Opinion Formation in Groups and Group Dynamics
Opinion Formation in Groups
This study guide covers the components of opinion formation within groups including the dynamics of group norms, conformity, and groupthink as laid out in Chapter 9, pages 310-331 of the provided transcript.
Social Norms
Social norms are the accepted ways to think, feel, and act within a group. They act as mental representations that inform individuals about appropriate behaviors and attitudes.
Group Norms
Group norms are specific behaviors that are expected from members within a group. Some examples of basic group norms include:
No side conversations: Maintaining focus during discussions.
Confront and support your peers: Encouraging constructive feedback among group members.
Be respectful/respect others: Upholding a culture of respect within the group.
No leaning back in chairs: Encouraging a posture that reflects engagement.
No yelling: Ensuring discussions remain civil.
Participate: Active involvement is expected from all members.
Raise hand to speak: Establishing a norm for orderly communication.
One person speaks at a time: Preventing interruptions and confusion.
Ask permission to get out of your seat: Encouraging respect for the discussion process.
Don't cause a disturbance: Maintaining a conducive environment for discussion.
Don't belittle anyone: Fostering a supportive environment.
Types of Social Norms
Descriptive Social Norms: These norms describe what the group typically does. They provide a benchmark for behavior by showcasing common actions.
Injunctive Social Norms: This type involves the group’s expectations about what members should do. It denotes the correct behavior as determined by social consensus.
Comparison of Norms
Descriptive Norms: Individuals observe others' behaviors and use these observations as heuristics for their own actions.
Injunctive Norms: Represent what people collectively believe ought to be done; this requires greater cognitive processing.
Combination Effects
The combination of descriptive and injunctive norms tends to exert the strongest influence on behavior. Mismatches between the two can often lead to a situation where descriptive norms have a more substantial effect than injunctive norms.
Establishing Group Norms (Sherif, 1936)
Sherif's study on the autokinetic effect (illusory motion) demonstrated how group norms form. Participants spoke their judgments aloud, which led to a convergence in estimated answers, showcasing the power of group influence.
Types of Influences in Conformity
Informational Influence (Mastery): This occurs when individuals believe that the agreement of independent judgments by many people hints at the correctness of the information. The motivation to be accurate leads to a higher reliance on others' opinions.
Normative Influence (Asch, 1951): This type of influence arises in clear, unambiguous perceptual contexts. In Asch's classic experiments with confederates providing incorrect judgments, about 75% of actual participants conformed at least once, highlighting the powerful impact of group pressure.
Conformity
Conformity is the process wherein individuals adjust their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors to reflect group norms. This phenomenon is influenced by two main factors:
Connectedness: The desire to avoid criticism or ostracism from group members and to express group identity.
Mastery: The belief that others must be correct, leading the individual to doubt their own understanding.
Types of Conformity
Private Conformity: Individuals genuinely believe the group is correct and continue conforming even when the group is absent.
Public Conformity: Individuals behave in accordance with norms while harboring private doubts about their correctness, often functioning on a basis of “going along to get along.” This involves an interplay of rewards and punishments.
Consensus in Groups
The consensus among group members can be seen positively, as it may lead to more valid conclusions. However, group processes do not inherently guarantee that consensus is achieved through careful analysis of evidence.
The Similarity-Difference Paradox
Individuals tend to trust those who are similar to them in belief systems but often trust consensus drawn from more heterogeneous groups.
The Dark Side of Consensus
When consensus is reached without critical evaluation, it may rely on heuristics rather than well-reasoned arguments, leading to unreliable outcomes. Additionally, when group members share a bias, the convergence of opinions may not reflect truth.
Groupthink
The concept of groupthink, introduced by Janis (1972) using the example of the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, highlights a gathering of consensus without thorough consideration of facts. Common features include:
Suppression of dissenting opinions.
Public conformity without genuine acceptance of ideas.
Groupthink can arise from a lack of diverse opinions and self-censorship within the group.
False Consensus Effect (Ross et al., 1977)
This refers to the tendency of individuals to overestimate the extent to which others agree with their own beliefs. It connects to both the connectedness aspect of social relations and the mastery need for individuals to feel correct in their beliefs.
Pluralistic Ignorance
This phenomenon occurs when individuals privately reject norms or beliefs but mistakenly believe that others accept these norms, leading to a collective misrepresentation of the group's attitudes.
Cures for Faulty Group Decisions
Strategies to mitigate the risks of poor decision-making in groups include:
Encouraging open inquiry.
Promoting dissenting opinions.
Selecting members for their diversity of thought.
Reducing pressures for conformity.
Employing democratic leadership styles.
Assigning a devil's advocate role to challenge group thinking.
Risk Taking in Groups
The concept known as the risky shift was outlined by Stoner in 1961, which indicates that group decisions can sometimes skew towards riskier choices. However, not all decisions made in groups veer towards increased risk levels.
Group Polarization (Moscovici, Zavelloni, 1969)
This is defined as the tendency for a group's position to become more extreme as a result of discussions and social influences. Two mechanisms contribute to this process:
Informational Influence: Gaining of more arguments leads to more confidence in the group's position.
Normative Influence: Individuals desire to be seen as good group members, which can further entrench group beliefs.
Deindividuation in Groups
The process of deindividuation involves reduced self-awareness and accountability in groups, leading to a state where individuals may follow group norms more blindly. Key studies on deindividuation include:
Festinger, Pepitone, Newcomb (1952): Found increased attention to group processes and disinhibition amongst group members.
Zimbardo’s Study on Deindividuation
Zimbardo’s studies (1952/1973) showed that deindividuation could lead to increased aggression in some cases; however, Johnson & Downing (1979) demonstrated situations in which deindividuation resulted in less aggression.
Effect Size Snapshot
Research across different populations has indicated varied levels of anti-normative behavior quantified by effect sizes such as:
Children: r = .23*
Students: r = .09*
Adults: r = -.09 n.s.
Where r signifies the correlation coefficient measuring the strength and direction of a linear relationship between deindividuation and behavior.
Group Dynamics (Kurt Lewin, 1890-1947)
Kurt Lewin highlighted the complexity of group dynamics, encapsulating concepts such as:
Gestalt Theory: Emphasizing that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
Aspects of group formation and decision-making.
Interactions occurring within groups and between different groups.
The role of leadership in facilitating group processes.
The Power of Group Norms (Kurt Lewin, 1943)
Lewin’s work emphasized the impact that group discussions have on norms and behaviors. For example, in a study with nutritionists, only 30% adhered to the norms while 3% broke them, showcasing the influence of group norms on individual choices.
In conclusion, understanding the mechanisms of opinion formation in groups, the nature and impact of social norms, as well as the dynamics of conformity and groupthink, is pivotal for analyzing group behavior in both academic and practical contexts. These insights provide a comprehensive backdrop for examining how group interactions shape individual views and decisions.