The small group problem is the most developed problem in social psychology. Before defining a small group, let's consider the history of its research. In the earliest studies in the USA in the 20s. the question was whether an individual acts alone better than in the presence of others. The emphasis was placed precisely on the fact of the simple presence of others, and in the group itself it was studied on the interaction (interaction) of its members, and the fact of their simultaneous action nearby (coaction). The results of the study showed that in the presence of other people, speed increases, but the quality of an individual’s actions deteriorates. This effect is called social facilitation, the essence of which boils down to the fact that the presence of other people facilitates the action of one, promotes them. In a number of cases, however, the opposite effect was observed - the effect of social inhibition - inhibition of an individual's actions under the influence of the presence of other people.

The second stage of research marked the transition from the study of cooperative groups to the study of the interaction of individuals in a small group.

In the third stage, small group research began to reveal not only the influence of groups on the individual, but also the characteristics of the group. The group's research methods were improved.

Under small group is understood as a small group whose members are united by common social activities and are in direct personal communication, which is the basis for the emergence of emotional relationships, group norms and group processes.

With this understanding, a small group is a group that actually exists in a certain system of social relations; it acts as a subject specific type social activities. This definition also captures a specific feature of a small group - public relations appear here in the form of direct personal contacts, in which certain social connections are realized and which are mediated by joint activities.

There has long been a debate in the literature about the lower and upper limits of a small group. In most studies, the number of small group members ranged between 2 and 7, with the modal number being two.

The ambiguity of the concept of a small group has given rise to ambiguity classifications small groups. Classification of small groups

Currently, about fifty different classification bases are known. It is advisable to choose the most common of them, which are three classifications: 1) dividing small groups into “primary” and “secondary”, 2) dividing them into “formal” and “informal”, 3) dividing them into “membership groups” and “reference groups” " As you can see, each of these three classifications creates a certain dichotomy.

1. Dividing small groups into primary and secondary was first proposed by C. Cooley, who initially gave a simply descriptive definition of the primary group, naming such groups as family, group of friends, group of closest neighbors. Later, Cooley proposed a certain feature that would allow us to determine an essential characteristic of primary groups - the directness of contacts. But when such a feature was identified, primary groups began to be identified with small groups, and then the classification lost its meaning. If the characteristic of small groups is their contact, then it is inappropriate to distinguish within them any other special groups, where this very contact will be a specific characteristic.

2. The second of the historically proposed divisions of small groups is their division into formal and informal. This division was first proposed by E. Mayo during his famous Hawthorne experiments. According to Mayo, a formal group is distinguished by the fact that all the positions of its members are clearly defined in it; they are prescribed by group norms. Accordingly, in a formal group, the roles of all group members are also strictly distributed, in a system of subordination to the so-called power structure: the idea of vertical relationships as relationships defined by a system of roles and statuses. An example of a formal group is any group created in the context of a specific activity: a work team, a school class, a sports team, etc. Within formal groups, E. Mayo also discovered “informal” groups that develop and arise spontaneously, where neither statuses nor roles are prescribed, where there is no given system of vertical relationships. An informal group can be created inside formal, when, for example, in a school class, groups arise consisting of close friends united by some common interest, thus, two structures of relationships are intertwined within the formal group. But an informal group can also arise by her own, not within the formal group, but outside it: people who randomly get together to play volleyball somewhere on the beach, or a closer group of friends belonging to completely different formal groups are examples of such informal groups. Sometimes within such a group (say, in a group of tourists going on a one-day hike), despite its informal nature, joint activity arises, and then the group acquires some of the features of a formal group: it has certain, albeit short-term, positions and roles. In practice, it was found that in reality it is very difficult to isolate strictly formal and strictly informal groups, especially in cases where informal groups arose within the framework of formal ones.

3. The third classification distinguishes between the so-called membership groups and reference groups. It was introduced by G. Hyman, who discovered the very phenomenon of the “reference group”. Hyman's experiments showed that some members of certain small groups (in this case, student groups) share norms of behavior that are not accepted in this group, but in some other group that they are guided by. Such groups, in which individuals are not actually included, but whose norms they accept, Hyman called reference groups. The difference between these groups and real membership groups was even more clearly noted in the works of M. Sherif, where the concept of a reference group was associated with the “frame of reference” that an individual uses to compare his status with the status of other persons. Later, G. Kelly, developing the concepts of reference groups, identified two of their functions: comparative and normative, showing that an individual needs a reference group either as a standard for comparing his behavior with it, or for normative assessment of it.

Main directions of small group research

It is advisable to highlight three main directions in the study of small groups, which have developed in the mainstream of various research approaches: 1) sociometric, 2) sociological, 3) the school of “group dynamics”.

Sociometric direction in the study of small groups is associated with the name of J. Moreno. The discussion that constantly arises in the literature regarding the limitations of the sociometric method requires a brief reminder of the essence of the concept. Moreno

came from the idea that in society two structures of relations can be distinguished: macrostructure (which for Moreno meant the “spatial” placement of individuals in various forms their life activity) and microstructure, which, in other words, means the structure of the individual’s psychological relationships with the people around him. According to Moreno, all tensions and conflicts, including social ones, are caused by the discrepancy between micro- and macrostructures: the system of likes and dislikes that express the psychological attitudes of the individual often does not fit within the framework of the macrostructure, and the immediate environment is not necessarily an environment consisting of psychologically acceptable attitude towards people. Therefore, the task is to rearrange the macrostructure in such a way as to bring it into line with the microstructure.

Although the naivety of the proposed scheme is obvious, its methodological application turned out to be quite popular. Based on the application of this methodology (although not necessarily within the framework of the stated theoretical concept), a whole field of research on small groups has emerged, especially in applied fields. At the same time, the purely scientific perspective of studying small groups fell within a rather limited framework.

The main miscalculation of the proposed approach was a kind of sanctioning of a shift in interest. The focus of research on small groups within this direction was narrowed to a minimum: it was supposed to study only the structure of psychological, i.e. interpersonal relationships, direct emotional contacts between people. Such a program is unlawful not because emotional contacts are not significant in group life, but because they are absolutized, crowding out all other possible “sections” of relationships in the group. Sociometric methodology has practically come to be considered as main(and often the only) method of small group research. And although the technique itself does provide certain opportunities for studying psychological relationships in small groups, it cannot be unduly widely interpreted as providing a complete analysis of small groups. groups. Aspect activities small groups are not only not represented in it, but the silence about it is of a fundamental nature: the idea is born that it is sufficient to study only the layer of emotional relationships themselves. The introduction of “business” criteria for sociometric choice does little to improve matters, since it does not ensure the inclusion of activity relations in the context of the study. Therefore, pointing out the shortcomings of the sociometric method, it is first of all necessary to talk about the inadmissibility of considering it as general method of studying small groups..

In relation to another, more specific task, - the study of emotional relationships in a small group, - the technique proposed by Moreno is known to be widely used (Volkov, 1970). This does not mean that in this area it is indisputable, since it is still not entirely clear what, in fact, a sociometric test in its modern form measures? Intuitively, it is assumed that it is measuring the level of positive and negative evaluations that an individual gives to group members, but this itself requires a more in-depth interpretation. Another weakness of the method, which is significant when studying emotional contacts, has been repeatedly noted: the lack of an answer to the question of the motives for choice. Thus, the sociometric direction as a direction in the study of small groups turned out to be extremely one-sided, extremely vulnerable in its theoretical premises.

Sociological direction in the study of small groups is associated with the tradition that was established in the already mentioned experiments of E. Mayo. Their essence was as follows. The Western Electric company was faced with a decrease in the productivity of relay assemblers. Long-term studies (before Mayo's invitation) did not lead to a satisfactory explanation of the reasons. Then, in 1928, Mayo was invited, who set up his experiment, initially with the goal of finding out the influence of such a factor as the illumination of the workroom on labor productivity. The Hawthorne experiments lasted in total from 1924 to 1936, and the various stages are clearly outlined, but only the basic experimental design is reproduced here. In the experimental and control groups identified by Mayo, different working conditions were introduced: in the experimental group, illumination increased and an increase in labor productivity was indicated; in the control group, with constant illumination, labor productivity did not increase. On next stage a new increase in illumination in the experimental group gave new growth labor productivity; but suddenly in the control group - with constant illumination - labor productivity also increased. At the third stage, the lighting improvements were canceled in the experimental group, and labor productivity continued to increase; the same thing happened at this stage in the control group.

These unexpected results forced Mayo to modify the experiment and conduct several more additional studies: now not only the lighting was changed, but a much wider range of working conditions (placing six female workers in a separate room, improving the wage system, introducing additional breaks, two days off a week and etc.). With the introduction of all these innovations, labor productivity increased, but when, according to the conditions of the experiment, the innovations were canceled, it, although it decreased somewhat, remained at a level higher than the original one.

Mayo suggested that some other variable was manifesting itself in the experiment, and considered the very fact of female workers’ participation in the experiment to be such a variable: awareness of the importance of what was happening, their participation in some event, attention to themselves led to greater inclusion in the production process and increased productivity labor, even in cases where there were no objective improvements. Mayo interpreted this as a sign of special feeling sociability - the need to feel “belonging” to a group. The second line of interpretation was the idea of the existence of special informal relationships within work teams, which emerged as soon as attention was paid to the needs of women workers, to their personal “fate” during production process. Mayo concluded not only that, along with the formal structure, there is also an informal structure in teams, but also about the importance of the latter, in particular, about the possibility of using it as a factor influencing the team in the interests of the company.

School of "group dynamics" represents the most “psychological” direction of research in small groups and is associated with the name of K. Lewin. Lewin's American period of activity after emigrating from Nazi Germany began with the creation of a special Center for the Study of Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (later moved to the University of Michigan, where it still exists). The direction of research in this center was based on the “field theory” created by Levin. The central idea of field theory, that the laws of social behavior should be sought through knowledge of the psychological and social forces that determine it, was developed in relation to the science of groups, to the analysis of these forces, their localization and measurement. The most important method analysis of the psychological field was the creation in laboratory conditions of groups with given characteristics and the subsequent study of the functioning of these groups. The entirety of these studies is called “group dynamics.” The main issues boiled down to the following: what is the nature of groups, what are the conditions for their formation, what is their relationship with individuals and with other groups, what are the conditions for their successful functioning. Much attention was also paid to the problems of forming such group characteristics as norms, cohesion, the relationship between individual motives and group goals, and finally, leadership in groups.

Answering the main question about what needs drive people’s social behavior, “group dynamics” closely examined the problem of intragroup conflicts, compared the effectiveness of group activities in conditions of cooperation and competition, and methods for making group decisions.

Conclusion: none of them offered solutions that would allow us to approach the analysis of small groups from a specific content point of view group activities, nowhere was the specificity of small groups as elements of social structure emphasized (this applies even to Mayo’s studies, in which, in principle, it was proposed to correlate the results of processes occurring in the group with a broader out-group context).

Classification of small groups: conditional, real, formal, contact, open, diffuse, referent. Dynamics of development of small groups - from nominal to collective

HISTORY OF SMALL GROUP RESEARCH

The study by the American psychologist N. Triplett of the effectiveness of individual action performed alone and in a group is considered to be the first experimental study in social psychology.

Several decades passed before the experimental (more broadly, empirical) direction of research received further development in foreign social psychology. In the 20s of the XX century. increased craving for empirical research, the empirical boom began in social sciences, especially in psychology and sociology. Dissatisfaction with speculative schemes contributed to the search for objective factors. Two major works of those years (by V. Mede, Germany and F. Allport, USA) largely continued the line of research begun by N. Triplett 1 .

F. Allport formulated a very unique understanding of the group as “a set of ideals, ideas and habits that are repeated in each individual consciousness and exist only in these consciousnesses.” Allport attributed his refusal to consider the group as a definite reality to the lack of adequate research methods, which was consistent with his positivist principles.

In the process of accumulation scientific knowledge and the development of research methods, the idea of a group as a certain social reality, qualitatively different from the individuals composing it, became prevalent.

An important stage in the development of small group psychology abroad, dating back to the 30s and early 40s, was marked by a number of original experimental research in laboratory and field conditions and the first serious attempts to develop

Andreeva G.M. Foreign social psychology of the 20th century: Theoretical approaches: Textbook, manual / G.M. Andreeva, N.N. Bogomolova, L.Ya. Petrovskaya. - M.: Aspect Press, 2001.

theories of group behavior. Thus, M. Sherif conducts laboratory experiments to study group norms; T. Newcome explores a similar problem, but in the field; V. White, using the method of participant observation, is implementing a program to study “living” groups in the slums of a large city; a “trait theory” of leadership is emerging, etc. During the same period, based on a study of management activities in an industrial organization, Charles Bernard puts forward the idea of a two-dimensional consideration of the group process (from the point of view of solving group problems and maintaining internal balance and cohesion).

A special role in the development of small group psychology belongs to K. Levin, who was the founder scientific direction known as group dynamics. Under his leadership, a study was carried out of the group atmosphere and leadership styles, changes in standards of group behavior during the discussion process, etc. Levin was one of the first to study the phenomenon social power(influences), intragroup conflicts, dynamics of group life.

Second World War became a turning point in the development of small group psychology. During this period, a practical need arises to study the patterns of group behavior and effective techniques group management.

By the beginning of the 70s of the XX century. Nine approaches to the study of group psychology have been identified: field theory, systems theory, interactionist, sociometric, psychoanalytic, general psychological, empirical-statistical and formal model approaches, and reinforcement theory.

In our country, the study of small groups (or teams) has a long tradition. Some empirical facts of group behavior of people in combat conditions are contained in the publications of a number of participants in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Scientific works and Practical activities V.M. Bekhtereva, A.S. Zaluzhny.

After Civil War Researchers' interest in the problem of leadership began to intensify. Among the numerous developers of this problem, the names of such psychologists as P.P. stand out. Blonsky and D.B. Elkonin, whose views on some aspects of leadership (typology, role, mechanism, dynamics) still attract the attention of specialists today.

The works of A.S., published in the 30-40s. Makarenko marked the fundamental new stage development of psychological and pedagogical problems of the team. Makarenko’s works implement (albeit in a simplified form) the most important methodological principles of research social group: activity, consistency, development. These studies examined the phenomenology of a small group, its organization, structure and management (including management and leadership), normative regulation of behavior, cohesion, psychological climate, motivation of group activity, emotional and business relationship, personality in the dynamics of acquiring high-quality new formations in connection with the development of the group itself.

The post-war years are characterized primarily by an empirical focus of work, active acquaintance with foreign experience studying small groups, rethinking the domestic experience of studying groups and teams. During this period, socio-psychological centers were formed, focused on the problems of small groups and teams operating in the fields of production, sports, education, in conditions of particular difficulty and increased risk etc.

70s of XX century. made up second phase in the development of domestic psychology of group activity. At this time, several major research approaches took shape, among which the stratometric and parametric concepts of the team acquired the greatest fame and influence. Both rely on a large body of empirical data relating to a wide range of group phenomena. The problems of small group research have undergone a significant expansion in these years, in which, among others, sections related to management activities, intergroup relations, group ecology, socio-psychological training, group cohesion and effectiveness, psychotherapy.

For third stage(80s) the trends of raising and solving methodological issues of group psychology, strengthening and expanding its theoretical foundation continued and intensified. A number of final publications have appeared on certain problems of group psychology: management and leadership, group integration and effectiveness, socio-psychological training, psychological climate, individual behavior in a group, intra-group and inter-group relations.

Fourth stage associated with the events of the 90s, changes in the social system in Eastern Europe and the CIS, increasing interest in the ethnic, political and religious aspects of the functioning of social groups.

An analysis of research in the field of group psychology in our country allows us to identify a number of approaches to the study of social group phenomena that have developed over the past decades and largely influence the development of scientific thought. These are activity-based, sociometric, parametric and organizational-managerial approaches.

Makarenko L.S. Project the best in people. - Minsk: Universitetskoe, 1989.

A real small group is a kind of living organism, which over time undergoes certain changes and transformations. In social psychology, this process is called the process of group development, according to which it moves from stage to stage, but in each specific case the sequence of these stages and the speed of movement are not strictly defined.

In social psychology there are many concepts of development related to both general patterns group development, and those related only to certain groups, for example, educational, therapeutic, or those in conditions of extreme activity. However, in any case, the starting point is the moment of group formation. Most often this happens when there is a need in society for the existence of a specific entity - a work team, department, school class or sports team. In this case, a nominal structure is created with vacancies filled subsequently real people who begin to build mutual relationships and bring into the group “their personal aspirations, their life experiences and their ideas about how group life should be structured” 1. It is from this moment that the transition occurs social process formation of the group on a psychological plane. The main determinant of group formation in the psychological meaning of the word is joint activity.

Many domestic and foreign authors proceed from the idea that the group development process is carried out in two directions - in the sphere of both business and interpersonal activity, the movement along which most often occurs unevenly. B. Tuckman describes a model of group process dynamics, taking into account these two dimensions - business(solving a group problem) and interpersonal(development of group structure). In each of these dimensions, the group sequentially passes through four stages in its development.

In the parametric concept of L. I. Umansky, the development of a group is a complex and not always progressive process, during which the group goes through a number of stages. The starting point is the stage of a conglomerate (a newly formed formation), the highest stage of development of a small group is team(Fig. 3.4). The concept has this name because it is based on the idea of the socio-psychological parameters of the group, which are unique criteria - distinctive features development of the group as a collective.

Team

Rice. 3.4.

L. I. Umaiskogo 3

Accordingly, a group as a collective is determined by the following parameters: the integrative unity of its goals, motives, and value orientations; organizational unity and preparedness in the field of a particular activity; psychological unity, expressed in intellectual, emotional and volitional communication, characterizing the process of interpersonal cognition and mutual understanding in the group, interpersonal contacts of an emotional nature, stress resistance and reliability of the group in extreme situations 1 .

As the group moves toward the collective stage, it goes through the stages of cooperation and autonomy. A corporation can be characterized as a closed community, which is a transitional form from a positive to a negative vector of development. It is also characterized by a high degree of preparedness, organization, intellectual, emotional and volitional unity, but at the same time, group egoism, opposing oneself to other similar groups, and pursuing group goals at any cost, even to the detriment of others.

Based on the stratometric concept proposed by A. V. Petrovsky, the collective also serves as the highest point of development of the group. The development process itself is presented within two dimensions - social/asocial orientation, as well as a measure of how interpersonal relationships in the group are mediated by content joint activities. According to the concept, a group as a collective is multi-level structure, consisting of four strata (layers) of intragroup activity (Fig. 3.5).

Rice. 3.5.

The central place is occupied by the stratum, which includes the group activity, its substantive, socio-economic and socio-political characteristics. The stratum immediately adjacent to it is formed the attitude of each member of the group to group activities, its goals and objectives, the motivation of the activity and what its social meaning is for each participant; here the so-called value-orientation unity is formed. In the next stratum, the third from the center, are concentrated interpersonal relationships, arising in activity, mediated by activity and directly manifested in activity. This layer records the coincidence of values regarding joint activities and the degree of emotional identification with the group. The outermost layer contains superficial connections between group members, built mainly on direct emotional contacts.

One of the characteristics that allows us to draw some conclusions about the level of development of a group is cohesion (the degree of its unity or commonality). As its basis, it can have both the mutual emotional attractiveness of the participants and the similarity in their attitudes towards the most important objects for the group 1. In the school of A. V. Petrovsky, the idea of cohesion is formed as value-oriented unity of the team, which manifests itself, first of all, in the convergence of assessments in moral and business sphere, in the approach to the goals and objectives of joint activities. Thus, value-oriented unity is a consequence of the active joint activity of group members. Cohesion to a certain extent contributes to the growth of the efficiency of the group as a whole and the satisfaction of each of its members with membership in it.

The mechanisms of group development are usually considered to be constructive resolution of intragroup conflicts and contradictions minority influence, “psychological exchange”, in which the group gives higher status to those who make the greatest contribution to its life activities, as well as those associated with the latter idiosyncratic leader credit, which consists in the possibility of deviation of high-status members (leaders) from group norms and their introduction of changes into the life of the group.

The number of experimental studies of group development is not very large, which is associated with objective difficulties. According to G. M. Andreeva, for the empirical study of the development of small groups highest value have two aspects: 1) the search for methods that make it possible to adequately diagnose the severity of certain characteristics of specific groups, which can serve as criteria for the level of its development, and 2) a specific description of modifications of known processes occurring at different stages of group development.

Workshop

Methodological materials for practical classes

Intact. complement and deepen the knowledge gained at the lecture about group development, promote mastery of skills in analyzing socio-psychological various concepts, and practice psychodiagnostic skills of group development and cohesion.

Operating procedure

1. Listening to two reports on the topics “Parametric concept of development of L. I. Maysky’s group” and “Stratometric concept of development of A. V. Petrovsky’s group.”
2. Comparative analysis the above concepts.
3. Psychodiagnostic.
4. Discussion of the results.

Stage 1. Listening to messages on the topics “Parametric concept

development of the group of L. I. Maysky" and "Stratometric concept of the development of the group of A. V. Petrovsky»

Students give prepared messages on this topic. Messages should cover the following issues:

history of the concept;
the essence of the concept, its basic principles;
stages of group development;
famous studies.

Dontsov, A. I. Group - collective - team. Models of group development / A. I. Dontsov, E. M. Dubovskaya, Yu. M. Zhukov // Social Psychology V modern world/ ed. G. M. Andreeva, A. I. Dontsova. - M.: Aspect Press, 2002. - P. 96-114.
Petrovsky,IN.A. Arthur Vladimirovich Petrovsky: Scientific developments

and discoveries recent years[Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.bim-bad.ru/biblioteka/article_full.php?aid=267.

Sarychev, V. S. Parametric theory of the collective: history of creation and development trends [Electronic resource] / V. S. Sarychev, A. S. Chernyshov // Scientific notes. Electronic scientific journal of Kursk state university. - 2009. - No. 11-12. URL: http://www.scientific-notes.ru/pdf/01 l-15.pdf.
Sidorenkov, A.V. Psychological mechanism dynamics of small groups: integration and disintegration / A. V. Sidorenkov // Questions of psychology. - 2004. - No. 5. - P. 63-71.

Stage 2. Comparative analysis of these concepts While listening to the report, students are asked to prepare answers to the following questions:

1. What is common to the concepts of group development by L. I. Umansky and A. V. Petrovsky?
2. What are the specifics of each concept?
3. What questions, if possible, would you ask the authors? Each student individually fills out the following table.

After listening to the reports, students share their impressions and analytical comments. At the end of the discussion, the teacher complements and summarizes the students' answers.

Stage 3. Psychodiagnostic

Students become familiar with diagnostic techniques for determining Seashore's group cohesion and for determining the level of development of the group.

1. Seashore's method for determining group cohesion 1.
2. Methodology for determining the level of development of a small group.

Diagnostics of the level of development of a small group

Purpose. The technique makes it possible, by summarizing the answers of all group members, to determine the level of its development, as well as to compare different groups with each other.

Instructions. You are presented with a series of statements that cover the most different sides relationships in the primary group. Group members need to evaluate the extent to which each of the statements proposed for evaluation is characteristic of this group. The assessment should be based on one of four options:

a) this statement fully corresponds to the nature of the relations that have developed in our group;
b) this statement is generally characteristic of our group;
c) this statement is only slightly applicable to our group;
d) this statement is not typical for the system of relations that has developed in our group (with us it’s the other way around).

Questionnaire

1. In our group main criterion a person’s values - his attitude to work, to the team.
2. In our group, a newcomer most likely will not feel like a stranger, but will be greeted with goodwill and cordiality.
3. There are no scapegoats or favorites in our group.
4. Members of our group will not pass by someone’s misfortune indifferently; the morality “my house is on the edge” is alien to them.
5. The spirit of selflessness and mutual assistance distinguishes our group.
6. Each of us is proactive enough to take responsibility for something if necessary.
7. The principle “your shirt is closer to your body” is unacceptable to us.
8. The success of each of us sincerely pleases everyone and does not cause envy in anyone.
9. Most of us can always sacrifice personal things for the sake of a common cause.
10. Our group usually does not wait for instructions; it does not take the initiative.
11. In our group, everyone feels responsible for its success.
12. As a rule, when deciding important issues we are always unanimous.
13. Our group is quite united and organized.
14. In case of failures and defeats, we do not rush to blame each other, but try to calmly understand their reasons.
15. When our leader is not with us, we do not get lost and work no less effectively than in his presence.
16. When a leader comes to our group, everyone is usually happy.
17. Our group’s leadership style is smooth and friendly.
18. It is not typical for us that iodine hot hand Both the right and the wrong got it from the leadership.
19. It is not customary for us to sit back or hide behind the backs of others.
20. Knowing that in its desire to act in a certain way the group would take the wrong path, each of us would have enough strength to stop it from taking a rash step.
21. We will not remain silent if they see that you are wrong.
22. After work we often free time we spend together.
23. It is customary for us to share our family joys and concerns.
24. We also have “dyads” and “triads,” but this does not prevent us from feeling like a single, friendly family.
25. In our group, the violator of discipline will be held accountable not only to the leader, but also to the entire group.
26. In our group, strength, external attractiveness, and possession of prestigious things are not enough to enjoy respect and popularity.
27. Our cohesion will most likely not suffer if several new members join the group at once.

Processing and interpretation of results

Data processing can be done in two ways. The first method involves differentiated quantitative counting and comparison of letter characters (a, b, c, d).

The predominance of answers to item a) indicates that the group, according to the opinion of all members, can be classified as a collective; for item b) - to an average level of development; for item c) - to low level development, according to paragraph d) - to a group of nominal or corporate type.

The second method is to convert letter answers into points according to the following scheme: a) - 3 points; b) - 2 points; c) - 1 point; d) - 0 points.

After determining the overall summary result, it is correlated with the level of development of the small group. Based on the experience of diagnosing and assessing the dynamics of small groups, the following levels of group development correspond to the obtained quantitative data (L. I. U Maisky, A. N. Lutoshkin):

67-81 - team - “Burning Torch”;
66-50 - autonomy - “Scarlet Sail”;
49-34 - cooperation - “Flickering Lighthouse”;
33-20 - association - “Soft clay”;
19 and less - diffuse group - “Sand placer”.

Determination of Seashore's group cohesion index

Group cohesion is extremely important parameter, showing the degree of integration of the group, its cohesion into a single whole, can be determined not only by calculating the corresponding sociometric indices. It is much easier to do this using a technique consisting of 5 questions with multiple answer options for each. Answers are coded in points according to the values given in brackets (maximum amount: +19 points, minimum: -5). You do not need to provide scores during the survey.

1. How would you rate your group membership:
- a) I feel like a member, part of the team (5);
- b) participate in most activities (4);
- c) I participate in some types of activities and do not participate in others (3);
- d) I don’t feel like I’m a member of the group (2);
- e) I live and exist separately from her (1);
- e) I don’t know, it’s difficult to answer (1)?
2. Would you move to another group if such an opportunity presented itself (without changing other conditions):
- a) yes, I would really like to go (1);
- b) would rather move than stay (2);
- c) I don’t see any difference (3);
- d) most likely would have remained in his group (4);
- e) would really like to stay in my group (5);
- e) I don’t know, it’s hard to say (1)?
3. What is the relationship between the members of your group:
- c) worse than in most classes (1);
- d) I don’t know, it’s hard to say (1)?
4. What is your relationship with management:
- a) better than in most teams (3);
- b) approximately the same as in most teams (2);
- d) don’t know (1)?
5. What is the attitude towards work (studies, etc.) in your team:
- a) better than in most teams (3);
- b) approximately the same as in most teams (2);
- c) worse than in most teams (1);
- d) I don’t know (1)?

Levels of group cohesion are defined as follows:

15.1 points and above - high;
11.6-15 points - above average;
7- 11.5 - average;
4 - 6.9 - below average;
4 and below - low.

The teacher must prepare required amount questionnaire forms without keys; students record their answers in notebooks. Then the teacher announces the counting algorithm, after which each student calculates their individual results.

Stage 4. Discussion of results

After each student determines his individual results, group average values are calculated using both methods. Next, students are asked to compare their individual and group performance for each technique, thinking about what causes the resulting discrepancies (if they exist). In addition, it is also important to compare the results of both methods with each other. Those interested can express their thoughts on this matter. In conclusion, the teacher offers written assignments for independent work which can be done in the form of an essay.

Practical tasks

1. Can cohesion have Negative consequences and effects? What are they? Give examples of such situations.
2. Identify factors that can promote and hinder the development of cohesion.
3. Read W. Golding's story "Lord of the Flies" or watch its film adaptations ("Lord of the Flies" (1963) - film by Peter Brook, "Lord of the Flies" (1990) - film by Harry Hook). Analyze what happened to the group of children about which we're talking about in the work.

Krichevsky, R. L. Social psychology of a small group: textbook, manual for universities / R. L. Krichevsky, E. M. Dubovskaya. - M.: Aspect Press, 2001.

Petrovsky, V. A. Arthur Vladimirovich Petrovsky: Scientific developments and discoveries of recent years [Electronic resource] / V. A. Petrovsky. URL: http://www. hi m-bad. ru/biblioteka/articlefu 11 .php?aid=267.

Psychological theory team / ed. A. V. Petrovsky. - M„ 1979.

In the book: Fundamentals of socio-psychological research: a textbook for universities / edited by A. A. Bodalev and A. A. Derkach. M.: Gardariki, 2007. pp. 279-281.

88. Concept small group. Main directions of small group research.

HISTORY OF SMALL GROUP RESEARCH

Read also