Personal and Positional Influence in Formal Groups: Propositions and Theory for Research on Family Vulnerability to Stress

The general problem of differential vulnerability of groups to apparently similar stress is addressed in a theory of family vulnerability, based on the proposition that group cohesion may derive from either or both personal influence (which is necessarily cohesive and implies regenerative capacity but lack of stability) and positional influence (which may be cohesive and/or coercive and implies efficiency and stability, but lack of regenerative capacity). Taking these as separate variables, ideal types of families and hypotheses of their stress vulnerability are developed, and briefly related to types of stress. Though discussion focuses specifically on family vulnerability, it appears relevant to diverse areas of social and psychological research and theory. F ormal groups of apparently similar structure often respond differently to similar stresses; hardships which are the nemesis of some are easily weathered by others, and occasionally stimulate a group to develop new strengths and capacities. It is likely that an understanding of differential vulnerability to stress would offer important insights into more general interpersonal and social processes. Efforts to derive descriptive or predictive theories of differential vulnerability, however, have met with only limited success. Most consistent and long lived of such efforts is the sociological concern with families under stress.' Already at the turn of the century the search had begun for qualities which distinguish families vulnerable to stress from those invulnerable; it dominated family sociology through the great Depression of the thirties, was systematically developed in study of war separation and reunion, and continues today in study of the effects of mental retardation, illness, and other stresses on the family. An implicit definition appears to have been accepted in these studies: The vulnerable family (or group) is that which lacks ability to influence the action of its members (i.e., lacks "behavioral influence") in such a way that even under stress they remain together and continue to share and satisfy role expectations. This definition is but circular, however, unless it leads to predictions or hypotheses about the response of groups to future stress. Such hypotheses might be possible, given answers to two questions: How can the strength of behavioral influence be identified? What are the likely effects of stress on this behavioral influence? These questions have never been explicitly asked in research on families under stress, but they have been implicitly approached. In his pioneering study of the Depression, Angell, for example, approached the first (unasked) question with the concept of "family integration," and the second question with the concept "family adaptability."2 Unfortunately, these con* This investigation was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. The author is indebted to R. S. Adams (Queensland University, Australia), Bruce Biddle (University of Missouri), Edward Z. Dager (Purdue University) and F. W. Mitchell (Otago University, New Zealand) for criticisms, and to Reuben Hill and Roy G. Francis (University of Minnesota) for stimulating discussions. 1 The quest has won attention not only from family sociologists, but also from researchers and theorists in the field of social work, and, more recently, from medical researchers. For discussion and bibliography, see Donald A. Hansen and Reuben Hill, "Families Under Stress," Handbook of Marriage and the Family, Harold Christensen, ed. (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1964). 2 Robert C. Angell, The Family Encounters the Depression (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936). Family integration referred to bonds of This content downloaded from 207.46.13.166 on Thu, 07 Jul 2016 04:03:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms STRESS VULNERABILITY 203 cepts, specified in later investigations by Koos,3 and Cavan and Ranck,4 have attracted little attention since the systematic work of Hill in 1949,5 and in spite of their early promise, today still offer only a low-level description. This investigation seeks to enter the main stream of theories of families under stress, through application of a distinction generally ignored in family research, and little appreciated in small group research; a distinction between the personal influence and the positional influence of group members on one another. The distinction arises from the insight that in interaction individuals tend to develop both a personal relationship, or the relation of ego to alter as individuals, and a positional relationship, or the relation of ego to alter as status or position holders in a group. That is, there are two kinds of cohesiveness in a group: the first involves the influence members have oone another because of their personal relationships; the second involves the influence they have on one another because of their positioiim in the group structure. In the following sections the paper will: (1) Examine the concepts, personal and positional relationships; (2) Speculatively identify qualities of "ideal" types of families characterized by various combinations of high or low personal and positional influence; (3) Postulate the likelihood of family vulnerability of each of the types to general categories of