Experiments exploring the effects of group discussion on attitudes, jury decisions, ethical decisions, judgments, person perceptions, negotiations, and risk taking (other than the choice-dilemmas task) are generally consistent with a \"group polarization\" hypothesis, derived from the risky-shift literature. Recent attempts to explain the phenomenon fall mostly into one of three theoretical approaches: (a) group decision rules, especially majority rule (which is contradicted by available data), (b) interpersonal comparisons (for which there is mixed support), and (c) informational influence (for which there is strong support). A conceptual scheme is presented which integrates the latter two viewpoints and suggests how attitudes develop in a social context.

The group polarization phenomenon.

In 1954 Leon Festinger, a brilliant young experimental social psychologist in the process of inventing a new theory of human behavior - the theory of cognitive dissonance - and two of his colleagues, Henry Riecken and Stanley Schachter, infiltrated a cult who believed the end of the world was only months away. How would these people feel when their prophecy remained unfulfilled? Would they admit the error of their prediction, or would they, as Festinger predicted, readjust their reality to make sense of the new circumstances? Not only is When Prophecy Fails of great historical importance as the first test of a powerful theory, but it is also a surprisingly touching account of what happens to ordinary people under extraordinary circumstances.

When Prophecy Fails.

Publisher Summary The chapter explains the group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior. The chapter highlights the concept of group polarization with four observations. First, remember that group polarization refers to a strengthening of the dominant tendency, not to increased cleavage and diversity within a group. Second, it denotes an exaggeration of the initial mean tendency derived from data averaged over groups (this includes between-subject designs where baseline choices made alone are compared with choices made by other people following group discussion of group decision.) Note, third, that the polarization hypothesis is a more precise prediction than group extremization, which denotes movement away from neutrality regardless of direction. Finally, group polarization can occur without individual group members becoming more polarized. This could easily happen if a sharply split group of people converged on a decision that was slightly more polar than their initial average. In addition, future study of group interaction seems, therefore, to have the potential of developing a creative synthesis between theory and its social usefulness, thus making this an area that fulfills Kurt Lewin's vision for social psychology.

Group-Induced Polarization of Attitudes and Behavior

This paper gives a summary of the procedures and results of 11 experiments on the effects of group discussion. A wide range of personality and situational features were manipulated as independent v...

A Review of Our Research on Group Polarization: Eleven Experiments on the Effects of Group Discussion on Risk Acceptance, Probability Estimation, and Negotiation Positions:

Social influence is fundamental to group dynamics and is arguably the core feature of interpersonal relations generally. This chapter outlines the key aspects of social influence and depicts their manifestation in dyadic, group, and societal contexts. We first distinguish among influence processes based on external control (e.g., differential power, reward and punishment), manipulation (e.g., flattery, commitment, reciprocity), and interpersonal coordination (e.g., conformity, suppression of individuality). We then discuss how global properties of a social system (e.g., norms, public opinion) emerge from influence processes operating between individuals, and how these group-level properties in turn influence individual thought and behavior. This reciprocal influence between the individual and society is discussed in terms of recent developments in the study of complex systems and illustrated in research employing models of cellular automata. Different scenarios of societal change (e.g., incremental vs. catastrophic) are documented in terms of the complex systems perspective, as are basic dimensions of cultural variation (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism, stability vs. change). In a concluding section, we suggest that although the various forms of social influence can be understood and investigated in terms of distinct mechanisms and consequences, they all represent manifestations of a press toward coherence in mental and social systems.


Keywords:

complex systems;
conformity;
interdependence;
manipulation;
obedience to authority;
reactance;
social dilemmas;
social norms;
social power

Social Influence and Group Dynamics

While a considerable amount of research has centered on explaining the risky shift (enhancement of risk acceptance through group discussion; see, for example, Dion, Baron, and Miller, 1970), few studies have investigated the generality of the phenomenon. Three of several ways in which the laboratory context is usually lacking of reality are: (a) The decision consequences are imaginary, as in the ‘Choice-Dilemma’ situations used in most of the risky-shift research; (b) the decision consequences - even if they are real (e.g. money) - are slight; and (c) the decisions are made for oneself (whereas in real life many decisions involve agents acting on behalf of others).



The present study was designed to investigate the effects of the above three factors - type of incentive, magnitude of stake and decision target - using a betting task as the decision situation.

Factors limiting the generality of the risky‐shift phenomenon

Die seltene Gelgenheit, die Auflosung kognitiver Inkonsistenzen in einer nicht-experimentellen Situation beobachten zu konnen, war bei der Landtagswahl 1975 in Nordrhein-Westfalen gegeben: Bei jenen Wahlern, die eine Wahlniederlage der eigenen Partei antizipieren, tritt kognitive Dissonanz auf. Die Hypothese, das bei Inkonsistenz zwischen der zu wahlenden Partei (Wahlabsicht) und der als Sieger erwarteten (Wahlsiegvorhersage) die politische Bedeutung der Wahl starker abgewertet wird als bei Konsistenz, wurde deutlich signifikant bestatigt. Dieses Ergebnis ist dissonanztheoretisch erklarbar.

Kognitive Konsequenzen der Wahl eines Verlierers

Abstract The election of the ‘Landtag von Nordrhein-Westfalen’ in 1975 was one of the infrequent occasions of being able to examine the resolution of cognitive inconsistencies in a natural-occurring event: Voters who expect their own party to lose will experience cognitive dissonance. There was significant confirmation for the hypothesis that inconsistency between the party to be voted and the party expected to win (i.e. the person will vote for a loser) leads to a stronger devaluation of the political relevance of the election than consistency. This finding can be explained by the theory of cognitive dissonance. Zusammenfassung Die seltene Gelegenheit, die Auflösung kognitiver Inkonsistenzen in einer nicht-experimentellen Situation beobachten zu können, war bei der Landtagswahl 1975 in Nordrhein-Westfalen gegeben: Bei jenen Wählern, die eine Wahlniederlage der eigenen Partei antizipieren, tritt kognitive Dissonanz auf. Die Hypothese, daß bei Inkonsistenz zwischen der zu wählenden Partei (Wahlabsicht) und der als Sieger erwarteten (Wahlsiegvorhersage) die politische Bedeutung der Wahl stärker abgewertet wird als bei Konsistenz, wurde deutlich signifikant bestätigt. Dieses Ergebnis ist dissonanztheoretisch erklärbar.

Kognitive Konsequenzen der Wahl eines Verlierers / Cognitive Consequences of Voting for a Loser

Summary Two hundred German secondary school students were promised different monetary rewards for performing either attitude-discrepant or attitude-congruent behavior. After the performance they made ratings of their attitude toward the attitude-object and evaluated the attractiveness of the behavior. After attitude-congruent behavior, attitude change towards the performed behavior was stronger with decreasing amount of reward. This result supports self-perception theory and contradicts incentive theory. On the other hand, the task was evaluated as more attractive the more the amount of reward increased. After attitude-discrepant behavior, there was a dissonance effect if the Ss were insufficiently rewarded, and an incentive effect if the reward was sufficient or oversufficient. This result cannot be explained by any of the theories in question, but it is in accordance with recent theoretical propositions by Gerard, Conolley, and Wilhelmy.

Randolph Ochsmann

Papers

Factors limiting the generality of the risky‐shift phenomenon

Kognitive Konsequenzen der Wahl eines Verlierers

Kognitive Konsequenzen der Wahl eines Verlierers / Cognitive Consequences of Voting for a Loser

The Effects of Discrepant or Congruent Behavior and Reward upon Attitude and Task Attractiveness.