The Structure Of Human Groups

Kathleen N. Morgan
Wheaton College, Norton, MA 02766
Writing Assignment 1, Draft 2
9/15/03

Abstract

Humans (Homo sapiens) are typically social animals, living in family groups or other mixed-sex groups for most of their lives. The purpose of this study was to deterimine the nature of such human groups at a private liberal arts college that enrolls a greater number of female than male students. Individuals or groups of students were observed as they entered the student union, and the number of persons in each group (as well as the sex of each group member) was recorded. Results suggest that males at this campus are less likely to travel in same-sexed groups than are females, and are more likely to travel alone than are females.

The Structure of Human Groups

One of the easiest things to observe when looking at animals is how they group themselves. Most species in the Order Primata live in some kind of social group (Richard, 1985), but group structure is highly varied across species (Cohen, 1971). In this paper, I report the results of a study of the grouping of human beings, Homo sapiens.

Methods

I conducted my study on a Wednesday afternoon, from 1:00 to 1:30pm. To conduct my study, I sat at a table in the Balfour-Hood Cafe near the entrance to the building. I sat in such a way that I could easily see people coming in through the doors. I only recorded data on groups coming into (not going out of) the building.

For each group that I saw passing through the doors on their way into the building, I recorded how many men and women were in the group on a pre-made data sheet. I defined a group as any number of persons that were within an arm's distance of one another, and that were interacting in some way (talking, touching, etc.). Thus, one person by themselves could be considered a group using my definition.

Results

At the end of a half-hour's observation time, I had observed a total of 62 groups. Of these, 28 (45%) were groups of two, 15 (24%) were single people not in groups, 11 (18%) were groups of three, and 8 (13%) were groups of four.

Across all groups, a total of 41 (66%) females and 21 (33%) males were observed. This is roughly the distribution of females to males at Wheaton College, and so it was not too surprising. What was surprising, though, was how males and females organized themselves into groups.

For example, all 8 (100%) single people observed were male. No females were observed entering Balfour-Hood alone. Of the groups of two, 13 (46%) were all-female groups, 13 (46%) were male-female groups, and only 2 (8%) were all-male groups. Out of the 11 groups of three, 6 (55%) were all-female groups, 4 (36%) consisted of one female and two males, and the remaining 1 (9%) consisted of one male and two females. Finally, in the groups of four, 3 (37%) were all-female groups, 1 (13%) consisted of two females and two males, and the remaining 4 (50%) consisted of one female and three males.

Discussion

In my observations, only males were observed alone. This suggests that females at Wheaton might be more sociable or comfortable in groups than males at Wheaton. Alternatively, males at Wheaton might be ostracized for being so different from the majority (which are women) and thus not readily accepted into groups.

The other data that I collected, though, make the idea of males being ostracized unlikely. In all cases, males were most often seen with females, or by themselves, whereas females were never seen by themselves, but only with other females or with males. Males also were never seen with other males. Thus it looks like males form groups, but mostly with females, whereas females may prefer groups, and will form groups with females as well as other males.

Finally, as groups grew larger, more males than females were observed in the groups. Perhaps the way that males feel most comfortable in large groups at Wheaton is when there are other males around. Since there are more women at Wheaton than men, men may need to have other members of the same sex present in order to feel comfortable in larger groups of women. Alternatively, since there are less men at Wheaton than there are women, it may simply be that by chance alone, if a man is to be in a group at all, he is more likely to be seen in a group with women than in a group with other men.

References:

Cohen, J. (1971). Casual Groups of Monkeys and Men. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

Richard, A.F. (1985). Primates in Nature. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman & Co.