Socialization and reference groups

SIGNIFICANCE: The concept of reference groups helps to explain the dynamics underlying intergroup behavior. Among the effects of reliance on reference groups can be an ethnocentric outlook on life that leads to social conflict.

Since its inception many decades ago, the concept of reference groups has found a number of applications in the social sciences because of its ability to illuminate certain motives underlying human action. Among the more important of these applications has been its use in the race relations field to help explain the dynamics underlying prejudice and discrimination. Because these phenomena are such deeply rooted and persistent problems, much effort has been applied to understanding their genesis. Sociologist Tamotsu Shibutani, in 1955, carefully discussed some of the implications inherent in the concept of reference groups. He argued that one can find at least three such implications. First, reference groups may be seen as standards which actors use to gauge their definition of particular situations; that is, individuals, in attempting to interpret unfamiliar situations, often emulate groups whose orientation they find influential. Individuals ask themselves, “What would x do in these circumstances?” Second, reference groups may be viewed as groups in which an actor desires to participate. Third, reference groups are groups whose viewpoint constitutes an actor’s frame of reference. This implication, though similar to the first, differs in an important way: It implies a continuous socialization into the culture of the reference group, whereas the former does not. In the former usage, the idea is that at crucial moments, the individual will turn to their understanding of the reference group for guidance. In the latter, this orientation is more or less permanent, since the individual is constantly submerged in the norms and values of the reference group. It would not occur to the person that any other course of action is possible. Shibutani argues that the third meaning of reference groups is most important because of its association with culture and socialization.

Reference Groups in Pluralistic Societies

From a cultural point of view, reference groups are an outcome of the process of socialization. In this process, the norms and values of particular groups are inculcated into individuals such that they become their own. They reflexively act and feel as do others in their particular group. The group’s frame of reference becomes one’s own. The individual is able to anticipate the attitudes and feelings of others in the group because the individual is like them.

Racial and ethnic groups are among the most important of the groups into which individuals are socialized, since they often generate intense in-group loyalty, and, hence, conflict. As reference groups, they are especially important in plural societies with their multiplicity of racial and ethnic groups. In such societies, the desire for social advancement can heighten racial and ethnic consciousness. Consequently, it becomes relatively more difficult to resolve conflicting group interests, since in-group members are unable (or unwilling) to take the viewpoint of others in competing racial or ethnic groups. The respective frames of reference are often too far apart to allow a rapprochement.

Paradoxically, pluralistic societies can also undermine the particularistic leanings that lead to racial and ethnic conflict. By definition, these groups are not the only ones that exist in plural societies; there are many others. Significantly, some of these—such as occupational groups, classes, and religious groups—cross-cut racial and ethnic groups. Since individuals can belong to numerous groups at the same time, they might find that they have conflicting reference groups. The norms and values predominating in one group might conflict with those in another. For example, a racially conscious individual might harbor negative sentiments toward members of another race; however, he might also belong to a religious group, which teaches that such feelings are wrong. Similarly, an individual might dislike members of a competing ethnic group but might find herself working closely with members of that ethnic group. As psychologist Gordon Allport has shown, close cooperation of this sort tends to undermine negative racial and ethnic sentiments. The task of reference group theory in circumstances such as those just noted is to predict which set of affiliations will win out in the end. According to Shibutani, this might depend on such factors as the individual’s commitment to the respective groups or the depth of the interpersonal relationships that have developed in the groups. The expectation is that the reference group to which the individual is most deeply committed will be relatively more influential in guiding behavior.

Some sociologists say that reference groups are crucial to individuals in modern pluralistic societies such as the United States because they provide a frame of reference through which individuals make sense of the world. It is virtually impossible to imagine the nonexistence of reference groups, since they are the natural outgrowth of the process of socialization. Through this process, individuals assume that the norms and values of the groups into which they have been socialized are standard for all groups. Reference group formation, therefore, is inherently ethnocentric. Pluralism, however, can offset this ethnocentrism by providing individuals with the opportunity to belong to competing reference groups.

Conflict in Pluralistic Societies

The concept of reference groups is useful for explaining conflict in plural societies. One example of this is the situation to be found in former colonies. In many such societies, there exists a pattern of ethnic stratification in which, as the colonial rulers give up power, indigenous elites approximating them in culture (and sometimes in color) rise up to take their place. At the same time, the groups that traditionally resided at the bottom of colonial society remain subordinated. Thus, the end of colonialism, far from radically restructuring these societies, tends to maintain the status quo; indigenous elites, like the colonial masters before them, tend to despise the groups that reside at the bottom of the society. The concept of reference groups provides a clue as to how this pattern might be explained.

The former British colonies of the West Indies provide an example. Traditionally, these territories have exhibited a tripartite social structure quite unlike the sharp racial dichotomy to be found in the United States. Whereas Americans, relying on the “one-drop rule,” have tended to classify individuals with even remote Black ancestry as “Black,” the West Indian countries have recognized three distinct social strata: a tiny White (and largely foreign) elite residing at the top of the society, a middle stratum made up of mixed-race individuals, and a large group of Black individuals (who constitute the bulk of the population) residing at the bottom of the society. Social status varied from top to bottom according to color and occupation. As was the case in the United States, “Blackness” was denigrated and Black individuals were discriminated against. There was a crucial difference, however, since mixed-race individuals (who would be considered Black in the United States) were recognized as constituting a distinct social category. Also, as historian Douglas Hall has shown, the idea existed that upward mobility could partially offset the stigma of Black skin. Thus, the concept arose that “money whitens.” This meant, essentially, that as upwardly mobile Black Americans adopted British culture more fully, they became increasingly “acceptable” to the British elite. This elite, therefore, constituted a reference group for the whole society. Their viewpoint, through socialization, became the prism through which Black people—mixed and unmixed—viewed the world. Writers such as Diane Austin and Gordon Lewis have shown that the family and the education system are the two most important institutions for transmitting British culture. They argue, further, that the effectiveness of this transmission can be seen in the fact that West Indians overvalue educational credentials and “proper behavior” (such as forms of speech), and they evince deep class consciousness.

In the postcolonial period (formally inaugurated with Jamaica’s independence in 1962), the British presence declined, but British culture remained very influential. As they withdrew from the region, the mulattoes, Syrians, and Jews who bore the closest physical resemblance to the British gradually occupied the elite position formerly occupied by the British. One aspect of this ethnic succession was the wholesale adoption of the anti-Black stereotypes that had formerly been held by the British. The new elite’s thorough inculcation into British culture meant that few other reference groups could rise to challenge the traditional way of viewing the world. Thus, the actual withdrawal of the British from the islands had little effect on racial attitudes. British culture acted as a conservative force to perpetuate existing inequalities even after the physical removal of the original British reference group. One could say, therefore, that race relations in the West Indies (and a number of other former colonies) cannot be understood without grasping the historical importance of reference groups.

In a similar vein, psychologist Jeff Howard and physician Ray Hammond have argued that the concept is useful in explaining underachievement among African Americans in the educational system. They argue that this problem stems from African Americans’ fear of competing intellectually because of stereotypes of Black inferiority that have been broadcast by the majority group. For Howard and Hammond, the majority group is a reference group which establishes certain criteria for what will be defined as “success” and which undermines the confidence of African Americans by sowing doubt about the capabilities of African Americans. The majority group is able to do this because, by definition, majority groups exercise political, social, and cultural dominance in the societies in which they exist. Minority groups, on the other hand, are subordinated and face an uphill fight in getting their point of view to prevail.

If one bears in mind Shibutani’s discussion of reference groups, one can see that writers use the term in different ways. For example, Shibutani wishes to confine the term to groups that provide an automatic frame of reference to individuals because of socialization. The analysis of West Indian racial attitudes, however, implies that reference groups serve as standards for making judgments, are groups which others aspire to join, and provide a frame of reference for upwardly mobile West Indians. Thus, in the West Indian context, the concept of reference groups embraces the full complement of meanings outlined by Shibutani. On the other hand, as used by Howard and Hammond, the term implies only the idea of groups that provide standards of judgment—in this case, intellectual. Therefore, one always needs to examine the context in which the term is used to determine its full meaning.

Belonging to multiple groups—for example, being a Black immigrant from Africa and working as an engineer—can lead to the problem of deciding which identity will take precedence: the racial identity that stems from being Black in America, the ethnic identity that stems from having an African background, or the class identity that stems from occupation and education? How an individual resolves such conflicts might well revolve around which reference group they view as being most salient. Living in a plural society also increases the number of encounters that individuals have with members of different groups. These encounters are potentially anxiety producing, since cultures vary widely. Quite likely, an individual’s response will be strongly affected by salient reference groups. For example, immigrants to the United States sometimes adopt negative stereotypes of groups already living here, even though they have previously had little experience with these groups. This prejudice can be explained by viewing it as a learned response deriving from native groups which the immigrants view as reference groups.

Bibliography

Allport, Gordon W. The Nature of Prejudice. Addison, 1954.

Austin, Diane J. Urban Life in Kingston, Jamaica: The Culture and Class Ideology of Two Neighborhoods. Gordon, 1984.

Crossman, Ashley. "What Is a Reference Group?" ThoughtCo., 3 July 2019, www.thoughtco.com/reference-group-3026518. Accessed 26 Dec. 2024.

Jones, James M., et al. The Psychology of Diversity: Beyond Prejudice and Racism. Wiley, 2014.

Merton, Robert K., and Paul F. Lazarsfeld. Studies in the Scope and Method of “The American Soldier." Free, 1950.

Nickerson, Charlotte. "Reference Group in Sociology." Simply Psychology, 13 Feb. 2024, www.simplypsychology.org/reference-group.html. Accessed 26 Dec. 2024.

"The Role of Reference Groups in Shaping Social Identity." Sociology Institute, 8 Dec. 2022, sociology.institute/introduction-to-sociology/role-reference-groups-shaping-social-identity. Accessed 26 Dec. 2024.

Shibutani, Tomatsu. Ethnic Stratification. Macmillan, 1965.

Shibutani, Tomatsu. Society and Personality. Prentice, 1961.