T1 Muzafer Sherif, The Self and the reference groups

The failure of either monopolistically “individualistic” or “group centered” approaches to handle such problems is dispelled by a concept explicitly relating the self to the world of real social groups. Social groups can be and are studied objectively by sociologists without necessarily requiring reference to the self conceptions of the particular individuals.

Research on self, however, must refer both to actual social groups and the individual’s own relatedness and perceptions of them. The integrating concept to interrelate the two may be the concept of “reference groups.” The concept of reference group is a psychological one, defined from the point of view of the individual’s relatedness. In the way of definition, reference groups are those social units to which the individual relates himself or aspires to relate himself psychologically. These groups may be the actual groups in which he moves from day to day. However, they may be groups with which he is not actually associated. He may even have no direct contact with them. His conception of them may not correspond closely with their nature, manifest values and goals as studied objectively on a sociological level.

Because of these very real possibilities, the investigator interested in self or ego ties is forced to consider the individual’s relatedness both with membership groups – groups in which the individual actually moves – and other reference groups, with which he may or may not be in actual intercourse. When an individual finds his belongingness, his sense of identity as a person with some place in life within his membership groups, these membership groups are at the same time his reference groups. His self may be properly studied as a member of these groups.

In this changing world, however, not infrequently we find a discrepancy between the individual’s membership groups and his reference groups. Of course, the very fact of existing in a group setting, within an organization with its values and goals and pressures toward conformity, is significant. Psychologically, however, there are profound differences between inwardly cherished values and goals of a group and conformity merely for the sake of surviving in a setting while inwardly relating oneself to other values. The latter state is being experienced today by a good many individuals who oppose segregation but face ostracism in their neighborhoods, loss of jobs, even violence, if they do not conform to local customs.