Abstract
The authors address unanswered questions about the attraction of the often stormy large group and the interplay between it and small groups. If the large group is a place that arouses many difficult feelings, why do people in conferences, workshops, training programmes and on the Internet continue to participate in them? The authors found that within Internet large groups there was a clear pattern of setting up a small, intimate core group. They found a similar pattern in two live, group workshops. The authors learned that large and small groups are intricately related, and that when participants have the chance, they choose to continue in an on-going, back-and-forth movement between each.
Anecdote
Imagine four people riding through the desert to the International Group Analytic Conference at Ein Gedi, Israel (March, 2009), near the Dead Sea. The passengers are three professionals from the Israel Institute of Group Analysis and one of them is a wife. They discuss the pending conference.
All look forward to the small groups but are anxious about the large one. They anticipate difficult encounters of the sort reflected in the conference logo, ‘Know Hard Feelings’. It is two months after the war in Gaza. Arab colleagues will be there. There will also be many Europeans and Americans. The passengers anticipate much criticism of Israel, particularly in the large group meetings. The wife asks ‘Why do people attend the large group? People are always angry with each other’.
The group analysts find themselves asking each other, what really goes on in the large group? Why do people seem to prefer the small group? And if so, why are there nonetheless well-attended large groups at every group conference?
During the Ein Gedi conference, the large group meetings indeed were well attended and, as expected, very acrimonious. In the small groups, there was also much anger, but after the first day, it was replaced by more intimate discussion of personal issues.
As the four participants rode back through the desert to their homes near Tel Aviv, they found themselves with still unanswered questions about the attraction of the often stormy large group, and how to account for the interplay between it and the small groups. These questions were the stimulus for the subsequent research and discussion presented in this article.
Definitions and Descriptions
Virtual Large and Small Groups; a Methodological Dilemma
To explore this issue—the relative attraction and aversion of large and small groups—we determined to look at several large and small groups and examine their dynamics. In thinking about where to find large groups for our research, we considered searching the Internet, on which there is a growing profusion of forums, discussion lists and social networking groups, which appear to have many of the dynamics of large groups. These virtual groups are a rapidly increasing aspect of modern life, and for research purposes have the additional advantage, because they are conducted through writing, of being conducive to statistical analysis and documentation. People can ‘talk’ by e-mail, retrieving each other’s responses at their own convenience. To join a virtual list one just sends a subscription command to the server and is automatically subscribed. ‘From that moment on until signing off, all the messages distributed to list members reach the subscriber’s e-mail box’ (Weinberg, H., 2003: 188). Thus, every list member is exposed to the flow of members’ interventions.
But, we asked ourselves, can virtual, Internet groups, which lack visual and auditory cues, be compared to face-to-face groups, in which body language and non-verbal communication is part of the overall communication among participants? Would it be possible to generalize from cyberspace groups to face-to-face ones?
To answer this question, we searched the growing research on Internet group phenomena. Our search produced a number of relevant articles, which can be roughly divided into two different, though related fields of interest, namely: 1) research on general communication phenomena on the Internet, and 2) exploration of clinical possibilities through the Internet.
Regarding the former, there are a number of relevant survey articles, including Cyber Psychology: A Literature Review Pertaining to the Psycho/Social Aspects of Multi-User Dimensions in Cyberspace by Sempsey III (1997), Presence in Text-based, Networked Virtual Environments or ‘MUDS’ by Towell and Towell (1997), The Internet and the Large Group: Technological Possibilities in a New Age by Hynes (2002) and The Psychological Dynamics and Social Climate of Text Based Virtual Reality by Sempsey and Johnston (2000).
Regarding the latter, there are articles examining therapeutic/clinical possibilities of group experience on the Internet. These include The Internet and the Large Group by Davidson (1998), The Therapeutic Potentials of Text-Based, Virtual Reality by Sempsey, III, J.J. (1998), Empirical Evaluation of Brief Group Therapy Conducted in an Internet Chat Room by Barak and Wander-Schwartz (2000), Community Unconscious on the Internet by Weinberg, H. (2002) and The Large Group in a Virtual Environment, also by Weinberg, H., (2003).
A perusal of these writings leads to the impression that the ‘glass is half full or half empty’ regarding the similarities between Internet and face-to-face group dynamics. That is, Internet groups offer on the one hand the possibility of group contact among disparate individuals who would not otherwise have communication with each other. These contacts are authentic and have legitimate value. There are many similarities between these cyberspace groups and face-to-face groups, despite the lack of visual and auditory cues in the former. The lack of these cues can give rise to misunderstandings and problems not encountered in face-to-face groups.
In Weinberg’s writings, cited above, there is a comprehensive examination of the dynamics of forums and discussion groups (but not of social networking groups, a significant group phenomenon which appeared only after publication of his articles). Specifically, he scrutinized the dynamics of the Group Therapy Discussion List which he had been managing for several years and which by that time had grown to several hundred members. He found the dynamics of the discussion list similar to those of a large, face-to-face analytic group. In his words, ‘the (Internet) group is un-moderated, which makes it more similar to analytic groups than moderated lists . . . A superficial overview of the discussion list strengthens the impression of a large group (Weinberg, 2002: 170)’. Generalizing, he draws on Davidson (1998), who concludes ‘that the communication processes within a discussion list can be likened to the dynamics of the large group, with intra-psychic, interpersonal, political, professional, cultural and societal reflective exploration (1998: 467)’. He makes the point that much of the frustration and anger found in Internet large groups, owing to the individual’s loss of personal identity and status, happens as well in large, face-to-face groups. Indeed, as we will see in the coming discussion of large group dynamics, this frustration is one of the main characteristics of large, analytic groups. Particularly relevant to the research in our paper is Weinberg’s observation that there is a tendency for a core group to be formed within the Internet large group forums and discussion lists. He writes, ‘. . . a small group gathers around every issue behaving like a small analytic group, ignoring the hundreds of silent observers around them (2002: 172)’.
In summary, our survey of the existing literature on Internet-based and face-to-face, large groups leads us to conclude that, with minor qualifications, they can be considered part of the same ‘species’. Data gleaned from observing both forms of large groups can be analysed to form methodologically legitimate conclusions about large and small group dynamics.
The Face-to-Face Large Group
The large group considered here is a gathering of 40 or more members within an organizational, training or workshop structure. It is a kind of social microcosm, in which members experience the influence and the impact of the larger society in which they live on their personal lives.
The large group is not an easy place in which to be. Projections and splits quickly develop and lead to tension, conflict and anxiety. Individuals feel pulled in different directions. They think that they are losing their personal identity. They may seek out smaller sub-groups, in which they feel more comfortable.
Large group processes have been comprehensively explored and documented. Some observers have concluded that when the group increases significantly in number, it transforms into an unfamiliar, threatening entity arousing paranoid feelings (Weinberg and Schneider 2003: 18). Certain people come forward and fight for leadership. Their activity may contribute to increased envy, narcissism and competition in the overall group culture.
De Mare wrote, ‘By its very size, the larger group is initially frustrating; it generates hate (1989: 176)’.
Nitzun writes
of the great ambivalence that Large Group participants frequently express towards the group . . . if anything, anti-group phenomena are exacerbated in the Large Group, partly through the intense anxiety and discomfort generated and partly through a process of amplification linked to the number of participants. (1996: 12)
Springmann (1974) points out that a good many of the large group remain silent. The group lacks continuity and intimacy, never reaching the point of maturation and dissolution.
Kreeger writes: ‘In my experience, it is commonplace for a large group to focus on the presence of sub-groups and consider the need to split, into smaller groupings, when tension, conflict and anxiety predominate (1975: 24)’.
Schneider and Weinberg point out that ‘The individual feels like a cog in a wheel, losing part of his individuality and being pulled by regressive Large Group dynamics (2003: 18)’.
These authors suggest that the large group can be a strange, threatening entity, which can arouse paranoid feelings. Some members become aggressive and dominating, and fight for leadership. Many remain silent and experience regression and suffocation. People resort to psychological mechanisms in order to cope with their hard feelings.
So, if being in a large group is so difficult, what draws people back? Why do they continue to come to the large group, in conferences, training programmes and organizations? Perhaps they hope it will be possible to achieve a comfortable feeling of belonging to the larger society around them. Perhaps they are looking for a setting in which to explore social myths and in which participants can bridge the gap between themselves and their socio-cultural environment.
The Face-to-Face Small Group
Small groups, as defined by Foulkes, usually consist of between six to nine people (Foulkes 1964: 284; 1990: 179). A small group is, in many ways, a mirror of the family situation. In it, members can search for the intimacy they either once had or longed to have had in their original family. Members of a small group join with other participants in building a network of communication that links them together (Hare, 1976: 3). According to group analysis, the small group is based on hope and faith in the therapeutic process (Foulkes and Anthony, 1984: 77).
Not everyone sees the small group in such positive light. According to Bion and some of his followers in the Tavistock School, the small group is filled with aggressive, destructive forces. These forces express themselves in attacks on the leader and/or the other participants, or the group and threaten to undermine the group’s stated aim (Bion 1961: 131).
Nitzun (1996: 1) became disillusioned with what he thought was a too-rosy view in group analysis of the therapeutic potential of the small group. To give proper perspective to the existence of aggressive forces, he coined the term ‘anti-group’, which resonated with many group analytic colleagues. Nonetheless, he posits out that if these forces are recognized and dealt with openly, the small group experience can be one that leads to personal growth and transformation.
In summary, we can say of the small group that it is a mirror of the family situation. The small group slowly becomes an intimate, face-to face, cohesive transitional space. It can be a setting that some think offers hope and faith in the therapeutic process while others are more sceptical. It is a network of interpersonal attraction, in which members engage in free-floating communication and thereby build a supportive group ‘matrix’.
The Dynamics of Virtual Groups:
Methodology and Findings
During a four month period, we followed the virtual interaction among members of Weinberg’s International List of Group Therapists, which at the time consisted of 520 members. Subscribers—group therapists from all over the world—would communicate every day about issues of common concern. We kept a precise record of members’ interactions, tracing their participation rates and noting who talked with whom.
The following, is a chart of our results:
International Group Therapist List
Members: 520
‘Active’ Participants: 99
‘Silent’ Participants: 421
We found that during the evaluation period only 99 of the registered members, that is, 19%, had sent messages back and forth. In other words, during the four month evaluation period, only two out of every 10 members made one or more comments. Fully eight of 10 registered members did not make any comments.
The 99 participants who did make at least one comment were classified into categories according to their pattern of participation. Sub-group A contained all those people who had sent only one to 12 messages during the studied period. Sub-group B consisted of those who sent 13 to 27 messages. Sub-group C included people who sent more than 27 messages.
Perhaps the most interesting of these findings pertains to sub-group C. This group contained a smallest number of active participants, only seven people. Yet, despite their very few numbers, they accounted for fully 45% of the overall list messages. As time went on, this small group of seven became the core of the large group. Someone would always respond to them, no matter how wise or un-wise, relevant or irrelevant were their messages. These seven core members seemed respected and esteemed by others and created an intimate atmosphere amongst themselves.
In sub-groups A and B members made comments but, compared to sub-group C, relatively few. This was especially true of sub-group A. Some participants in this sub-group made small efforts to enter into the discussion or to open an issue. They would usually not be responded to and eventually stop trying.
Those in sub-group B, that is, members in the middle range, were more active than those in sub-group A with regard to some issues, or with particular members with whom they seemed to feel more contact. Those in sub-group B seemed to contain a stronger wish to enter into the core group. When they did not succeed, they tried to form alternative sub-groups of their own but their efforts were not successful.
At more or less the same time we followed participation patterns in another Internet large group list, the Israeli Forum of Group Therapists.
The following is a chart of our results:
The Israeli Forum List
Members: 150
56 ‘Active’ Participants
94 ‘Silent’ Participants
During the six weeks during which we monitored members’ interactions, only 56 of the 150 (37 %) members were ‘active’, i.e. sent messages. 94 members (63%) were ‘silent participants’.
The 10 participants of sub-group C, the core group, clearly interacted more intensively than members of sub-groups A and B. They accounted for 67% of the total messages. Most of the participants in sub-group A made few comments, averaging only three messages per participant. And, the six members in sub-group B, who seemed to have a stronger wish to enter into core group C, tried but did not succeed.
Similarities and Differences between the Virtual Group Lists
There are certain differences between the two lists, for which there are several possible explanations. The Israeli Forum List (ISL) had higher participation rates than the International List. This may have been because it was newer and characterized by initial enthusiasm.
Another possible explanation may lie in language. All the members of the Israeli group communicated in Hebrew, their major language of communication. The language of the International List, English, was not the mother tongue of many participants. This may explain the relatively intense participation of the Israeli List members—11 messages per day—compared to six messages per day among the International List members.
The differences between the two lists can also be explained by a cultural element, namely, that Israeli society is characterized by relatively high participation in group activity.
At the same time, there are similarities between the two lists, particularly in the search for intimacy. In both large Internet groups, a small core group of not more than 10 developed; and judging by the content of their messages, there was a feeling of intimacy among its members.
Also, on both lists there is a middle range group of participants (sub-group B) who tried to enter into a discussion or to open an issue with the core, active members. They sought contact with others, with whom they felt some kind of connection. Their efforts, though noticeable, were usually not effective.
Conclusions regarding the Virtual Groups
1. Judging by the large number of subscribers, the Internet lists seem to attract many people. Perhaps they come to the virtual large group with a naïve expectation of finding a holding space. Perhaps, too, they sense a possibility of satisfying a need for social involvement.
2. There is a development of a core group of 10 people, who seem to take on a strong, visible leadership position. The large group may cooperate in the development of this leadership group, as it ensures a certain amount of security and holding.
3. An intimacy among the members of this core group seems to develop. Other members, envious perhaps of the intimacy and leadership radiating from this group, make ineffective efforts to break in and join but are usually rebuffed.
4. In response to a situation of competing interests, informal small groups are generated, in which participants can feel more involved.
5. These findings lead us to identify the existence of a basic yearning for intimacy. In addition, we can hypothesize that there is something defensive in this desire to belong to intimate groups. Belonging to such intimate groups help people withstand the chaos, aggression, paranoia and identity breakdown in the large group.
6. At the same time the large group continues to offer the possibility of large-scale, social involvement.
7. These contradictory yearnings—for intimate connections on the one hand and social involvement on the other—seem to cross cultural boundaries.
The Dynamics of Large and Small Face-To-Face Groups
Methodology and Findings
To further explore our questions regarding the interplay between the large and small, face-to-face analytic groups we gleaned valuable information from studies of students participating in two separate group seminars. In each seminar members participated in both small and large groups. We decided that studying these particular cases would yield information helpful in finding a path to understand the interplay between large and small groups, a theme not yet approached from a theoretical point of view, based on systematic research.
While face-to-face groups do not offer the same precision of data gathering as do virtual groups, we take heart from qualitative research pioneers such as M.H. Eckstein, who points out that:
The qualitative data analysis of case studies is considered valuable at all stages of the theory-building process but most valuable at the theory-building stage where least value is generally attached to them: the stage at which candidates theories are tested. (Eckstein, 1975: 80)
To implement a solid, qualitative research design, we devised ‘Before’ and ‘After’ open-ended questionnaires regarding expectations and satisfaction with regards to participation in small and large groups. These were then administered to the participants of two separate group seminars, in which there were opportunities to participate in both large and small groups. The resulting data produced a further picture of the interplay between the different size groups and helped generate hypotheses, which invited further research.
The Seminars
The first seminar was sponsored by the Kivuniim Institute for Psychodrama and Analytic Group Therapy in Tel Aviv. In this workshop, 95 members participated in three large group meetings run by conductors with a group analytic orientation. These large groups were interspaced with seven meetings of 10 small, psychodrama groups (six to nine participants in each group).
The second seminar, designed to explore ‘the large group’, was sponsored by the Group Leadership Training Programme at the Beit Berl College near Tel Aviv. In this workshop, 90 members participated in two large group sessions run by group analysts. These large groups were interspaced with two meetings of 10 small groups (six to nine participants in each group).
The Questionnaires
The ‘Before’ questionnaire was intended to generate data regarding the following parameters:
Participants’ positive expectations.
Participants’ doubts and fears.
Relative differences between hopeful expectations and fears of the large group and the small groups.
The ‘After’ questionnaire was intended to generate data relating to the following parameters:
Participants’ relative assessment of their experience in the large and small groups.
Participants’ relative assessment of the back-and -forth movement between the large and small groups.
A total of 108 questionnaires, filled out by participants to both seminars, were returned. The responses give a clear picture of their experiences in the large and small groups and their experience of the interplay between them.
Findings and Discussion
Our observations about the face-to-face large groups are based on responses to the ‘Before’ and ‘After’ questionnaires. Space limitations do not permit more detailed qualitative and quantitative elaboration of the actual data (Readers are invited to contact the authors for more specific elaboration of the data); however, we have included examples of typical responses that support our observations and conclusions. Following, then, are our overall impressions.
The Large Group seems to Represent Real Life
A number of respondents suggested that for them the large group is attractive because it is much closer to real life than the small group. In the large group one is exposed to all the phenomena one encounters in society: conflict and aggression; competition and power struggles; social hierarchies; reaching out to strangers who appear similar; reaching out to strangers who appear different; stay away from strangers who appear different. While these group phenomena may bring with them a certain amount of fear, anger and paranoid regression, these are nonetheless phenomena that, as social beings, we must all deal with. Curiosity and desire to experience and confront them apparently attract people to the large group.
This was perhaps best expressed by one respondent:
The large group for me is the real life. The small group is more intimate, but it is artificial. Sooner or later we have to face the ‘nitty gritty’ of life around us.
The Large Group is the Place to Deal with Leadership Phenomena
Some people may aspire to positions of leadership. Some tend to follow them. Others have a defensive need to avoid being controlled and so are alert to anyone trying to manipulate them and limit their independence. Issues of leadership and leadership phenomena are blatant in the large group. Here we see (and evaluate) the skills of the two formal leaders, as they try and manage a large group. Here we can observe our inner reactions to leadership politics as well as our outer behaviour. Here, we can observe those who preen and joust for positions of informal leadership, and those who avoid leadership politics through silence and inactivity.
These phenomena are best reflected in the following comment from one respondent:
The large group forces everyone to face leadership issues, such as ambivalence to formal leadership, whether the leaders can contain all the friction in the group, what is the leader really like, etc.’
In the Large Group, One can Remain Anonymous
There is a common notion that the anonymity experienced in a large group is threatening, leads to personal regression and loss of identity; and for these reasons most people prefer the small group, which is perceived to offer more possibility for personal expression and intimacy. But this perception is not necessarily true. Intimacy can be a very difficult experience for some people. For them, the large group, with its anonymity, is a relief and preferable to the small group. In the large group they can hide from other members. If they chose not to be active, no one will call on them.
This situation is best reflected in the comment of one respondent, who wrote, ‘For me, it’s simple. I have more freedom in the large group’.
In the Large Group there is more Expression of Contemporary Social Issues
In every society there are issues of conflict between groups, e.g. rich versus poor, religious versus secular, one ethnic group versus another, and issues of leadership, e.g. differing attitudes towards the size and role of government. Experience shows that in the context of the large group there is greater probability that discourse will include references to the major social issues of the society. Of course there are echoes of these issues in the small group. But somehow these issues appear briefly and then are put aside as participants push to discuss more personal matters. In the large group, the tendency is for discourse to remain at the level of the social, with different sub-groups coming out for or against each other.
As one respondent wrote, ‘It’s in the large group that we can see the social issues being argued out. Here is where I can be part of the larger society’.
The Search for Intimacy
And yet there is a limit to the rewards of social involvement. Most of us need the experience of intimacy. This is the attraction of the small group, which seems, despite the presence of anti-group phenomena (Nitzun 1996: 12), to offer more possibility of close connections in the matrix (Foulkes, 1990: 223; Rippa, 2004). In the small group, members can have the rare experience of dropping their public face and giving more exposure to their true selves (Pines 1998: 59).
Yalom (1985: 51) writes that many isolated patients after only a few small group sessions have a deeper sense of being ‘at home’.
The drive for the small group experience is reflected in the comment of one participant: ‘I simply had more intimacy and closeness in the small group’.
The Interplay between Large and Small Groups: Conclusion
We have come to the preliminary conceptualization of a dynamic, circular movement back and forth between the large group and small group. People are attracted to the former because of the hope for experiences, which relate to processes in the larger society. But after a time, they become tired of the conflict, lack of personal recognition and regression, and they seek out a more private, safe place in which they imagine they can find authenticity and intimacy. This is the attraction of the small group. Sooner or later, however, many people once again feel the need for wider social connections and are drawn back to the large group. Thus, there is ambivalence towards each size group, and this may account for an endless, circular movement, in desire and in reality.