A reference group is one to which you always refer in order to evaluate your achievements, your role-performance, your aspirations and ambitions. It is only a reference group that tells you whether you are right or wrong, whether whatever you are doing, you are doing badly or well.

Hyman was the first man who pointed out this aspect of social life. Stouffer and Merton developed this concept in a systematic manner. Merton can be said to be the first sociologist who gave the theory of ‘relative deprivation and reference group’. He points out that reference group behaviour theory aims to systematize the determinants and consequences of those processes of evaluation and sub appraisal, in which the individual takes the values or standards of other individuals and groups, as a comparative frame of reference. Merton evolves his theory of reference groups in his famous book “Social Theory and Social Structure (1949)”.

Merton’s understanding of relative deprivation is closely tied to his treatment of reference group and reference group behaviour. Essentially, Merton speaks of relative deprivation while examining the findings of The American Soldier, a work published in 1949 by Stouffer. In this work an attempt was made to examine how the American soldiers looked at themselves and evaluated their role-performance, career achievements, etc. Comparing himself with his unmarried associates in the Army, the married man could feel that induction demanded greater sacrifice from him than from them. Herein we find the kernel of what Merton called relative deprivation. This is not surprising. Happiness or deprivations are not absolutes: they depend on the scale of measure as well as on the frame of reference. In other words, married soldiers are deprived of the kind of freedom that their unmarried associates are enjoying. Likewise, the married soldier feels deprived when he compares himself with his civilian married friend.

It is precisely because of the kind of reference group with which the married soldier compares his lot that he feels deprived.

Discription of Concepts

Groups, collectivities, social cetagories

First step in the development of a middle range theory of reference group requires an elementary understanding of what a group is all about. Merton speaks of three characteristics of a group and group memberships:

•           First, as per the objective criterion a group refers to a number of people who frequently interact with one another.
•          A second criterion is that the interacting persons define themselves as members. In other words, they feel that they have patterned expectations or forms of interaction which are morally binding on them and on other members.
•          The third criterion is that the persons in interaction are defined by other as ‘belonging to the group’. These others include fellow members as well as non-members.

It is in this context that you should know how groups differ from collectivities and social categories. There is no doubt that all groups are collectivities, but all collectivities are not groups. The collectivities that lack the criterion of frequent interaction among members are not groups. Social categories are aggregates of social statuses, the occupants of which are not necessarily in social interaction.

In other words, unlike collectivities or social categories, membership groups shape human beings’ day-to-day behaviour more clearly and more concretely. Group members are conscious of their identities, they are aware of what to do and what not to do. As a result, for them, group norms are morally binding.

Concept of Non-Membership

Merton says, what makes the study of reference group particularly interesting is that “they frequently orient themselves to groups other than their own in shaping their behaviour and evaluations”. Merton says, all non-members are not of the same kind. Broadly speaking, non-members can be divided into three categories.

•          Some may aspire to membership in the group (Positive)
•          Others may be indifferent toward such affiliation
•          Still others may be motivated to remain unaffiliated with the group. (Negative)

Think of an example. Suppose your father is an industrialist owning a factory. Naturally, as far as the workers in the factory are  concerned, you are a non-member. You do not belong to their group. There are, however, three possibilities.

Suppose you are deeply sensitive, you have read Marx and you tend to believe seriously that it is the working class that alone can create a new world free from injustice and exploitation. In other words, despite being a non-member, you want to belong to the workers, share their experiences and, accordingly, alter your life-style. Then, as Merton would say, a non-membership group becomes a positive reference group for you.

Then, there is another possibility. You do not bother. You are contented with your contemporary existence and, as a result, the workers do not have any impact on your life. In other words, you remain a non-member and never do you want to belong to the group of the workers.

Now think of the third possibility. You remain in non-member, but instead of remaining indifferent you hate the workers, you feel that the workers are neither intelligent nor educated, and that there is nothing to admire in their culture. In order to retain your status and separate yourself from the workers you evolve counter-norms. Then, the workers, Merton would say, constitute a negative reference group.

Merton speaks of anticipatory socialisation in the context of non-membership reference groups. It is like preparing oneself for the group to which an individual aspires but does not belong. It is like adopting the values, life-styles of a non-membership reference group. For an individual, says Merton, anticipatory socialization ‘may serve the twin functions of aiding his rise into the group and of easing his adjustment after he has become part of it’.

Merton, however, does not fail to see its dysfunctional consequences. If the system is very closed then in that case anticipatory socialisation would be dysfunctional. There are two reasons. First, he would not be able to become a member of the group to which he aspires. And secondly, because of anticipatory socialisation - imitation of the values of a non-membership group - he would be disliked by the members of his own group. As Merton says, he would be reduced to being a ‘marginal man’! That is why, says Merton, anticipatory socialization is functional for the individual only ‘within a relatively open social structure providing for mobility’. By the same token it would by dysfunctional, in a ‘relatively close social structure.

Reference Individuals

It is necessary to remember that men select not only reference groups, they select reference individuals also. This is because individuals with their charisma, status, glamour often attract people. For instance, cricketers as a group may not have much appeal to you, but Sachin Tendulkar as an individual does. Thus, in spite of the fact that cricketers as such do not constitute your reference group. Sachin Tendulkar may, however, become a reference individual.

Selection of Reference Groups

One belongs to innumerable groups, right from your own family to a neighborhoods club, to a caste group, to a political party, to a religious organisation. But only some of them are selected as reference groups.

This can be understood first by classifying different kinds of membership groups. As Merton says, a “suitable classification” of groups is, therefore, necessary, Merton evolves a list of twenty six group properties.

For instance, Merton says, groups differ widely in the degree of distinctness with which membership can be defined, ranging from some informal groups with indistinct boundaries to those with clear-cut and formalized processes of “admission” to membership.

Again group may differ on the degree of engagement that the group encourages or promotes among its members.

There are many other properties on the basis of which groups can differ: expected duration of the group, its open or closed character, degree of social differentiation, and degree of expected conformity to the norms of the group.

Merton argues that it is for the individual to decide how and why you select some of these as reference groups. Your engagement with your family members is much more than, say, with the members of a film club and so it is quite likely that, as far as the major decisions of life are concerned, not the film club, but your family is likely to serve as a reference group.

Selection of Non-membership Groups

You must understand why and under what circumstances men choose non-membership groups as their reference groups. According to Merton, there are primarily three factors.

First, the selection of reference groups is largely governed by the capacity of certain groups to ‘confer some prestige in terms of the institutional structure of that society’. The non-membership group that does not have much power or prestige hardly becomes a reference group.

Secondly, Merton says, it is generally the “isolates” in a group who may be particularly motivated to adopt the values of non-membership group as ‘normative frames of reference’. The reason is obvious. The ‘isolates’, because of their sensitivity or rebelliousness or because of their intense urge for mobility, do not remain contented with the groups to which they belong. As a result, it is more likely that they would be stimulated to adopt the values of non-membership groups.

Thirdly, as had already been discussed, a ‘social system with relatively high rate of social mobility’ will tend to make far widespread orientation to non-membership groups as reference groups. This is naturally so for only in an open system people come to know of groups other than their own and feel tempted to alter their positions continually.

Variation in Reference Groups for Differing Values and Norms

The selection of reference groups is complex. Says, Merton, “ it should not be assumed that the same groups uniformly serve as reference groups for the same individuals in every phase of their behaviour”. So, ultimately, the choice of reference groups depends on the nature and quality of norms and values one is interested in. The group that serves as a reference group for one’s political ideal may not have any meaning as far as one’s religious ideals are concerned.

You can perhaps experience the truth of this statement from your own life. There may be divergent opinions on love marriage in your own family. Your parents perhaps dislike it, your elder brother is ambivalent, your sister gives her consent to it. Under these circumstances, it is quite likely that instead of relying on your own family, you tend to give your consent to what you generation thinks, the way young boys and girls like you think of marriage. This explains a phenomenon called ‘generation gap’.

Structural Elements Of Reference Groups

Merton says, the theory of reference group behaviour must include some treatment of channels of communication through which they knowledge is gained. In a democratic or egalitarian group in which members are free and open, uninhibited communication is possible and it is easier to have knowledge of the actual happenings of the group.

Merton clarifies how one minimises the degree of conflict resulting from the structural consequences of role-sets and status-sets based on Merton believes this happens because both norms and role-performance have to be visible if the structure of authority is to operate effectively. The head of your institution and others authorities have access to a series of mechanisms through which they observe the students, and have better knowledge of their actual role-performance.Yet, Merton says, there is a limit to the degree of visibility and observability. There is also the “need for privacy”.

One tends to feel that there is a gap between the ideal and the real. But this uncertainty or disillusionment about one’s own membership group does not prevail while one looks at non-membership groups. This is what is meant by the saying that the grass appears greener on the other side of the fence. Generally, the outsiders tend to develop unrealistic images of non-membership groups.

Non-conformity to the norms of an in-group is equivalent to conformity to the norms of an out-group. But, as Merton says, non-conformity should not be equated with deviant behaviour. There are many differences between the two.First, unlike the criminal, the non-conformist announces his dissent. Secondly, the non-conformist is not an opportunist. They challenge the legitimacy of the norms and expectations and reject them. But the criminal does not have the courage of reject their legitimacy. He does not agree that theft is right and murder virtuous. Thirdly, the non-conformists believe that they are gifted with a ‘higher morality’ and want to alter the norms of the group accordingly. The criminal does not have, however, any such vision of morality. The experiences of the non-conformists in the context of non-memberships reference groups are likely to have structural implications for the memberships group. In Merton’s view, the non-conformists are often considered to be ‘masters’. They are felt to have courage and have demonstrated the capacity to run large risks. The fact that the non-conformist “tends to elicit some measure of respect” implies that the membership group begins to become uncertain about itself, about its norms, and values. The non-conformists conformity to the non-membership group is the beginning of conflict and tensions in the membership group. It is in this regard that one can say that the non-conformists with their conformity to the non-membership reference group begin to initiate the possibility of change and conflict in their own membership group.

The study of reference group behaviour needs an understanding of the dynamics of role-sets, status-sets and status-sequences. Suppose, for example, the teachers as a reference group attract you, and you intend to become a teacher. Not surprisingly then, you should try to understand what he status of a teacher implies, the kind of people he or she has to continually interact with, the difficulties involved in the process of fulfilling his or her responsibility.It is in this context that Merton speaks of role-sets. Merton says that a particular social status involves not a single associated role, but an array of associated roles. This is called role-set.