PS2030 6

Social comparison theory

(Normative influence): group polarization occurs as a result of individuals' desire to gain acceptance and be perceived in a favorable way by their group. people first compare their own ideas with those held by the rest of the group; they observe and evaluate what the group values and prefers. In order to gain acceptance, people then take a position that is similar to everyone else's but a little more extreme.

Janis (1972)

Bay of Pigs invasion - one of the worst fiascoes ever perpetrated by a responsible government. Groupthink: a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members; striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action

Vinokur et al. (1985)

Cohesiveness is not an important factor for the emergence of groupthink but that the style of leader is. Results suggested that decision making processes and outcomes were not affected detrimentally by group cohesiveness Not all forms of cohesiveness are detrimental, it is mainly through friendship that problems arise

Herek et al. (1987)

Correlational support for groupthink with archival research

Fraser (1974)

Criticism of polarization research: research has failed to find polarization in real decision making contexts and groups: group-decision making in a Student's Union

Kaplan (1989)

Evidence in support of persuasive argument theory: people seek polarization based on persuasive arguments

Cartwright (1975)

Gangs: when like minded people (UK: young and unemployed men) join together, gangs can form. During community conflicts, like-minded people associate together more frequently. Extreme view they hold of rival gang is an example of gropu polarization

Maccoby (2003)

Gender differences in children (example of everyday group polarization): gender segregation with children at young ages

Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969)

Group polarization: phenomenon whereby group discussoin typically strengthens the average inclination of group members (groups do not make riskier decisions but more extreme decisions) Attitudes to French president and Americans: attitudes can be made to be more negative or positive

Whyte (1993)

Groups exacerbate the "too much invested to quit" phenomeno

Postmes et al.

Internet intensifies polarization effects: groups can have a more powerful effect on individuals as virtual groups

Wright (2003)

Internet makes it much easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallize diffused hatred and mobilize lethal force

Flowers (1977)

Is leadership style more important than thought: groups with directive leaders proposed fewer solutions, shared less case information, and used fewer facts before and after reaching decisions than participative groups, but cohesion (prior friendship) did not affect these processes

Bay of Pigs (1961)

JFK leads: certain norms regarding asking questions, authority, order of questioning was rarely broken

Isozaki (1984)

Japanese students judging guilt of someone accused of a road traffic offense: guilt judgments were found to polarize towards the extreme Group discussion would solidify pre-existing views, and would hold them more confidently

KLM-Pan Am aviation disaster (1977)

KLM 747 and Pan Am 747 collide on a runway in Tenerife: 583 dead. Captain of KLM flight, who initaited early take off was an influential leader with many hours of experience, however there was norm of not questioning a captain. Causes: norms, decisional stress (maximum number of service hours nearly up for the crew, would otherwise have to switch crews), illusions of unanimity. Crew Resource Management: it is okay for pilots to challenge captains, no partnering of captains with many years of experience with newbies

Mullens et al. (1994)

Meta-analysis: cohesive groups do make poorer decisions, but only when other groupthink symptoms are also present (decisional stress for instance). If other groupthink symptoms are not present, then cohesive groups tend to make better decisions

Brown (1988)

Not always a comparison group in real life, SCT is not always useful. Criticism of polarization research: most experiments use ad hoc lab groups, only existing in lab environments

Burnstein and Vinokur (1977)

Persuasive argument theory (informational influence): group discussion elicits a pooling of ideas, most of which favor a dominant view. Groups are more likely to adopt a pre-existing belief because of discussions about the topic which strengthen individual views. Some views will be novel to individuals, and even if people forward their argument without revealing their position, polarization still happens

Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)

Preventing groupthink: how did the same gropu who failed with bay of pigs invasion, get it right with Cuban missile crisis. Limiting premature seeking of concurrence: - new ideas welcomed - JFK refused to state his opinion and discouraged disrespectful behavior - 2 groups - invited outside expert opinions - Robert Kennedy as the devil's advocate

Myers and Bishop (1970)

Racial attittudes in the US: groups who were low in racial prejudice were found to be less prejudiced after a group conversation - groups who were high in racial prejudice were found to be even more prejudiced after a group conversation

Turner (1985)

Self-categorization theory (stems from SIT): if the group norm is polarized, conformity to the ingroup norm and group polarization occur - if the group norm is not polarized, there is convergence to the mean group position Group polarization occurs because individuals identify with a particular group and conform to a prototypical group position that is more extreme than the group mean. In contrast to social comparison theory and persuasive argumentation theory, the self-categorization model maintains that inter-group categorization processes are the cause of group polarization

Tetlock et al. (1992)

Some evidence that Janis' distinction between symptoms and causes doesn't always hold

Clement and Sullivan (1970)

Some externally valid studies have found evidence for group polarization: psychology students were asked to select exam schedules (recorded answers before and after group setting) Results: 4 out of 5 groups shifted their results. Majority (90%) of participants shifted in conservative direction, suggests that risky shift effect is a result of lab conditions

Groupthink (causes, symptoms, treatments)

Symptoms: - personal pressure - self-censorship - mind-guards - apparent unanimity - illusions of invulnerability - illusions of morality (for the greater good) - biased perceptions of the outgroup - defective decision making strategies (sticking to the first solution) Causes: - cohesiveness (we are social creatures: people in comfortable groups are more likely to make bad decisions to avoid group conflict) - isolation (in isolated groups there are no outsiders to inflict doubt or ensure rational decision making) - leadership - decisional stress

The Challenger Disaster (1986)

Temperature in the -20s F (nothing had ever been launched in such weather conditions). 73 seconds after launch, Challenger exploded killing all 7 astronauts. Presidential commission: flawed decision making was a primary contributing cause. Meetings throughout the day and night following an initial decision not to launch because of weather. However, highest level of management personnel proposed to launch. Morning of launch engineers of Challenger recommended not to launch. Conditions: - cohesive group: people worked together for many years, confident and respected each other, team feeling - leader preference: 2 top level managers promoted their pro-launch view - isolation (from experts): engineers made recommendations however management did not meet them directly - phone calls vs face to face Symptoms: - perceived invulnerability: o-ring weakness - rationalization: NASA had felt pressure to demonstrate they were in the lead of the Space Race - direct pressure - illusion of unanimity - self-censorship - morality - stereotyped view of others (experts, managers) - pressure on dissent - self censorship

McCauley (2002)

Terrorism: terrorist cells who work in a larger network, most terrorists would have never become terrorists if acting alone, but because of group polarization and other forces, this happens