this same view too. Something that resulted from the assumptions and research concluding that group influence automatically steer individuals towards perilous and unreasonable actions. The now highly criticized Stanford Prison Experiment 1 illustrates this line of thought. As well as Le Bon’s concept of ‘group mind’ 2, that he posited to be the process during which individual rationality is replaced by a collective drive. The events that unfold at times of civil unrest and riots were the evidence Le Bon used to support his claim.
But, what is a group if not an agglomeration of individuals? And, if that is the correct definition of a group, what brings its members together?
In a previous post 3 of mine, I discussed with some depth why we seek approval from others. There, I explained that, according to Maslow (and other psychologists), humans’ need for approval is an innate necessity that motivates us to seek affiliation. Although, what I didn’t address in that article was that in order to be accepted, we first need to belong.
In that case, how do we know whether we belong to a particular group or community?
To explain this, Festinger 4 proposed what it is now one of the most influential theories in social psychology: The Social Comparison Theory, which suggests that when trying to fit in we look at others in order to evaluate ourselves and to determine our position in the social world (am I better, equal or worse?). And, of course, the more similar these ‘others’ are to us the more accurate our self-evaluation will be. This is why we don’t go about indiscriminately comparing ourselves to everyone we encounter. Rather, we do it to people who we regard to be similar to us (in a process that, hopefully, will highlight our self-worth and either: pave the way towards self-improvement and/or self-esteem).
So, you understand why Festinger went on to say that we are mostly drawn to individuals with whom we share things in common. In other words, we are more attracted to people who are ‘like us’. Can you relate to that? I can! And this is precisely what an experimental research 5 conducted by him and his colleagues, back in 1952, unveiled. In this study, participants first had to write down their thoughts about a certain topic. Then, they were informed about which other participants held views similar and different from theirs (all through written notes). Finally, upon asking the group members how much they liked the other members, the experimenters found that people were consistently more drawn to those whose opinions resembled their own.
Transporting these findings to the real world you can picture what might naturally happen from here, right? These individuals come together, and together, they share, maintain and develop their tastes, ideals and objectives. Just look around and observe how ‘the bohemians’, ‘the vegans’, or ‘the goths’ hang out with one another.
However, in the real world we also often encounter people unlike us. How do events unfold in such cases? What happens when we find ourselves amidst those who hold different thoughts, beliefs and attitudes from ours?
Based on the results of their experiment, Festinger et al. concluded that there are three alternatives for such cases:
Have you ever been in such a situation, or witnessed it happening?
Admittedly, the latter part of the last alternative is not a very elegant one. Still, there is a reason as to why it happens: social categorization. This is a psychological process whereby we filter and organize ‘in our heads’ the overwhelming information that comprises our social environment. This is very useful! But, this is something that also influences our perceptual judgment, and oftentimes, unfortunately, it does so in a negative way.
See, Tjafel and Wilkes 6 found that just by simply grouping different elements together we extrapolate the difference between the groups and overlook the difference within them. For example, by categorizing Felipe and his friends as ‘A = a hopeless bunch’ and contrasting and comparing them to my brother and his friends (‘B= the successful boys’) my uncle’s perception of each individual boy became distorted. Hence, his opinion about the boys in A was clouded by the category he fitted them in, which stopped him from seeing that among them there was a disciplined teenager who was a piano virtuose, and another one who was really struggling at school not because he was hopeless, but because his parents’ marital issues were worrying him.
For my frustrated uncle those adorable boys were nothing more than a representation of the group he placed them in, which was ”extremely” different from B = the successful boys. But, in my uncle’s defence, I feel compelled to inform you that he isn’t the only one who unconsciously makes sense of the world in this manner. We all do it! 😟
Social Identity Theory 7 explains that this is due to the fact that we borrow the characteristics that defines the groups we (and others) are part of to shape our opinions about them and our own self-identification. As if, we live-up to the label that defines the group. Moreover, the more we see ourselves as belonging to a certain group (this depends on the level of identification we have towards it), the more we tend to disregard the individuality of out-group members.
We generally perceive out-groups as an agglomeration of elements that are very different from us. When this depersonalization takes place; well, belittling them almost becomes second nature. This is when biased opinions and prejudiced views begin to brew.
Western cultures nurture the belief that each individual person is self-contained. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines self-contained, as follows: “not requiring help or support from anyone or anything else, complete by itself”. This is a notion that stems from long-established values rooted in the primacy of individual reason, which has recently been reinforced by concerns resulted from twentieth-century collectivist ideologies.
This concept, consequently, has driven psychology to address the individual through approaches designed to deal with them in isolation (systemic is an exception, but 
On tackling this query Social Identity Theory suggests that our identities exist in a continuum where at one extreme we find our personal identity, and at the other we find our social one 8. While personal identity is comprised by those characteristics that lend us self-definition, for instance: being outgoing, loving indie movies; social identity are those aspects that ‘buys us a seat’ in groups or communities (having a creed or not is an example).
And here is the thing, being a group/community member has profound psychological influences, which permeate people’s thoughts and behaviour irrespective of whether they are on their own, or accompanied by other members. This phenomenon presents an interesting contradiction to what Le Bon proposed, and therefore suggests that a group mind is situated inside the mind of its groups members, and not outside the individuals who, when coming together, give rise to it. This is how group norms take place, by the way, including those underlying shared social habits, fashion and stereotypes. The classic experiment (the autokinetic phenomenon) conducted by Sheriff 9, in 1936, demonstrates just this. Hence, you can see how important the impact groups have in our lives is. And not only those we belong to; but also those which we are not part of. For, they ultimately leave a footprint in the social environment we are included in.
So, this is the right moment to ask you: How many times have you used the membership of this or that group you are part of to try to understand and define who you are?
Has that threatened your individuality? No, it hasn’t. Or, at least, it shouldn’t have.
Because it is the combination of (she is an outgoing Buddhist, who loves indie movies) together with the hierarchical importance you give to each one of these identities that makes you an individual, that makes you: you.
This understanding is an empowering one, which should enable you/us to reasonably and critically evaluate the aspects that define given groups (are they harmful? are they constructive?). Because those aspects are the ones that essentially shape their norms. Norms that, in turn, influence our thoughts and actions, even when we are alone.
Reference List:
1 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stanford-Prison-Experiment
2 http://www.psychologydiscussion.net/social-psychology-2/group-behavior/study-notes-on-group-mind-psychology/1336
3 https://steemit.com/psychology/@abigail-dantes/need-for-approval-and-external-validation
4 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1955-02305-001
5 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1953-07114-001
6 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1964-00117-001
7,8 https://student.cc.uoc.gr/uploadFiles/%CE%92310/Tajfel%20&%20Turner%2086_SIT_xs.pdf
9 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1937-00871-000
Have you seen our recently launched website: steemstem.io?
Thank you so much my dear reader, for taking the time to read yet another post of mine. Your feedback is invaluable to me and truly keeps me going 😊 I will surely, but slowly reply to your comments over the next few days.
I wish a wonderful weekend to each one of you.
Much love to you all.
