Group Size

This article focuses on group size. Group size affects a group's consensus, effort, performance, idea production, cooperation, identity, problem solving, and stability. Understanding the role that group size plays in social life is vital background for all those interested in the sociology of groups and organizations as well as the structural determinants of social action. Studies of the connections between group size and social actions are part of larger bodies of sociological research including group studies and collective behavior research. This article explores the sociology of group size in four parts: an overview of the basic principles of group studies; a description of Georg Simmel's studies of group size including small groups, large groups, dyads, and triads; an explanation of the history of group studies and collective behavior research; and a discussion of the ways in which sociologists apply the principles of group size to understand the quantitative nature of social action.

Keywords Collective Behavior; Collectivity; Deindividuation Theory; Dyad; Free-Rider Theory; Group; Ringelmann Effect; Simmel, Georg; Social Life; Society; Sociology; Triad

Social Interaction in Groups & Organizations > Group Size

Group Size

Overview

Group size affects a group's consensus, effort, performance, idea production, cooperation, identity, problem solving, and stability. An understanding of the role that group size plays in social life is vital for all those interested in the sociology of groups and organizations and the structural determinants of social action. Studies of the connections between group size and group action are part of larger bodies of sociological research like group studies and collective behavior research. This article explores the sociology of group size in four parts:

• An overview of the basic principles of group studies;
• A description of Georg Simmel's studies of group size including small groups, large groups, dyads, and triads;
• An explanation of the history of group studies and collective behavior research;
• and a discussion of the ways in which sociologists apply the principles of group size to understand the quantitative nature of social action.

The Basic Principles of Group Studies

Group research tends to be divided into three kinds of studies: group composition, group structure and group process (McGrath, 1978).

• Group Composition: Research on group character and composition focuses on group size and member characteristics. All group members bring qualities and characteristics to the group, and these qualities and characteristics influence the group as a whole. Examples of personal characteristics which can affect the group include biographical characteristics such as age, race, sex, and class; personality characteristics; and the members' abilities, attitudes, social positions, and roles within the group. Research has shown that there is no generalizable prescription for forming an effective group based on member characteristics.
• Group Structure: Research on group structure and relations between individuals tends to focus on communication networks and friendship networks. Studies of communication networks were popular in the 1940s and 1950s. In particular, the success of centralized and decentralized communication channels is of great interest to small group researchers. Centralized networks have been found to produce faster and more accurate communication. Small group researchers study friendship networks to understand the interpersonal nature of relations in groups. Researchers have found that group cohesiveness is higher in friendship networks than non-friendship networks. Small group researchers also study power and influence relations in groups. They have found at least five bases of power in group relations: legitimate, referent, reward, coercive, and expert. Studies of power relations in groups provide insight into issues of leadership, conformity, group norms, and interpersonal conflict.
• Group Process: Research on group process and member behavior produces data useful for predicting group actions. Small group researchers study the interaction processes in groups to understand how groups function. All member characteristics and behaviors are found to be mediated and interpreted through the group interaction process. Group processes are challenged by socio-emotional and group maintenance problems.

Georg Simmel's Studies of Group Size: Small Groups, Large Groups, Dyads, & Triads

Georg Simmel (1858–1918), a German sociologist, was the first sociologist to study the connections between group size and group actions, as well as the effect of group size on social life (Hare, 1952). Simmel's essay "Quantitative Aspects of the Group" had a strong influence on the development of the group studies field. Simmel was one of the first to recognize that the number of participants in a group affects the group's success, quality, and experience. He saw a connection between quantitative relationships, group processes and structural relationships. Simmel's work on group size exemplifies his intellectual standpoint on the structural determinants of social action (Coser, 1977). Simmel was also concerned with social structure and sociability. He researched and wrote extensively on culture, social structure, economics, and the city. His ability to understand and analyze individual action within the context of social structures made his work of interest throughout the 19th and 20th centuries (Nooteboom, 2006).

Large & Small Groups

Over the course of his life, Simmel was concerned with the significance of numbers upon social life. Simmel studied group relations as part of a larger effort to understand broad social trends. He believed that group size was directly related to specific manifestations and experiences of social life. Simmel found that the larger the group size, the higher the level of structural differentiation in the group. Structural differentiation refers to the specialized organs created by the group to promote and maintain its interests (Levine, 1972). Simmel proved that there are crucial differences between small groups and larger ones. Simmel's work on the differences between small groups (characterized by intense member involvement) and large groups (characterized by member distance, aloofness, and segmentation) is representative of his position on the connections between individual freedoms and group structures (Coser, 1977).

Small Groups

Small groups are marked by the number of opportunities they give their members to interact with one another. They tend to have greater member involvement and frequency of member contact (Coser, 1977). Simmel found that socialism, religious sects, and aristocracies were most successful as small groups. Each of these groups has an absolute size limit which, when met, limits the success of the group. Socialism succeeds best in small, homogeneous groups in which individual members can see how socialism benefits all the group members. Likewise, small group religious sects succeed when they identify themselves as special and apart from the population at large and in opposition to larger groups. Aristocracies also succeed best when they are small and contained. Large or fast-growing aristocracies have difficulty maintaining their authority and mission. Successful political aristocracies, too, require members to know one another (Levine, 1972).

Large Groups

In contrast to small groups, large groups are characterized by formal arrangements which mediate relationships. By necessity, large groups develop special organs and offices to direct member interactions. Large groups also delegate tasks and engage in the active differentiation of status positions and roles. They are structurally differentiated and tend to prioritize the group over the individual.

In addition, large groups tend to have weaker member involvement and participation. Because they do not require members' whole selves to be involved in the mission and operations of the group, they require less energy, commitment, and initiative from their members. Furthermore, the distance between the members of larger groups frees individuals from the scrutiny and control common in smaller groups (Coser, 1977). Simmel found that large groups tend to form into masses that are guided by simple ideas. When group members are in close proximity to one another, the mass is capable of being politically, socially, and religiously zealous.

Simmel also studied the connections between group size, radicalism, and cohesiveness. He concluded that small groups are more radical than large groups and tend to display more solidarity. A large group, on the other hand, is more likely to manipulate its messages and positions in order to appeal to a heterogeneous constituency and maintain a wide range of supporters (Levine, 1972).

The Isolated Individual, the Dyad, & the Triad

Simmel also developed influential theories about the isolated individual, the dyad, and the triad.

The Isolated Individual

The isolated individual, Simmel believed, lives in a state of distance from imagined or abstract society. He or she relates to society by choosing distance and freedom over interaction. Some people define their lives through isolation, autonomy, and freedom from social demands and ties. Isolated individuals may experience only periodic isolation or isolation as status quo.

The Dyad

The dyad, or a group of two people, is the simplest group form that may exist between individuals, according to Simmel. He considered it to be distinct from other forms of social association or interaction. Unlike other groups, the dyad is characterized by its high level of intimacy, and its success is dependent upon the specific identities of the two members. Intimacy is founded on each participant sharing exclusive content with the other. Intimacy is, therefore, based on the exclusivity of a relationship between members, regardless of the nature or identity of that exclusive content. Close friendships and monogamous marriages are examples of a dyad.

Dyads are significantly affected by the addition of new elements. For example, a dyadic relationship with a superordinate member and a subordinate member will be altered with the addition of a third member (Levine, 1972). A dyad is also dependent upon the health, reciprocity, and participation of both members. The death or withdrawal of one member destroys the dyad. Further, it lacks a superpersonal structure that exists outside its members. The two members of a dyad cannot shift responsibility, blame, or work to the larger group, as dyad members are directly responsible for all actions (Coser, 1977).

Triads

Triads are groups of three members in which each member functions as an intermediary between the other two members. The addition of a third member allows for the internal development of parties, sides, and majority rule in times of conflict. Unlike dyads, triads are not significantly changed by adding more members or elements. A couple with a small child is an example of a triad.

Triads are characterized by their tendency toward party formation over solidarity. The triad is the smallest group structure in which the group as a whole can dominate individual members. The triad can impose its will on a single member by the creation of a majority or coalition between the other two members. Simmel observed that adding a third member to a dyad simultaneously creates new opportunities for social action and restricts opportunities for self-expression and individuality (Coser, 1977).

Simmel described the social and group dynamics that characterize specific forms of interaction within triads. Simmel recognized that when a third member joins a dyad, the third member may take on three different roles when conflict arises: mediator, tertius gaudens, or divide et impera.

• Mediator: In the role of mediator, the third member impartially counsels the other two members to calm tensions and resolve issues that threaten the group (Coser, 1977). The third party non-partisan mediator, or arbitrator, works to facilitate harmony and agreement between the two original members of the triad. The third party's role is to reflect the divergent positions in neutral and non-inflammatory language. When the two original members agree to arbitration and mediation by the third party, the chances of peaceful resolution are found to be high (Levine, 1972)
• Tertius Gaudens: In the role of tertius gaudens (Latin for "the third who rejoices"), the third member will use disagreement between the original two members to his or her advantage (Coser, 1977). He or she capitalizes on the conflict that exists between two original members to either directly or indirectly advance his or her interests. The tertius gaudens loses his or her advantage when the conflicting members resolve their conflict (Levine, 1972).
• Divide et Impera: In the role of divide et impera (Latin for "divide and rule" or "conflict maker"), the third member will intentionally create conflicts and disagreements between the original two members in an effort to achieve a dominant position (Coser, 1977). The divide et impera may work to create jealousy between the other two members of the triad, or form separate coalitions with each member (Levine, 1972).

Ultimately, Simmel's influential studies of small groups, large groups, dyads, and triads illustrated that the size of the group in which social action takes place has a significant influence on members' experience and the nature of the group as a whole. Simmel's work on the structural determinants of social action influenced sociological studies of groups throughout the 20th century. The insights gained from Simmel's quantitative studies of group process and structural arrangements have entered public consciousness and policy, and influenced group formation and relations in religious, business, government, and community settings. For instance, applied sociologists use Simmel's work today to advise political campaigns about the relationships between group size and voter turnout rates (Manza & Brooks, 1999).

The History of Group Studies & Collective Behavior Research

The sociological study of group size is part of larger areas of sociological inquiry including group studies and collective behavior research. In the early 20th century, American sociologists began to study social interaction as a means of understanding and predicting individual and group behavior. The basic unit of the two and three person group became the focus of much sociological study. Sociologists felt that once they could understand how two and three person groups function, the small group theories and observations would be applicable to studies of large groups. Small group studies and social psychology of the early 20th century occurred primarily in laboratory settings. In the early 20th century, Georg Simmel established group size as a factor influencing and possibly determining group behavior.

In the 1930s, sociologists began to conduct small group studies in real world settings. Sociologists began to study social pathology, urban life, and civil unrest. Examples of topics include mobs, mass movements, lynchings, and gangs. In the 1940s, the crisis of war and economic depression caused small group studies to focus on studies of phenomena with broad social consequences. In the 1950s, the field returned to a theoretical focus on the connection between group behavior and social life. Sociologists began to study how individuals and groups differ in their performance abilities. Research has focused on the success of brainstorming and quality and speed of problem solving in individual versus group settings. Individual task performance and group task performance vary significantly based on setting, topic, and time constrictions. Small group research lost its prominence in the 1960s possibly due to a lack of a strong supporting body of theory (McGrath, 1978).

Collective Behavior Research

The field of collective behavior research, which began in the 19th century, established the foundation for studies of the relationships between group size (and group composition in general) and social action. Sociologists, including Gustave Le Bon, Emile Durkheim, Robert Park, and Talcott Parsons, analyzed the activities of social groups, mass gatherings, collectivities, audiences, mobs, riots, and crowds to learn how these collective behaviors work and what impact collective behaviors have on society. These prominent sociologists searched for the structural determinants of collective behavior and social action.

Social psychologists, namely Gustave Le Bon (1841–1931) developed the field of collective psychology to understand and analyze the political and social turmoil of twentieth century Europe. Le Bon developed the contagion crowd theory to explain the way in which crowds exert a hypnotic effect over their participants. Le Bon's work on crowd psychology contributed to the development of the deindividuation theory that argues that the larger the group size, the higher the degree of anonymity and competition exhibited by members (Kugihara, 2001). Emile Durkheim (1855–1917), a French sociologist concerned with issues of solidarity and social cohesion, developed the theory of collective conscience to explain social cohesion and collectivity. Collective conscience refers to the shared beliefs and moral attitudes that operate to unify sectors of society.

The concept of collective behavior, developed by sociologist Robert Park (1864–1944), shaped how sociologists studied individual and group action throughout the twentieth century. Collective behavior refers to spontaneous action and conduct that occurs outside of existing social structures, laws, conventions, and institutions. Examples of collective behavior include religious pilgrimages, race riots, protest marches, audiences, and lynch mobs (Beauregard, 1997).

Sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) developed the conceptual scheme of the collectivity, a term which refers to distinct human groups united by shared social structures, identity, and customs. Parsons defined the parameters and characteristics necessary to create collectivities. For example, Parsons believed that a group must have loyalty toward the members and the group. Examples of loyalty include attachments, rights to relational rewards, and a commitment to act based on a system of shared standards and symbols (Treudley, 1953). Ultimately, sociological study of group actions and collective behavior in general is an evolving area of inquiry responsive to historical trends and current events.

Applications

Sociologists apply the principles of group size and social action to understand the quantitative nature of social action. For instance, studies of overmanning versus undermanning, free-rider psychology, and social loafing have illustrated the ways in which group size influences individual and group effort, task completion, and performance.

Roger Barker

Roger Barker (1968) studied the effects of overmanning versus undermanning in certain behavior settings. Overmanning refers to situations in which there are a surplus number of persons to complete necessary tasks. Undermanning refers to situations in which there are an insufficient number of persons to complete necessary tasks. Barker found that individuals in undermanning situations tend to be more involved, committed, successful, and motivated to achieve group goals and tasks than individuals in overmanned situations (McGrath, 1978).

Mancur Olson

Mancur Olson, developed the free-rider theory, as explained in "The Logic of Collective Action" (1965), to explain the tendency of people to minimize their costs relative to the benefits they receive from the group. Olson argued that large groups are less successful than small groups in achieving their common goals. Olson's free-rider theory has influenced management theory of large and small groups. Management theory suggests that as group size increases, group member contribution will usually decrease. A common management strategy for addressing the free-rider effect is to develop incentive programs contingent upon the completion of group goals (Albanese & Van Fleet, 1985). Critics of Olson's free-rider theory argue that collective action is not a simple function of group size. Instead collective action is determined by diverse factors (Udehn, 1993).

Maximilien Ringelmann

Maximilien Ringelmann, a French engineer, developed a theory, known as the Ringelmann effect, about social loafing and coordination losses in groups. Coordination loss refers to the lack of simultaneous efforts within groups that negatively impacts the achievement of collective goals. Ringelmann based his theory on an experiment in which he had individuals and groups of people pull on a rope attached to a strain gauge to measure the overall pull force exertion. Ringelmann found that the total of the individual pulls was greater than the total group pulls. Ringelmann concluded that an inverse relationship exists between the size of a group and the level of group member's individual contribution to the group. Contemporary interpretations of the Ringelmann effect focus on the phenomenon of social loafing. Social loafing refers to the decrease of performance and effort that individuals demonstrate when working in a group as opposed to individual performance (Witte, 1989). In the final analysis, sociological inquiry into group size has demonstrated that group size effects group idea production, effort, competition, performance, cohesion, and stability (Asquith, 1997).

Conclusion

This article focused on group size. It explored the sociology of group size, including an overview of the basic principles of group studies; a description of Georg Simmel's studies of group size including small groups, large groups, dyads, and triads; an explanation of the history of group studies and collective behavior research; and a discussion of the ways in which sociologists apply the principles of group size to understand the quantitative nature of social action. Ultimately, understanding the role that group size plays in social life is vital background for all those interested in the sociology of groups and organizations as well as the structural determinants of social action.

Terms & Concepts

Collective Behavior: Spontaneous social actions that occur outside of prevailing social structures and institutions.

Collectivity: A distinct human group united by shared social structures, identity, and customs.

Deindividuation Theory: A theoretical explanation for the connection between group size and degree of anonymity and competition exhibited by members.

Dyad: Sociologist Georg Simmel's term for a group of two.

Free-Rider Theory: The tendency of people to minimize their costs relative to the benefits they receive from the group.

Group: A social form with two or more members.

Ringelmann Effect: A group's experience of social loafing and coordination losses.

Simmel, Georg: A German sociologist concerned with social structure and sociability.

Social Life: The relationships, trends, and belief systems that unite individuals and groups.

Society: A group of individuals united by values, norms, culture, or organizational affiliation.

Sociology: The scientific study of human social behavior, human association, and the results of social activities.

Triad: Sociologist Georg Simmel's term for a group of three.

Bibliography

Albanese, R. & Van Fleet, D. (1985). Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding tendency. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 244.

Asquith, J. (1997). The effects of group size on the outcome of focus group sessions. Management Research News, 20, 1–15.

Beauregard, R. (1997). Review of The reportage of urban culture: Robert Park and the Chicago School. Urban Studies, 34, 1916–1918.

Conein, B. (2011). Gossip, conversation and group size: Language as a bonding mechanism. Irish Journal of Sociology, 19, 116–131. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=71661639

Coser, L.A. 1977. Masters of sociological thought: Ideas in historical and social context. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cullum, J., O'Grady, M., Armeli, S., & Tennen, H. (2012). The role of context-specific norms and group size in alcohol consumption and compliance drinking during natural drinking events. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 34, 304–312. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78084319

Davidson, J., & Widman, T. (2002). The effect of group size on interfaith marriage among Catholics. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 397–404. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7195886&site=ehost-live

Hare, A. (1952). A study of interaction and consensus in different sized groups. American Sociological Review, 17, 261–267. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12786692&site=ehost-live

Hoverd, W., Atkinson, Q. D., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Group size and the trajectory of religious identification. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51, 286–303. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=76372150

Kastner, K. (1981). From the social question to the social state. Economy & Society, 10, 7–27. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10347365&site=ehost-live

Kimura, K. (1989). Large groups and a tendency towards failure: A critique of M. Olson's model of collective action. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 14, 263–271. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9669782&site=ehost-live

Kugihara, N. (2001). Effects of aggressive behavior and group size on collective escape in an emergency: A test between a social identity model and deindividuation theory. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 575–98.

Levine, D. ed. (1972). Georg Simmel on individuality and social forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Manza, J. & Brooks, C. (1999). Group size, turnout, and political alignments and the development of U.S. party coalitions, 1960-1992. European Sociological Review, 15, 369–389.

McGrath, J. (1978). Small group research. The American Behavioral Scientist, 21, 651.

Morrison, D. (1971). Some notes toward theory on relative deprivation, social movements, and social change. The American Behavioral Scientist, 14, 675.

Nooteboom, B. (2006). Simmel's treatise on the triad (1908). Journal of Institutional Economics, 2, 365–383.

Oliver, P., & Marwell, G. (1988). The paradox of group size in collective action: A theory of the critical mass. American Sociological Review, 53, 1–8. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14789891&site=ehost-live

Simon, B., Mlicki, P., Johnston, L., Caetano, A., Warowicki, M., van Knippenberg, A., et al. (1990). The effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism, stereotyping and overestimation of relative ingroup size. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 519–523. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12156877&site=ehost-live

Treudley, M. (1953). The ethnic group as a collectivity. Social Forces, 31, 261–265. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=13546055&site=ehost-live

Udéhn, L. (1993). Twenty-five years with the logic of collective action. Acta Sociologica, 36, 239–261. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9406150006&site=ehost-live

Witte, E. (1989). Köhler rediscovered: the anti-Ringelmann effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 147-154. Retrieved July 19, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12121396&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Cripps, E. (2011). Collectivities without intention. Journal of Social Philosophy, 42, 1–20. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=58702290

Feldman, Z. (2012). Simmel in cyberspace. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 297–319. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=71754820

Grofman, B. (1978). Judgmental competence of individuals and groups in a dichotomous choice situation: Is a majority of heads better than one? Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 6, 47-60. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9944608&site=ehost-live

Kish, L. (1965). Sampling organization and groups of unequal sizes. American Sociological Review, 30, 564-572. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12801078&site=ehost-live

Lee, C., Potvin, R. & Verdieck, M. (1974). Interethnic marriage as an index of assimilation: The case of Singapore. Social Forces, 53, 112-119. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5285316&site=ehost-live