GRA 6820 The Social Psychology of Decision Making (Harrison, Ch.8)

The Social Psychology of Decision-Making

GRA 6820Strategic Choice

1

GRA 6820

The Social Psychology of Decision Making

(Harrison, Ch.8)



2

Overview of chapter 8

• Individual versus group decision making

• Conflict in decision making

• Participation in decision making

• Gender differences and similarities in decision making

• Summary



3

Social PsychologyA working definition:

”…study of the influence that people have upon the beliefs or behavior of others.”

(Aronson, E. (1972). The Social Animal. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.)

Issues: Conformity Mass communication, propaganda, persuasion Self-justification Predjudice Attraction



4

Limits to team learningDegree of

collaborative design

Shared vision

Joint experimentation

Willingness for public reflection

Tendency to generate shared

insight

Expectations

Fear of failure

Blame or defensive behaviors

Interpreting actions as “failures”

Number of diverse

viewpoints

Potential for conflict

Level of trust

Conflict avoidance behaviors

++

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

Willingness toCommunicate

Willingness toCommunicate

CollaborativeLearning

CollaborativeLearning

InterpretingActions

InterpretingActions

DefensiveBehaviors

DefensiveBehaviors

+

B3

R1

B4B2



5



6

Classification of collective decision theories

TheoreticalPerspective

Individual Preferences

Information

Group Decision

TheoryDifferent

Not considered

Team Theory Same Considered

n-Person Game Theory

Different Considered



7

Decision

Communication

Information Systems

Casting

Scoping

Nested hierarchy of team design problems



8

Why do groups fail...?(or, when 2 + 2 = 3)

• Ineffective leadership skills

• Lack of rigorous methods

• Wrong group structure

• Group member homogeneity



9

Factors affecting group judgment

• Input variables

• Conformity

• Polarization



10

Input variables affecting group processes

• Task norms.

• Process norms.

• Group size.

• Group communication patterns.

• Perceived member status.

• Individual personality characteristics.

• Group experience.



11

Conformity

• Tendency for individual responses to conform more closely to those of the group after exposure to the group’s opinion.

• Factors affecting strength of the effect.– Response uncertainty.– Concern for self image.– To avoid possible censure.

• Classic example - Groupthink.



12

Conformity and consensus

• When consensus is the goal, there is additional stimulus to assent to the group’s position even though one may personally disagree with it.

• Group’s decision rule.

• Factors affecting weight given to individuals’ opinions...

• Quality of resulting consensus...



13

Conformity (likhet, ensrettethet)

Definition:– A change in a person’s behavior or opinions as

a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or a group of people.

Dilemma of being a social animal…– Resultant tension between:

1. Values associated with Individuality.

2. Values associated with Conformity.

The ”Establishment” tends to like Conformists better than Non-conformists.

The ”Establishment” tends to like Conformists better than Non-conformists.



14

Conformity

• Variables that affect conformity behaviorWhether the majority opinion unanimous or not.

Kind of person the individual is (low in self-esteem, for example).

Who is in the reference group.

• Group influence increases if…

– It is composed of experts.

– The members are important to the individual.

– The members are comparable to the individual



15

Group cohesiveness:

Causes and consequences

Gro

up

Co

he

siv

en

es

s

Causes Consequences

Severe initiation

External threat

Lots of time together

Small groups

History of success

Enjoy group membership

Participate in group activitiesAccept group’s goals

Low absenteeism and turnover

Lose sight of goalsMay work against organizational interests

Positive

Negative



16

Conformity in extremis: Groupthink

Observable behaviors

* Incomplete statement of objectives or problem definition.

* Incomplete search foralternatives.

* Failure to reconsider rejected alternatives.

* Poor information search.

* Lack of critical thinking due to biases.

* Failure to re-examine risks of the first choice.

* Failure to develop acontingency plan.

Observable behaviors

* Incomplete statement of objectives or problem definition.

* Incomplete search foralternatives.

* Failure to reconsider rejected alternatives.

* Poor information search.

* Lack of critical thinking due to biases.

* Failure to re-examine risks of the first choice.

* Failure to develop acontingency plan.

COMPULSIVE NEED FOR

AGREEMENT

COMPULSIVE NEED FOR

AGREEMENT

Group leadership and structural problems* Group is insulated.* Ineffective leadership* Wrong structure.* Lack of rigorous methods.* Similar group members.

Group leadership and structural problems* Group is insulated.* Ineffective leadership* Wrong structure.* Lack of rigorous methods.* Similar group members.

Situational factors * High stress. * Low expectations. * Recent failure. * Difficulty with the problem.

Situational factors * High stress. * Low expectations. * Recent failure. * Difficulty with the problem.

Tight knit, cohesive group

Tight knit, cohesive group



17

Groupthink in action:The National Security Council and the Bay of Pigs -

1961NSC assumption1. No one will know that the US is

involved. CIA cover story will be believed.

2. Cuban AF is ineffective and can be destroyed by early attack using two B-26 bombers.

3. 1400-man force has high morale and will be a ”superb” force.

4. Castro’s army is very weak. The brigade will be able to establish a beachhead.

5. Brigade landing will spark sabotage throughout Cuba and lead to Castro’s overthrow.

6. If the landing fails, the brigade can escape to the mountains and reinforce the guerillas.

Available counter-evidence1. Stories appear in newspapers about CIA training

people in Central America. TV also reports this.

2. B-26s were obsolete, required frequent maintenance, could not complete bombing runs. British intelligence reports that Cuban AF is very effective.

3. High initial morale due to CIA lies of US support. NSC members knew of a mutiny attempt in Guatemala – morale was very low.

4. State Dept. knew the army was very efficient and could get to the beachhead rapidly (within 24 hours the brigade was surrounded by 22,000 men).

5. CIA had no firm intelligence about any underground of any size in Cuba. A British paper had surveyed Cuba and found all-time high support for Castro only 4 months earlier.

6. No one was aware of guerilla forces in the mountains. Brigade was trained in brigade tactics – not guerilla warfare. 120km of swamp and dense forest between the Bay and the mountains.



18

Prescriptions for overcoming Groupthink

Set high priority to voicing objections and concerns in the meeting.

Leader should not state preferences in problem diagnosis or solution alternatives.

Break into subgroups, working on the same problem, same goal.

Seek external council, outside the group, subject to confidentiality concerns.

Periodically bring in outside experts to challenge current thinking.

On a rotating basis, use a Devil’s Advocate to challenge current thinking, pick at weak points.

Construct alternate views, scenarios, goals, world views.

Institute a ”second chance” meeting after a conclusion has been reached.



19

Polarization

• Reported tendency for average group members’ responses to shift further in the direction of the group’s initially dominant tendency after interaction and discussion.

• Associated primarily with attitudes and preferences.

• Processes leading to polarization...– Information effect.

– Predominant influence of argument and facts.

– Active espousal of a position.



20

Dysfunctional group behaviors

• Anchoring Effect

• Inequality of Participation

PercentParticipation

Status“Old hands”Extroverts

“Newcomers”Introverts

LowHigh

Causes...• Deference to seniors• Have less to offer• Less data• Wrong group structure



21

Self-justification (selvberettigelse)

• Definition– Actions taken by people to justify or explain

their behaviors to convince themselves (and others) that the selected action was logical and reasonable.

• Basic process – Cognitive Dissonance– A state of tension that occurs when an

individual simultaneously holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.

– An unpleasant experience that people try to reduce.



22

Self ju

stifica

tion

– an e

xam

ple

Washington Post News Service, Novem

ber, 1971



23

Theory of cognitive dissonance

• Man is not a rational animal.

• Man as a rationalizing animal.

• People are not motivated so much to be right – rather, he/she is motivated to believe that he or she is right (wise, decent, good…)

”It’s better to look good than to be good…” Fernando Lamas

”It’s better to look good than to be good…” Fernando Lamas



24

Aspects of dissonance• As a consequence of making a decision

– Importance of irrevocability– Immoral behavior

• Justification of effort– Dissonance theory predicts that if a person

works hard to achieve a goal, that goal will be more attractive to him than for someone who achieves the same goal with little or no effort.

• Justification of cruelty– Why do ”good” people inflict pain on others?– And how do they deal with it?



25

Dissonance reduction and rational behavior

• Dissonance reducing behavior– Negative consequences:

• Maladaptive, keeps us from learning important facts or finding real solutions

– Positive consequences: • Ego defensive behavior, maintains positive self image.

• Results from the lab…– People do not remember in rational-functional manner.– Remember plausible arguments for personal position– Remember implausible arguments in agreement with

opposing position.

Selective Perception



26

Prejudice (fordom)• Definition

– A hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group based on generalizations derived from faulty or incomplete information.

• Closely related to stereotyping.– An over-generalization – attribution of identical characteristics to

any person in a group, regardless of actual variation within the group members.

– Done all the time, can have either positive or negative connotations.

• Characteristics– Most stereotypes are not based on valid experiences.– Hearsay or images from the media are influential.– Oten the stereotypes are constructed from pure fantasy to justify

prejudices and cruelties.



27

Causes of prejudice• Economic and political competition.

– Given limited resources, the dominant group might try to exploit a minority group in order to gain a material advantage.

– Prejudice tends to increase in difficult times.

• Displaced aggression.– Scapegoating.

– Focusing aggression on visible and relatively powerless groups that are disliked to begin with.

– Examples?



28

Causes of prejudice (continued)

• Personality needs.

– Some research has shown that there are certain personality types that are predisposed to being prejudiced, not because of external factors.

– Implications for management?

• Conformity to existing social norms.

– Pressure to conform can be very strong.

– Examples?



29

Responses to social influence• Compliance (imøtekommelighet)

– Mode of behavior of a person who is motivated to gain rewards or avoid punishment.

– Lasts as long as reward/punishment exists.

• Identification– Response brought about by individual’s desire to be like

the influencer.

• Internalization– Most permanent, deeply rooted response to social

influence; reward for the belief is intrinsic.

– The behavior becomes independent of the source and can be hard to change.



Coordinating mechanisms

• Specific actions

• Expected results

• Informal focus on decision processes

• Formal, intermittent focus on decision processes

• Formal, continuous focus on decision processes

Rules, policies and procedures

Goal-setting and planning processes

Task forces and temporary teams

Direct contact and committees

Permanent teams and departments

Coordinating Mechanism Focus



Types of coordination• Cognitive coordination

– The degree to which team members share compatible conceptual structures with respect to the factors that influence the outcomes of their decisions.

• Semantic coordination– Refers to the adequacy and efficiency of the language

used by team members to communicate information.

• Epistemic coordination– Refers to the knowledge aspects of the team problem.

The “need to know” and “ability to know.”



32

Group processes

• Interacting group

• Nominal group technique

• Delphi group



33

Interacting group characteristics

• Most common group structure.

• Problem statement by the group leader.

• Unstructured discussion.

Consequences for problem solving...



34

Interactive group:

Disadvantages• Lack of structure.

• High variability in leaders and members.

• Effort used to maintain socio-emotional relationships.

• Generalization leads to low quality.

• Reactive search behavior, short focus, task avoidance, tangential discussions.

• Dominant individuals control the agenda.

• Group norms emphasize conforming behavior.

• Tendency to conclude without a sense of closure.



35

The Nominal Group technique

4. Each idea is discussed, clarified and evaluated by the group.

4. Each idea is discussed, clarified and evaluated by the group.

3. Each participants’ ideas are presented, one at a time, and recorded.

3. Each participants’ ideas are presented, one at a time, and recorded.

6. Highest ranking idea is taken as the group’s decision.

6. Highest ranking idea is taken as the group’s decision.

5. Participants privately rank the ideas in their order of preference.

5. Participants privately rank the ideas in their order of preference.

2. Participants privately write down ideas about problem solving.

2. Participants privately write down ideas about problem solving.

1. A small group identifies the issue and receives instructions.

1. A small group identifies the issue and receives instructions.



36

Nominal group:

Advantages• Consistency in decision making.

• Balanced concern for socio-emotional and task instrumental roles.

• Opportunity to think and write ideas increases tendency for focused ideas of higher quality.

• Tolerance for “off the wall” ideas.

• Structure forces equality of participation.

• Higher sense of closure, greater feeling of satisfaction, greater willingness to work towards implementation.



37

The Delphi technique

5. Responses shared with all others

5. Responses shared with all others

3. Experts record solutions andrecommendations

3. Experts record solutions andrecommendations

1. Enlistcooperationof experts

1. Enlistcooperationof experts

2. Present the issue tothe experts

2. Present the issue tothe experts

6. Experts comment onothers’ ideas andpropose a solution

6. Experts comment onothers’ ideas andpropose a solution

4. Experts’ responsesare compiled andreproduced

4. Experts’ responsesare compiled andreproduced

If consensus is reached…

If no consensus is reached…

7. Solutions are compiled7. Solutions are compiled

ISSUE

Solution



38

The Delphi method:

Characteristics

• Physically dispersed.

• Systematic collection and combination of information.

• Consensus achieved through feedback.



39

The Delphi method

• Isolated generation of ideas.

• Problem complexity addressed in the process.

• Proactive search behavior.

• Anonymity and isolation.

• Lack of socio-emotional satisfaction.

• Possible communication and interpretation problems.

• Conflicting and incompatible ideas are resolved by pooling.

• No face-to-face problem solving to resolve conflicts.

DisadvantagesAdvantages



40

Dimensions for comparing group processes

• Overall methodology

• Role orientations

• Relative quantity of ideas

• Search behavior

• Nominal behavior

• Equality of participation

• Problem solving methods

• Closure decision process

• Resources utilized

• Time requirements



41

Overall methodology

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Unstructured face-to-face group meeting.

High flexibility.

High variability in behavior of groups.

Unstructured face-to-face group meeting.

High flexibility.

High variability in behavior of groups.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Structured face-to-face group meeting.

Low flexibility.

Low variability in behavior of groups.

Structured face-to-face group meeting.

Low flexibility.

Low variability in behavior of groups.

Delphi groupsDelphi groups

Structured series of questionnaires and feedback reports.

Low variability in respondent behavior.

Structured series of questionnaires and feedback reports.

Low variability in respondent behavior.



42

Role orientation

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Socio-emotional.

Group maintenance focus.

Socio-emotional.

Group maintenance focus.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Balanced focus on social maintenance and task role.

Balanced focus on social maintenance and task role.


Task instrumental focus.

Task instrumental focus.



43

Relative quantity of ideas

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Low.

Focused “rut” effect.

Low.

Focused “rut” effect.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Higher.Independent writing.

Hitch-hiking round robin brainstorming.

Higher.Independent writing.

Hitch-hiking round robin brainstorming.


High.

Isolated writing of ideas.

High.

Isolated writing of ideas.



44

Search behavior

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Reactive search.

Short issue focus.

Task avoidance tendency.

New social knowledge.

Reactive search.

Short issue focus.

Task avoidance tendency.

New social knowledge.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Proactive search.

Extended issue focus.

High task centeredness.

New social and task knowledge.

Proactive search.

Extended issue focus.


New social and task knowledge.


Proactive search.

Controlled issue focus.


New task knowledge.

Proactive search.

Controlled issue focus.


New task knowledge.



45

Normative behavior

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Conformity pressures inherent in face-to-face discussions.

Conformity pressures inherent in face-to-face discussions.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Tolerance for nonconformity through independent search and choice activity.

Tolerance for nonconformity through independent search and choice activity.


Freedom to not conform through isolated anonymity.

Freedom to not conform through isolated anonymity.



46

Equality of participation

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Member dominance in search, evaluation and choice phases.

Member dominance in search, evaluation and choice phases.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Member equality in search and choice phases.

Member equality in search and choice phases.


Respondent equalityin pooling of independent judgments.

Respondent equalityin pooling of independent judgments.



47

Method of problem solving

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Person centered.

Smoothing over and withdrawal.

Person centered.

Smoothing over and withdrawal.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Issue centered.

Confrontation and problem solving.

Issue centered.

Confrontation and problem solving.


Issue centered.

Majority rule of pooled independent judgments.

Issue centered.

Majority rule of pooled independent judgments.



48

Decision process closure

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

High lack of closure.

Low feeling of accomplishment.

High lack of closure.

Low feeling of accomplishment.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Lower lack of closure.

Higher feeling of accomplishment.

Lower lack of closure.

Higher feeling of accomplishment.


Low lack of closure.

Medium feeling of accomplishment.

Low lack of closure.

Medium feeling of accomplishment.



49

Resource utilization

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Low administrative time and costs.

High participant time and cost.

Low administrative time and costs.


Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Medium administrative time, cost and preparation.


Medium administrative time, cost and preparation.



High administrative.High administrative.



50

Holdout slides



51

Experimentation in social psychologyChallenges…

– Control versus Impact

– Realism

• Experimental realism – experiment has an impact on the respondent and forces a serious approach

• Mundane realism – how similar the laboratory setup is to the outside world

– Deception

• Often needed to achieve experimental realism

• Requires disguising the true purpose of the study



52

Experimentation in social psychology

Challenges (continued)– Ethical problems

• Unethical to tell lies to people

• Telling lies can lead to invasion of privacy

• Experimental procedures can entail unpleasant experiences

Do the Ends justify the Means?

– Post-experimental session• Used to un-do discomforts and deceptions

• Turn the experiment into an educational experience for the respondent



53

Something to think about…• Morality of finding out unpleasant things…

– What is the moral responsibility of the researcher for what is discovered?

– Example• Use of Nazi medical data by researchers.• Potentially very useful, but…

• Social scientists are frequently confronted with value judgments like this in their work.

• Again…

Do the Ends justify the Means?Do the Ends justify the Means?

Documents

GRA 6820 The Social Psychology of Decision Making (Harrison, Ch.8)