Groupthink and Group Polarization PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes on lectures covering "Groupthink and Group Polarization" and "Synchrony, Power and Deindividuation" from Persuasion (COMM 302) with Professor Ken Sereno....

Description

Groupthink and Group Polarization The Nature of Groups ● Group= two or more people who influence each other ● Collections of individuals become increasingly “group-like” when they: ○ Are interdependent ○ Share a common identity ○ Have a group structure (i.e., hierarchy) ● Real groups (e.g., sororities) are distinguished from aggregations (e.g., crowds of strangers on the streety) by: ○ Interdependence: group members need each other to reach shared goals ○ Group identity: individuals perceive themselves as belonging together ○ Structure Group structure ● Roles= expectations held by group members for how members in particular positions ought to behave ● Status hierarchy=ranking of group members by their power and influence over other members Groups-the good Groups can do more than individuals Solidarity can enable big social changes (e.g., Civil Rights movement) Brainstorming. Diverse ideas and opinions spur innovation Combined memory, shared narratives. We can only hold so much in our head. As a group, we can remember more. ● Wisdom of crowds. There are a lot of things you can do with groups that you can’t do with individuals. Can make better decisions. Social Facilitation ● ● ● ●

● The very first social psychology experiment ○ Triplett (1989) observed that cyclists recorded faster times when competing against others than when racing alone. ○ Designed an experiment to test whether the presence of others facilitates human performance ○ Assigned groups of children to reel in fishing lines alone and besides another child and found faster times when the child was co-acting with another person. ○ Concludes that the presence of others facilitates performance ○ Coined that social facilitation ● However, subsequent studies showed that often the presence of other can impair performance. The Presence of Others ● Zajonc’s presence= the presence of others increases arousal, and arousal increases an

individual’s dominant responses (our most practice response ○ A dominant response is the response that one is most likely to make ○ For an easy or well-practiced task, the dominant response is often correct ○ For a difficult or novel task, the dominant response is often incorrect ○ Thus, the presence of others can facilitate performance of easy tasks but may impair performance of difficult tasks ● Tests of the theory ○ Examined the effects of social facilitation using cockroaches running mazes in the presence or absence of other roaches ○ In the presence of spectator roaches, the test roaches ran faster through a simple maze but slower through a complex maze ○ Mere presence of others increases overall arouses, which increased dominant response tendencies, which could be good or bad. In easy tasks, the dominant response is correct, which leads to social facilitation. On harder tasks, the dominant response is incorrect. Sources of Arousal ● Evaluation apprehension= people’s concern about how they might appear in the eyes of others--- that is, about being evaluated ○ Study found participants made more dominant responses in front of an audience that could evaluate their performance…? ○ Only an evaluative audience affected the dominant response rate. ○ Responses in front of a blindfolded audience were comparable to those when the participant was alone. Being blindfolded was just like doing the task by yourself. Distraction-conflict theory ● Distraction-conflict theory ○ Being aware of another person’s presence creates a conflict between attending to that person and attending to the task at hand ○ This attentional conflict is arousing and produces social facilitation effects ● Distraction-conflict ○ The mere presence of others may increase arousal because attention becomes divided between the task and the audience ● Study examined how fast people changed their shoes when they were alone compared to when other people were present ● Even though participants had no sense of being evaluated while changing their shoes, they did so faster in the presence of another person even if that person wasn’t watching them ● The amount of time participants took to change each item of clothing varied based on whether they were changing their own clothing or novel lab clothing and whether they were alone or in the presence of another who was ignoring them (merely present) or evaluating them (attentive audience).

● For novel tasks, alone was the slowest. Merely present audience, they were faster. The attentive audience went the fastest. ● For well-learned tasks (own shoes), it was the opposite. Practical Applicants ● Study alone ○ Learning complex material is easier without other people present ○ Study groups may be useful to consolidating material and getting information or perspectives that you may not have, but study groups should not be used to learn new information. ● Simple or repetitive work should be done with others ● Complex or novel work should be done alone ○ Workers with difficult or complex jobs may benefit by having their own private work area or office Social Loafing ● In some situations, the presence of others may decrease effort and performance ● Social loafing= tendency to exert less effort when working on a group task, especially when individual contributions can’t be measured ○ For instance, in tug-of-war, the more people pulling means that each person will pull with less force than if they were pulling alone ● Social loafing can be avoided by making individual contributions identifiable and by emphasizing that each person’s unique contribution is crucial for overall success Practical Applications ● When working in groups ○ Divide?? ○ ?? Group Decision Making ● Although groups often make better decisions than individuals…? Groupthink ● Groups that are highly cohesive can produce poor group decisions because maintaining group harmony maybe emphasized over making an accurate judgement ● Historic examples ○ Kennedy administration’s invasion of Cuba’s Bay of Pigs without providing proper air cover ■ The invasion failed and US agents were captured ○ Lack of precaution at Pearl Harbor despite warning of an imminent attack ○ Decision to launch Challenger Decision to launch the Challenger ● January 28, 1986, Challenger was launched from Kennedy Space Center. It was too cold to launch (mid-20s), well below previous low temperatures at which engines had been

tested. And after 73 seconds after launch, it exploded, killing all 7 astronauts. Subsequent evidence indicated that it was caused by erosion of O-rings, which allowed hot gases to burn through the engines. ● Analysis of the disaster indicated that major contributory cause was flawed decision making in the Level 1 Flight Readiness Review meeting. Took place the previous day from about noon to midnight that evening. Compromised the highest levels of management at the 3 space centers: Kennedy, Johnson, and Marshal, as well…? ● MTI engineers recommended that the Challenger should not be launched if temperature of the O-rings was below 53 F, which was the lowest temperature of any previous flight. Yet at the end of discussion that day, it was launched. ● WHY? Groupthink-Challenger ● Antecedent Conditions ○ Cohesive group- members of the NASA team had been together for years and come up through the ranks together ○ Leader preference- two top level NASA managers strongly pushed for launch in face of opposition ○ Insulation from Experts- MTA engineers made their recommendations early in the evening, but were essentially excluded from subsequent discussions ● Symptoms of Groupthink ○ Illusion of invulnerability- because they had been so successful for so long, they figured things would always be successful ○ Rationalization- despise evidence of erosion of O-rings on previous flights, they kept explaining results away, bringing in inconsistent data ○ Belief in own morality- they thought own actions were right, and ignored ethical consequences of their decisions ○ Stereotype view of others- thought they knew everything and denigrated the MTA engineers as not understanding things ○ Pressure on dissent- two top managers kept pressuring MTI managers to change their recommendations. Pressured them to prove it was unsafe to launch rather than safe (which is a typical procedure) ○ Self-censorship- members of group don’t speak up to avoid being a deviant ○ Illusion of unanimity (pluralistic ignorance)- because doubters don’t speak up, everyone thinks there is more agreement than there is. Play up convergence of thinking rather than exploring possible divergence, which again leads to perception of unanimity ○ Mindguarding- certain group members shield the group from adverse information that might destroy majority view (one member deliberately withheld info that engines had been redesigned 5 times) ● Decision making defects

○ COnsideration of few alternatives- only considered launch/no launch. Didn’t talk about delay ○ No re-examination of alternatives- never went back and reviewed negative early info from engineers ○ Rejecting expert opinion- figured they knew everything. Didn’t seek out experts and actively rejected what they had ○ Rejecting Negative information - focused only on positive information. Even though MTI reps kept trying to point out flaws they were rejected or ignored by NASA ○ No contingency plans- never considered what they would do if they were wrong ○ “Hope is not a plan” How to Combat Groupthink ● Play devil’s advocate, forcing consideration of both sides ● Examine the risks of the preferred action ● Group leader should be as impartial as possible ● Divide into subgroups (easier to dissent) ● Take secret, anonymous votes ● Decide on decision criteria before making decision Group polarization ● Group polarization= enhancement of group’s prevailing inclinations through discussion within the group ● Why it occurs? ○ Persuasive arguments-- others present good arguments that you are already inclined to agree with ○ Social comparison-- similar position but slightly more extreme to seem impressive ○ (Likely) no dissenters ○ We like similar others; inclined to agree with them ● Group polarization is more extreme…? ● Why do groups make more extreme decisions? ○ ?? ○ Risky shift= the tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than individuals would ● For Americans, taking a risk may be seen as a virtue. Group discussions may encourage a favorable view of risk taking and so the group decision becomes more extreme. ○ In cultures that don’t value risk taking, group discussions lead to more conservative decisions. Synchrony, Power and Deindividuation Synchrony

● The good, the bad, the lack of concern of being ugly Synchrony leads to group cohesion ● Coordinated action can increase liking and rapport ● Synchrony can blur the boundaries between the self and the group ● Distinction between individual welfare and group welfare becomes less important Study 1: The Good ● Manipulated variable ○ Synchrony in cups and music task ■ Control didn’t do anything vs. synchronous singing vs. synchronous singing and moving vs. asynchronous singing and moving ● Dependent variable: ○ Public Goods Game (decide how many tokens to put in each) ■ Each of three participants has 10 tokens in each of the 5 rounds ■ Participants earn $.50 for each token in private account ■ All participants earn $.25 for each token in public account ● Will synchronizing increase in cooperation? ○ Control group contributed an average of 4 tokens to public account ○ Asynchronous was about the same ○ Any synchrony was leading people to contribute more to the public account (about 6 tokens) ○ Synchrony can increase cooperation within a group The Other Face of Synchrony ● Increased compliance with requests to aggress Study 2: The Bad ● Experimenter giving participants demands to kill bugs (grind up bugs). ● How many bugs did people grind? ○ In synchrony with experimenter conditions, they put a higher number of bugs into the grinder. About 65% complied with experimenter’s commands. ○ In the other conditions, the rates were a lot lower. ○ Synchrony had an effect of increasing people’s obedience to authority ○ (Most when synchrony with experimenter) Does Synchrony Diminish Feelings of Self? ● Reduced self-consciousness? Heightened anonymity? Study 3: The (lack of concern for being) ugly ● Had people wearing fanny packs (asynchrony vs. synchrony) and control ● DVs: ○ Self-consciousness index a=.84 ■ How embarrassed ■ How self-conscious

■ How concerned about what other things ● Synchrony: played cups game, synchronous movement ○ Synchrony reduced self-consciousness ○ It increased how much people felt lost-in-the-crowd Summary ● Synchrony breed cooperation ● It also instills susceptibility to influence ● It seems to reduce people’s sense of self Leadership and Power ● Power= the ability to control our own outcomes and those of others; the freedom to act ● Status= the outcome of an evaluation of attributes that produces differences in respect and prominence, which in part determines an individual’s power within a group ● Authority= power that derives from institutionalized roles or arrangements ● Dominance= behavior enacted with the goal of acquiring or demonstrating power Leadership and Power: The Johnson Treatment ● Johnson lorded over people when he was trying to make a point or intimidate someone in order to seem more powerful Leadership and Power ● Approach/inhibition theory= a theory that maintains that high-power individuals are inclined to go after their goals and make quick judgements, where low-power individuals are more likely to inhibit their behavior ● Study: When feeling powerful, participants were less likely to draw a reversed E on their forehead so that it was easy for another person to read. ○ When powerful, less likely to draw the reversed E. ● Study: lower-power members showed greater variation in their teasing depending on who the targets were; they praised the high-power members. High-power frat members uniformly teased in more hostile fashion than low-power members; they didn’t shape their teasing according to who the targets were. ● The work we just talked about indicates that leaders are less inhibited and more approach oriented. ● ??? Power-Communal versus Exchange ● Exchange: I’ll do a favor for you, but I’m expecting that you’ll do something for me ● Communally-oriented: take care of the needs and interests for others ● People in higher power seat were exchanged oriented and behaved in a self-interested way. Those in lower power seat were more communally oriented and more pro-social. Who Wants to Lead? ● What is the impact of different motives? ○ Need for Power= desire to win prestige, status, and influence over others

■ U.S. presidents high in the need for power are more likely to lead the country into military conflict ○ Need for Achievement= desire to do something exceptionally well for its own sake ■ US presidents high in need for achievement more likely to initiate new legislation, and try out new approaches to leadership ○ Gender ■ In a study of workers around the world: ● Men were more interested in power, leadership, and selfrealization ● Women were more interested in quality of life and relationships between people. They have more of a communal view. Who Gets to Lead? ● Not everyone with the motivation to lead is chosen by the group. ● Groups choose leaders who meet current group needs. ● When needs change, different types of leaders may be desirable. ○ EX: when things are going well, American voters choose less dominant presidents Who Becomes a Leader? ● One important determinant of leadership is expertise and skill relevant to the goals ● People choose leaders who fit their images and beliefs about leaders ○ High expertise ○ Self-confidence ○ High participation in group ○ The right look and height ● Some “image” factors may lead groups to choose a man over a more competent woman When are Leaders Effective? ● The best leadership style may depend on the task at hand ● Workers in conventional occupations (e.g., accountants) respond well to task-oriented and authoritative leadership ● Workers in investigative occupations (e.g., professors) prefer to manage themselves Deindividuation ● Many aspects of human behavior only arise when people are in groups ● Deindividuation= decrease in self-awareness resulting in decreased self-regulation and greater conformity to surrounding group norms ● Deindividuation results from feelings of anonymity, lack of accountability, and the energizing effects of being lost in a crowd ● Deindividuation often results in more impulsive, emotional, irrational, and antisocial behaviors ● Historic examples of deindividuation include lynch mobs, riots, and military atrocities ● Antecedent conditions

○ Anonymity ○ Diffusion of responsibility ○ Energizing effects of others ○ Stimulus overload ● Internal state (deindividuation) ○ Lessened self-observation and self-evaluation ○ Lessened concern with the evaluation of others ○ Weakening of internal controls (less shame, guilt, fear, commitment) ● Behavioral effects ○ Impulsivity ○ Irrationality ○ Emotionality ○ Antisocial behaviors ● Suicide baiting: telling people to jump when they are standing on a ledge ● Analyses of newspaper reports found ○ Suicide baiting was twice as likely to occur with a large crowd present ○ Suicide baiting is four times as likely to occur at night Examples of Deindividuation ● Lynchings and warfare ○ Deindividuation may encourage greater levels of brutality directed at groups that are seen as enemies ● Halloween mayhem ○ In America, many forms of uninhibited and impulsive behaviors occur on Halloween ○ The disguised identities of Halloween costumes may lead to deindividuated states ○ Halloween study: at 27 homes, experimenters placed bowls of candy. Children arrived alone or in groups and were told to take one piece of candy. After the adult left, 57% of children in groups stole extra candy, but only 21% of children who were alone did so Self Awareness and Individuation ● Individuation= an enhanced sense of individual identity produced by focusing attention on the self, which generally leads people to act carefully and deliberately and in accordance with their sense of propriety and values Deindividuation - Breaking it down ● James Lawson on “re-individuation” during Civil Rights beatings ○ He was beaten several times in Civil Rights movement. There would be one or two guys that were the main insiders of violence. He would take off his glasses and look in their eyes and talk to them one-to-one. It would have an individuating effect. Those people would leave. Self-Awareness and Individuation

● Self-awareness theory= a theory that maintains that when people… ○ When people focus attention on themselves, they becomes concerned with selfevaluation and behave in ways more consistent with their values and beliefs ● ?? Social roles gone bad ● Social roles simplify interaction and clarify expectations, but can be too influential and constraining ○ Phil Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment: randomly assigned volunteers to prisoners or guards. Guards and prisoners took roles very seriously. Supposed to last 2 week; stopped at 6 days. Abu Ghraib controversy in 2003??? Zimbardo on Abu Ghraib ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Weak leader- Zimbardo and Brig. Gen. Karpinski Secrecy, no accountability Guards stressed, deprived, under-staffed Free to set own interrogation rules Prisoners being another culture worsens effects Power of one whistleblower Both guards and prisoners were deindividuated Similar to Wiltermuth’s bad side of synchrony study Akin to Milgram’s “agentic state” (being just an organ or functionary of the system, losing individual responsibility)...