Social facilitation, decisions and groupthink

Social facilitation - Norman Triplett, 1898: Cyclists were faster competing against each other

Social group decision making -> Make better decisions in groups when problem has precise, factual answer. Individuals concerned with: a. Being judged by others  b. Pleasing leader  c. Not hurting people's feelings  d. Avoiding responsibility if things go wrong

Groupthink -> Style of thinking in which group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering facts realistically.

When will group think occur? 1. When group is ruled by distinctive leader  2. When it is cohesive    3. Group isolates self from contrary opinions - ignores/reflects alternate viewpoints, members discouraged from one's own ideas

Symptoms of groupthink: a) Feel group is invulnerable, morally correct and can do no harm   b) Urge eachother to conform to group's decisions to reach consensus.  c) Self-censorship - withold info that would go against popular views as they don't want to bring down group morale/kicked out

Alport, 1920's: Students gave philosophical arguments in 5 mins. Did better when worked alone. Presence of others inhibits arithmetic, memory tasks and maze learning. Enhanced performance with well-learned, simple tasks.

Zajonc, 1965: Presence of others - increase dominant response tendencies

Michael's et al, 1982: Secretely observed pool players alone rated as skilled or unskilled. Researchers went and watched them. Skilled=played better, unskillled=played worse

Social loafing -> Less effort when on a group task in which individuals contributions cannot be monitored

Reasons for social facilitation: 1. Mere presence - Having others around makes us alert.  2. Evaluation apprehension - If others can evaluate us, we have increased arousal   3. Distraction-conflict theory - Being aware of another's presence created conflict between attending to person and task (split attention)

Mere presence: Markus, 1978: Participants put on special experimenter gear either alone, with a person watching attentively or repairman who had back turned to them. Took most time when watching attentively, least when alone.

Evaluation apprehension: Cottrell et al, 1968: List of 10 nonsense words e.g. paratif, mensoma. Asked to pronounce words either 1, 2, 5, 10 or 25 times making some more familiar. Pseudorecognition task - told to identify words as quickly flashed on the screen. Complete task with someone watching attentively or blindfolded. Only affected by attentive audience.

Sanders & Baron, 1975, Baron et al, 1978: Dual-task experiments - show social facilitation effects. Less attentive to aditional tasks when attention is divided. Outcomes of groupthink: Groups make better decisions to the extent group members have divergent opinion. Can lead to bad decisions.

JFK - Bay of Pigs: Kennedy and advisor approved covert invasion at Bay of Pigs. Lack air support, ammo and an escape route, surrendered or died. Kennedy's top advisor unwilling to challenge bad ideas as it may disturb perceived/desired group agreement.

Antecedent conditions:

HIgh cohesiveness, insulation of group. Lack of procedures for info search and appraisal. Directive leadership, high stress, low degree of hope for finding a better solution than one favoured by leader or other influential people.

Motivation: Concurrence seeking

Symptoms of groupthink:

• Illusions of invulnerability (group can do no wrong)
• Collective rationalism (all have group opinion)
• Belief in inherent morality of group
• Stereotypes of outgroup, self-censorship
• Direct pressure on dissenters, illusion of unanimity

Symptoms of defective decision making: Incomplete survey of objectives & alternatives. Poor information search, failure to examine risks of preferred choice. Selective bias in processing information at hand. Failure to reappraose alternatives, failure to work out contingency plans.

Antecedent conditions - arise if group is cohesive, protected from outsiders and has strong, directive leadership. Motivation - arises if group has a strong goal to agree/come to consensus

Preventing groupthink: 1. Group leaders remain impartial as members will try to please them if opinion is known. 2. Group members must seek divergent opinions. 3. Create subgroups which meet separately beforehand. 4. Seek anonymous opinions. 5. Do anything else which could promote being correct over maintaining solidarity.

Group polarisation explanations: A) Persuasive arguments account - when people share ideas, everyone gets exposed to new arguments to push you further in that direction.  B) Social comparison account - When you make a decision, you're motivated to think it's good - if the decision calls for risky choice, want to think you're risky.  C) Risk as valued trait. Elicits halo effect.

Risky shift = Tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than individuals would make

Stoner, 1961: Participants given 12 scenarios where they could make cautious/risky decision. First responded individually, then met with others to discuss and arrive at a conclusion. Results: On 10/12, group recommended riskier options than individuals.

Group polarisation -> Tendency of group decisions to be more extreme than those made alone. Make people either more risky or more cautious. If group decision making effects are about extremity, they should occur even for non-risk assessment topics e.g. opinions.

Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969: Expressed opinions about General Charles DeGaulle and Americans first individually and then as a group. Group opinion of GCD more positive as group, opinion of America more negative as a group.

Modern issues: Must insulate themselves from different opinions. When people want to discuss important issues, they seek out forums they already agree with and leave with stronger views. Allows people to find people who agree with them - increases political polarisation