Theory of Reference Groups by Merton

Concept of Reference Groups in Sociology

In the realm of sociology, the concept of reference groups plays a pivotal role in understanding human behavior and social dynamics. Reference groups are the lenses through which individuals evaluate their achievements, role performances, aspirations, and ambitions. They serve as a benchmark against which people gauge their actions and decisions, helping them shape their identities and navigate their social environments.

Living Amidst Relationships: The Essence of Groups

It is inherent to human nature to live in groups and engage in social interactions. As social beings, our existence is intricately intertwined with the web of relationships that surround us. A group, essentially, is a network of relationships that define our interactions and expectations. For instance, as a student, you are part of a group comprising fellow students with whom you interact regularly. This group sets the expectations for your behavior, and likewise, you understand what is expected of you within this social context. The group’s patterned expectations guide and stabilize your identity as a student.

Similarly, the family serves as another crucial primary group that molds our behavior and expectations. For most individuals, imagining their existence without the backdrop of familial relationships is nearly impossible. Relationships with parents, siblings, cousins, and colleagues are fundamental aspects of our identity and influence our behavior.

Living a normal life, therefore, implies living within a social fabric, surrounded by relationships that shape our actions. We willingly consent to the expectations imposed by the groups to which we belong. This brings us closer to comprehending the concept of reference groups.

Reference Groups: The Guiding Beacons of Evaluation

Reference groups are central to our lives as they are the compasses we use to navigate the vast sea of social interactions. They serve as the evaluative yardsticks against which we measure the quality of our actions and achievements. Membership groups, to which we belong, often serve as our reference groups.

However, life’s complexity extends beyond our immediate membership groups. Even non-membership groups, those we do not belong to, can act as reference groups. This may seem surprising, but it aligns with the dynamic nature of life. In our mobile and interconnected world, we constantly come across the lives and behaviors of individuals who belong to groups different from ours. This exposure leads us to question why some groups are more powerful or prestigious than ours.

As a result of these comparisons, feelings of deprivation can emerge. We may aspire to join a group to which we do not belong but perceive as more powerful or prestigious. Consequently, we use non-membership groups as reference points to evaluate our own achievements and performances.

The Power of Comparison: An Illustrative Example

Consider this scenario: you are a diligent student, committed to your coursework and exams, with little time for relaxation. Then, you learn about a group of young cricketers your age. These cricketers play cricket, travel abroad, enjoy life, earn money, and even have newspapers writing about them. Their success story captivates your imagination, and when you compare yourself to them, you feel deprived as a student.

In this context, the cricketers become your reference group. You start dedicating more time to cricket, diverting your attention away from your academic responsibilities, in the hope that one day you too can lead a life similar to theirs. This example highlights how non-membership groups can function as reference groups, influencing our aspirations and actions.

The crucial takeaway is that reference groups encompass not only the groups we belong to but also those to which we do not belong. Human beings assess themselves not only through the eyes of their own group members but also through the perspectives of individuals belonging to other groups.

Robert Merton’s Theory of Reference Groups

Robert Merton, a prominent sociologist, delved into the theory of reference groups in his renowned book “Social Theory and Social Structure” (1949). His insights shed light on how reference groups shape our perceptions, aspirations, and behaviors.

Understanding Relative Deprivation

Merton’s understanding of relative deprivation is closely intertwined with his exploration of reference groups and reference group behavior. To grasp this concept, let us examine the findings of “The American Soldier,” a study published in 1949 that examined how American soldiers evaluated their role performances and career achievements.

One key finding from this study provides a clear understanding of relative deprivation: “Comparing himself with his unmarried associates in the Army, the married man could feel that induction demanded greater sacrifice from him than from them; and comparing himself with the married Soldiers, he could feel that he had been called on for sacrifices which they were escaping altogether.”

This finding forms the core of what Merton termed relative deprivation. It underscores the idea that happiness and deprivation are not absolutes but depend on the scale of measurement and the frame of reference. In the example, the married soldier is not merely concerned with what he receives compared to other married soldiers; instead, he focuses on what he is deprived of.

For instance, unmarried soldiers in the Army enjoy greater freedom since they do not have the responsibilities that married soldiers bear. This contrast leads the married soldiers to feel deprived of the freedom their unmarried counterparts experience. Similarly, when a married soldier compares himself to a civilian friend who enjoys daily family life, he feels deprived due to his inability to experience the same level of family engagement.

The key takeaway here is that the reference group with which an individual compares themselves influences their perception of deprivation. This concept helps us understand how individuals evaluate their circumstances in relation to others.

The Dynamics of Group Membership

To delve deeper into the theory of reference groups, it’s essential to grasp the concept of groups and group membership.

Merton outlines three criteria that define a group and group membership:

1. Frequency of Interaction: A group is characterized by a set of individuals who frequently interact with each other. This regular interaction distinguishes a group from other forms of social collectives.

2. Self-Identification as Members: Group members recognize themselves as part of the group and acknowledge the existence of patterned expectations and norms that govern their interactions within the group. These norms carry moral significance.

3. Recognition by Others: Individuals outside the group, including both fellow members and non-members, identify the individuals within the group as belonging to it. This external recognition further solidifies group membership.

It is crucial to distinguish between groups, collectivities, and social categories. While all groups are collectivities, not all collectivities are groups. For instance, a nation is a collectivity but not a group because not all members of a nation interact with each other. Instead, a nation encompasses various groups and sub-groups within it.

Social categories, on the other hand, refer to aggregates of social statuses where individuals may not necessarily engage in social interactions. For example, individuals sharing the same sex, age, marital status, or income level form social categories but not groups. Unlike collectivities or social categories, membership groups have a more concrete and pronounced influence on an individual’s daily behavior. Group members are acutely aware of their identities within the group and adhere to group norms with a strong sense of moral obligation.

The Influence of Non-Membership Groups

While it is evident that individuals conform to the norms of their own groups, what makes the study of reference groups intriguing is the phenomenon of individuals orienting themselves toward groups they do not belong to. This behavior, motivated by curiosity and comparison, leads individuals to shape their behavior and evaluations based on the norms and standards of non-membership groups.

Merton emphasizes that not all non-members are the same. Broadly speaking, non-members can be categorized into three groups:

1. Aspiring to Membership: Some non-members aspire to join a particular group. They admire the group’s values and way of life, striving to become part of it.

2. Indifferent to Affiliation: Others may be indifferent to affiliation with a non-membership group. They neither seek to join nor reject the group.

3. Motivated to Remain Unaffiliated: Some non-members actively choose to remain unaffiliated with a particular group. They may even develop counter-norms as a means of distinguishing themselves from the group they reject.

To illustrate these categories, consider a scenario where a village boy from a lower-middle-class background aspires to join a prestigious school. His motivations and actions align with the first category as he endeavors to emulate the behaviors and values of the students from that school. This serves as anticipatory socialization, a process by which individuals prepare themselves for a group they aspire to join.

However, the outcomes of anticipatory socialization can be both functional and dysfunctional. In an open social structure that allows for mobility, anticipatory socialization aids individuals in their journey to become part of the desired group. It eases their adjustment once they achieve membership. However, in a relatively closed social structure, where mobility is restricted, anticipatory socialization can be dysfunctional as individuals may never gain entry into their desired group. In such cases, they may become marginalized, straddling the boundary between their current group and the one they aspire to join.

Merton’s analysis underscores the importance of social structure in determining the functional or dysfunctional consequences of anticipatory socialization. In open systems, where social mobility is feasible, individuals benefit from preparing themselves for their desired group. Conversely, in closed systems, such preparation may yield frustration and discontent.

The Role of Non-Membership Reference Groups

In a closed system, individuals are less likely to choose non-membership groups as reference points. Closed systems are characterized by well-defined strata, where each stratum’s rights, privileges, and obligations are generally regarded as morally justified. In such systems, even if an individual’s objective conditions are less favorable, they may not perceive themselves as deprived. However, in open systems, where individuals continually compare themselves to relatively better-off reference groups, feelings of unhappiness and discontent persist.

Positive and Negative Reference Groups

Reference groups can be categorized into two distinct types: positive reference groups and negative reference groups. These categories are based on individuals’ attitudes toward the group and the influence it exerts on them.

1. Positive Reference Groups: A positive reference group is one that individuals admire and take seriously in shaping their behavior and evaluating their achievements and performance. These groups serve as sources of inspiration and guidance, motivating individuals to align their actions with the group’s norms and standards.

2. Negative Reference Groups: Conversely, a negative reference group is one that individuals dislike and reject. Instead of adopting the group’s norms, individuals create counter-norms as a means of distancing themselves from the group’s values and behaviors. Negative reference groups provoke individuals to define themselves in opposition to the group.

For example, colonized individuals often exhibit varying attitudes toward their colonial masters. Some may be positively influenced by the success and behavior of the colonizers, emulating their way of life and values. These colonizers serve as positive reference groups. In contrast, others may harbor resentment and disdain for the colonizers, leading them to develop counter-norms that oppose the colonizers’ norms and practices. These colonizers act as negative reference groups, motivating individuals to create their own distinct identities.

Understanding the Determinants of Reference Groups

Reference groups play a significant role in shaping our behavior and influencing our choices. It is essential to comprehend the factors that determine why individuals choose certain reference groups over others. Renowned sociologist Robert K. Merton delves into the intricacies of this phenomenon and elucidates the determinants that drive individuals to select specific reference groups for various purposes. In this article, we will explore the dynamics of reference group behavior by examining the key factors that influence the choice of reference individuals, membership groups, and non-membership groups.

Reference Individuals: More Than Just Role Models

Reference groups are not limited to collective entities; individuals can also serve as reference points. Charisma, status, and glamour often draw people towards specific individuals. For example, while a group of cricketers may not necessarily constitute a reference group for someone, a legendary cricketer like Sachin Tendulkar can become a reference individual. Merton emphasizes that a reference individual is more than just a role model; it involves a broader identification with the individual’s various roles and behaviors.

When an individual accepts someone like Sachin Tendulkar as a reference, they seek to emulate not only his cricketing prowess but also his mannerisms, clothing choices, and even personal habits. Biographers, editors of fan magazines, and gossip columnists further encourage people to choose these reference individuals by shedding light on various aspects of their lives. This underscores the depth of influence that reference individuals can exert.

Selection of Reference Groups Among Membership Groups

In our social lives, we belong to numerous groups, ranging from family and neighborhood clubs to caste groups, political parties, and religious organizations. However, not all membership groups hold the same level of importance when it comes to shaping our behavior and evaluating our achievements. Merton introduces the concept that individuals selectively choose certain membership groups as reference groups.

The selection process is influenced by various factors, and understanding these factors requires a suitable classification of groups. Merton outlines twenty-six group properties, such as the degree of distinctness in defining membership, the level of engagement promoted among members, the expected duration of the group, and the degree of conformity to group norms. These properties help individuals decide which membership groups will serve as their reference groups.

For instance, one’s engagement with family members typically surpasses that with members of a film club. Therefore, when making significant life decisions, it’s more likely that the family, a more enduring and significant group, becomes the reference group. This can explain why some people prioritize their caste or kinship groups over college friends when making life-altering choices.

Selection of Non-Membership Groups as Reference Groups

Individuals may also choose non-membership groups as their reference groups under specific circumstances. According to Merton, three primary factors influence this selection. First, groups that possess the capacity to confer prestige within the societal institutional structure are more likely to be chosen as reference groups. In societies, not all groups are equal in terms of power and prestige.

For example, university teachers in India often compare themselves to IAS (Indian Administrative Service) officers because, within the institutional structure of modern Indian society, IAS officers hold more power and prestige. Non-membership groups that lack influence or prestige are unlikely to become reference groups.

Secondly, individuals who feel isolated within their own groups are more motivated to adopt the values of non-membership groups. These “isolates” may be driven by sensitivity, rebelliousness, or a strong desire for mobility, leading them to align with values outside their immediate groups.

For instance, a member of the elite class might adopt the political orientation of a less powerful class due to their disenchantment with their own group.

Thirdly, societies with a relatively high rate of social mobility tend to encourage a more widespread orientation towards non-membership groups as reference points. In open systems, people have the opportunity to learn about groups beyond their own and may be inclined to alter their positions continually.

Variation in Reference Groups for Different Values and Norms

The choice of reference groups is not a one-size-fits-all concept; it depends on the specific values and norms an individual is interested in. For instance, someone might choose Gandhians as their reference group because they admire their dedication and acceptance of certain political-economic ideals. However, they might not agree with the same group’s conservative attitudes towards life, such as brahmacharya (celibacy) or vegetarianism.

This highlights an important aspect of reference groups: they are not static. The same individual may have different reference groups for different aspects of their life. They might align with one group for their political ideals and another for their lifestyle choices, such as food habits or sexual morals.

Merton aptly states that “it should not be assumed that the same groups uniformly serve as reference groups for the same individuals in every phase of their behavior.” This fluidity in choosing reference groups demonstrates the complexity of human social behavior.

Selection of Reference Groups among Status Categories or Sub-Groups Involving Sustained Interaction

In some situations, individuals find themselves belonging to multiple categories or sub-groups, each with its own set of values and norms. The selection of reference groups in such cases becomes intricate.

Consider a student who is simultaneously part of the status category of students and a sub-group comprising family members, a husband, brothers, sisters, and friends. In this scenario, the sub-group may take precedence as a reference group when it comes to certain decisions. This is because the student’s sustained interaction with sub-group members may convince her that it is not appropriate to boycott classes, despite the influence of the larger status category of students.

However, it’s important to note that sub-groups do not always serve as reference groups. When conflicting value orientations exist within a primary group, the group’s mediating role diminishes, and the influence of the larger society becomes more binding. This phenomenon is evident in situations where differing opinions on issues like love marriage emerge within a family, leading individuals to align with broader societal norms rather than their immediate family’s views.

Structural Elements of Reference Groups

Reference groups play a significant role in shaping our behavior, beliefs, and values. To fully appreciate the depth of Robert Merton’s contributions to the study of reference groups, it is essential to understand the structural elements that define these groups.

Observability and Visibility: Patterned Avenues of Information

Reference groups are crucial in influencing how individuals perceive and adapt to social norms, values, and role performances. However, gaining knowledge about the norms, values, and behaviors of a reference group is not always straightforward. This complexity arises from the structure of the group itself and the avenues through which information flows.

Consider the scenario of a student belonging to an institution with its own set of norms and values. Naturally, the student would want to align their behavior with those of their peers within the institution. The challenge here lies in understanding how other group members perform their roles and adhere to the established norms and values.

The Structural Challenge of Knowledge Acquisition

Obtaining comprehensive knowledge of a reference group’s norms and values, as well as the actual role performances of its members, can be challenging. Often, individuals within the group may not openly share this information, leading to gaps in understanding. The extent to which one can access this knowledge depends on the group’s structure.

In more democratic and egalitarian groups that encourage open communication, it is easier to gain insights into the group’s norms and values. However, this level of transparency is not universal. Some groups may limit information sharing, creating barriers to complete understanding.

Authority and Knowledge Disparities

Merton highlights a crucial point – not everyone within a reference group possesses equal knowledge of its norms and values. Generally, those in positions of authority within the group have more substantial knowledge compared to individual members. This knowledge asymmetry exists because both norms and role performances need to be visible for the group’s structure to function effectively.

For instance, within an educational institution, the head of the institution and other authorities have mechanisms to observe and gather information about students’ role performances. This visibility enables them to have better knowledge of how students conform to the established norms.

The Need for Privacy and Functional Visibility

While visibility and observability are important, there is also a need for privacy within a group. Students, for example, may resist if university authorities attempt to monitor every detail of their lives. Therefore, striking a balance is crucial, and Merton emphasizes the concept of a “functionally optimum degree of visibility.” This optimal level allows for necessary observation without invading personal privacy.

The gap between ideal and reality can lead to skepticism or uncertainty among its members. They may perceive a gap between the idealized image of the group and the reality of its functioning. This disillusionment can affect how individuals relate to their membership group.

Non-Conformity as a Type of Reference Group Behavior

Merton’s contributions extend to understanding the impact of non-conformity within reference groups. Non-conformity, in this context, refers to not adhering to the norms of an in-group while conforming to the norms of an out-group. It is essential to distinguish non-conformity from deviant behavior, as they are not synonymous.

Non-conformists within a reference group exhibit specific characteristics that set them apart from deviants. First, non-conformists openly express their dissent rather than hiding their actions. They do not simply violate norms for personal gain; instead, they challenge the legitimacy of existing norms and expectations. Non-conformists believe in a “higher morality” and seek to reshape group norms accordingly, unlike criminals who do not have a similar moral vision.

Non-Conformity and the Dynamics of Reference Groups

The presence of non-conformists within non-membership reference groups can have structural implications for the membership group. Merton suggests that non-conformists are often regarded as “masters” within their reference groups because of their courage and willingness to take significant risks.

Non-conformists’ adherence to non-membership reference group norms can introduce uncertainty and conflict within the membership group. The respect accorded to non-conformists implies that the membership group begins to question its own norms and values. This internal tension can be the catalyst for change and conflict within the membership group, initiated by the non-conformists’ conformity to external reference groups.

Role-Sets, Status-Sets, and Status Sequences

To comprehensively understand reference group behavior, it is essential to delve into the dynamics of role-sets, status-sets, and status sequences. These concepts shed light on how individuals navigate the complexities of occupying multiple social roles and statuses.

Role-Sets: The Complexity of Social Status

A social status does not entail a single associated role; rather, it encompasses an array of associated roles, known as a role-set. For example, the role of a teacher involves not only interactions with students but also with other teachers, school authorities, and parents of students.

Understanding role-sets highlights the difficulty of satisfying the expectations of all role-partners. Conflict can arise within a role-set when role-partners’ expectations diverge. This conflict is exacerbated by the structural circumstance that individuals occupying a particular status have role-partners who are differently located in the social structure.

Merton outlines strategies to minimize conflict within role-sets. Firstly, not all role-partners are equally concerned with the behavior of individuals in a particular social status. Therefore, occupants of a status need not overly concern themselves with the expectations of those not directly involved.

Secondly, individuals within a social status do not continuously interact with all role-partners simultaneously. This exemption from constant observability allows individuals to avoid

conflicts stemming from divergent role-partner expectations.

Thirdly, individuals in a social status are not isolated; they have peers who share similar statuses. Occupational and professional associates serve as a structural response to coping with power structures and conflicting demands within the role-set.

Status-Sets: Balancing Multiple Roles

Individuals often occupy different statuses simultaneously, such as teacher, husband, mother, father, etc. This collection of social statuses is referred to as a status-set. Each status within the set comes with its distinct role-set.

Navigating a status-set can be challenging because individuals must balance the demands and expectations of multiple statuses. Conflict can arise when these demands cannot be reconciled. For instance, a politician may struggle to fulfill their role as a husband or father due to their commitment to a larger public cause.

Merton suggests several strategies to reduce tension within status-sets. First, individuals are not perceived as occupying only one status by others. This recognition leads to more understanding when individuals face challenges in fulfilling certain role obligations.

Secondly, empathy plays a vital role in helping individuals sympathetically understand the difficulties faced by others dealing with conflicting role obligations. Shared experiences within a status-set foster a sense of shared destiny, facilitating the development of empathy.

Lastly, the combination of statuses within a status-set is not arbitrary. People tend to choose statuses that align with their values and beliefs, reducing the likelihood of inherent conflicts. This strategic selection reflects a design or symmetry in the choice of reference individuals and statuses.

Summary – Reference Group

Robert Merton’s contributions to the study of reference groups have provided valuable insights into the structural elements that shape our social behavior. By understanding the dynamics of observability and visibility, non-conformity as a reference group behavior, and the complexities of role-sets, status-sets, and status sequences, we gain a deeper appreciation of how reference groups influence our lives.

Reference groups serve as powerful influencers, shaping our beliefs, values, and behaviors. Merton’s work highlights the intricate interplay of visibility and knowledge acquisition within these groups, emphasizing the importance of striking a balance between observability and privacy.

Additionally, Merton’s distinction between non-conformity and deviant behavior helps us comprehend the impact of individuals who challenge existing norms within reference groups. Non-conformists can introduce conflict and drive change within membership groups, making them essential agents of transformation.

Lastly, the concept of role-sets, status-sets, and status sequences underscores the complexities individuals face when juggling multiple social roles and statuses. By exploring strategies to mitigate conflict and navigate these challenges, Merton’s work provides a comprehensive framework for understanding reference group behavior.

In conclusion, the structural elements of reference groups, as elucidated by Robert Merton, offer valuable insights into the intricate dynamics that shape our social interactions and choices. These insights continue to be relevant in the study of human behavior and group dynamics, providing a foundation for further research and understanding in the field.