Are you a groupie?

Research Question: How do new family members develop a family identity and acquire family membership?

Here you are – walking down the greenbelt and who should appear –The Obama's. Yes, I know that is a stretch, but stick with me.

Are you comfortable speaking with them, do you fit into their group? You will consciously decide where you belong - We all choose our groups. Scholars suggest that we access group membership by using four criteria. 

We first seek to belong – to be included into some social unit. This group would share resources, influence our behavior, and decisions would be made through consensus.  Quite often this is our family, but it does not have to be. Belonging is described this way– we share and share alike, we own things together, we share responsibilities jointly, we are obligated to be kind to each other, we have similar attitudes and values, and our relationship is unique. (1)

Secondly, we gage authority – to see if we fit into the hierarchy. What levels of dominance or submission are we willing to deal with? Authority means– Gifts are tracked (must keep things even), everything is divided equally, when one works – so does the other, equal treatment, one person- one vote, you both take turns deciding issues, consider yourselves to be peers, and you take turns if things are unable to be divided equally. (1)

Third, we look for common social status. Many of us feel that we must associate with those who are like us.  Being with individuals who are different, make us uncomfortable and we lack the confidence to shoot higher. Social status means– one is entitled to more than the other, one of you is in charge, one of you should have more respect, one is the decision maker and the other goes along,                                          the follower is loyal, one is a role model, and there is hierarchy in the relationship. (1)

Fourth we look at the costs of belonging to a particular group. Costs – you get what you put in, things are shared according to initial investment, you are entitled to a fair rate of return for what you put into this transaction, relationship weighs cost/benefits, one person pays the other person, and interactions are strictly rational. (1)

We all use these criteria to interact, and to produce, understand, and engage in a wide variety of personal and social relationship in infinitely variable cultural forms.(1) Obviously, relationships emerge from our social groupings of different types- Friends at work, neighbors with neighbors, and family with family.

Some groups are more intimate, others are more task related. We use these groups to provide structure and as a place to provide support. Interpersonal relationships are unique to each group and as an individual moves between groups – their identity changes. Self-concept is social and flexible – it shifts as we change those we interact with. (2) Think about it. How close do you want to be to your boss? Certainly, not as close as you want to be with your sweetie! You have two different identities-one at work and one at home.  This is completely normal and healthy. Everyone should have multiple identities.

Sometimes, I want to avoid certain people or situations and in that case, I think about relationship development differently. I am not interested in associating with those people, so I don’t. It makes sense that people who interact make more friends (2), but sometimes individuals do not want to be social and that is okay – unless you avoid people all the time. In that case your happiness will definitely be affected by your choice to avoid people.

Not only will your associations change the way your view yourself, they will change the way you behave (2).  If you associate with smart people, studies show that your ability to think will be affected. Those who associate with people who are sarcastic, seem to be more sarcastic (especially) when you are in the friend's compnay (2).

Let’s talk. Does all this really matter?  I think it does especially in family situations. Look at the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. They are both checking each other out and deciding if they are going to avoid each other or get involved.  They can choose to avoid, but that will have a definite impact on their happiness and self-identity. They will not belong to the group – which means they will not receive the benefits of group membership. If they do engage, what group will they choose to place their relationship? 

Choosing a cultural (family) group to join may offer both of them security and a self-concept of being a family member. What are some of the consequences of joining other groups? Let' take a look. 

Social status, how can this group membership benefit this relationship? One of them makes decisions, the other follows along. I just see resentment here.

 I don’t even want to think about what that outcome might be, i they choose the hierarchal group. I see trouble looming on the horizon.  They will have to decide who has the authority and there may even be some struggles with power. Their self-concept will be different with this choice. One will be subservient to the other. Ouch!

Cost vs. benefit – Do I even need to go here? You get what you put into the relationship. The relationship is rational and someone is in charge. Consider the mother-in-law who wants to visit with her grandchildren, yet the daughter-in-law refuses unless it is done her way and in her time. Or, what about the mother-in-law who tells her daughter-in-law that she is not keeping her house clean enough? I imagine the young women would consider a relationship with the mother-in-law to cost more than she thinks it is worth.

So, it really matter which groups we decide to belong to. Group membership will influence the way we interact and how we view ourselves. Being a groupie can be a good thing.

References

(1) Brito, R., Waldrus, S., Sekedej, M., & Schubert, T. (2010). The context and structures of relating to others: How memberships in different types of groups shape the construction of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(3), 406-431.

(2) Gabriel, S., Carvallo, M., Dean, K. K., Tippin, B., & Renaud, J. (2005). How I see me depends on how I see we: The role of attachment style in social comparisoin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1561-1572.