Influences on Peer Groups and Friendships

Influences on Peer assorts and FriendshipsPeer sort outs, well-disposed competence and friendship. evince the relevance or not of the following Theory, Cultural differences, Age differences, gender differences and methodological issues.IntroductionIt has been erected that humans are companionable creatures. It has as well as been established that humans have an inclination to form well-disposed convocationings for a myriad of psychological reasons, such as friendship, acceptance, comfort, togetherness and so forth. However, the ways in which these radicaling takes place are rather more complex than nonpareil might expect.An examination of radical ontogeny paying particular watch to the effects of age, culture, gender and theoretical bias on the concepts of peer conclaves, affectionate competence and friendship was embarked upon. An evaluation was conducted of some key research that has try to examine and explain much of the core concepts and issues involved in so cial grouping and suppuration. meeting Alignment, Group Development and Group DynamicsLevine et al (1998) indicated that groups were more probable to accommodate new members if there was an established kindred betwixt newcomers and already established members. This was believed to be due to the need to establish socialisation of new members through mentors. The relationship of newcomer to mentor was hard qualified upon age difference (Levine et al, 1998).Research on socialisation effects conducted by Irons and Moore (1985) revealed that the significance of a mentor in including subjects that were erst excluded. They suggested that these formerly excluded subjects were people such as women and people of alternate colouring material (Irons Moore, 1985). It should be noted that the theoretics used by Irons and Moore are establish upon patriarchy and racial prejudice.Tuckman (1965) devised five stage theories in group development theory and later with his colleague Tuckman and Jenson (1977) extended this concept further.Forming Potential members array themselves to a group.Storming Members try to influence the group. This creates conflict within the group.Norming Members try to fit in conflicts. Norms and roles are established.Performing Members realize tasks in accordance to group need.Adjourning Members create distanced from the group and group activities due to the perception that group costs outweigh group benefits. amicable FacilitationZajonc (1965) suggested three important factors in the significance of social groups.The presence of opposites generates arousal in the subject and stimulates behaviour.Arousal increases the tendency to perform a desired response from the subject.The quality and success of this response is dependant upon the type of task.Zajonc concluded that a dominant response was perceived as being required from the subject within a group. This affected the work of easy tasks in a positive manner and difficult tasks in a negative manner.Mere Exposure Theory, Evaluation Theory and misdirection/Conflict TheoryThe idea of mere presence is integral to Zajoncs findings on social facilitation. That is to say that effects of others as stimuli are fixed to by presence alone. However, others have suggested otherwise.Cottrell (1968), Henchey and Glass (1968), put frontward evaluation theory which suggested that the success of social facilitation is dependant upon those who are perceived to be able to evaluate performance. For instance, those in a subjects peer group with certain(prenominal) perceived traits, such as competence, would have either positive or negative effects on the subjects performance.Put forward by Baron (1986) and Sanders (1981) distraction/conflict theory suggests that the presence of distractive stimuli exit effect social facilitation. For instance, the subject will produce social facilitation effects when others, such as friends, create distraction or attentional conflict.Group Rol es, Norms and CohesionForsyth (1990) Levine and Moreland (1990) suggest that there are three major contributors to the holding of social groups Social roles, social norms and group cohesion.Roles a pit of judge behaviours that are evaluated by a subjects established group role (established by either formal title or informal appreciation).Norms a set of established rules of conduct defined by the group dynamic.Cohesion the forces that vitality a group closer together in terms of role, side and goal (Cartwright Zander, 1960).Using a methodological analysis supporting the idea of biologically pre unconquerable group roles and norms Bales (1958) suggested that group roles and norms were based upon the traditional family dynamic i.e. the elite male role of the breadwinner and the submissive female role of caretaker.Examination of his methodological approach revealed that gender difference was not a predefining factor. Wood and Kartens (1986) experiments into role performance of cross sex groups, was revaluated by Dovidio et al (1988). It was found amongst men and women who felt equally as competent, that the roles adopted were often similar (Dovidio et al, 1988).The Effects of Group Cohesiveness and FriendshipFollowing on from Cartwright and Zander (1960), Carron et al (1985) suggested that group cohesiveness was comprised of two significant factors a groups preference towards a goal and a groups orientation towards its social relationships.It was observed by Carron (1985) that goal setting was a much more important part to success than social relationships. He determined that the successful completion of goals would increase self esteem and belief in the roles and norms of a group, whereas social relationships, such as friendship, would be more likely to distract the group from its collective goals.Carron (1982) defined a cohesive group as having a collective identity, a sense of shared purpose and structured patterns of communication (Carron, 1982) . These were considered essential elements to the effectiveness of a groups success and to its cohesion.Collective identity the identity of a group seen in terms of its roles and norms.Sense of shared purpose an understanding of the grandeur of roles and the goals that they achieveStructured patterns of communication group acknowledgement, understanding, appreciation and communication of all(prenominal) roles needs and requirements.ConclusionThe need for social groups drives the subject to undergo umteen developments in terms of social facilitation. It would seem from our examination that these factors are driven through a variety of factors.From the research we can see that group alignment is dependant upon relationships based upon age difference. It would also come on that group development requires challenges and subsequent reconciliations from certain subjects. It also appears that group dynamics are not necessarily composed of culturally or racially defined roles. Rathe r, it would appear that roles are intrinsic to socially defined goals and needs.The subject within the group would appear to be driven by other members in a way that is not quite as simple as, say, group conformity or peer competitiveness. It would also appear that group success is dependant upon the successful achievement of role defined goals. Furthermore, these role defined goals seem to be effected negatively by intimate individual relationships, such as friendship.In essence, theory, age, gender, culture and methodology are relevant to the way in which we understand peer groups, social competence and friendship and have psychological impact upon the development of social groupings and the very concept of ourselves as social creatures.BibliographyBales, R, F., (1958) Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. In E. E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (3rd Ed., p. 437-447). New York Holt.Baron, R, S., (1986) Distraction-confl ict theory give and problems. In L, Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. Orlando Academic Press.Carron, A.V., Widmeyer, W.N., Brawley, L.R. (1985). The development of an musical instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams The Group Environment Questionnaire. journal of Sport Psychology, 7.Carron, A.V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4.Cartwright, D., Zander, A., (1960) Group Dynamics Research and Theory. (2nd ed. p. 69-94) Evanston Row Peterson.Cottrell, N, B., (1968) Performance in the presence of other human beings Mere presence, audience, and affiliation effects. In E, C., Simmel, R, A, Hoppe, G, A, Milton (Eds.) Social Facilitation and Intimate deportment (p. 91-110). Boston Allyn Bacon.Davidio, J, F, Ellyson, S, L., Keating, C, F., Heltmen, K., Brown, C, E., (1988) The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 233-242.Forsyth, D, R., (1990) Group Dynamics (2nd ed.) Pacific Grove Brooks/Cole.Henchy, T., Glass, D, C., (1968) Evaluation apprehension and the social facilitation of dominant and overcome responses. Journal of personality and social psychology, 10, 446-454.Irons, E, D., Moore, G, W., (1985) Black Managers The Case of the Banking Industry. New York Praeger.Levine, J, M., Moreland, R, L., (1990) come out in small groups research. Annual Review of Social Psychology, 41, 585-634.Levine, J, M., Moreland, R, L., Ryan, C, S., (1998) Group socialising and Intergroup Realtions. In C,Sedikides, J, Schopler, C, A, Inscko (Eds.) Intergroup Cognition and Intergroup Behaviour. Mahaw, NJ Erlbaum.Sanders, G, S., (1981) Driven by distraction An combinatorial review of social facilitation theory and research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 17, 227-251.Tuckman, B, W., (1965) developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.Tuc kman, B, W., Jenson, M, A., (1977) Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organisation Studies, 2, 419-427.Wood, W., Karten, S, J., (1986) Sex Differences in interaction style as product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341-347.Zajonc, R, B., (1965) Social Facilitation. Science, 149, 269-274.