Decision Making

Question 1

The paradox of groups - intro

Answer 1

• 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

Question 2

Group Polarization Definition

Answer 2

• 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

Question 3

Group Polarization def cont…

Answer 3

> > 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

Question 4

Group Polarization Experiments - Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969)

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Group Polarization Experiments - Isozaki (1984)

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Group Polarization Experiments - Whyte (1993)

Answer 6

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

Question 7

More experiments

Answer 7

• 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?

Question 8

Myers & Bishop (1970)

Answer 8

> > Although there is a gap in racial prejudice before discussion - this gap
polarised further apart after group discussion

Question 9

Everyday Group polarisation

Answer 9

• We tend to associate with like-minded others

We tend to read newspapers that fit our political beliefs

Question 10

Everyday Group polarisation - Maccoby (2002)

Answer 10

Maccoby (2002)
» (Maccoby 2002) In primary school - gender separation occurs - this
reinforces gender differences
– Gender differences in children

Question 11

Everyday Group polarisation - (Postmes and others)

Answer 11

> > Group dynamics are even more powerful on the internet

- Internet intensifies polarisation effects (Postmes and others)

Question 12

Everyday Group polarisation - Wright (2003)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Real-world examples: in communities

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Real-world examples: in communities - Gangs (e.g. Cartwright, 1975):-
– Lykken (1997)
– Veysey & Messner, 1999 – Dishion et al., 1999

Answer 14

• 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

Question 15

Real-world examples: in communities – terrorists McCauley & Segal (1987; McCauley, 2002)

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

Explaining polarization: Persuasive arguments theory

Answer 16

• 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

Question 17

• An example of what Asch called informational influence

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

Explaining polarization: social comparison

- An example of normative influence - we look to others to give us guidance on what we should be thinking

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

Normative influence

Informational influence

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

social comparison and gangs

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Polarisation & Social comparison - Experiments (Goethals & Zanna, 1979; Sanders & Baron, 1977).

Answer 21

• Even if we don’t share arguments and only give a position e.g. remainer. Just knowing a position can cause polarisation&raquo_space; Perhaps polarisation is more about comparison

Question 22

Evaluating the explanations Kaplan (1989)

Answer 22

• 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

Question 23

Evaluating the explanations - Self-categorisation theory (SCT) – Turner (1985); Turner et al (1987) –

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Self-categorisation theory (SCT) – Turner (1985) Link to Sherif et al

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Evaluating the explanations - Self-categorisation theory (SCT) – Turner (1985); Turner et al (1987) – continued

Answer 25

– 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

Question 26

✖ Criticisms of polarization research - External validity

Answer 26

✖ 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

Question 27

✖ NO polarization found

Answer 27

✖ - Some studies use real groups have failed to find polarisation in real decision-making contexts and groups

Question 28

✅ Semin & Glendon (1973) - real decision-making bodies

Answer 28

> > 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)

Question 29

But some externally valid studies have found evidence - e.g. Clement & Sullivan (1970) Roger Brown (1986) –juries

Answer 29

> > 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

Question 30

But some externally valid studies have found evidence - e.g. Clement & Sullivan (1970) Roger Brown (1986) –juries

Answer 30

> > 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