Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
6.Decision Making & Communication (Group Polarisation (Experiments…
6.Decision Making & Communication
Group Polarisation
Paradox of groups
Many aspects of our lives are determined by group decisions - exam boards, governments, interview panels
Sometimes group dynamics lead to unpleasant, 'evil' outcomes, and sometimes positive outcomes
The group dynamics literature on group decisions-making gives us some ideas as to why group deliberation can sometimes lead to good, sometimes to bad, decision-making and outcomes
COBRA - British government committee for emergency events e.g. terrorism
Moscovici & Zavalloni:
Group polarisation = the phenomenon whereby group discussion typically strengthens the average inclination of group members
Push them further towards extreme they were already leaning towards - opinions are polarised (pushed to extreme) after group discussion
Experiments
Often focused on attitude statements
Moscovici:
Attitudes to French President & towards Americans
- Attitudes can polarise after GD if its positive OR negative, French students have radical, anti-US feeling
Isozaki:
Japanese students judging guilt of someone accused of a road traffic accident -
Demonstrate that these attitudes polarise after GD, measured attitudes before & after GD
Whyte:
Groups exacerbate the "too much invested to quit" phenomenon
- 1990s reformulated coca-cola --> people didn't likened flavour - held out for a so long as they invested so much in relaunch
Myers & Bishop:
Racial attitudes in USA
- White prejudiced USA - have GD, even more prejudiced than they were at start --> non-prejudiced had discussion & were less prejudiced than the start
Everyday Group Polarisation
We tend to associate with like-minded others
We tend to read newspapers that fit our political beliefs
Maccoby
-
Gender differences in children
--> STs become real in playground through gender segregation - typically tend to play with own gender
Wright
-
"The internet makes it much easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallise diffused hatred and mobilise lethal force"
- If they have certain views, tend to hold onto those views more strongly than polarisation
Example (communities)
During community conflicts, like-minded people associate more frequently
Gangs (Cartwright)
- Worst criminal behaviour is often committed by young men in gangs --> Not in gang = no crime (No job = elevated crime)
Longer in gang = stronger beliefs - put in prison --> polarisation
Pro-ana websites
--> self-selecting audience (already agree) -->
Stronger beliefs
Explaining Polarisation
Persuasive Arguments Theory
Burnstein & Vinokur
- 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, polarisation still happens
GD with people similar vues --> even more evidence to support initial leanings as they will have new arguments for you to use to support your POV
Social Comparison
An example of normative influence
Before group discussion, people seem to misperceive the group norm
During group discussion people realise this & re-evaluate they view
GD often recognise that you're not the only one with those thoughts
Also, perhaps you didnt hold those thoughts as strongly as you thought as they have even stronger opinions --> anxiety as you don't feel like you're not a good example of the group so you push your thoughts to new extremes
Re-adjusting your attitudes to what you think is the group norm
Self-categorisation Theory (Kaplan)
If the group norm is polarised conformity to the in-group norm and group polarisation occur
If the group norm is not polarised, then you get convergence to the mean group positions
Factual domain - not emotional decision
Persuasive arguments may be a good decision
Our group is trying to make itself distinct from other groups - e.g. the robbers cave study - one cursed so the other didn't
No obvious enemy --> hard to apply
Criticisms
Externally Valid
:
Most experiments use ad-hoc lab groups
Some studies have failed to find polarisation in real decision-making contexts & groups
Semin & Glendon:
Real-decision-making bodies - Real-world groups (teachers) evidence that they were impacted by polarisation
Brown:
Lots of polarisation --> get selected on their prejudices & opinions so they not biased during trial
Groupthink
Bay of Pigs
Hand picked expert discussed plan to invade Cuba, under guidance of JFK
CIA proposal that commandos could capture BOPs, launch raids and encourage civilian revolt, cohesiveness & respect
Paranoia about communism - sympathisers in USA = persecuted
Americans didnt like communist leader in Cuba (so close to USA)
JFK = overbearing leader (open discussion wasn't invited)
Decided to send small force of US soldiers to start a rebellion in Cuba (almost all killed)
Victims of GT
Case-studies of faulty decision-making in groups
GT= a distorted style of thinking that renders members incapable of making a rational decision
GT = a disease infecting groups
It therefore has causes, symptoms and possible treatments
Looked at case studies in real world events where things had gone wrong & interviewed members of decision making groups
Symptoms
Personal Pressure
: Members feel under pressure to conform - seen in friend and family groups - you know what they want you to agree with
Invisible weight to conform
Self-censorship:
Keep quiet & don't say what they really think - afraid of consequences
Mind-guards:
Bully that makes sure the leaders get their way 'Are you sure you really think that'
Apparent Unanimity:
Everyone appears unanimous = illusion
Morality:
Ideology that communism = politics of devil
Biased perceptions of the Out Group:
Underestimation of risk
Defective decision-making strategies:
Group will seize 1st solution & make-up reasons why its the right approach
Causes
Cohesiveness, isolation, leadership
BOP members were friends elevated into important decision - they already had cohesiveness, locked itself away from outside influence (secret group)
Leadership - autocratic rather than democratic leader
Thatcher & Kennedy
- decisional stress - doctors, military & politicians
GT Examples
Aviation Disaster
Flight takes off whilst another plane is still on runway
583 people died - due to no one questioning the captain
Decisional stress- time it would have taken to transfer passengers etc.
Illusion of unanimity
Cuban Missile Crisis
Same group as BOP but they made the right decision
Refused to state own opinion
Wanted open discussion, split groups into 2
Every time someone came up with an idea, they had to come up with potential pitfalls
Challenger Disaster
Rocket exploded, killing all on board
Engineers (experts) recommended not launching
Cohesive group
- people had worked together for years, confident and respected each other - team feeling
Knew it was dangerous in cold condition - unproved weakness - Bravado - it won't go wrong
Told to prove something would go wrong - engineers couldn't prove anything
NASA made jokes about the engineers - unsure ones were taken aside and pressured into agreeing with NASA
Not all forms of cohesiveness are detrimental
Mullen
- Meta-analysis of 7 studies
Cohesive groups do make poorer decisions
But only when other GT symptoms are also present (e.g. decisional stress)
Other symptoms not present -> cohesive groups tended to make
better
decisions