1 / 13

Jackson and Williams (1986)

Jackson and Williams (1986). Simple vs. complex mazes on computer Another participant worked on identical task in other room Researcher: Each performance would be evaluated separately, or Computer would average scores (no accountability). Time to complete maze. evaluation. (long).

blythe
Download Presentation

Jackson and Williams (1986)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jackson and Williams (1986) • Simple vs. complex mazes on computer • Another participant worked on identical task in other room • Researcher: • Each performance would be evaluated separately, or • Computer would average scores (no accountability)

  2. Time to complete maze evaluation (long) No evaluation (fast) easy difficult Difficulty of mazes

  3. Deindividuation Original view: loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people are in a crowd Leading to…“mob behavior”

  4. Newer view of Deindividuation • Two factors • Lower accountability • Increases obedience to “local” norms

  5. Groups: Decision Making

  6. Initial issues • Most major decisions in the world are made by groups • United Nations, Courts (e.g. U.S. Supreme Court) • Elected bodies (e.g. Parliament, Congress) • Presidents rarely make decisions completely alone • WHY? • Are groups always better than single individuals? • Huge scientific literature on exactly this question!

  7. Process loss • General term covering many group processes • Hamper extent to which groups can solve problems efficiently, effectively • “Social” losses • Conversation/interactions irrelevant to task • Distractions • Failure to share unique information • Stasser & Titus (1985)

  8. Groupthink • Probably most famous process loss • Definition: people begin to value group cohesiveness and solidarity more than the need to consider the facts in a realistic manner. • Can lead to disastrous decisions • JFK’s decision to invade Cuba • Challenger disaster (1986) • Possibly, Columbia (2003)

  9. The road to groupthink Symptoms • Illusion of invulnerability • Moral certainty • Stereotyped view of outgroup • Self-censorship • Direct pressure to conform • Illusion of unanimity • Mindguards Antecedents • Group is (already) cohesive • Isolated • Directive leader • Stress • Poor decision-making rules Defective decision making • Incomplete survey of alternatives • Failure to examine risks of favored alternative • Poor information search • Few contingency plans

  10. Specific steps to avoid groupthink • Leader—remain impartial (if possible) • Seek outside opinions • Create subgroups • Seen anonymous opinions

  11. Group polarization • Original finding (Stone, 1962) seemed to suggest “risky shift” (!!) • Newer view: group polarization, not riskiness per se • Whatever way the group is leaning initially, members tend to polarize further in that direction

  12. Who (and what) makes a great leader? • The “holy grail” of social psychology! • Two general views • 1. The “great person” theory • Leadership and personality • Fascinating study by Dean Simonton on U.S. presidents • General picture—no such thing as “leadership personality” • 2. “Right person in right situation” view • Contingency theory of leadership • Received good support • Gender and leadership

More Related