Individual in a Group: Discussion

¶ … Individual in a Group: Discussion

For decades, students of human psychology have studied the dynamics of individuals' perceptions, thoughts, emotions, and impetuses in groups. The desire to fit in, which seems innate in many humans, is a phenomenon that scholars have found worthy of evaluating, a phenomenon that has stunning implications for philosophy, psychology, sociology and other disciplines. By critiquing three psychologists' understanding of the relationship between in-groups and out-groups, suggesting the authors' omissions requires more research, one can understand that the relationship between in-groups and out-groups are made up for the relationships among individuals.

In their article "Intergroup Emotions: Explaining Offensive Action Tendencies in an Intergroup Context," authors Diane M. Mackie, Thierry Devos, and Eliot R. Smith examine the connection between inner and out-groups, questioning why some in-groups tend "to move against some groups and away from others" (p. 602). The authors question why some out-groups are met with fear and others anger, why some in-groups publicly decry out-groups and others simply tend to avoid out-group members. They attempt to solve this problem by proposing a hypothesis that assumes the strength of the in-group affects the way with which in-group members act towards and feel about the out-group. After completing three studies, the authors found that the in-group is an important tool for forming one's social identity and its underlying cognition, that perceived strength of the in-group affected the type of emotions in-group members formed toward out-group members, and that these emotions were linked to action-tendencies toward out-group members (Mackie, Devos, and Smith, 2000, p. 613).

Although their methodology tested individuals, Mackie, Devos, and Smith (2000) have refrained from discussing the important role that individual psychology plays in the relationship between in-groups and out-groups. The authors' findings stipulate that the strength of the in-group directly affects the emotions felt by in-group members and, consequently, the action tendencies perpetuated by them. Still, the strength of the group is dependant on individuals, just as is the manifestation of action-tendencies. Although the authors argue that "greater identification with the in-group than the out-group" (Mackie, Devos, and Smith, 2000, p. 613) when two groups are in conflict, they refrain from discussing how these in-groups are formed. While the binding force of a common position certainly facilitates the formation of the in-group, charismatic individuals must also play a role. These individuals are needed in order to bind the group in some kind of official manner, in addition to defining what, exactly, the group stands for. Certainly, differences exist among the importance of charismatic individuals in the in-group. Just as certainly, these differences influence the way they see the out-group. If a group has a particularly charismatic individual as a leader, and that leader feels strong anger toward the opposite group, than it is plausible that the group will feel anger toward that other group in order to attempt to assimilate into the in-group, in addition to an attempt to reach a high rank within the group.

Further, the psychological tendencies of the members of the group should have an impact upon how the in-group sees the out-group and upon what kind of actions and action-tendencies that the group intends on using regarding its opposing group. In the blend of psychological make-ups included in the groups, it is possible that an interaction among them may influence how the in-group views the out-group. The individuals within the group have the power to shape it in a variety of means through convincing, threatening, and offering group members a sense of security within a common gathering.