Group Dynamics in Social Research: Primary and Secondary Groups
Classified in Psychology and Sociology
Written on in 
English with a size of 2.58 KB
Unit IV: Group Dynamics and Social Research
Understanding Discussion Groups
The discussion group technique is presented as a social research method and observational tool, often associated with intervention-oriented group practices. It aims to clarify the scope and significance of using groups as a tool to understand the symbolic dimensions of social reality and group practices themselves.
The Significance of Group Behavior
Groups are not merely categories or aggregates of individuals that can be assembled regardless of their intent or purposes. Instead, they are a set of individuals related by some common bond that makes them interdependent, such as friends or colleagues. Research conducted on groups based solely on sociodemographic categories does not necessarily reflect actual group life or dynamics.
The concept of a group held by a social psychologist often differs from that of a sociologist. For social psychologists, a group typically consists of 2 to 10 or 12 people, emphasizing face-to-face interaction. In contrast, a sociologist's definition can encompass thousands of people who interact with each other, such as workers in a factory. Thus, social psychologists and sociologists often categorize groups as primary and secondary.
| PRIMARY GROUP | SECONDARY GROUP |
|---|---|
| Characterized by informal relationships and intrinsic purposes | Characterized by formal, extrinsic relations, often for specific goals |
| Limited size (approximately 12 individuals) | Potentially unlimited size (large number of individuals) |
| Emphasis on emotional bonding and personal relationships | Emphasis on rational, organizational, or instrumental links |
| Indefinite duration, based on ongoing relationships | Defined duration, based on achieving objectives |
| Examples: Family, close-knit peer groups | Examples: Businesses, associations, political parties |
In reality, the distinction between primary and secondary groups is not absolute; they exist as ideal types that help us understand a polarity that manifests in varying degrees and situations. It is more accurate to speak of social groups that lean more towards being primary or secondary. A single group can exhibit characteristics of both categories; for instance, a working group is typically secondary but may sometimes develop primary group dynamics.