Sociology of Groups. A number of studies highlight the basic utility of groups: in groups individuals can secure advantages and avoid disadvantages that would plague the lone individual. Groups are supremely useful for their members, for they fulfill our most basic needs.

Humans spend a great part of their waking hours in the company of other people. What prompts them to join together with other members of homo sapiens species?

Groups are an object of intense study not only for sociologists, but for social psychologists, and scholars working on gender and other forms of demographic diversity. As social beings, we all are immersed in group settings, at school, in the family, and at work.

Social phenomena is all about groups. Groups are the context for most social activities. Everybody belongs to a group: audiences, boards of directors, committees, dance troupes, families, gangs, juries, orchestras, sororities, teams, and even terrorists.

Aristotle proclaimed that humans are social animals by nature. We seek solitude from time to time, but we spend much of our lives in the company of other people. In most situations and societies, humans tend toward sociality rather than isolation. Studies indicate that human infants seem to be predisposed to form strong attachments to others and babies who are deprived of close human contact have higher mortality rates. Even in adults, protracted periods of social isolation can be extremely disabling and we prefer the company of others when we feel threatened or distressed.

Sociology is concerned with many things, but if there is a primary assertion, it is that we cannot adequately explain social phenomena if we look only at individuals. Rather, we must examine how people interact in group settings, and how those settings shape and constrain individual action. Groups of ascription (that one is either born into or to which one is assumed to belong by virtue of one's position), those of affiliation (groups which one voluntarily joins, or comes to be connected with via one's efforts or work), and also groups as based on gender, class, and race.

Unlike classes, status groups do have a quality of groups. They are determined by the distribution of social honor. A specific style of life is shared by a status group, and the group itself is defined by those with whom one has social intercourse. Economic elements can be a sort of honor; however, similar class position does not necessitate similar status groups (see old money's contempt for the nouveau riche). People from different economic classes may be members of the same status group, if they share the same specific style of life.

The way in which social honor is distributed in the community is called the status order. Criteria for entry into a status group may take forms such as the sharing of kinship groups or certain levels of education. The most extreme of a status system with a high level of closure (that is, strong restriction of mobility between statuses) is a caste system. There, status distinctions are guaranteed no only by law and convention, but also by religious sanctions.

Relationships between Class and Status group; between Class situation, Status Situation, and Stratification.

Status groups can sometimes be equal to class, sometimes be broader, sometimes more restrictive, and sometimes bear no relation to class. In most cases, status situation is the apparent dimension of stratification: ''stratification by status goes hand in hand with a monopolization of ideal and material goods or opportunities''. Class situation can take precedence over status situation, however. ''When the bases of the acquisition and distribution of goods are relatively stable, stratification by status is favored''. Technological and economic changes threaten stratification by status, and ''push class situation to the foreground.... Every slowing down of the change in economic stratification leads, in due course, to the growth or status structures and makes for a resuscitation of the important role of social honor''.

A number of studies highlight the basic utility of groups: in groups individuals can secure advantages and avoid disadvantages that would plague the lone individual. Groups are supremely useful for their members, for they fulfill our most basic needs. - http://www.has.vcu.edu/psy/faculty/fors/rgroup.html

For a complete authoritative discussion and study of Groups and each and every type of group - http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/010/groups.html

Human beings are born into and spend their entire lives within groups. Sociology is concerned with the study of people in group and social context. The major goal is to explain and understand human social behavior or interaction as well as the results of human interaction. From a sociological perspective, through human interaction the human biological animal becomes a human social animal, deriving values, attitudes, beliefs, and standards of behavior. Sociological explanations from human behavior are tied to the idea that social interactions among individuals cause or at least greatly influence human behavior. Sociology focuses therefore on the nature of human group life and the products of group living. Chief among the products of human interaction with others is the development of group customs, traditions, values, and standards of behavior, which are present in every group and constitute the basis on which human social life is organized and perpetuated. Social organization, then, is derived from group living and, in turn, influences human social life. - http://www.harlingen.tstc.edu/pages/soci/soci1301/c01text.htm

GROUP - An aggregate of individuals having some characteristic in common. They may be distinguished from others by appearance, language, socio-economic status or cultural values and practices. A group is often characterized by a sense of common identity, shared interests and goals among its members, but a group may exist simply because its members share some objective characteristic and are defined as a group by others.

GROUP, PRIMARY - A circle of individuals with whom a person is extensively involved: they have bonds of common activity and emotional commitment. People interact in primary groups as whole person to whole person: relationships are comprehensive and emotionally charged. Examples include the family and small traditional communities. Term was developed by C.W.Cooley (1864-1929) and contains echoes of ‘Gemeinschaft’.

GROUP, SECONDARY - A number of individuals jointly linked by some common instrumentally-related characteristic. The members of the group have some specialized and specific relationship to each other. Examples include a professional association, colleagues in the workplace, a political party, a tennis club. Term was developed by C.W. Cooley and contains echoes of ‘Gesellschaft’.

The Center for the Study of Group Processes - Department of Sociology of the University of Iowa. - This represents an explicit commitment by the University to provide infrastructural support for multidisciplinary research on group processes.

We define "group" very broadly. Included are formal organizations, political groups, families, intimates, social categories and societies. Two issues are especially pertinent to our interests, however: (1) the discovery and analysis of general principles underlying group processes across diverse empirical settings, and (2) the interplay between individual and group levels of analysis.

The group processes area is inherently interdisciplinary, offering a broad, theme under which a variety of strands may be unified. For example, it may subsume sociological work on status, public goods research by economists, political scientists' interests in the balance of power and deterrence in international settings, communications research on interpersonal strategies, organizational scholars' research on group decision making, and psychological work on social judgments. The role of group processes in human behavior is a fundamental, cross-cutting issue for the social sciences. - http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/about/mission.html

Research Committee on Sociology of Professional Groups RC52
Objectives - To establish contacts and to encourage collaboration among scholars working in the field of sociology of occupational/professional groups throughout the world; to encourage the international exchange of research findings in the sociology of occupational/professional groups. - http://www.ucm.es/info/isa/rc52.htm

A social group is defined as two or more people who identify themselves as a group and interact with one another in that group. Not all persons who happen to be in the same place at the same time constitute a group. Because being a group involves acting like a group, all groups have some form of group leadership; not everyone in the group has the same status or power. Leaders are higher status members of groups who take responsibility for seeing to it that it achieves its purposes. All persons belong to at least some groups; we will be discussing several forms that these take and how these affect our behavior. But we will also be discussing how certain groups we do not belong to affect our behavior. Finally, we will be discussing how very large formal organizations, especially bureaucracies work and how they affect us. - http://www.northern.wvnet.edu/~gnorton/soc125/soclec7.htm

French, J.R. and B. Raven (1968), "The Bases of Social Power," in Cartwright and Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics, New York: Harper and Row, pp 259-269.
In this classic article, French and Raven delineate five types of power (referent, expert, reward, coercive and legitimate) and explore their dynamics.

Katz, D. and R.L. Kahn (1978), "On the Taking of Organizational Roles," in Katz and Kahn (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York: Wiley, pp. 186-221.
This is the most widely-accepted conception of roles and role-relationships in organizations.

Feldman, D.C. (1984), "The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms," Academy of Management Review, 9:47-53. Discusses how norms develop and why they are enforced.

Turner, R. (1990), "Role Taking: Process Versus Conformity," in D. Brissett and C. Edgley (Eds.), Life as Theater: A Dramaturgical Sourcebook. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Looks at the relationship between the self and the role through a the "dramaturgical" perspective, in which all social life is regarded as performance.

Goffman, Erving (1990), "Role Distance, " in D. Brissett and C. Edgley (Eds.), Life as Theater: A Dramaturgical Sourcebook. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. This essay shows how individuals negotiate the transitions between "being themselves" and playing roles.

Deaux, Kay (1984), "From Individual Differences to Social Categories: Analysis of A Decade’s Research on Gender," American Psychologist, 39:105-116. Deaux argues that gender, rather than being an innate characteristic of human beings, is actually a kind of role or performance. As Gloria Steinem once said, "all women are female impersonators."

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books, pp. 206-242. This case-study of the sales force in a major U.S. corporation shows how women in male-dominated professions get slotted into stereotyped roles: mother, seductress, pet, and iron maiden.

Berger, Joseph, Susan Rosenholtz, and Morris Zelditch (1980), "Status Organizing Processes," Annual Review of Sociology, 6: 479-508. This article lays out the basic concepts of expectation states theory, which claims that individuals are assigned status in task groups (i.e., the right to participate in discussion and influence decisions) based not on competence but on their status in the outside world. Thus, members of relatively low-status groups in society at large are expected to maintain that low status in a task group.

West, Candace and Angela Garcia (1988), "Conversational Shift Work: A Study of Topical Transitions Between Women and Men," Social Problems, 35: 551-575.
This empirical study shows how status processes play out between men and women in conversation.

Bray, R.M., D. Johnson and J.T. Chilstrom Jr. (1982), "Social Influence By Group Members with Minority Opinions: A Comparison of Hollander and Moscovici," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 78-88.
This study compares the two dominant models of minority influence in groups, and finds that they apply differently for men and women.

Dentler, R.A. and Erikson, Kai (1959), "The Functions of Deviance in Groups," Social Problems, 7: 98-107. Drawing on examples from Quaker work groups and army squads, the authors show that groups actually need deviant behavior, and that it is often sustained rather than stamped out.

Nemeth, Charlan (1986), "Differential Contribution of Majority and Minority Influence," Psychological Review, 93: 23-32. Classic study showing that deviance in groups makes for better-quality decisions compared to conformist groups.

Mullen, Brian and Carolyn Copper (1994), "The Relation Between Group Cohesiveness and Performance: An Integration," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115: 210-227. This article shows that social cohesion and conformity are not necessary to group performance; in fact, groups can tolerate a great deal of difference, as long as members are all committed to the task.

Emerson, Richard (1962), "Power-Dependence Relations," American Sociological Review, 27:31-41.An old gem which defines power as based on dependency relations.

Salancik, Gerald and Jeffrey Pfeffer (1977), "Who Gets Power—And How They Hold Onto It: A Strategic-Contingency Model of Power," Organizational Dynamics, 2-21.
Pfeffer and Salancik argue that power accrues to those who control key resources for the organization. This takes the key ideas of Emerson and putting them in a specifically organizational context.

Decision-Making in Groups
Cialdini, Robert (1984), Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things, New York: Quill. This is a very accessible book on the social psychology of decision-making; Cialdini uses numerous real-world examples (like door-to-door sales) to illustrate theories.

Janis, Irving (1980 [1971]), "Groupthink," in Harold Leavitt, Louis Pondy and David Boje (Eds.), Readings in Managerial Psychology 3rd Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. A famous article on the way that group settings distort decision-making.

Burnstein, E. (1982), "Persuasion as Argument Processing," in H. Brandstetter, J.H. Davis, and G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Group Decision Making, London: Academic Press, pp. 103-124. A refinement and extension of the groupthink hypothesis, showing that groups do more than conform; they can also polarize (shift individual opinions in a more extreme direction) and depolarize decisions.

Beach, Lee Roy (1997), The Psychology of Decision Making in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997. A more thorough (but less accessible) review of the decision-making literature.

Williams, Katherine and Charles O’Reilly III (1998), "Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research," Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 77-140. This review summarizes the big, big picture in organizational demography, and the overall conclusion is not too optimistic: the downsides of diversity seem to overwhelm its positives. The other articles in this section can be read as modifications to or arguments against this summation.

Watson, W., K. Kumar and L. Michaelson (1993), "Cultural Diversity’s Impact on Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogenous and Diverse Task Groups," Academy of Management Journal, 36: 590-602. In contrast to the conclusions of Williams and O'Reilly, this article indicates that, given enough time, demographically diverse groups can actually outperform homogenous ones.

Jackson, Susan, Karen May and Kristina Whitney (1995), "Understanding the Dynamics of Diversity in Decision Making Teams," in R. Guzzo and E. Salas (Eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
This review article looks generally at the diversity dynamic in teams.

Ancona, Deborah and David Caldwell (1992a), "Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams," Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665. With the article below, this piece summarizes research on task teams in a high-technology firm, looking at how the mix of functional specialties, as well as other demographic traits, affected the group's final product.

"Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance," Organization Science, 3: 321-341.

Elsass, Priscilla and Laura Graves (1997), "Demographic Diversity in Decision-Making Groups: The Experiences of Women and People of Color," Academy of Management Review, 22: 946-973. This article links gender and race diversity in task groups to the expectation status literature we read September 25.

Izraeli, Dafna (1983), "Sex Effects or Structural Effects?: An Empirical Test of Kanter’s Theory of Proportions," Social Forces, 62: 153-165. Izraeli looks more closely at the hypotheses put forward by Kanter (see September 25) concerning gender diversity in
organizations; Izraeli argues that these effects aren't symmetrical (i.e., they don't affect men and women equally).

Pugh, M.D. and Ralph Wahrman (1983), "Neutralizing Sexism in Mixed-Sex Groups: Do Women Have to Be Better Than Men?," American Journal of Sociology, 88: 746-762.
Like Izraeli, Pugh and Wahrman examine the asymmetry in men's in women's experiences in task groups, this time in terms of competency expectations.

Megargee, Edwin (1969), "Influence of Sex Roles on the Manifestation of Leadership," Journal of Applied Psychology, 53:377-382. This article tests the relationship between gender roles and leadership, with clear implications for organizations' leadership
composition.

Martin, Karin (1998), "Becoming A Gendered Body: Practices of Preschools," American Sociological Review, 63: 494-511. This study of pre-schools examines how the power of the situation affects the expression of masculine and feminine traits in schoolchildren, consider how these same processes may affect adults in other organizations.

Ridgeway, Cecilia (1997), "Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment," American Sociological Review 62: 218-235. A theoretical piece on a subject that is usually treated from a macro-structural point of view: gender discrimination in employment. Like Martin, Ridgeway looks at the construction of gender at the micro-interactional level. Both articles have implications for diversity in organizations, as they indicate that context is more significant in shaping behavior than individual traits.

Wharton, Amy (1992), "The Social Construction of Gender and Race in Organizations: A Social Identity and Group Mobilization Perspective," in Pamela Tolbert and Samuel Bachrach (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 10: 55-84.
This article looks at the micro-level processes that make gender and race salient in diverse organizations.

Olson, Mancur (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapters 1-2, 5-6. This book explains why people join groups and stay in them, despite the demands imposed on them by those groups.

Hechter, Michael (1987), Principles of Group Solidarity, Berkeley: University of California Press. This is a slightly different take on the same issues reviewed by Olson, with a stronger cognitive focus; Hechter looks at how groups maintain and control membership through a series of rational incentives and punishments.

Granovetter, Mark (1985), "The Strength of Weak Ties," American Journal of Sociology, 78:1360-1380. In one of the most famous articles in sociology, Granovetter shows how distant network ties (friends-of-friends, etc.) act as the "glue" of everyday life.

Useem, Michael (1984), The Inner Circle, New York: Oxford University Press, Chapters 1-5. This study of British and American corporate elites shows how overlapping networks (through boards of directors, social clubs, and schools) among executives create a powerful basis for collective action by corporations.

Kadushin, Charles (1995), "Friendship Among the French Financial Elite," American Sociological Review, 60: 202-21. This is another study of elites—in this case the leaders of French finance—who represent a powerful united front, based on having attended the same university.

Hirsch, Eric, (1990),"Sacrifice for the Cause: Group Processes, Recruitment and Commitment in a Student Social Movement," American Sociological Review, 55: 243-254. Hirsch is interested in why people risk their safety for a cause, not just one time, but over and over again.

Chong, Dennis (1991), Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Chapters 1-7, 9 and 10. Chong takes theoretical ideas from Olson and Hechter, and applies them to the civil rights movement, to understand why people put their lives on the line for the cause.

Morris, Aldon (1981), "Black Southern Sit-In Movement: An Analysis of Internal Organization," American Sociological Review 46: 744-767. Morris argues that the civil rights movement was based not on spontaneous collective action but on prior networks established through the black church and college organizations. How does his argument compare to Chong's?

Durkheim, Emile (1915), The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, New York: Free Press. In this sociological classic, Durkheim looks at religious culture among the Maori of Australia, and famously argues that in worshipping gods, society is really worshipping itself.

Fine, Gary Alan (1979), "Small Groups and Culture Creation," American Sociological Review, 44: 733-45. This is a more detailed look at the ways in which groups create culture.

Schwartz, Barry (1967), "The Social Psychology of the Gift," American Journal of Sociology, 73:1-11. Schwartz's subject is the creation of gift culture, as in holidays or special occasions, and the implications of gift-giving for defining group boundaries.

Swidler, Ann (1986), "Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies," American Sociological Review, 51: 273-286. This theoretical article defines culture and how we use it.

Kunda, Gideon (1991), Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Kunda's study of a high-technology firm proves that "geeks" do have a culture, and that it is very important in defining and motivating work groups.

Snow, David, E. Burke Rochford Jr., Steven Worden, and Robert Benford (1986), "Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Participation," American Sociological Review, 51:464-481. This article examines the cultural processes by which collective action is engaged. How does this perspective compare with those found in Olson and Hechter?

Beach, Lee Roy (1997), The Psychology of Decision Making in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cialdini, Robert (1984), Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things, New York: Quill.

Chong, Dennis (1991), Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Durkheim, Emile (1915), The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, New York: Free Press.

Hechter, Michael (1987), Principles of Group Solidarity, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kunda, Gideon (1991), Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Olson, Mancur (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Useem, Michael (1984), The Inner Circle, New York: Oxford University Press.

Lindenberg, S. (1997) 'Grounding groups in theory: functional, cognitive, and structural interdepedencies', in: Advances in Group Processes, 14, Greenwich CT: JAI Press, pp. 281-331.

Forsyth, D. R., & Kelley, K. N. (1996). Heuristic-based biases in estimations of personal contributions to collective endeavors. In J. L. Nye and A. Brower (Eds.), What's social about social cognition: Social cognition research in small groups. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Forsyth, D. R., & Kelley, K. N. (1994). Attribution in groups: Estimations of personal contributions to collective endeavors. Small Group Research, 25, 367-383.

Leary, M. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (1987). Attributions of responsibility for collective endeavors. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 167-188.

Forsyth, D. R., Berger, R., & Mitchell, T. (1981). The effects of self- serving vs. other-serving claims of responsibility on attraction and attribution in groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 59-64.

Forsyth, D. R., & Mitchell, T. (1979). Reactions to other's egocentric claims of responsibility. Journal of Psychology, 103, 281-285.

Forsyth, D. R. (1980). The function of attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 184-189.

Forsyth, D. R., & Schlenker, B. R. (1977). Attributing the causes of group performance: Effects of performance quality, task importance, and future testing. Journal of Personality, 45, 220-236.

Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Forsyth, D. R. (1991). Change in therapeutic groups. In C. R. Snyder and D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 664-680). New York: Pergamon.

Forsyth, D. R., Elliott, T. R., & Welsh, J. A. (1991). Multidimensional model of the functions of groups. Paper presented at the Third Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.

Wright, S. S., & Forsyth, D. R. (in press). Group Membership and Collective Identity: Consequences for Self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.

Diekmann, A. and Lindenberg, S. (2001) 'Cooperation: Sociological aspects', International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.4:2751-56. Oxford: Pergamon-Elsevier.

Lindenberg, S. (2001) 'Sociology of groups', International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 9:6434-39. Oxford: Pergamon –Elsevier.

Diekmann, A. and Lindenberg, S. (2001) 'Cooperation: Sociological aspects', International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.4:2751-56. Oxford: Pergamon-Elsevier.

Wielers, R. en Lindenberg, S. (1991) 'Beloning en Allocatie op een informele arbeids-markt' (The structure of wages and allocation on an informal labor market), Mens en Maatsch-appij 66: 5-24.

Westert, G.P., Groenewegen, P.P., Lindenberg, S. (1991) 'De invloed van ziekenhuispatienten op de duur van hospitalisatie', Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg 69: 1-11

Lindenberg, S. (1986) 'The paradox of privatization in consumption', in: Diekmann A. and Mitter P. (eds) Paradoxial Effects of Social Behavior. Essays in Honor of Anatol Rapoport, Heidelberg/Wien: PhysicaVerlag, pp. 297-310.

Lindenberg, S. (1985) 'Die Verteilung gemeinsamer G�ter: wer bekommt welchen Anteil?', in: B�schges, G. und Raub, W. (Hrsg.) Soziale Bedingungen, Individuelles Handeln, Soziale Konsequenzen, Frankfurt/Bern/New York: Peter Lang, pp. 83-114.

Lindenberg, S. (1984) 'Normen und die Allokation sozialer Wertsch�tzung', in: Todt, H. (Hrsg.) Normengeleitetes Verhalten in den Sozialwissenschaften, (Schriften des Vereins f�r Socialpolitik, Neue Folge Bd.141), Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp.169-191.

Lindenberg, S. (1982) 'Sharing groups: theory and suggested applications', Journal of Mathematical Sociology 9: 33-62.

Lindenberg, S. (1982) 'A Theory of Sharing Groups', in: Sodeur, W. (Hrsg.) Mathematische Analyse von Organisationsstrukturen und - Prozessen, Duisburg: Verlag der Sozialwiss. Kooperative, pp. 79-116.

Lindenberg, S. (1975) 'Three psychological theories of a classical sociologist', Mens en Maatschappij 50, 2: 133-153.

Lindenberg, S. (1971) 'Aspects of the Cognitive Representation of Small Scale Social Structures', unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard, Cambridge, Mass.

Shotola, Robert (1991), "Small Groups," in E. Borgatta and M. Borgatta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sociology, New York: MacMillan.
This entry in the Encyclopedia of Sociology gives a quick introduction to the history of small groups research and an introduction to basic themes.

Blumer, Herbert (1962), "Society as Symbolic Interaction," in A.M. Rose (Ed.), Human Behavior and Social Processes: An Interactionist Approach, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
This essay lays out the basic theoretical substructure of sociological small group research: symbolic interaction.

Maines, David (1982), "In Search of Mesostructure: Studies in the Negotiated Order," Urban Life, 11: 267-79. This article posits another fundamental principle of small group research: that groups are the linking mechanism between the macro-level of social structure and the micro-level of individual action.

Katz, Jack (1996), "Families and Funny Mirrors: A Study of the Social Construction and Personal Embodiment of Humor, " American Journal of Sociology 101: 1194-1237.
A classic example of small group research in the symbolic interactionist tradition.

Haney, Craig, Curtis Banks and Philip Zimbardo, "Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison, " International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1: 69-97.
This is one of the most famous empirical tudies in social science. By turning ordinary college students into brutal prison guards, it shows dramatically how most individual behavior is a matter of context rather than character.

Milgram, Stanley (1963), "Behavioral Study of Obedience, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 371-378. Another of the most famous empirical studies in social science, with a similar theme: behavior is largely a matter of context rather than character.

Sherif, Muzafer (1958), "Superordinate Goals in the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict,"American Journal of Sociology, 63: 349-358.
Finally, another classic, this time showing how conflict and cohesion between groups—rather than individuals—can be controlled by social structural context.

Groups and Organizations
Brown University - Syllabus - Professor Brooke Harrington

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Sociology/classes/sem1_00-01/so187-28.html
This course surveys the role of groups in organizations. This is a core area of knowledge in organization theory, but it also crosses disciplinary boundaries. Groups are an object of intense study not only for sociologists, but for social psychologists, and scholars working on gender and other forms of demographic diversity. As social beings, we all are immersed in group settings, at school, in the family, and at work. While the course focuses primarily on the literature of organizations, it will also develop skills in analyzing and writing about groups in many different settings.
Readings: The course has a heavy reading load, ranging from 200 to 300 pages per week. The required books for this course are available for purchase in the Brown Bookstore, and most are also on reserve at Rockefeller Library. The course reader is available at Jo-Art. Since the course is so reading-intensive, buying the books and reader are highly recommended.

Syllabus - Oregon State University - http://oregonstate.edu/~mitchelr/324f00.syl.htm
COURSE DESCRIPTION: The social group is one of the basic units of analysis in sociology. Surgical teams, families, combat units, living groups, and sport teams are examples of this most pervasive form of social organization. The small group is respectively comprised of individuals, of selves, and in turn comprises larger organizations. It is within this most fundamental form of social interatcion that mind, self, and society, what we know, who we are, and the social worlds in which we live, find their origins and forms. What are the dynamics of small groups? How are individuals influenced by, and in turn, how do they reciprocally influence group process? Those are the essential questions of this course and its continuation-sequel "Applied Group Dynamics." While these courses are differentiated in catalogue listings they are intended as compliments to each other. Both are necessary to cover the several forms of group interaction, both simultaneously consider group interaction principles, research methods, and applications. It is strongly recommended that students plan on taking these as a sequence.
Introduction and course expectations. Definitions and theoretical perspectives. Group myths and realities. The contexts of group life: social change, modernity, and rationalization.
Discovery’ of group influence: The Hawthorne Experiments. The power of groups. Robber’s Cave to Lord of the Flies. Lord of the Flies (video, in-class, time permitting).
The self as social object; objects as social constructions.
Read: Goffman, Mead, Mehan and Wood. T.S.T.
Perception, attribution and social construction of reality. Projective techniques.
Read: Rosenhan. Draw-a-Map. Copy Machine Rumor.
Non-verbal communication. “Communication the Non-verbal Agenda” (30 min.).
Understanding Others. Different Dyads.
Territoriality. "Social Life of Small Urban Spaces" (Soc. 50 min.).
Ch. 12. In the Diplomatic Corps. Space management.
Attitude change through communication. Dissonance.
Read: Chs. 7, 8, 11, 14, 15; Festinger.
Forms of social influence in groups and organizations: facilitation, conformity, compliance, obedience. "Night and Fog" (Humanities Devel. 1955 30 min.).
Read: Chs. 6, 17. Simulation Survival Exercise.
Group and organizational structure and communication patterns.
Read: Chs. 10, 16; Weber, Merton. Group Composition and Problem Solving.
Leadership. “Leadership: Style or Circumstance” (27 min.).
Fly 'Um High.
Analyzing group communications and structure.
Ch. 9. Bales IPA.
Sociometrics. Sociometric Analysis.
Communication patterns in groups and organizations. Information and group structure.

SOCI 001-05 Introduction to Sociology
Professor Daddio
Sociology studies human social interaction and the structure of groups. Sociologists examine systematically the ways people behave and arrange themselves in groups, and why they behave and organize the ways they do. Introduction to Sociology is an entry-level course that examines the basic concepts, theories, applications, and issues of the field of sociology. Using an applied sociology approach, various theories of sociology are used to explain particular social human behavior in practical social settings. You should learn how sociology theory is used to explain a variety of social behaviors, and will understand another perspective with which to examine common social phenomena. You should learn about this discipline from an academic standpoint as well as from the practical perspective that you can use throughout your career.

As a background to Introduction of Sociology, you are aware that people normally form groups where they interact with each other, and those groups have some social organization which sociologists call social structure. People act differently when they are in a group than when they are alone, so the group behavior is unique. That behavior is also repetitive - people from the same background tend to do the same thing in the same situation. We tend to take the behavior and structure for granted, since we are part of the group, but our perspective is clouded by what we have been taught to believe. By systematically observing and analyzing both the group interactions and the group structures, sociologists can describe, explain, and interpret the group behavior patterns, and explain the influences of the social structure on that behavior.

Center for the Study of Group Processes - Current Research in Social Psychology (CRISP) is a peer reviewed, electronic journal covering all aspects of social psychology. Publication is sponsored by the Center for the Study of Group Processes at the University of Iowa which provides free access to its journal contents. - http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.html

Publishes in its journal, empirical and conceptual papers which aim to increase understanding of people and organizations at work. Papers include: industrial, organizational, engineering, vocational and personnel psychology, as well as behavioural aspects of industrial relations, ergonomics, human factors and industrial sociology. - http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/jOP_1.cfm

Journal for Specialists in Group Work - A Publication of the Association for Specialists in Group Work - http://www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=199
Published in Association with: Association for Specialists in Group Work
Description: The Journal for Specialists in Group Work leads the way in advancing theory and practice of work with groups. An official publication of the Association for Specialists in Group Work, the Journal for Specialists in Group Work is an indispensable resource for both practitioners and educators working with groups in clinical, organizational, educational and community settings.

The Sociology of Groups and the Economics of Incentives: Theory and Evidence on Compensation Systems
William E. Encinosa III, Martin Gaynor, James B. Rebitzer
Abstract - This paper incorporates the sociological concept of group norms' into an economic analysis of pay systems. We use a behavioral microeconomic model and a unique survey of medical groups to examine the theoretical and empirical relationship between group norms and incentive pay. Our findings suggest that, at least for medical groups, norms are binding constraints in the choice of pay practices. While group norms matter, the patterns in the data suggest that they are not all that matters. Analysis of the preferences and activities of individual physicians indicate that factors highlighted by the economic theory of agency, notably income insurance and multi-task considerations, also shape pay policies. The conclusion we draw from these results is that the sociological concept of group norms augments rather than replaces more conventional economic analyses of pay practices. - http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5953.html

Why So Social an Animal? - The Functions of Groups
Donelson R. Forsyth - Virginia Commonwealth University
Man is by nature a social animal, and an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something in nature that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. . . . . . . . . . . . . Aristotle, 384-322 B.C. - http://www.has.vcu.edu/psy/faculty/fors/function.html

The Utility of Interdependence
Aristotle proclaimed that humans are social animals by nature. We seek solitude from time to time, but we spend much of our lives in the company of other people. In most situations and societies, humans tend toward sociality rather than isolation. Studies indicate that human infants seem to be predisposed to form strong attachments to others and babies who are deprived of close human contact have higher mortality rates. Even in adults, protracted periods of social isolation can be extremely disabling and we prefer the company of others when we feel threatened or distressed. People spend between 20% and 60% of their waking hours in the company of other people.
What prompts us to join together with other members of our species? A number of studies highlight the basic utility of groups: in groups individuals can secure advantages and avoid disadvantages that would plague the lone individual. Groups are supremely useful for their members, for they fulfill our most basic needs. Our studies of the utility of groups have focused on three basic areas: group membership and self-esteem, collective identity, and the overall functions of groups. - http://www.has.vcu.edu/psy/faculty/fors/rgroup.html

Sociology studies human social interaction and the structure of groups. Sociologists examine systematically the ways people behave and arrange themselves in groups, and why they behave and organize the ways they do. Introduction to Sociology is an entry-level course that examines the basic concepts, theories, applications, and issues of the field of sociology. Using an applied sociology approach, various theories of sociology are used to explain particular social human behavior in practical social settings. You should learn how sociology theory is used to explain a variety of social behaviors, and will understand another perspective with which to examine common social phenomena. You should learn about this discipline from an academic standpoint as well as from the practical perspective that you can use throughout your career.
As a background to Introduction of Sociology, you are aware that people normally form groups where they interact with each other, and those groups have some social organization which sociologists call social structure. People act differently when they are in a group than when they are alone, so the group behavior is unique. That behavior is also repetitive - people from the same background tend to do the same thing in the same situation. We tend to take the behavior and structure for granted, since we are part of the group, but our perspective is clouded by what we have been taught to believe. By systematically observing and analyzing both the group interactions and the group structures, sociologists can describe, explain, and interpret the group behavior patterns, and explain the influences of the social structure on that behavior. Professor Daddio SOCI 001-05 Introduction to Sociology.