This definition is long and complex, but it is also precise. It succeeds at providing the researcher with the tools required to answer three important questions:

1. "How is a group formed?"

2. "How does a group function?"

3. "How does one describe those social interactions that occur on the way to forming a group?"

A true social group exhibits some degree of social cohesion and is more than a simple collection or aggregate of individuals, such as people waiting at a bus stop, or people waiting in a line. Characteristics shared by members of a group may include interests, values, representations, ethnic or social background, and kinship ties. Paul Hare regards the defining characteristic of a group as social interaction. The members of the groups contact each other which Ackeema Johnson calls a "regular interaction." This group also should have, a common identity, rules, structure, etc

Types of groups:

A group's size can determine how its members behave and relate.

A small group is small enough to allow all of its members to directly interact. Examples of small groups include families, friends, discussion groups, seminar classes, dinner parties, and athletic teams. People are more likely to experience primary relationships in small group settings than in large settings.

The smallest of small groups is a dyad consisting of two people. A dyad is perhaps the most cohesive of all groups because of its potential for very close and intense interactions. It also runs the risk, though not always, of splitting up. A triad is a group consisting of three persons. A triad does not tend to be as cohesive and personal as a dyad.

Primary and secondary groups:

Primary groups are those in which individuals intimately interact and cooperate over a long period of time. Primary groups are small groups with intimate, kinship-based relationships: Examples of primary groups are families, friends, peers, neighbors, classmates, sororities, fraternities, and church members. Early in the twentieth century, Charles H. Cooley gave the name, primary groups, to those groups that he said are characterized by intimate face to face association and those are fundamental in the development and continued adjustment of their members. He identified three basic primary groups, the family, the child’s play group, and the neighborhoods or community among adults. These groups, he said, are almost universal in all societies, they give to people their earliest and most complete experience of social unity; they are instrumental in the development of the social life; and they promote the integration of their members in the larger society. These groups are marked by primary relationships in which communication is informal. Members of primary groups have strong emotional ties. They also relate to one another as whole and unique individuals. They commonly last for many years or even generations. They are small and display face-to-face interaction.

Secondary groups, in contrast to primary groups, are large groups involving formal and institutional relationships. An understanding of the modern society requires an understanding of the secondary groups. The social groups other than those of primary groups may be termed as secondary groups. They are often called special interest groups. Mac Iver and Page refers to them as great association. They are of the opinion that secondary groups have become almost inevitable today. Their appearance is mainly due to growing cultural complexities. Primary groups are found predominantly in societies where life is relatively simple. With the expansion of population and territory of a society however interests become diversified and other type of relationship which can be called secondary or impersonal become necessary. Interests become differentiated and the new ranges of the interests demand a complex organisation leading to secondary group activities. These features characterise the rise of the modern state, the great corporation, the factory, the labour union, a university, a nation wide political party and so on. Ogbum and Nimkoff define secondary groups as groups which provide experience lacking in intimacy. Frank D Watson writes that the secondary group is larger and more formal, is specialised and direct in its contacts and relies more for unity and continuance upon the stability of its social organisation than does the primary groups. Secondary groups are characterised by indirect, impersonal, contractual and non-inclusive relations.

Reference Groups: According to Merton reference groups are those groups which are the referring points of the individuals, towards which he is oriented and which influence his opinion, tendencies and behaviour. The individual is surrounded by countless references groups. Both the memberships and inner groups and non membership and outer groups may be reference groups.

Other types of groups include the following:

Peer group

A peer group is a group with members of approximately the same age, social status, and interests. Generally, people are relatively equal in terms of power when they interact with peers.

Clique

A group of people that have many of the same interests & commonly found in a High School/College setting; most of the time they have a name & rules for themselves.

Club

A club is a group, which usually requires one to apply to become a member. Such clubs may be dedicated to particular activities: sporting clubs, for example.

Household

All individuals who live in the same home constitute members of the household. Anglophone culture may include various models of household, including the family, blended families, share housing, and group homes.

Community

A community is a group of people with a commonality or sometimes a complex net of overlapping commonalities, often–but not always–in proximity with one another with some degree of continuity over time.

Franchise

An organization which runs several instances of a business in many locations.

Gang

A gang is usually an urban group that gathers in a particular area. It is a group of people that often hang around each other. They can be like some clubs, but much less formal. They are usually known in many countries to cause social unrest and also have negative influence on the members and may be a target for the law enforcers in case of any social vices.

Mob

A mob is usually a group of people that has taken the law into their own hands. Mobs are usually groups which gather temporarily for a particular reason.

Posse

A posse was originally found in English common law. It is generally obsolete, and survives only in America, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes. However, it can also refer to a street group.

Squad

This is usually a small group, of around 3 to 15 people, who wok as a team to accomplish their goals.

Team

It is similar to a squad, though a team may contain many more members. A team works in a similar way to a squad.

In-groups and Out-groups:

To some extent every social group creates boundaries between itself and other groups, but a cohesive in-group typically has three characteristics:

· Members use titles, external symbols, and dress to distinguish themselves from the out-group.

· Members tend to clash or compete with members of the out-group. This competition with the other group can also strengthen the unity within each group.

· Members apply positive stereotypes to their in-group and negative stereotypes to the out-group.

In other words, loyalty to the in-group leads to antagonism and aggression toward the out-group, including fierce competitions for the same resources. However, when members of the out groups are required to work together to solve mutual problems they cooperated with one another and became less divided, hostile, and competitive.

Civil Society

The term civil society was used by writers such as Locke and Rousseau to describe civil government as differentiated from natural society or the state of nature. The Marxist concept derives from Hegel. In Hegel civil or bourgeois society as the realm of individuals who have left the unity of the family to enter into economic competition is contrasted with the state or political society. Marx uses the concept of civil society in his critique of Hegel. It is used as a yardstick of the change from feudal to bourgeoisie society. Civil society arose, Marx insists from the destruction of medieval society. Previously individuals were part of many different societies such as guilds or estates each of which had a political role so that there was no separate civil realm. As these partial societies broke down, civil society arose in which t he individual became all important. The old bonds of privilege were replaced by the selfish needs of atomistic individuals separated from each other and from the community.

Development of a group:

It is interesting to observe how a collection of individuals develops into a group. If one brings a small collection of strangers together in a restricted space and environment, provides a common goal and maybe a few ground rules, then a highly probable course of events will follow. Interaction between individuals is the basic requirement. At first, individuals will differentially interact in sets of twos or threes while seeking to interact with those with whom they share something in common: i.e., interests, skills, and cultural background. Relationships will develop some stability in these small sets, in that individuals may temporarily change from one set to another, but will return to the same pairs or trios rather consistently and resist change. Particular twosomes and threesomes will stake out their special spots within the overall space.

Again depending on the common goal, eventually twosomes and threesomes will integrate into larger sets of six or eight, with corresponding revisions of territory, dominance-ranking, and further differentiation of roles. All of this seldom takes place without some conflict or disagreement: for example, fighting over the distribution of resources, the choices of means and different sub-goals, the development of what are appropriate norms, rewards and punishments. Some of these conflicts will be territorial in nature: i.e., jealousy over roles, or locations, or favored relationships. But most will be involved with struggles for status, ranging from mild protests to serious verbal conflicts and even dangerous violence.

By analogy to animal behavior, sociologists may term these behaviors territorial behaviors and dominance behaviors. Depending on the pressure of the common goal and on the various skills of individuals, differentiations of leadership, dominance, or authority will develop. Once these relationships solidify, with their defined roles, norms, and sanctions, a productive group will have been established.

Aggression is the mark of unsettled dominance order. Productive group cooperation requires that both dominance order and territorial arrangements (identity, self concept) be settled with respect to the common goal and with respect to the particular group. Often some individuals will withdraw from interaction or be excluded from the developing group. Depending on the number of individuals in the original collection of strangers, and the number of hangers-on that are tolerated, one or more competing groups of ten or less may form, and the competition for territory and dominance will then also be manifested in the inter group transactions.

Dispersal and transformation of groups

Two or more people in interacting situations will develop stable territorial relationships. As described above, these may or may not develop into groups. But stable groups can also break up in to several sets of territorial relationships. There are numerous reasons for stable groups to "malfunction" or to disperse, but essentially this is because of loss of compliance with one or more elements of the definition of group provided by Sherif. The two most common causes of a malfunctioning of group are the addition of too many individuals, and the failure of the leader to enforce a common purpose, though malfunctions may occur due to a failure of any of the other elements (i.e., confusions status or of norms).

In a society, there is an obvious need for more people to participate in cooperative endeavors than can be accommodated by a few separate groups. The military has been the best example as to how this is done in its hierarchical array of squads, platoons, companies, battalions, regiments, and divisions. Private companies, corporations, government agencies, clubs, and so on have all developed comparable systems when the number of members or employees exceeds the number that can be accommodated in an effective group. Not all larger social structures require the cohesion that may be found in the small group. Consider the neighborhood, the country club, or the mega church, which are basically territorial organizations who support large social purposes. Any such large organizations may need only islands of cohesive leadership.

For a functioning group to attempt to add new members in a casual way is a certain prescription for failure, loss of efficiency, or disorganization. The key concept is that the value and success of a group is obtained by each member maintaining a distinct, functioning identity in the minds of each of the members. Rapid shifting of attention can push the limit to about ten. After ten, subgroups will inevitably start to form with the attendant loss of purpose, dominance-order, and individuality, with confusion of roles and rules. The standard classroom with twenty to forty pupils and one teacher offers a rueful example of one supposed leader juggling a number of subgroups.

Weakening of the common purpose once a group is well established can be attributed to: adding new members; unsettled conflicts of identities (i.e., territorial problems in individuals); weakening of a settled dominance-order; and weakening or failure of the leader to tend to the group. The actual loss of a leader is frequently fatal to a group, unless there was lengthy preparation for the transition. The loss of the leader tends to dissolve all dominance relationships, as well as weakening dedication to common purpose, differentiation of roles, and maintenance of norms. The most common symptoms of a troubled group are loss of efficiency, diminished participation, or weakening of purpose, as well as an increase in verbal aggression. Often, if a strong common purpose is still present, a simple reorganization with a new leader and a few new members will be sufficient to re-establish the group, which is somewhat easier than forming an entirely new group.

Territory and dominance

Territory and dominance are basic, primitive, and well studied social behaviors in many animals, including humans and other primates. These two well-differentiated categories of social behavior can be considered as evolutionary and developmental twins in that they are profoundly connected. It is difficult to make observations about one without commenting on the other, yet they are clearly differentiated. Obviously, for example, territories can be invaded, captured, or destroyed by more dominant individuals. However, an individual occupying his/her own territory does have an advantage in the struggle for possession of that territory, and is able to exert increased strengths when defending his own.

Recognition of territorial behavior

Territory is functionally related to the survival behaviors of seeking food, shelter, sex, and reproduction, but there is no effort here to establish the survival value of territory or dominance. The universal presence of these principles in a wide variety of species would seem to argue for survival value, but there is, as yet, no scientific methodology to establish either validity or falsification of survival value. Over the long period of evolutionary time, humankind has developed a most complicated array of territorial behaviors that range from personal social relationships, to possession of land, property, and physical objects. Through the intermediation of spoken and written language, territory can be extended to abstract and symbolic objects and ideas such as religion, school, value systems, and jobs. The most obvious human territorial behaviors are the establishment of a home base, and home ownership. This extends to the ownership of many objects considered as property such as furniture, car, clothes, golf clubs, and club fungi and so on. The use of the possessive pronouns (mine, yours, his, hers, ours, theirs) is a valid signal of territorial behavior recognized in self and others.

Recognition of dominance behavior

The simplest marker for dominance is that one individual is allowed to do something that others are not allowed to do. This may be anything from deciding a tied vote to kicking a person out of the group, or worse. Aggression and fighting are markers of the absence of an established dominance order in many cases (this includes politics). However, in small groups, there can exist a system where there is no dominance, if the group is composed of people who will not abide by one trying to gain dominance over the others. Peaceful coexistence is the marker of the existence of a stable dominance order.

Family territory and dominance

The family is an available, familiar, and informative social structure to use as an exemplar of the interactions of territory and dominance. This section will explore some of the ways that families exhibit territory- and dominance-behaviors. For the purpose of exposition, it will leave aside an unresolved variety of opinions about some of the issues discussed, i.e., revised definitions of the family.

History, biography, and fiction provide the public with multiple examples of the variations in patterns over time, culture, and even next door neighbors. But the basic patterns of family territorial bonding remain unchallenged, including homosexual families with or without formal marriage. Body (self) image and personal identity are two of the most important dynamic territories derived over the early and late interactions and territorial bonding that occur within the family structure.

Dominance relationships within marriage and family are as familiar and as inevitable as the territorial relationships. Aristotle described the man as being the master and manager of his household: to include wife, children, slaves, the ox and plough, and property.. Many of the subtleties of territorial or dominance behavior may be taken as "just the way things are".

Development of Leadership and conformity:

Group behaviour gives rise to leadership. Sociologists have been especially interested in two forms of group behavior: conformity and leadership. The pressure to conform within small groups can be quite powerful. Many people go along with the majority regardless of the consequences or their personal opinions. The pressure to conform is even stronger among people who are not strangers. During group-think, members of a cohesive group endorse a single explanation or answer, usually at the expense of ignoring reality. The group does not tolerate dissenting opinions, seeing them as signs of disloyalty to the group. So members with doubts and alternate ideas do not speak out or contradict the leader of the group, especially when the leader is strong-willed. In short, collective decisions tend to be more effective when members disagree while considering additional possibilities.

Two types of leaders normally emerge from small groups. Expressive leaders: are those who maintain warm, friendly relationships. They show concern for members' feelings and group cohesion and harmony, and they work to ensure that everyone stays satisfied and happy. Expressive leaders tend to prefer a cooperative style of management. Instrumental leaders, on the other hand, are achievement motivated. That is, they are interested in achieving goals. These leaders tend to prefer a directive style of management. Hence, they often make good managers because they “get the job done.” However, they can annoy and irritate those under their supervision.

CONCLUSION:

Groups are among the most stable and enduring of social units. They are important both to their members and to the society at large. Through encouraging regular and predictable behavior, groups form the foundation upon which society rests. Thus, a family, a village, a political party a trade union is all social groups. These, it should be noted are different from social classes, status groups or crowds, which not only lack structure but whose members are less aware or even unaware of the existence of the group. These have been called quasi-groups or groupings. Nevertheless, the distinction between social groups and quasi-groups is fluid and variable since quasi-groups very often give rise to social groups, as for example, social classes give rise to political parties.

Social groups are natural, instinctive and integral part of development of human civilization. It has retained its originality of simplest form of human interaction and has grown into the most complex form of modern human activities. It has witnessed the origin of life on the earth and march of civilizations to present form. Is not it interesting to study the origin and advent of social groups to understand the social behaviour of mankind.

Received on 24.01.2012

Revised on 20.02.2012

Accepted on 21.03.2012