Social scientists who study groups disagree about whether (and to what extent) dyads ought to be included in their work. In this article, I argue that dyads are not really groups because (a) dyads are more ephemeral than groups, forming and dissolving more quickly; (b) people feel stronger (and often different) emotions in dyads than in groups; (c) dyads are simpler than groups—some group phenomena cannot occur in dyads, and those that do may operate differently there; and (d) research on dyads is carried out almost independently (by different people, applying different theories and methods, and publishing their work in different outlets) from research on groups. I also review some of the conceptual and methodological problems that can arise when dyads are mistakenly viewed as groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Richard L. Moreland (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: