General Problem: On Group Cohesiveness

Specific Problem: To determine the cohesiveness of a small group by sociogram method.

Basic Concept:
Social psychology explores how our thoughts, emotions, and behaviours are
shaped by the social settings we are part of. It examines how the presence of
other people — or even our perceptions and assumptions about them —
influence the way we think and act.
Every society is made up of interconnected social groups. Modern society can
be understood as a network of such groups, ranging from casual friendship
circles to highly structured political, economic, educational, and religious
institutions. Individuals function within these groups and are often guided or
controlled by the norms and expectations they establish. However, these
groups are not fixed or unchanging entities. To truly understand an individual’s
behaviour, it is not enough to simply describe the structure and purpose of the
groups they belong to. We must also analyze the internal relationships,
tensions, interactions, and forces operating within them. In other words, it is
essential to study the dynamic nature of group structure and functioning.
A psychological group is defined as two or more individuals who share a clear
and meaningful psychological connection with one another. This is different
from a mere collection or category of people who may be grouped together
only because they are physically near each other. Additionally, a group should
not be confused with a “perceived group,” which may exist only in the mind of
an individual without an actual psychological bond among its members.

An individual may believe that they are associated with certain people and may
mentally identify themselves as part of that circle. However, if those people do
not psychologically recognize or acknowledge that individual, then such a
collection cannot truly be called a group. For a set of individuals to qualify as a
psychological group, two essential conditions must generally be fulfilled:
(i) Each member must perceive and accept all the others as belonging to the
same group. In other words, the group must exist within the psychological
awareness of every individual member.
(ii) The members must engage in active and mutual interaction with one
another, influencing each other dynamically.
R. M. Williams defines a social group as an identifiable collection of individuals
who perform interconnected roles and are acknowledged both by themselves
and by others as a single unit.
According to Ogburn and Nimkoff, whenever two or more people come
together and exert influence on each other, they can be regarded as forming a
social group.
MacIver explains a group as any gathering of social beings who establish
specific and meaningful social relationships with one another.
Stable and Unstable Groups: Certain groups display greater stability than
others, meaning their structure and pattern of functioning remain relatively
constant over time. Such instability generally results from internal conflicts —
either between individual members or among smaller subgroups within the
larger group. In other words, imbalance among the internal forces operating
within the group leads to disruption. Different subgroups may compete with
one another, attempting to expand their influence or gain dominance. At times,
the leader may try to strengthen or extend their authority, while other
members may challenge or attempt to replace them. As well, disagreements
may arise regarding the group’s goals or the methods to achieve those goals, as
members may hold differing attitudes, beliefs, and expectations.
The resolution of intergroup tensions: When there is an imbalance among the
internal forces of a group, changes in its structure begin to occur. These
changes generally aim at reducing tension, restoring balance, and creating
greater stability within the group. It appears as if the group naturally
redistributes its internal forces to reach a state of equilibrium. This process is
similar to how individuals attempt to resolve their personal tensions.
Structural changes that promote stability can take various forms. Subgroups
may reorganize, new ones may emerge, and adjustments may occur until a
balanced distribution of power, roles, and responsibilities is achieved. In some
cases, conflicting individuals or subgroups may be removed to restore
harmony. If tensions become too intense, the group may ultimately break
apart.
According to Lewin, understanding group dynamics largely depends on two key
factors: group cohesiveness and group disruption. Cohesiveness refers to the
extent to which members remain united and committed to one another,
creating a sense of unity within the group.
Cohesiveness and Disruptive Forces: Groups stay together mainly because
members share common goals and believe that these goals can be achieved
through collective effort. These goals may be positive or negative in nature.
Emotional attachment also plays an important role, as individuals often identify
themselves with the group and its members. Additionally, groups fulfill various
personal needs and interests, which further strengthen unity.
However, groups do not always break apart due to strong disruptive forces.
Sometimes they dissolve simply because the bonds holding them together are
weak. A lack of clear goals, limited belief in the group’s effectiveness, or weak
emotional attachment among members can all lead to disintegration.
The Rigidity of Groups: A group differs in the degree to which it responds to
external influences. Some groups have very rigid structures which resist
changes. Others are more flexible. If a group structure is overly rigid, it is likely
to be rendered less adaptable to the exigencies of external change. Tensions
arising within the group may fail of resolution. This level of tension may rise
continuously until the “brittle” group disintegrates.
Organized and Unorganized Groups: The level of organization within a group
influences how it responds to external pressures. In a study by French (1944),
organized and unorganized groups were compared under conditions of fear
and frustration. Organized groups showed stronger unity, greater participation,
higher motivation, and more interdependence. However, they also displayed
greater frustration and aggression toward members. In team situations,
organized groups reacted more uniformly, often showing collective panic or
skepticism, especially when guided by a strong leader. In contrast, unorganized
groups showed less coordinated reactions and weaker mutual influence.
Moreno (1984) introduced the sociometric method to study group structure.
This method examines patterns of acceptance and rejection — or “tele” —
among members. By collecting such data, a sociogram can be created to
visually represent relationships within the group, including cliques, popular
individuals, disliked members, and social isolates.
Typical Sociometric Patterns: The extensive sociometric investigations of
Moreno and many others have used a large variety of sociometric patterns
which are likely to turn up repeatedly.
Isolates are members who are not liked or accepted by other members or who
have little or no contact with them. ‘C’ is an isolate.

Pairs/Dyad are groups of two who are mutually attracted. C and F are mutual
pairs.

Triangles or Triad (also called Clique) refers to that structure of the group in
which three or more persons choose each other. I, J, and K form a clique.
Larger groupings may form chains, stars or interlocking networks.

These sociometric patterns influence how a group responds in different

situations. Isolated members may withdraw from the group during times of
stress. Groups with dense, interconnected networks tend to be stronger and
more resistant to change. In contrast, a “star” pattern reflects centralization
around a single individual; if that person leaves, the subgroup may weaken or
collapse.
The Method of Paired Comparisons is a commonly used scaling technique. In
this method, stimuli are presented in pairs, and individuals are asked to choose
which item in each pair is preferred or shows more of a particular trait.
Because judgments are made between two items at a time, it is known as the
method of paired comparisons.
Law of Comparative Judgement: Thurstone (1927) proposed the Law of
Comparative Judgment to interpret data from paired comparisons. Although
individual comparisons do not directly produce numerical values, his law uses
mathematical assumptions to convert the proportion of times one stimulus is
preferred over another into scale values along a psychological continuum.
Sociometry is a theoretical and methodological approach used to study
interpersonal relationships in small groups. Introduced by Moreno, it includes
key tools such as:
 1. Sociomatrix – a table (n × n) that records each member’s choices or
preferences within the group.
2. Sociogram – a graphical representation where individuals are shown as
points and their relationships as lines; one-way choices are shown with a
single arrow (→) and mutual choices with a double arrow (↔).
Sociometric Index is a measure of cohesiveness in a group. It can be measured
by the following equation:
∑ (i↔ j)
C 0=
N
d× ×S
2

where, C 0= group cohesiveness

∑ (i↔ j)= Number of mutual preferences

d = Number of preferences

S= Number of situations

N = Number of subjects

Jacob Levy Moreno developed sociometry in 1934. The term combines socius
(social) and metrum (measure), meaning the measurement of social
relationships. Moreno defined sociometry as the mathematical and
experimental study of psychological properties within groups using quantitative
methods.
Sociometry is based on the idea that people constantly make interpersonal
choices — such as whom they prefer, reject, or feel close to within a group.
These choices, whether conscious or not, form the foundation of human
relationships. Moreno emphasized that such choices are fundamental facts of
social life.
The main purpose of sociometry is to improve group effectiveness and
satisfaction by increasing mutual understanding and authenticity among
members. The aim of the study is to assess the cohesiveness of a small group
using the sociogram method.
Sample: A small group of undergraduate students of 2nd year will be taken. It was ensured
that all the members of the group know each other.

Date of study: 26.02.26

Time of study: 2:00 p.m.

Materials Required: Pen, pencil, eraser, paper, scale

Steps to be followed:

1. Members of the group will be asked to write some situations keeping in mind the
current social situation.

2. Situations will be selected by tally marks.

3. Two situations that will receive the highest tally will be selected for the conduction of
the practical.

4. Two preferences for each situation will be taken.

5. After data collection, sociometric matrix and sociogram will be drawn.

6. Amount of cohesiveness of the group will be calculated.

Instructions:
“Please sit comfortably and listen to me carefully. Each group member has been
assigned a number. You are required to give your first and second choices of
partners for two situations — shopping and travelling.

Please indicate your choices by writing the numbers assigned to the members on
the sheet of paper provided to you. Give your honest opinion. Your responses
will be kept confidential and will be used only for academic purposes.”

Procedure:

1. At the beginning, rapport was established among all the group members to create a
comfortable environment. The group consisted of nine members.

2. The present situations (shopping and travelling) were explained clearly to the group.

3. Based on these situations, each member was asked to answer the required questions
by selecting their preferred partners.

4. Each and every group member provided their responses individually. The choices
were carefully noted down on a separate sheet.

5. All the responses and their frequencies were recorded and later measured for
analysis.

Interpretation
The sociometric matrix constructed for the two situations reveals meaningful
patterns of interpersonal preference within the group. In Situation 1
(willingness to attend any event), the distribution of choices appears relatively
balanced, as each member both selected and was selected by others. Multiple
reciprocal (mutual) choices are observed, indicating positive social attraction
among members. No individual remains unchosen, which suggests the absence
of social isolation within the group. The balanced exchange of preferences
reflects healthy social interaction and general acceptance among all four
members in formal and semi-formal social contexts.
In Situation 2 (willingness to team up for mischievous and harmless activities),
the pattern of preferences slightly shifts, highlighting differences in informal
bonding. Certain members receive comparatively more choices, suggesting
their central role in fun-oriented or informal group interactions. However,
mutual selections are still present, demonstrating continued reciprocity and
interpersonal trust. The change in choice pattern across situations indicates
that while social roles may vary depending on context, the overall structure of
the group remains interconnected. This flexibility in preferences reflects
situational influence on social attraction rather than fragmentation of the
group.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis of both situations, the group demonstrates moderate to high
cohesiveness. The presence of mutual choices in both formal (event participation) and
informal (mischievous activities) contexts, along with the absence of isolates, indicates
positive interpersonal relationships and balanced group dynamics. Although preference
patterns vary across situations, the overall structure suggests a stable, socially integrated,
and cooperative small group.