Chapter Two from
Yüklə 100,43 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Implications for Group Formation and Societal Structure
- Consequences of Preventing Incomparability
- Biographical Note
13 Festinger (1954) A Theory of Social Comparison Processes dependent upon other things. In the case of opinions it will be dependent upon the resistances to changing opinions, and upon the power of the group to successfully influence its members. The theory concerning the determinants of the power of the group to influence its members is set forth elsewhere (7). We will not repeat it here since the power of the group to influence its members is relatively unimportant with regard to abilities. The social process itself; no matter how much power the group has, cannot achieve movement toward uniformity on abilities. The power of the group successfully to influence its members will be effective only insofar as changing members’ values concerning a given ability and increasing motivations can be effective. With respect to values and motivations concerning the ability the situation is identical with the social process that goes on concerning opinions. Implications for Group Formation and Societal Structure
The drive for self evaluation concerning one’s opinions and abilities has implications not only for the behavior of persons in groups but also for the processes of formation of groups and changing membership of groups. To the extent that self evaluation can only be accomplished by means of com- parison with other persons, the drive for self evaluation is a force acting on persons to belong to groups, to associate with ‘others. And the subjective feelings of correctness in one’s opinions and the subjective evaluation of adequacy of one’s performance on important abilities are some of the satisfactions that persons attain in the course of these associations with other people. How strong the drives and satisfactions stemming from these sources are compared to the other needs which people satisfy in groups is impossible to say, but it seems clear that the drive for self evaluation is an important factor contributing to making the human being “gregarious”.
People, then, tend to move into groups which, in their judgment, hold opinions which agree with their own and whose abilities are near their own. And they tend to move out of groups in which they are unable to satisfy their drive for self evaluation. Such movement in and out of groups is, of course, not a completely fluid affair. The attractiveness to a group may be strong enough for other reasons so that a person cannot move out of it. Or there may be restraints, for one or another reason, against leaving. In both of these circumstances, mobility from one group to another is hindered. We will elaborate in the next section on the effects of so hindering movement into and out of groups.
These selective tendencies to join some and leave other associations, together with the influence process and competitive activity which arise when there is discrepancy in a group, will guarantee that we will find relative similarity in opinions and abilities among persons who associate with one another (at least on those opinions and abilities which are relevant to that association). Among different groups, we may well expect to find relative dissimilarity. It may very well be that the segmentation into groups is what allows a society to maintain a variety of opinions within it and to accommodate persons with a wide range of abilities. A society or town which was not large enough or flexible enough to permit such segmentation might not be able to accommodate the same variety.
The segmentation into groups which are relatively alike with respect to abilities also gives rise to status in a society. And it seems clear that when such status distinctions are firmly maintained, it is not only members of the higher status who maintain them. It is also important to the members of the lower status to maintain them for it is in this way that they can relatively ignore the differences and compare themselves with their own group. Comparisons with members of a different status group, either higher or lower, may sometimes be made on a phantasy level, but very rarely in reality.
It is also important to consider whether or not the incomparability consequent upon group segmentation is a relatively complete affair. The conferring of status in the case of abilities or the allegation of “different kind of people” in the case of opinions may markedly lower the comparability but may not completely eliminate it. The latter is probably the more accurate statement. People are certainly aware, to some extent, of the opinions of those in incomparable groups. To the extent that perfect incomparability is not achieved, this has important bearing on differences in behavior to be expected from members of minority groups. Members of minority groups, if they are unable to achieve complete incomparability with other groups, should be somewhat less secure in their self evaluations.
A Theory of Social Comparison Processes 14
One might expect from this that within a minority group, the pressures toward uniformity would be correspondingly stronger than in a majority group. The minority group would seek stronger support within itself and be less well able to tolerate differences of opinion or ability’ which were relevant to that group.
In connection with opinion formation, there is experimental evidence that this is the case (14). Subgroups which were in the minority within larger experimental groups showed evidence of stronger pressures toward uniformity within the subgroup than did the majority subgroups. In minority groups where particular abilities were relevant, we would, by the same line of reasoning, also expect stronger pressures toward uniformity and hence fiercer competition with respect to that ability than in majority groups.
We may recall that stronger pressure toward uniformity also implies the existence of stronger tendencies to regard as incomparable those who deviate markedly. Since others arc made incomparable with respect to opinions by means of rejection from the group, this gives us a possible explanation of the persistent splitting into smaller and smaller factions which is frequently found to occur in minority groups which are under strong pressure from the majority segments of the population. Consequences of Preventing Incomparability
There are predominantly two kinds of situations in which comparability is forced despite the usual tendencies not to compare oneself with those who deviate markedly. One such situation occurs when the attraction of the group is so strong, for other reasons, that the member continues to wish to remain in the group in spite of the fact that he differs markedly from the group on some opinion or ability. If, together with this state of affairs, he has no other comparison group for this opinion or ability, or if the opinion or ability is highly relevant to that group, then comparability is forced to a great extent. The psychological tendencies to make incomparable those who differ most will still be present but would not be as effective as they might otherwise be.
Under these circumstances where the attraction to .the group remains high, the group has power to influence the member effectively and, in the case of opinion difference, we would expect an influence process to ensue which would be effective enough to eliminate the difference of opinion. In short, there would be movement toward uniformity. But what happens in the case of an ability? Here, while the group will probably succeed in motivating the member concerning this ability it is quite likely that the ability itself may not be changeable. We have then created a situation where a person’s values and strivings are quite out of line with his performance and we would expect, if he is below others, deep experiences of failure and feelings of inadequacy with respect to this ability. This is certainly not an unusual condition to find.
The other major situation in which comparability is forced upon a person is one in which he is prevented from leaving the group. The theory concerning the effect of this situation on opinion formation is spelt out elsewhere (11). We will touch on the main points here in order to extend the theory to ability evaluation. In circumstances where a person is restrained from leaving a group either physically or psychologically, but otherwise his attraction to the group is zero or even negative, the group does not have the power to influence him effectively. Uniformity can, however, be forced, in a sense, if the group exerts threats or punishment for non-compliance. In the case of opinions, we may here expect to find overt compliance or overt conformity without any private acceptance on the part of the member. Thus a boy who is forced to play with some children whom he does not particularly like would, in such circumstances, where threat was employed, agree with the other children publicly while privately maintaining his disagreement.
Again, when we consider abilities, we find a difference which arises because abilities may be difficult if not impossible to change on short notice. Here the deviating member who is restrained from leaving the group may simply have to suffer punishment. If he deviates toward the higher end of the ability scale, he can again publicly conform without privately accepting the evaluations of the group. If he deviates toward the lower end of the ability scale this may be impossible. Provided he has other 15 Festinger (1954) A Theory of Social Comparison Processes comparison groups for self evaluation on this ability he may remain personally and privately quite unaffected by this group situation. While publicly he may strive to perform better, privately his evaluations of his ability may remain unchanged. Summary
If the foregoing theoretical development is correct, then social influence processes and some kinds of competitive behavior are both manifestations of the same socio-psychological process and can be viewed identically on a conceptual level. Both stem directly from the drive for self evaluation and the necessity for such evaluation being based on comparison with other persons. The differences between the processes with respect to opinions and abilities lie in the unidirectional push upward in the case of abilities, which is absent when considering opinions and in the relative ease of changing one’s opinion as compared to changing one’s performance.
The theory is tentatively supported by a variety of data and is readily amenable to further empirical testing. One great advantage, assuming the correctness of the theory, is that one can work back and forth between opinions and ability evaluations. Some aspects of the theory may be more easily tested in one context, some in the other. Discoveries in the context of opinions should also hold true, when appropriately operationally defined, in the context of ability evaluation. Endnotes 1. Although published material on the autokinetic effect does not present the data in this form, it is clearly shown in special analysis of data from an experiment by Brehm, J. W., “A quantitative approach to the measurement of social influence”, Honors thesis, Harvard University, 1952. 2. This result is not reported in the article cited. ft was obtained by analyzing the data for this particular purpose. 3. It is interesting to note that on this point, the usual theory of level of aspiration (as) would lead to. a quite different prediction, namely, that those scoring consistently below the group would stop earliest.
1.
Anderson, H.H., and Brandt, H.F. “Study of Motivation Involving Self-Announced Goals of Fifth Grade Children and the Concept of Level of Aspiration”, Journal of Social Psychology, 1939, 10, 209—232. 2.
Experimental Social Psychology. New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1931, 1937 (Revised Edition). 3.
Back, K. “The Exertion of Influence Through Social Communication”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46, 9—24. 4.
Chapman, D. W., and Volkmann, J. A. “A Social Determinant of the Level of Aspiration,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1939, 34, 225—23 8. 5.
Dreyer, A. “Behavior in a Level of Aspiration Situation as Affected by Group Comparison”. Ph.D. Thesis, 1953, University of Minnesota. 6.
Psychology, 1942, 37, 184—200. 7.
Festinger, L. “Informal Social Communication”, Psychological Review,1950, 57, 271—282. 8.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., and Back, K. Social Pressures in Informal Groups, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. 9.
Festinger, L., and Thibaut, J. “Interpersonal Communications in Small Groups”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46, 92—100. 10.
Festinger, L., Gerard, H., et al. “The Influence Process in the Presence of Extreme Deviates,” Human Relations, 1952, 5, 327—346. 11.
Brothers, 1953. 12.
Festinger, L., Torrey, J., and Willerman, B. “Self-Evaluation as a Function of Attraction to the Group”, Human Relations, 1954, 7, 2. 13.
25,601—621. 14.
Gerard, H. “The Effect of Different Dimensions of Disagreement on the Communication Process in Small Groups”, Human Relations, 1953, 6, 249—272. 15.
Gould, R. “An Experimental Analysis of ‘Level of Aspiration’ “, Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1939, 21, 1—116. 16.
17.
Hilgard E. R., Sait, E. M., and Magaret, G. A. “Level of Aspiration as Affected by Relative Standing in an Experimental Social Group”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1940, 27, 411—421. 18.
Hochbaum, G. M. “Certain Personality Aspects and Pressures to Uniformity in Social Group.” Ph.D. Thesis, 1953, University of Minnesota. 19.
Hoffman, P. J., Festinger, L., and Lawrence, D. H. “Tendencies Toward Comparability in Competitive Bargaining”, Human Relations,1954, 7, 2. 20.
Hoppe, F. “Erfolg und Misserfolg”, Pschyol. Forsch., 1930, 14, 1—62. 21.
333—378. New York: Ronald Press Co., 1944. A Theory of Social Comparison Processes 16
22. Schachter, S. “Deviation, Rejection and Communication”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, ~ 46, 190—208. 23.
Psychology, 1940, 35,498—536. 24.
Whittemore, I. C. “The Influence of Competition on Performance”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1925, 20, 17—33
Leon Festinger, after taking a bachelor’s degree at the College of the City of New York, studied at the University of Iowa under the late Professor Kurt Lewin, there completing his master’s degree in 1940 and his doctorate in 1942. For the next two years he worked as instructor in the psychology department of Iowa, and as research associate at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station. For a year and a half, beginning in 1944, Dr. Festinger was senior statistician of the National Research Council’s Committee on Selection and Training of Aircraft Pilots, and instructor in the Department of Education of the University of Rochester, New York. From 1945 until his appointment to the University of Minnesota, he was a member of the staff of the Research Center for Group Dynamics, where he was assistant professor of psychology. He is now Professor of Psychology in the University of Minnesota. Leon Festinger has published numerous papers on statistics, on the effect of group standards and group atmospheres on the level of aspiration, on conflict and decision time, and on motivation and preference. His last paper to appear in this journal was on the subject, “The Influence Process in the Presence of Extreme Deviates”, Vol. V, No. 4. (1952), and was written in collaboration with Harold B. Gerard, Bernard Hymovitch, Harold H. Kelley, and Bert Raven. Document Outline
Yüklə 100,43 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|