“Reference Group”, which is the typical modern term in Sociology, Psychology and Anthoropology, has been known as a useful concept for investigations of Value-judgement, Polital Attitude, Mass Communication Process, Deviant Behavior and so on. But it is difficult to find there the theory of “Reference Group”. There is no “Reference Group Theory” to be worthy of the name. Some people, therefore, have been suspicious of its “true” scientific efficiency. And, being lack of the firm theory, there is a good deal of popular misunderstanding about it.So, we must confirm, first of all, its theoretical character for the sake of its better future development.Reference Group Theory, on the one hand, is theoretically based upon Symbolic Interactionism (T. Shibutani, R. Turner and others). This theory lays great stone on individual's subjectivity, his standpoint and his subjective reference. However, it does not relate these to the structural factors of social actuality, so that it can but treat abstract individual's free, voluntary and unrestricted subjectivity. It'll be nothing but “Idealism”.On the other hand, Reference Group Theory has actually its foundation on American Mass Society, especially the situation consisted of social change, social conflict and social mobility. But it has strongly pragmatic dispositions stressing “Adaptation to surroundings”, and becomes the social theory that urges “Conformity to a given society” (particularly in the case of Functionalists such as R.K. Merton and S.N. Eisenstadt).To devote these weakness and defects, we must have more Socio-Psychological concern in examihing this theory, above all in defining the term of “Reference Group”. And, beyond Symbolic Interactionists and Functionalists, we have to concentrate further our attentions upon the concrete individual's socio-psycho-logical subjectivity that means “Deviation” from a given society, “Solution” of its conflict situations and “Creation” for new social systsms.
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 1974
Jeremy Tunstall 
Open Access