Gusfield noted 2 major uses of the term ‘community’
- territorial and geographical notion of community
- relational usage: quality of interaction without considering location
sense of community
McMillan and Chavis
- feeling members have of belonging
- feeling that members matter to one another
- shared faith members need will be met through their commitment to be together
criteria to be met for individual to feel sense of community
- membership
- influence
- integration and fulfilment of needs
- shared emotional connection
membership
- individuals sense of belonging to group
- feeling of being part of a group and being part of something bigger than yourself
sub components of membership
- boundaries
- emotional safety
- sense of belonging and identification
- personal investment
- common symbol system
boundaries
- people who belong and don’t belong
- created boundaries to personal space
- source of protection against threats
- members obtain emotional safety and develop intimacy
emotional safety
emotional security and protection of intimacy in group
sense of belonging and identification
- feeling and belief that members fit in and is accepted by group
- willingness to sacrifice for group
personal investment
- members feeling of group membership
- feeling that they earned a place in group due to their contribution
common symbol system
means of identifying who belongs in community used by members
influence
- sense of mattering, making a difference to group and group mattering to its members
- 2 way relationship between group and its members:
- cohesiveness is contingent on groups ability to influence its members
- cohesiveness increases, conformity increases
- community cohesiveness requires members to be prepared to conform
- people who acknowledge others’ needs and opinions are more influential than those who try to dominate others and ignore their wishes
integration and fulfilment of needs
- feeling that member’s needs will be met through belonging to group
- may be through sharing values and resources that provides reinforcements to individuals for belonging group
- group success brings members close together
for group to do its best work
- group needs to be organised
- members need to know each other’s strengths and weaknesses
- roles and tasks need to be assigned
Aronson and colleagues
students who work together to achieve group goals and receive their marks on basis on class products learn better than those in individualistic or competitive classrooms
shared emotional connection
- commitment and belief that members have and will share history, time together, common places and similar experiences
- definitive elements of sense of community:
- the more people interact, the more likely they become close
- the more the positive experiences and relationships, the greater the bond
- the more the success, the stronger the cohesion
sub components of shared emotional connection
- contact hypothesis
- quality of interaction
- investment
- effect of honour and humiliation on members
- spiritual bond
contact hypothesis
the more members interact, the more likely they become closer
quality of interaction
need for positive interactions to create greater bond
investment
the more one invests, the more impact they feel in community
effect of honour and humiliation on members
reward and humiliation have significant impact on attractiveness and adverseness of community to person
spiritual bond
intangible connection between members
3 main factors about events that influence whether we experience stress or have negative responses
predictability
- unpredictable events are more stressful and have longer lasting impacts
controllability
- having no control over events is a major source of stress
whether we experience threat or loss
- we experience stress when our well being or belongings are being threatened or loss
hardy personality
where some people seem to thrive on stress instead of letting it wear them down
Kobasa 1979
- thought that personality differences could account for different responses to stress
- involved 600 managers and executives who completed a personality questionnaire and another which measure stressful events and illnesses experienced over previous 3 years
- respondents were divided into 2 groups:
- those who scored above average for illnesses
- those who scored below average for illnesses
- found that number of stressful events experienced by both groups were high
- when she compared high illness group with low illness group, she found that low illness group saw change as a challenge, felt more in control with their lives and had a sense of direction in both their work and personal lives
- concluded that low illness group was described as having hardy personality
- criticism: it was possible that illness was the cause, not the result of personality characteristics
