A few years later Kurt Lewin and his associates demonstrated the determination of individual behavior by the properties of group atmosphere. This line of experimentation was the basis of subsequent studies coming from the proponents of the Group Dynamics school. Some other major influences coming from psychology will be mentioned later.
Interdisciplinary Cooperation and the Concept of Levels
It becomes apparent from even a brief mention of the background that researchers from various disciplines contributed to make the study of small groups what it is today. As a consequence, there is a diversity of emphasis in formulating problems and hypotheses and diversity in the concepts used. This state of affairs has brought about considerable elbow-rubbing and interdisciplinary bickering among sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists. This process and researchers’ critical appraisal of each other’s approaches have made the interdisciplinary approach a necessity for achieving a rounded picture.
Faced with the task of dealing with both psychological and sociocultural factors in human relations problems, psychologists have too often yielded to the temptation of improvising their own “sociologies” in terms of their preferred concepts. Sociologists, on the other hand, have sometimes engaged in psychological improvisations. While sociological or psychological improvisation at times proves necessary on the frontiers of a discipline, it is difficult to justify on topics for which a substantial body of research exists in sociology or in psychology, as the case may be.
On the whole, interdisciplinary cooperation has usually turned out to mean rallying psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and other social scientists to toss their theories and concepts into the ring. But mere juxtaposition of utterances from these disciplines in the same room or between the covers of the same book does not bring interdisciplinary cooperation. Nor is interdisciplinary integration possible by laying down segments from each discipline along the same line—one yard of psychology, one yard of sociology, then a foot each of history and economics.
The outlines of an interdisciplinary approach appear more clearly with the realization that psychological and sociological signify different levels of analysis. People studying human relations are approaching related, similar, or even the same problems at different levels of analysis, necessitating units and concepts appropriate for dealing with events on that level. If we are working on the psychological level, our unit of analysis is the individual; hence our treatment must be in terms of the individual’s psychological functioning—in terms of concepts such as motives, judging, perceiving, learning, remembering, imagining, and so on. If we are working on a sociological or cultural level, our concepts are in such terms as social organization, institutions, value systems, language, kinship systems, art forms, and technology.1
The concept of levels holds a fairly obvious but invaluable check on the validity of research findings. If it is valid, a generalization reached on a topic at one level of analysis is not contradicted and, in fact, gains support from valid generalizations reached at another level. For example, the psychologist’s findings of differential behavior of an individual when participating in the activities of a group should be (and are) substantiated by findings on the sociological level, namely, that collective action in a group has properties peculiar to that group. Checking and cross-checking findings obtained at one level against those obtained on the same topic at another level will make interdisciplinary cooperation the integrative meeting ground that it should be.
During the last century in the social sciences, and more recently in psychology, the dependence of sub-units upon the setting or superordinate system of which they are parts has gained increased attention, especially in view of unrewarding attempts to account for the functioning system in an additive way. Understanding part processes is possible only through analysis of their relations within the functioning system, as well as by analysis of unique properties of the part process itself. Unless knowledge of the superordinate or larger functioning system is gained first, before tackling the part processes, there is the likelihood of unwarranted generalizations concerning the parts and misinterpretation of the true functional significance of the processes observed.
In this connection, an illustration from Malinowski (1922) is instructive. Malinowski describes the complex exchange system of the Argonauts of the Western Pacific called the Kula. The Argonauts themselves
have no knowledge of the total outline of any of their social structure… . Not even the most intelligent native has any clear idea of the Kula as a big, organized social construction, still less of its sociological functions and implications. If you were to ask him what the Kula is, he would answer by giving a few details, most likely by giving his personal experiences and subjective views on the Kula… . Not even a partial coherent account could be obtained. For the integral picture does not exist in his mind; he is in it, and cannot see the whole from the outside.
This point can be illustrated in relation to small group studies. Since Lewin’s experiments in the 1940s comparing lecture and group discussion methods in changing attitudes, various studies have shown that in the American setting, skillfully conducted group discussion in which members participate is more effective than lecture presentation of the same material. Results obtained in the American setting would suggest that the superiority of group discussion methods might be universal. That this is not the case is indicated by one of the studies in the UNESCO project in India (Murphy 1953). In an attempt to modify caste attitudes among college students in India using various methods, the greatest changes arose as a result of a lecture method using emotional appeals. The experimenter wrote, “Contrary to our original expectation and hypothesis, these young boys do not seem to be in a position to exploit fully the discussion technique, in bettering their social relationships. Does it indicate that our boys have got to be used to the democratic ways of discussion and at present prefer to be told what are the right attitudes rather than to be allowed to talk them out?” Within a social organization whose values clearly encourage dependence on authority and effectively discourage settling issues through give-and-take in small sub-units, particular dependencies may become so much a part of the individual’s ego system that group discussion techniques would be less effective than methods more in harmony with the social organization in which they take place.
Such comparative results illustrate the value of starting first with due consideration of the sociocultural setting, with its organization and values, before making generalizations about small groups functioning as parts of that setting (Whyte, 1951; Arensberg 1951) because small groups are not closed systems, especially in highly complex and differentiated societies like the United States.
Facts obtained concerning the group setting are in terms of concepts and units at the social or cultural level of analysis. They will not give the step-by-step analysis of the particular interaction process; they will not be adequate for the task of dealing with interpersonal relations or the behavior of particular individual members. At this point, psychological concepts are needed for a detailed analysis of reciprocal relations, for handling motives, perceptions, judgments, and the like.
Experimental Steps Toward Integration
We devote the rest of the chapter to a summary of our prior attempts to pull together some relevant findings from sociology and psychology in the study of small groups. In these attempts the guiding considerations have been the following:
1. To extract some minimum generalizations from the sociological findings on small groups, on the one hand; on the other, to extract relevant principles from the work coming from the psychological laboratory.
2. To formulate problems and hypotheses suggesting relationships among the indications of the two sets of relevant findings from sociological and psychological research.
3. To test hypotheses thus derived with methods and techniques appropriate for the particular problem—experimental, observational, sociometric, questionnaire, or combinations thereof.
