up Decision GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUEâ€¦â€¦â€¦.):GroProcess, Group Polarization

<< GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUEâ€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦):Social Loafing, Deindividuation

INTERPERSONAL POWER: LEADERSHIP, The Situational Perspective, Information power >>

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Lesson 41

GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE..........)

David Dodd's Exercise relevant to previous lecture # 40

David David Dodd describes a highly effective and entertaining exercise that illustrates the concept of

deindividuation. According to Dodd, the object of this exercise is to demonstrate that even normal, well-

adjusted college students are capable of deviant, antisocial behavior given the right situational conditions

(e.g., feelings of anonymity and irresponsibility). The procedure of the experiment is as under:

Please respond anonymously to the following question:

"If you could be totally invisible for 24 hours and were completely assured that you would not be

detected or held responsible for your actions, what would you do?"

The average number of antisocial responses given by Dodd's college students (36%) is no different than

the number of antisocial responses given by inmates at a maximum security prison where he once

taught.

Group Behavior Lesson # 41

Aims

To introduce the psychological effects of being in a group and of interacting with others on an inter-

individual level

Objectives

· Describe the process of group decisions

· Evaluate the effects of `Groupthink'

Group Decision Process

Group decision making and the `risky shift'

The `risky shift' describes the tendency for people to accept more risky odds when considering a

dilemma in a group (Stoner, 1961)

Stoner (1961) asked management students to individually respond to 12 hypothetical dilemmas. Then he

brought them together in groups and instructed to discuss until they reached a unanimous decision. He

found out that after discussion the group was ready to take more risks.

During the next five years, subsequent research found the same results across a wide variety of age and

occupational groups, and in dozens of different cultures.

Same results have been obtained across diverse occupational, age, and cultural groups.

But not all decision dilemmas reached risky shift. Sometimes people become more cautious in groups

(Knox & Safford, 1976)

How could group discussion produce both greater risk taking and greater conservatism?

Group Polarization

· It is not that people become more risky or cautious in groups per se but rather the group's initial

attitudes are enhanced or polarized.

· After group discussion members' initial attitudes become exaggerated. It is actually strengthening of

initial attitudes.

· More likely to occur with important issues (Kerr, 1992)

173

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Research findings:

· Groups initially low or high in prejudice were even less or more after discussion (Myers & Bishop,

1970)

· Terrorist organizations became more extreme gradually over time (McCauley & Segal, 1987)

· Members of jury held more extreme opinions about a defendant guilty or innocent (Myers & Kaplan,

1976)

The process of group polarization:

In group polarization, discussion by group members enhances the initial attitudes or views of those

who already agree, regardless whether those views reflect caution or risk. Researches indicate that

group polarization is more likely to occur on important issues rather than trivial ones.

Explanations for group polarization

Social comparison

We are motivated to self evaluate by comparing us with others. They want others to evaluate them

positively, and after discussion they find out that they are not nearly as extreme in the socially valued

direction than others as they initially thought. So they begin to shift toward even more extreme

positions. Comparisons with others promotes a desire to fit in with socially valued ideals so attitudes

become more extreme (normative influence)

Mutual persuasion

In group discussion people learn more (encounter more arguments) so are more persuaded

(informational influence). The desire is not to be evaluated positively but the desire to arrive at

correct or true solution. Hearing new supportive arguments that they had not initially considered,

members gradually come to adopt even more extreme positions. It is arguments in favour of their

own position rather than against it.

Daniel Isenberg's meta-analysis of 21 different group polarization studies:

Social comparison and persuasive

arguments often occur in combination

to produce extreme group decisions

Types of influences leading to polarization

How these two could produce group

Type of

Goal

Thoughts

Actions

polarization?

influence

In issues involving intellectual tasks

Discover

Adopt an

Normative

To be

when facts are weighed group,

other

opinion that

influence

likeable

members are primarily concerned with

members'

is socially

the information presented in people's

opinions

desirable

arguments. When it is judgmental

than the

task, and there is not clear right or

average

wrong answer, people are more likely

opinion

to compare their views with others.

Informational

To be right

Attend to

Shift opinion

Martin Kaplan (1987) suggests that

influence

persuasive

in direction

they may operate in different

arguments

indicated by

situations: issues involving intellectual

vs. judgmental tasks

novel, valid

arguments

Table 1 shows different types of influences leading to polarization:

174

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Groupthink

An extreme form of group polarization (Janis, 1982) March 19 2003

A deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment in groups due to an excessive

desire to achieve consensus

Example: On March 19, 2003 President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. The CIA had provided

evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam was planning terrorist attacks

along with Usama bin Laden. Bush hoped that the Iraqi people would welcome the invading force, and

USA would become a beacon of light for all people in the Middle East, but that was proved wrong as

they could find any weapons. American soldiers are being killed daily along with Iraqis. The US senate

select committee on intelligence issued a very critical report on this decision.

Senate Committee member Rockefeller stated "our credibility is diminished. Our standing has never

been lower. We have fostered a great hatred of America in the Muslim world"

Groupthink caused by...

High in-group cohesiveness (conformity)

Janis (1971) stated that cohesiveness is a positive group characteristic but it is also associated with

conformity. When people are strongly attached to group, they want badly to be accepted. When it is

combined with the other two factors, groups become more susceptible to group think.

Threatening situational context

At the time of stress people become dependent on the reassuring support of others, which would

increase the group's influence on individual members.

Stressful situations lead to people valuing speed over accuracy

Structural/procedural faults

Lack of systematic checks, isolation of the group, and a directive leader; directive leader who lets

other members know what his inclinations are regarding the group's final decision choice may lead to

groupthink.

Turner et al. (1992):

Investigated both cohesiveness and stressful threat

Created high and low cohesiveness groups; gave names to each of the "high cohesiveness" groups and

had them wear tags bearing group name. "Low cohesiveness" received neither tags nor group identities

The problem was that some workers producing automobile panels had decreased productivity, while one

worker Joe was piling up his work.

Asked all groups to recommend a solution for an automobile production problem

Rank order of possible solutions was suggested:

promoting Joe was a low quality solution

Removing him from his station was a medium quality decision.

high quality decision was rotating workers on an hourly base, so that pile up does not occur

Told high threat group that their session will be videotaped for using in subsequent sessions, and their

evaluation will be used to evaluate "dysfunctional group processes".

175

Social Psychology (PSY403)

An interaction between cohesiveness and threat

was observed.

Figure 1 shows that when cohesive group became

4.5

threatened they made low quality decisions

indicating group think (0 indicate very low quality

3.5

decision)

Low coh e si ve groups

2.5

Symptoms of groupthink

Hi gh cohe si ve

grou ps

Overestimation of the competence of the in-

1.5

group:

Illusion of invulnerability and an unquestioned

0.5

belief in the in-group's own morality.

American president and his colleagues thought

Low thre at

Hi gh th re at

that USA will crush armed oppositions and

will win the hearts and minds of Iraqi. Same is

true for USA's observation for Afghanistan.

Close-mindedness:

Bush and his administration did not examine the evidence that would have confirmed the existence of

weapons. Members of close-minded group rationalize the correctness of their decisions.

Increased conformity:

·Members reject those who raise doubts about the group's assumptions and decisions, and they censor

their own misgivings. With all this conformity pressure, members develop an illusion that everyone is in

agreement.

· Groupthink is more when there is a lot of loyalty, and not much intellectual diversity within a decision

making body.

176

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Janis's

Theory

Group-

think

Figure 2 shows Janis's theory of groupthink:

Tetlock's study (1992)

Tetlock tested Janis theory of groupthink and presented content analysis of the factual accounts of 10

historic decisions that potentially involved groupthink

Historic events involving disastrous decisions exhibited significantly more group decision

Some of groupthink characteristics were suspicion of outsiders, restriction of information exchange, and

punishment of group dissenters

Overcoming groupthink

Leader remains impartial and encourages the expression of dissent

Use separate subcommittees to discuss same issue separately

Consult outside experts

Making decisions in this way will facilitate the type of critical analysis that is the hallmark of success,

both on the individual and group level.

Reading:

· Franzoi, S. (2003). Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 10.

177

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Other Readings:

· Lord, C.G. (1997). Social Psychology. Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Company. Chapter 8.

· David G. Myers, D. G. (2002). Social Psychology (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

· Taylor, S.E. (2006). Social Psychology (12th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

178

Table of Contents: