Decision Making Flashcards
The paradox of groups - intro
- Sometimes group dynamics lead to negative and positive outcomes
- Many aspects of our lives are determined by group decisions – exam boards, governments, interview panels
- 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
Group Polarization Definition
- According to Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969):- Group polarization is the phenomenon whereby group discussion typically strengthens the average inclination of group members
» This is a phenomena where group discussions strengthen attitudes and
opinions
Group Polarization def cont…
> > If the average of the initial opinion was polarised to an extreme - a group
discussion would push it even further towards the extreme
If the belief was average - group discussions would have little effect
Group polarisation depends on the group average in the first place
Group Polarization Experiments - Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969)
Often focused on attitude statements
- Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969) – attitudes to French President and towards Americans
» Attitudes towards the president were positive and therefore after group
discussion - their answer were polarised to be even more positive
Group Polarization Experiments - Isozaki (1984)
Isozaki (1984) – Japanese students judging guilt of someone accused of a road traffic offence
» If pp’s watching a mock trial already have a strong feeling that a person is
guilty - group discussion will strengthen and solidify their feelings about the person being guilty
Group Polarization Experiments - Whyte (1993)
Whyte (1993) – groups exacerbate the “too much invested to quit” phenomenon
» Whyte - business men and women become reluctant to quit a project
when even when there is evidence that the project is failing and therefore put even more time and money towards it. Individuals will polarise on this view that there was too much invested in the project to quit
> > Group polarisation occurs all around
More experiments
- Research chooses topics/issues on which opinions are divided and then isolate people who hold the same view.
Does discussion with like- minded people strengthen shared views?
– Does it magnify the gap between the two sides?
Myers & Bishop (1970)
> > Although there is a gap in racial prejudice before discussion - this gap
polarised further apart after group discussion
Everyday Group polarisation
- We tend to associate with like-minded others
We tend to read newspapers that fit our political beliefs
Everyday Group polarisation - Maccoby (2002)
Maccoby (2002)
» (Maccoby 2002) In primary school - gender separation occurs - this
reinforces gender differences
– Gender differences in children
Everyday Group polarisation - (Postmes and others)
> > Group dynamics are even more powerful on the internet
- Internet intensifies polarisation effects (Postmes and others)
Everyday Group polarisation - Wright (2003)
Wright (2003):
- The Internet “makes it much easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallize diffused hatred and mobilize lethal force.”
» Engaging in internet and social media usage can enforce polarisation
Real-world examples: in communities
During community conflicts, like-minded people associate together more frequently
» Existence of uncontrolled gangs of men - polarisation occurs due to the
existence of these gangs
» Hanging around with like minded people can solidify these opinions
» Perhaps this is as issue with prisons - might have quite negative effects
on rehabilitation
Real-world examples: in communities - Gangs (e.g. Cartwright, 1975):-
– Lykken (1997)
– Veysey & Messner, 1999 – Dishion et al., 1999
- Gand is a good example of a group that is likely to cause group polarization
- A lot of crimes gangs are involved in - individuals would not have committed those crimes had they not found themselves in the company of these other gang individuals
- Research suggests one of the biggest predictors of crime in any urban area is the existence of uncontrolled gangs of men
- Its possible that group polarization is going on here and making gang members views more extreme
Real-world examples: in communities – terrorists McCauley & Segal (1987; McCauley, 2002)
- A lot of evidence suggests that when looking at the background of someone/those who has chosen terrorism, they tend to work in groups and cells
- Family history, psychiatric profile - don’t tend to find anything unusual
- Probably those individuals who ended up as terrorists, may never engaged in those acts if they were a lone actor
Explaining polarization: Persuasive arguments theory
- Burnstein & Vinokur (1977) argue that polarization is down to the pool of arguments
- Persuasive arguments theory posits this assumption
- That before going into a group discussion, you have not heard all of the possible arguments that support a particular point of view
» When you go into a group discussion with a group of people - you end
up hearing new arguments that support your view that you were not familiar with - Polarization happens as you are handed more arguements that support your view which means you gain more confidence to hold this view
- An example of what Asch called informational influence
- informational influence is where we look to others to give us validity for the views we hold
- 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 so polarization will occur
- Even if people forward their argument without revealing their position on the issue, polarization still happens - there is something about hearing more arguments that is why polarization happens
Explaining polarization: social comparison
- An example of normative influence - we look to others to give us guidance on what we should be thinking
- Part of polarization is wanting to fit in in the groups we find ourselves in
- When we engage in group discussion, we get a sense of where other members attitudes lie and what the normative view of the group is
» We want to be seen as a positive group member
» Therefore we will adapt our view to align with the overall group view
» Therefore someone could enter a group with moderate ideas (misperception of the group norm idea)-
» During group discussion people realise this and re-evaluate their view so in order
to be seen as a good group member - someone will reevaluate one’s beliefs to fit to the group’s
Normative influence
Informational influence
- normative influence - we look to others to give us guidance on what we should be thinking
- informational influence is where we look to others to give us validity for the views we hold
social comparison and gangs
Someone might enter a gang with moderate ideas but realise the gangs normative views are more extreme
One would have to adjust what their think to be seen as a good member of the group
Polarisation & Social comparison - Experiments (Goethals & Zanna, 1979; Sanders & Baron, 1977).
- Even if we don’t share arguments and only give a position e.g. remainer. Just knowing a position can cause polarisation»_space; Perhaps polarisation is more about comparison
Evaluating the explanations Kaplan (1989)
- Maybe the persuasive arguments approach is more likely when we are in a factual domain - whereas the social comparison approach is more relevant in a realm of values
Evaluating the explanations - Self-categorisation theory (SCT) – Turner (1985); Turner et al (1987) –
A third theory has been presented by Turner who suggested that what might be going on is:
» Groups are striving to find ways to see themselves as different to groups
they are competing/comparing themselves against
Self-categorisation theory (SCT) – Turner (1985) Link to Sherif et al
Link to Sherif et al
» Robber’s Cave study finding:
> When one group tended to adopt a certain way of behaving - it was quite common for the other group when they found out - the other group wanted to act in the opposite way
> the groups want to be different, fits with the idea that part of polarization, the strengthening of group attitudes after group discussion could be about making your group distinct to another
Evaluating the explanations - Self-categorisation theory (SCT) – Turner (1985); Turner et al (1987) – continued
– if the group norm is polarized, conformity to the in-group norm and group polarization occur
– if the group norm is not polarised, then you get convergence to the mean group position
✖ Criticisms of polarization research - External validity
✖ Issues with so research in this area:
– Most of the early key experiments used ad-hoc (made up) lab groups – Rupert Brown (1988) with groups that didn’t really exist after the experiment was over - how does this extrapolate to real world settings
✖ NO polarization found
✖ - Some studies use real groups have failed to find polarisation in real decision-making contexts and groups
✅ Semin & Glendon (1973) - real decision-making bodies
> > Other studies that use real world decision making groups that have found polarization
Students making decisions about their assessments - should they have more coursework or exams etc
students views
seemed to polarise after group discussions (Semin & Glendon)
But some externally valid studies have found evidence - e.g. Clement & Sullivan (1970) Roger Brown (1986) –juries
> > Roger Brown argues that there is a great deal of evidence showing groups polarize in real world jury decision making
Court cases are documented stringently - you can observe how decisions played out
Roger Brown - select jurors who are more likely to be sympathetic towards
your defendant
But some externally valid studies have found evidence - e.g. Clement & Sullivan (1970) Roger Brown (1986) –juries
> > Roger Brown argues that there is a great deal of evidence showing groups polarize in real world jury decision making
Court cases are documented stringently - you can observe how decisions played out
Roger Brown - select jurors who are more likely to be sympathetic towards
your defendant - we know that jurors come into court with an opinion and make a snap decision early on which polarizes through out the trial
