Talk:Introduction to Sociology/Groups

Outdated Reference?

 * "If we can assign people to a category then that tells us things about those people, and as we saw with the busdriver example we couldn't function in a normal manner without using these categories; i.e. in the context of the bus."

Was the bus driver example replaced by the police/highway patrol example? If so, then the above also needs to be updated. If not, a more specific reference to the bus driver example would be helpful as it is not on the same page. Paul Pomeroy 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

random quotes
p. 461 "In many respects, this has been the fate of "the group" in social psychology. With its focus on the individual, social psychology has had a difficult time accepting the group as a true member of the flock. Although the group has been a part of social psychology since the field's beginning (Triplett, 1898), it has occupied a rather tenuous position. Social psychologists have scoffed at the notion of a "group mind" (Le Bon, 1895/1960). Allport (1924) observed that nobody ever tripped over a group, an insult questioning the very existence of the group. The rejection of the group became so complete that Steiner (1974) entitled an article, "What ever happened to the group in social psychology?" For a time, the group was banished to the foreign lands of organizational psychology and sociology. "But the group could not stay a stranger for long. It wormed its way back into the fold, but its rebirth had a unique twist. Early definitions of the group described it as a unit consisting of several individuals who interacted with each other and occupied "real" space (Shaw, 1981). However, the born-again group was accepted into the domain of social psychology only as a cognitive representation, a figment of the mind. Instead of the individual being in the group, the group was now within the individual; Hogg and Abrams (1988) stated that "the group is thus within the individual ..." (p. 19)."

p. 462 "SIT became the springboard for new approaches to understanding stereotyping (Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarry, & Hays, 1992; Ng, 1989; Spears, Oakes, Ellemers, & Haslam, 1997), prejudice (Bagby & Rector, 1992), ethnic violence (Worchel, 1999) and other forms of intergroup relations. The perspective was applied to a host of traditional social psychological issues such as interpersonal perception (Park & Rothbart, 1982), minority influence (Clark & Maass, 1988), and group productivity and social loafing (Worchel, Rothgerber, Day, Hart, & Buttemeyer, 1998)." Every article I have read in these books has mentioned SIT and Tajfel; was that a requirement? Has SP nothing else?

p. 463 "Social identity theory presents individual identity as a point along a continuum ranging from personal identity on one end to social identity on the other end. One's identity at a specific time is represented by a single point on the continuum. A multitude of variables affect whether personal identity or social identity will be most salient, and which of the many group memberships will be most prominent on the social identity side of the equation. The conceptualization of social identity as being composed of group membership leads to the hypothesis that people discriminate in order to enhance the position of their ingroups relative to that of outgroups. The motivation behind this action is to create a positive social identity (Tajfel, 1978), reduce threats to self-esteem (Hogg & Abrams, 1990; Long & Spears, 1997), or reduce uncertainty (Hogg, 2000; Hogg & Abrams, 1993)."

p. 464 "Our approach gives the group a clear role outside the cognitive structure of the individual. Although we do not deny that individuals hold mental representations of groups and that these representations can and do exert influence, we also argue that groups are entities that exist outside the person and exert real pressure. We suggest that group dynamics has interpersonal and intergroup components that cannot be ignored in the study of the relationship between individual and group. Although group activities have an impact on the identity of the individual member, the group must be examined within a true social paradigm."

p. 467 "The disintegration of the group continues into the stage of decay. At this point, members may defect from the group. Scapegoating takes place and leaders are often blamed for group ills. The individual focus is accelerated, and the need for the group is questioned. "In some cases, the decay destroys the group and it ceases to exist. However, in many other cases, the group, albeit with a different set of members, begins the process of rebuilding. A distinct incident or threat may ignite the rebirth, or the rebuilding may be initiated by the collective actions of a subset of the members. Whatever the reason, the group enters again into the group identification stage, and the cycle of group development begins anew." Why do they put everything into either stages or cycles? Why can't things not progress and just be?
 * the above needs to be incorporated into the rest of the text--Rcragun 23:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To do
(1) Add section on leadership; (2) add section on Simmel's group dynamics, diffusion of responsibility, bystander apathy, etc. (3) retitle chapter "Groups and social structure"; (4) add section on status, master status, ascribed vs. achieved status, status sets, role strain and role conflict; (5) add more on Goffman; (6) add some basic stuff on bureaucracy from Weber. (7) add Milgram obedience experiment to conformity section; (8) add Stanford Prison Experiment; (9) a case could be made for introducing Weberian power and authority here, re leadership, and for instructors who don't have time for an entire unit on politics.Thomasfbrown (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)