This paper investigates whether a group will compensate for the loss of a key personality trait or functional component among its members. It frames the inquiry around three subordinate questions addressing how to determine a group's locus of control, how that orientation shapes the value placed on specific roles, and what methods might measure compensatory responses to loss. Drawing on psychological constructs of internal versus external locus of control, the paper distinguishes between "I"-focused and "we"-focused groups and examines how each type values roles such as the gatekeeper. It also considers the growing complexity of virtual and online groups and reflects on the broader implications for sociological scientific inquiry and large-scale social data.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
Main Study Question: If a particular personality trait or component is removed from a group, will the remaining members compensate for that loss?
Subordinate Questions:
1. What methods are appropriate for determining the group's locus of control, assuming it has one?
2. How might this determination influence whether or not the group values a particular personality trait or a specific component?
3. Based on that knowledge, what measures could be used to determine if it was necessary to compensate for whatever loss occurred?
As sociology is the study of group behavior, there is an acceptance from the outset that the existence of a group means something more than just a collection of individuals who each act independently. This fact is not really disputed. But there are still many questions about the various roles that individuals and circumstance play in making a group function, just as there are questions about whether the group "sees" its members in one way or another based on the dynamic of internal or external loci of control.
Studies have shown that many groups develop for various reasons with either "I" or "we" focuses (for a sample study, see Hyldegard, J., 2009). This concept is similar to the psychological construct of locus of control (Neill, J., 2006). In an effort to attribute the reasons for behaviors, a person determines whether he or she controls the elements of destiny in his or her life, or whether that control comes from someplace external. In a similar way, it has been shown that groups operate in ways that depend on whether they view themselves as a collection of "internally controlled" individuals or as a collective of "externally controlled" teammates.
In an instance of the former, the purposes of the group may be to facilitate personal or individual achievement and success — the group exists to advance those outcomes. In the externally controlled "we" group, however, the tasks are still critical but so too is the existence of the larger body of interconnected persons. This concept is becoming more important in an era of online groups of various kinds, as discussed below.
This characterization of issues of control within a group is very important for the question at hand. It can directly influence whether a personality trait — embodied by one or more persons or a small collection of people — or a given component is sufficiently meaningful or has value to the collective. For example, both "I" and "we" groups could have gatekeepers, whose role is to keep extraneous information or factors away from the work (for a discussion of such roles, see Akins, L.H., 2001). But an "I"-based gatekeeper could weigh certain factors differently than a "we"-based one, which would have direct implications for whether the loss of a personality or component was truly important — at least to anyone other than the gatekeeper him or herself.
In today's society, this issue becomes more relevant for a number of additional reasons. Many groups now have roles and characteristics that extend beyond the physical proximity of any individuals — for instance, when they exist virtually — and thus many issues of locus of control may be harder to identify. Relatively little is known about this yet, nor about what it means for the dynamics of online friends, families, support groups, and similar communities. Still, even within these technological groups, it may remain critical to understand the underlying "I" or "we" motivations. Virtual groups are intimately connected to jobs, personal support networks, and even political organizing campaigns that can literally change the world. How groups like these function may say something significant about the future of collective dynamics.
"Three questions map to key research variables"
"Scientific methods applied to group loss question"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.