Decision Making Flashcards
The paradox of groups
· Two heads is always better than one – can be problematic
· Many aspects of our lives are determined by group decisions – exam boards, governments, interview panels
· Sometimes group dynamics lead to unpleasant, ‘evil’, outcomes
· Sometimes group dynamics lead to positive outcomes
The group dynamics literature on group decision-making gives us some ideas as to why group deliberation can sometimes lead to good, sometimes to bad, decision-making and outcomes
What is group polarisation?
· Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969):- Group polarization = the phenomenon whereby group discussion typically strengthens the average inclination of group members
· Strengthens attitudes and opinions through group discussion, measure individual’s opinion by themselves then compare after they have had the group discussion
· If the average of the initial opinion was polarised towards an extreme, then a group discussion will make it even more extreme than it already was
If your opinion is neutral, group polarisation would not change that opinion that much
Group polarisation - French president experiment
Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969) – attitudes to French President and towards Americans, asked students. Polarisation towards a positive poll occurred, the group discussion pushed them to be even more positive. If their opinion was negative, the group discussion made it even more negative. Showed that polarisation can happen regardless of direction, positive or negative
Group polarisation - Japanese students experiment
Isozaki (1984) – Japanese students judging guilt of someone accused of a road traffic offence, doesn’t just apply to attitudes. Observe a trial and asked if the person is guilty or not (just like a jury). If participant’s watching a mock trial and they sense the person is guilty, a group discussion will confirm this belief.
Group polarisation - Investment experiment
Whyte (1993) – groups exacerbate the “too much invested to quit” phenomenon. Business world, if they have invested a lot of time and money in a project, they will put more money in it even if it will fail. If the majority of the group felt this way, they would continue
Group polarisation - Prejudice experiment
Example: Prejudice (Myers & Bishop, 1970)
· There was a gap before group discussion
After discussion, two groups are polarized further apart
Everyday group polarisation
· We tend to associate with like-minded others – share similar views
· We tend to read newspapers that fit our political beliefs – not to be exposed to things they disagree with
· Maccoby (2002) – Gender differences in children, children hang around with those who are the same sex. Stereotypes become reality
· Internet intensifies polarisation effects (Postmes and others)
Wright (2003): The Internet “makes it much easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallize diffused hatred and mobilize lethal force.” – this was harder to do so before the internet. Convince each other that their behaviour is normal, encourage negative behaviours
Group polarisation: Real world examples: in communities - terroism and gangs
· During community conflicts, like-minded people associate together more frequently
· Gangs (e.g. Cartwright, 1975):- a lot of people would not have committed gang crimes if they were not in a gang
– Lykken (1997)
– Veysey & Messner, 1999
– Dishion et al., 1999
McCauley & Segal (1987; McCauley, 2002) – terrorists, terrorism tend to work in groups. If you look at them individually, you tend not to find anything abnormal. However, group behaviour changes this. They would not commit these crimes if they were not part of a group
Group polarisation: Real world examples: Social media
- Pro-ana blog – blogs used for like-minded anorexic individuals to support each other in their eating disorders. Reinforcing each other.
Facebook – e.g. Islamic phobia posts, right wing organisations. Those who lean that way might like the page, then be encouraged by the comments – process of polarisation
Explaining polarization: persuasive arguments theory
· Burnstein & Vinokur (1977) – poll of available arguments, you begin to hear new arguments. Being handed more arguments to support your views, the stronger you feel
· An example of what Asch called informational influence
· Group discussion elicits a pooling of ideas, most of which favour the dominant view.
· Some of these will be novel to particular participants in the group
Even if people forward their argument without revealing their position on the issue, polarization still happens
Explaining polarization: social comparison
· An example of normative influence – look at others for guidance. Wanting to fit into a group, we get a sense of where others attitudes lie. We want to be seen as pro-typical. We will become more extreme, to match those of the group
· Before group discussion, people seem to misperceive the group norm
· During group discussion people realise this and re-evaluate their view
Experiments (Goethals & Zanna, 1979; Sanders & Baron, 1977). – even if we don’t share arguments, but share a position (e.g. I support Brexit) that can create polarisation
Evaluating the explanations - POLARISATION
· Kaplan (1989) – factual domain, research comparison is more about values
· Self-categorisation theory (SCT) – Turner (1985); Turner et al (1987) –
· if the group norm is polarized conformity to the in-group norm and group polarization occur, need to see their group as different to any other groups
· if the group norm is not polarised, then you get convergence to the mean group position, one group does one thing, the other group tends to do the opposite. They want to be different and strengthen the group attitudes
Rupert Brown (1988) – when is SCT explanation useful?
Criticisms of polarization research
· External validity – conducted in the lab, these groups did not exist in real life
· Rupert Brown (1988) – most experiments use ad-hoc lab groups
· Some studies have failed to find polarisation in real decision-making contexts and groups - e.g. Fraser (1974) – found little evidence that it happened in the real world
· Semin & Glendon (1973) - real decision-making bodies - students
· But some externally valid studies have found evidence - e.g. Clement & Sullivan (1970)
Roger Brown (1986) –juries – predicting the attitudes of juries in advance. E.g. a banker, or a mechanic – you can have a profile to guess how they will act. You can choose whether you want those people on your jury
‘Groupthink’: The Bay of Pigs (BOP), 1961
· Hand-picked experts discussed plan to invade Cuba (made America feel uncomfortable), under guidance of JFK. C.I.A. proposal that commandos could capture BOPs, launch raids and encourage civilian revolt. Unity, cohesiveness, respect
· Cast:
· Dean Rusk, Sec. of State, years exp. in foreign policy
· Robert McNamara, Sec of Def, once a member of Harvard business school, researched rational decision-making
· Arthur Schlesinger, Jnr, respected historian
· + others, almost all respected decision-makers
· JFK leads. Norms re who can ask questions, order of questioning, are rarely broken.
Janis (1972) described the events as one of the “worst fiascoes ever perpetrated by a responsible government” - he was an overbearing leader, talked over others and didn’t let people speak who had different opinions
What is Groupthink?
· “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (Janis, 1972)
It is difficult to assess the quality of decision- making in terms of outcomes all the time, but one can almost always evaluate the quality of the decision-making process.
