While we may use the word “group” in everyday life to mean numerous things, sociologists define groups specifically. A group is any collection of at least two people who interact with some frequency and who share some sense of aligned identity (figure 5.2).

A group, at minimum, must include at least one other person besides yourself. However, there are limits to a group’s size. At some point, if there are too many people involved in the group, it becomes impossible to coordinate activity (Flamino et al. 2021) and recognize that people are part of the group (Fine 2012). To be part of a group, we have to identify with each other in some way. This identity could be based on our social position, such as our race, class, or gender. Or it could be based on our shared cultural interests, say if you are a fan of a particular sports team, like the Portland Timbers, or television show. Interactions, in person or virtual, are also crucial in determining whether a collection of people is a group. If people are not interacting with some frequency, it is hard to argue they are a group.

How is a group different from a crowd? Crowds are people who happen to be in the same place at the same time but who do not interact or share a sense of identity. An example could be walking down the street or riding public transportation in a busy city. We may be sharing the same spaces, but we don’t share an identity or even verbally interact with other people in the setting. In public settings, it is quite typical for us to engage in civil inattention. Civil inattention is when we unobtrusively acknowledge other people in a setting, while simultaneously preventing more personal forms of attention.

Sociologists have identified different types of groups we may belong to. These include primary and secondary groups. Primary groups are small, intimate groups whose members share face-to-face contact and emotional connections. Primary groups are typically small, informal groups of the people who are closest to us. This includes our families, close friends, and significant others. Primary groups contrast with secondary groups, which are larger and more impersonal groups that are task-focused and time limited. Rather than serving our emotional needs, secondary groups help us get things done. They can help us complete big projects or assignments. This might include your co-workers or classmates.

In-Groups and Out-Groups

As we explored earlier, groups can define who is accepted and who is not, determining access to valuable resources. Thinking about this, social psychologists identify in-groups and out-groups.

An in-group is one to which we belong and toward which we hold favorable opinions (figure 5.3). The tendency to favor our in-groups develops from a young age. This favoritism develops quickly in young children, increasing up to about six years of age, and almost immediately begins to influence our behavior (Aboud 2003; Aboud and Amato 2001). Young children show greater liking for peers of their sex and race and typically play primarily with same-sex others after the age of three. There is a norm that we should favor our in-groups: people like people who express in-group favoritism better than those who are more egalitarian (Castelli and Carraro 2010). Amazingly, even infants as young as nine months old prefer those who treat people similar to them well and people dissimilar to them poorly (Hamlin et al. 2013).

In-group favoritism is found in many different types of social groups, settings, dimensions, and cultures (Bennett et al. 2004; Pinter and Greenwald 2011). In-group favoritism also occurs on trait ratings, such that in-group members are rated as having more positive characteristics than out-group members (Hewstone 1990). People also take credit for the successes of other in-group members. People remember more positive than negative information about in-groups while being more critical of the performance of out-groups than of in-group members. They also believe that their own groups are less prejudiced than out-groups (Shelton and Richeson 2005).

An out-group is one we do not belong to and toward which we may hold negative attitudes. The tendency to see members of social groups as similar to each other is particularly strong for members of out-groups, resulting in out-group homogeneity—the tendency to view members of out-groups as more similar to each other than we see members of in-groups (Linville, Salovey, and Fischer 1986; Ostrom and Sedikides 1992; Meissner and Brigham 2001).

Out-group homogeneity occurs in part because we don’t have as much contact with out-group members as we do with in-group members. Additionally, the quality of interaction with out-group members is often more superficial. This prevents us from really learning about the out-group members as individuals. As a result, we tend to be unaware of the differences among the group members.

Once we begin to see the members of out-groups as more similar to each other than they are, it becomes very easy to apply our stereotypes to the members of the groups without having to consider whether the characteristic is actually true of the particular individual. If men think that women are all alike, then they may also think that they all have the same positive and negative characteristics (for example, they’re nurturing, and emotional). Women may have similarly simplified beliefs about men (for example, they’re strong and unwilling to commit). This dynamic related to in-groups and out-groups is especially pronounced when racial and ethnic group membership is involved.

An in-group/out-group dynamic can emerge in a variety of organizations and institutions, such as schools and workplaces. As an example of this, Adler and Adler (1995) explored cliques among pre-adolescents in late elementary school. They found a variety of ways the cliques included and excluded people. When students were included and recruited into the clique, they were given a trial period in the group. After gaining acceptance, the clique encouraged the recruits to shift their friendship to those within the clique. Exclusion from the group took several forms. Sometimes the clique would pick on and bully people who were not members of the group. Other times, those with lower status within the clique were picked on by those with a higher status. Have you ever experienced this type of dynamic before?

Reference Groups

A reference group is a group that people compare themselves to—it provides a standard of measurement. In U.S. society, peer groups are common reference groups. Kids and adults pay attention to what their peers wear, what music they like, and what they do with their free time—and they compare themselves to what they see. Most people have more than one reference group, so a middle school student might look not only at their classmates, but also at their older sibling’s friends and see a different set of norms. They might observe the behaviors of their favorite athletes for yet another point of reference.

Some other examples of reference groups can be one’s cultural center, workplace, family gathering, and even parents. Often, reference groups convey competing messages. For instance, on television and in movies, young adults often have wonderful apartments and cars and lively social lives despite not holding a job. At all ages, we use reference groups to help guide our behavior and establish our social norms. So how important is it to surround yourself with positive reference groups? You may not recognize a reference group, but it still influences the way you act. Identifying your reference groups can help you understand the source of the social identities you aspire to or want to distance yourself from.

Licenses and Attributions for Types of Groups

Open Content, Original

“Types of Groups” by Matthew Gougherty is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Open Content, Shared Previously

“Group” definition from “Ch. 6 Key Terms” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang, Introduction to Sociology 3e, Openstax is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

“Primary Group” definition from “Ch. 6 Key Terms” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang, Introduction to Sociology 3e, Openstax is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

“Secondary Groups” definition from “Ch. 6 Key Terms” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang, Introduction to Sociology 3e, Openstax is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Definition of crowd in “Types of Groups” is from “6.1 Types of Groups” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang in Introduction to Sociology 3e, Openstax, which is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Second and third paragraphs of “In-groups and Out-groups” are from “11.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice” by Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani and Dr. Hammond Tarry in Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International H5P Edition, which is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Added introductory sentence. Edited for brevity and clarity.

Fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of “In-groups and Out-groups” are from “11.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping” by Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani and Dr. Hammond Tarry in Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International H5P Edition, which is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Added introductory sentence on out-groups, edited for brevity and clarity.

“Reference Groups” is from “6.1 Types of Groups” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang in Introduction to Sociology 3e, Openstax, which is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Edited for brevity, reworded the example in the first paragraph.

Figure 5.2. “Person Holding White Heart Paper” by Andrew Moca is shared under the Unsplash License

Figure 5.3. “Brown Game Pieces on White Surface” by Markus Spiske is shared under the Unsplash License