Small Group Theory Research Articles

The world within the “span of control”

The size of the management group has been considered in management theory primarily from the standpoint of the “span-of-control” concept and the implications of that concept for structuring the formal organization. However, the specific effects of group size on the distribution, content, and emotional tone of communications between managers has not been clearly defined. In this article the author discusses studies from small group theory to clarify these effects and shows that much of the psychodynamies behind the span-of-control concept involves group size. Implications are then developed for designing decision-making groups of optimal size within formal organization, both permanent and ad hoc, for purposes of problem solving and of resolving conflict.

The small group: Core of the community mental health center

Small group theory and the application of a variety of therapeutic group techniques are essential components to the planning and operation of a comprehensive community mental health center. Particularly relevant is the small group's potential for studying and facilitating those aspects of individual and group behavior that pertain to mental health. The group gives the clinician access to pertinent aspects of the patient's social milieu in a way that can he integrated with a view of the individual's functioning within the social system. These characteristics of small groups may be utilized in assisting a community mental health program to provide services, training, research and to participate in the overall development of the community.

On the Fluidity of Judicial Choice

Within the past decade, a significant change has occurred in political science literature about the judiciary. The central questions have shifted from public law concerns—what is the law and its value?—to a primary focus on decision-making and process—how and why courts decide what they do, and with what political effects? The Supreme Court still dominates professional attention, but a host of new research techniques (jurimetrics and socialization studies, content and capability analysis, small group theory, etc.) vie for the allegiance of researchers.1 The variety of methods in vogue is formidable, and a testament to the borrowing power of the profession. So has been the sound and fury accompanying the change. The new approaches are perhaps too young to attempt a synthesis with traditional methods of analysis or even among themselves. Yet it is never too early to locate unities of inquiry, including common problems. The object of this essay is to air one difficulty facing virtually every student of the judicial process—the fluidity of judicial choice—and to examine some of its implications for research in and normative evaluation of judicial behavior.The general argument should be stated at the outset. My purpose is to present empirical findings as a basis to critique some current research techniques in hopes of contributing to the analytical synthesis which must come if the discipline is to make a concerted advance in understanding judicial behavior. From a research standpoint, an unfortunate by-product of the debate between the “quantifiers” and the “qualifiers,” as Joseph Tanenhaus has distinguished them, is that extremes of advocacy have obscured the much more important things that students of the judiciary share in common than the methodological differences which agitate them.

On the Fluidity of Judicial Choice

Within the past decade, a significant change has occurred in political science literature about the judiciary. The central questions have shifted from public law concerns—what is the law and its value?—to a primary focus on decision-making and process—how and why courts decide what they do, and with what political effects? The Supreme Court still dominates professional attention, but a host of new research techniques (jurimetrics and socialization studies, content and capability analysis, small group theory, etc.) vie for the allegiance of researchers.1 The variety of methods in vogue is formidable, and a testament to the borrowing power of the profession. So has been the sound and fury accompanying the change. The new approaches are perhaps too young to attempt a synthesis with traditional methods of analysis or even among themselves. Yet it is never too early to locate unities of inquiry, including common problems. The object of this essay is to air one difficulty facing virtually every student of the judicial process—the fluidity of judicial choice—and to examine some of its implications for research in and normative evaluation of judicial behavior.The general argument should be stated at the outset. My purpose is to present empirical findings as a basis to critique some current research techniques in hopes of contributing to the analytical synthesis which must come if the discipline is to make a concerted advance in understanding judicial behavior. From a research standpoint, an unfortunate by-product of the debate between the “quantifiers” and the “qualifiers,” as Joseph Tanenhaus has distinguished them, is that extremes of advocacy have obscured the much more important things that students of the judiciary share in common than the methodological differences which agitate them.

Microcosms: Structural, Psychological, and Religious Evolution in Groups.

The author has written an exciting and stimulating book. It is a treatise that all, no matter what their point of view, will find much to quarrel with and more to ponder. Slater's purpose is to look into some fascinating and important phenomena about social systems. He does not attempt to delineate a complete theory of small groups, but to inquire into aspects of group life that are difficult to explain in most theories. The raw data for these explorations consist primarily of myths and fantasies produced by small groups who meet together for purpose of sensitivity training. (Such groups are designed as learning situations in which the course content is group itself and individuals within it; their initial character and energizing forces typically stem from withdrawal of structure provided in other group situations by leaders or by

An Analysis of Power Dynamics in Marriage

The descriptioin of types of power as formulated in small group theory is applied to power structure in marriage. The relevance of five types of power-referent, expert, reward, coercive, and legitimate-to selected marriage studies and theory is discussed. The new hypothesis advanced is that the ideal role to which spouses aspire is the basis of referent power in marriage. Questions are raised regarding current social influence on power balance, equilibrium in families with young children and working wives, and the effect of openor closed-mindedness on the bases of power.

Conceptual orientations of contemporary small group theory.

Conceptual orientations of contemporary small group theory.

Ego Psychology, Group Dynamics and the Therapeutic Community.

The author has undertaken a difficult and perhaps overly ambitious task: to provide a theoretical framework for the rapidly expanding, but loosely organized set of operations commonly grouped under the rubric of therapeutic community. By wedding a theoretical model based on ego psychology to some aspects of small group theory, Dr. Edelson attempts to bring order to what has been frequently a set of ad hoc prescriptions cast in a humanistic framework. The concepts of Federn and Fairbairn are central as are, on the other side of the theoretical street, the work of Bion and Redl. Much of Dr. Edelson's text is taken up with excellent brief summaries of ego psychology and, in this respect, it may be a useful introductory text for the beginning psychiatric resident. The knowledgeable reader will probably find some of the author's summaries too brief and at times too elementary. Small

Some Relationships of Peer Liking Patterns in the Classroom to Pupil Attitudes and Achievement

Previous articleNext article No AccessSome Relationships of Peer Liking Patterns in the Classroom to Pupil Attitudes and AchievementRichard SchmuckRichard Schmuck Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 71, Number 3Autumn, 1963Social Climates in School and College Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/442671 Views: 4Total views on this site Citations: 26Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in The School Review (1893-1979), which is continued by the American Journal of Education (1979-present). Copyright 1963 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Yu Tian, Yulong Bian, Piguo Han, Fengqiang Gao, Peng Wang Class Collective Efficacy and Class Size as Moderators of the Relationship between Junior Middle School Students’ Externalizing Behavior and Academic Engagement: A Multilevel Study, Frontiers in Psychology 8 (Jul 2017).https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01219Max A. Hope Conceptions of person-centered education in the 21st century: developing a position statement for ways of being in educational organizations, Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies 13, no.33 (Oct 2013): 217–232.https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2013.811610Shao-kang Lo The impact of online game character’s outward attractiveness and social status on interpersonal attraction, Computers in Human Behavior 24, no.55 (Sep 2008): 1947–1958.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.08.001Elin Thuen, Edvin Bru Learning Environment, Meaningfulness of Schoolwork and on-Task-Orientation among Norwegian 9th Grade Students, School Psychology International 21, no.44 (Nov 2000): 393–413.https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034300214004JOHN MODELL How May Children's Development be Seen Historically?, Childhood 7, no.11 (Jul 2016): 81–106.https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568200007001007Mary-Lou Breitborde Creating Community in the Classroom: Modeling New Basic Skills in Teacher Education, Journal of Teacher Education 47, no.55 (Nov 1996): 367–374.https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487196047005006Michael Hammes Guidelines to Assist Classroom Teachers in Designing and Implementing Student Involvement Techniques, Health Education 17, no.44 (Mar 2013): 48–49.https://doi.org/10.1080/00970050.1986.10615967Doris R Entwisle, Karl L Alexander, Doris Cadigan, Aaron Pallas The Schooling Process in First Grade: Two Samples a Decade Apart, American Educational Research Journal 23, no.44 (Jun 2016): 587–613.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312023004587Vern Jones An Administrator's Guide to Developing and Evaluating A Building Discipline Program, NASSP Bulletin 68, no.471471 (Jul 2016): 60–73.https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658406847109Susan J. Rosenholtz, Carl Simpson The Formation of Ability Conceptions: Developmental Trend or Social Construction?, Review of Educational Research 54, no.11 (Jun 2016): 31–63.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543054001031Jane Close Conoley, Collie Wyatt Conoley A comparison of techniques to affect sociometric status: A small step toward primary prevention in the classroom?, Journal of School Psychology 21, no.11 (Mar 1983): 41–47.https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(83)90065-1George M. Schuncke Reading Instruction in Social Studies: What is Being Taught?, The Social Studies 73, no.11 (Jul 2010): 12–15.https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.1982.9956131Ronald L. Van Sickle Neutralizing Status Constraints on Student Performance in Small Group Activities, Theory & Research in Social Education 7, no.22 (Jun 1979): 1–33.https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1979.10506053Richard A. Schmuck Peer groups as settings for learning, Theory Into Practice 16, no.44 (Nov 2009): 272–279.https://doi.org/10.1080/00405847709542712Russell Lemle Primary prevention of psychological disorders in elementary and intermediate schools, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 5, no.22 (Sep 1976): 26–70.https://doi.org/10.1080/15374417609532708 William P. Ahlbrand, Jr. , and Wayne J. Doyle Classroom Grouping and Sociometric Status, The Elementary School Journal 76, no.88 (Oct 2015): 493–499.https://doi.org/10.1086/461016Fred O. Bradley, Robert C. Newhouse Sociometric choice and self perceptions, Psychology in the Schools 12, no.22 (Feb 2006): 219–222.https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197504)12:2<219::AID-PITS2310120218>3.0.CO;2-#Paul M. Retish Changing the Status of Poorly Esteemed Students through Teacher Reinforcement, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 9, no.11 (Jan 1973): 44–50.https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637300900104Elizabeth G. Cohen Sociology and the Classroom: Setting the Conditions for Teacher-Student Interaction, Review of Educational Research 42, no.44 (Jun 2016): 441–452.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543042004441Richard A. Schmuck, Margaret Barron Luszki Black and White Students in Several Small Communities, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 5, no.22 (Jul 2016): 203–220.https://doi.org/10.1177/002188636900500206A. Raymond Cellura The Application of Psychological Theory in Educational Settings: An Overview, American Educational Research Journal 6, no.33 (Jun 2016): 349–382.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312006003349Richard A. Schmuck Helping Teachers Improve Classroom Group Processes, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 4, no.44 (Jul 2016): 401–435.https://doi.org/10.1177/002188636800400402G. Roy Mayer, Gerald D. Kranzler, William A. Matthes Elementary School Counseling and Peer Relations, The Personnel and Guidance Journal 46, no.44 (Dec 2011): 360–365.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1967.tb03196.xRobert R. Weatherford, John E. Horrocks Peer Acceptance and Under- and Over-Achievement in School, The Journal of Psychology 66, no.22 (Jul 1967): 215–220.https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1967.10544898Louis M. Smith, Paul F. Kleine Chapter III: The Adolescent and His Society, Review of Educational Research 36, no.44 (Jun 2016): 424–436.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543036004424Richard Schmuck Some aspects of classroom social climate, Psychology in the Schools 3, no.11 (Jan 1966): 59–65.https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(196601)3:1<59::AID-PITS2310030116>3.0.CO;2-Q

SOME EMPIRICAL TESTS OF A HOMEOSTATIC THEORY OF SMALL GROUPS*

Transactions of the New York Academy of SciencesVolume 24, Issue 5 Series II p. 536-539 SOME EMPIRICAL TESTS OF A HOMEOSTATIC THEORY OF SMALL GROUPS* Bernard P. Indik, Bernard P. Indik Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, N.J.Search for more papers by this author Bernard P. Indik, Bernard P. Indik Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, N.J.Search for more papers by this author First published: March 1962 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1962.tb01430.x † This paper was the second of two papers presented at a meeting of the Division on February 19, 1962. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Volume24, Issue5 Series IIMarch 1962Pages 536-539 RelatedInformation

Psychotherapy as a system of action.

In this paper we shall discuss some issues raised by a four-year study in which techniques and concepts from the sociological theory of small groups were applied to the psychotherapy situation in the hope of furthering our understanding of this relationship. A study of the social system aspects of the psychotherapy relationship is somewhat analogous to a study of the grammar of the English language. Just as one may be unaware of the syntax and grammar underlying his communication, so may therapist and patient be unaware of certain regularities underlying their interaction( 1). The challenge of such an inter-disciplinary effort has been well formulated by a philosopher of science(2)

Classical Form of Small Group Theory

Classical Form of Small Group Theory

Comments on the Scientific Function of the Concept of Cohesiveness

This article deals with the conceptual questions that arise with the introduction and incorporation of a new concept within theory. It is pointed out that these questions, and the attainment of their answers, are not unique to small-group theory, as might be the impression gained from the Gross and Martin paper.

Reviews of the Literature

This is an interestingly written account of the United States Government's attempt to rehabilitate families who were stranded during the depression. Rehabilitation was to be accomplished through the establishment of an irrigated cooperative farm located near Casa Grande, Arizona. Since there were never more than 57 families involved as members (during the last and prosperous years membership dropped to 36), the study furnishes case material for those interested in bureaucracy and small group theory and action. The author attempts to use C. H. Cooley's "life study method" to describe what happened in such a way as to give insight into why it happened.

Comments on the Theory of Organizations

This is an attempt to sketch in very rough form what seem to me some of the central concepts and problems of organization theory. In the first section I have tried to define the field of organization theory and to indicate with some care what justification there is for regarding it as a distinct area of theory, related to, but by no means identical with, the theory of small groups and the theory of social institutions. The comments in the second section on subject-matter areas simply spell out the implications, many of them perhaps obvious, of the central argument of the first section.This paper is concerned with all kinds of organizations, and not simply with those that fall within the area of public administration. This definition of the scope of organization theory reflects my own conviction that there are a great many things that can be said about organizations in general, without specification of the particular kind of organization under consideration. Moreover, even if we were interested solely in governmental organizations, I believe that a great deal can be learned from the comparison of their characteristics with those of other kinds of organizations, and from attempts to explain the similarities and differences that are found. Neither of these statements denies the existence of numerous and important phenomena that are peculiar to governmental organizations or the need for theory in public administration to deal with these phenomena.