Types of Social Groups

本文探讨了社会群体的两种基本类型:初级群体和次级群体。初级群体由直接、亲密且凝聚力强的关系构成,表达性纽带占主导地位。次级群体则是为了特定的实际目的而建立的非个人关系,工具性纽带更为重要。文章还分析了促进初级群体形成的条件,并强调了初级群体在社会化过程、满足个人需求及社会控制方面的重要性。

摘要生成于 C知道 ,由 DeepSeek-R1 满血版支持, 前往体验 >

Types of Social Groups

Life places us in a complex web of relationships with other people. Our humanness arises out of these relationships in the course of social interaction. Moreover, our humanness must be sustained through social interaction—and fairly constantly so. When an association continues long enough for two people to become linked together by a relatively stable set of expectations, it is called a relationship.

People are bound within relationships by two types of bonds: expressive ties and instrumental ties. Expressive ties are social links formed when we emotionally invest ourselves in and commit ourselves to other people. Through association with people who are meaningful to us, we achieve a sense of security, love, acceptance, companionship, and personal worth. Instrumental ties are social links formed when we cooperate with other people to achieve some goal. Occasionally, this may mean working with instead of against competitors. More often, we simply cooperate with others to reach some end without endowing the relationship with any larger significance.

Sociologists have built on the distinction between expressive and instrumental ties to distinguish between two types of groups: primary and secondary. A primary group involves two or more people who enjoy a direct, intimate, cohesive relationship with one another. Expressive ties predominate in primary groups; we view the people as ends in themselves and valuable in their own right. A secondary group entails two or more people who are involved in an impersonal relationship and have come together for a specific, practical purpose. Instrumental ties predominate in secondary groups; we perceive people as means to ends rather than as ends in their own right. Sometimes primary group relationships evolve out of secondary group relationships. This happens in many work settings. People on the job often develop close relationships with coworkers as they come to share gripes, jokes, gossip, and satisfactions.

A number of conditions enhance the likelihood that primary groups will arise. First, group size is important. We find it difficult to get to know people personally when they are milling about and dispersed in large groups. In small groups we have a better chance to initiate contact and establish rapport with them. Second, face-to-face contact allows us to size up others. Seeing and talking with one another in close physical proximity makes possible a subtle exchange of ideas and feelings. And third, the probability that we will develop primary group bonds increases as we have frequent and continuous contact. Our ties with people often deepen as we interact with them across time and gradually evolve interlocking habits and interests.

Primary groups are fundamental to us and to society. First, primary groups are critical to the socialization process. Within them, infants and children are introduced to the ways of their society. Such groups are the breeding grounds in which we acquire the norms and values that equip us for social life. Sociologists view primary groups as bridges between individuals and the larger society because they transmit, mediate, and interpret a society's cultural patterns and provide the sense of oneness so critical for social solidarity.

Second, primary groups are fundamental because they provide the settings in which we meet most of our personalneeds. Within them, we experience companionship, love, security, and an overall sense of well-being. Not surprisingly, sociologists find that the strength of a group's primary ties has implications for the group's functioning. For example, the stronger the primary group ties of a sports team playing together, the better their record is.

Third, primary groups are fundamental because they serve as powerful instruments for social control. Their members command and dispense many of the rewards that are so vital to us and that make our lives seem worthwhile. Should the use of rewards fail, members can frequently win by rejecting or threatening to ostracize those who deviate from the primary group's norms. For instance, some social groups employ shunning (a person can remain in the community, but others are forbidden to interact with the person) as a device to bring into line individuals whose behavior goes beyond that allowed by the particular group. Even more important, primary groups define social reality for us by structuring our experiences. By providing us with definitions of situations, they elicit from our behavior that conforms to group-devised meanings. Primary groups, then, serve both as carriers of social norms and as enforcers of them.

转载于:https://www.cnblogs.com/techyu/p/10873364.html

请分析一下这个introduction的reliability。要给出原文句子,然后再进行分析The group to which one belongs, the ingroup, is an important source of self-esteem and pride. Ingroups evoke feelings of membership and safety, whereas outgroups may elicit feelings of competition, contempt, or opposition (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Throughout history, there are examples of marginalized outgroups being portrayed as animal-like, such as Jews as vermin, Africans as apes, or Tutsis as cockroaches, representing an absolute, explicit denial of their humanness (Haslam, 2014). More recent research has explored humanness denial as a comparative phenomenon, where an outgroup is denied uniquely human characteristics relative to the ingroup (Esses, Veenvliet, Hodson, & Mihic, 2008; Leyens et al., 2000). The goal of the present research was to explore the antecedents and consequences of one form of relative dehumanization, within the context of negative attitudes toward asylum seekers arriving in Australia. In particular, we investigated how perceiving an outgroup as dissimilar to the ingroup in specific types of values can predict dehumanization (humanness denial) and negative attitudes. Further, we explored the moderating role of individual preference for consistency (PFC) in these processes. Our research goes beyond previous studies in a number of novel ways. We first explored how perceived differences in each of Schwartz's (1992) higher order values may uniquely promote the dehumanization of asylum seekers, thereby extending previous work showing that dissimilarity between groups promotes dehumanization (Delgado, 2008) and aggression toward outgroups (Struch & Schwartz, 1989). We predicted that perceiving dissimilarities between the ingroup (Australians) and outgroup (asylum seekers) in their emphasis on universalism and benevolence values would promote the greatest denial of asylum seekers' humanness. Second, dehumanization may be an important step between value dissimilarities and prejudice, particularly if the differences are not perceived as threatening; however, its role as a mediator in this context is to date unexplored. We therefore aimed to establish the significance of dehumanization in the development of negative attitudes toward asylum seekers. Finally, the motivating role of PFC to reduce inconsistencies has been largely neglected outside of laboratory settings; therefore, the present research explored the moderating role of PFC in the relationships between perceived differences in values and dehumanization. We theorized that dehumanization could serve as a compensatory response in high-PFC individuals, to relieve the uncertainty and threat that accompanies greater perceived dissimilarities.
05-13
评论
添加红包

请填写红包祝福语或标题

红包个数最小为10个

红包金额最低5元

当前余额3.43前往充值 >
需支付:10.00
成就一亿技术人!
领取后你会自动成为博主和红包主的粉丝 规则
hope_wisdom
发出的红包
实付
使用余额支付
点击重新获取
扫码支付
钱包余额 0

抵扣说明:

1.余额是钱包充值的虚拟货币,按照1:1的比例进行支付金额的抵扣。
2.余额无法直接购买下载,可以购买VIP、付费专栏及课程。

余额充值