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

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

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 GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

3. Social Psychology A 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 GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

4. Shared vision + Collaborative Learning Degree of collaborative design Defensive Behaviors + + Tendency to generate shared insight R1 Joint experimentation + + + Expectations Willingness for public reflection - B2 + + Number of diverse viewpoints + Interpreting actions as “failures” B4 Fear of failure B3 Blame or defensive behaviors + + Potential for conflict + + Interpreting Actions Conflict avoidance behaviors Willingness to Communicate + - Level of trust Limits to team learning GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

5. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

6. Classification of collective decision theories GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

7. Scoping Casting Information Systems Communication Decision Nested hierarchy of team design problems GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

8. Why do groups fail...?(or, when 2 + 2 = 3) • Ineffective leadership skills • Lack of rigorous methods • Wrong group structure • Group member homogeneity GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

9. Factors affecting group judgment • Input variables • Conformity • Polarization GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

10. Input variables affecting group processes • Task norms. • Process norms. • Group size. • Group communication patterns. • Perceived member status. • Individual personality characteristics. • Group experience. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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... GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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: • Values associated with Individuality. • Values associated with Conformity. The ”Establishment” tends to like Conformists better than Non-conformists. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

14. Conformity • Variables that affect conformity behavior • Whether 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 GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

15. Causes Consequences Positive Enjoy group membership Severe initiation Participate in group activities External threat Accept group’s goals Group Cohesiveness Lots of time together Low absenteeism and turnover Negative Small groups Lose sight of goals May work against organizational interests History of success Group cohesiveness:Causes and consequences GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

16. Tight knit, cohesive group Observable behaviors * Incomplete statement of objectives or problem definition. * Incomplete search for alternatives. * 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 a contingency plan. Group leadership and structural problems * Group is insulated. * Ineffective leadership * Wrong structure. * Lack of rigorous methods. * Similar group members. COMPULSIVE NEED FOR AGREEMENT Situational factors * High stress. * Low expectations. * Recent failure. * Difficulty with the problem. Conformity in extremis: Groupthink GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

17. NSC assumption No one will know that the US is involved. CIA cover story will be believed. Cuban AF is ineffective and can be destroyed by early attack using two B-26 bombers. 1400-man force has high morale and will be a ”superb” force. Castro’s army is very weak. The brigade will be able to establish a beachhead. Brigade landing will spark sabotage throughout Cuba and lead to Castro’s overthrow. If the landing fails, the brigade can escape to the mountains and reinforce the guerillas. Available counter-evidence Stories appear in newspapers about CIA training people in Central America. TV also reports this. B-26s were obsolete, required frequent maintenance, could not complete bombing runs. British intelligence reports that Cuban AF is very effective. High initial morale due to CIA lies of US support. NSC members knew of a mutiny attempt in Guatemala – morale was very low. 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). 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. 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. Groupthink in action:The National Security Council and the Bay of Pigs - 1961 GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

20. Percent Participation High Low “Old hands” Extroverts “Newcomers” Introverts Status Dysfunctional group behaviors • Anchoring Effect • Inequality of Participation • Causes... • Deference to seniors • Have less to offer • Less data • Wrong group structure GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

22. Self justification – an exampleWashington Post News Service, November, 1971 GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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 GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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? GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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 GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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? GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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? GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

30. Specific actions Expected results Informal focus on decision processes Formal, intermittent focus on decision processes Formal, continuous focus on decision processes Coordinating Mechanism Focus Coordinating mechanisms Rules, policies and procedures Goal-setting and planning processes Direct contact and committees Task forces and temporary teams Permanent teams and departments GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

31. 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.” GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

32. Group processes • Interacting group • Nominal group technique • Delphi group GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

33. Interacting group characteristics • Most common group structure. • Problem statement by the group leader. • Unstructured discussion. Consequences for problem solving... GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

35. 1. A small group identifies the issue and receives instructions. 2. Participants privately write down ideas about problem solving. 3. Each participants’ ideas are presented, one at a time, and recorded. 4. Each idea is discussed, clarified and evaluated by the group. 5. Participants privately rank the ideas in their order of preference. 6. Highest ranking idea is taken as the group’s decision. The Nominal Group technique GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

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. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

37. ISSUE 1. Enlist cooperation of experts 2. Present the issue to the experts 3. Experts record solutions and recommendations 4. Experts’ responses are compiled and reproduced 5. Responses shared with all others 6. Experts comment on others’ ideas and propose a solution If no consensus is reached… Solution If consensus is reached… 7. Solutions are compiled The Delphi technique GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

38. The Delphi method:Characteristics • Physically dispersed. • Systematic collection and combination of information. • Consensus achieved through feedback. GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

39. 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. The Delphi method Advantages Disadvantages GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

40. 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 Dimensions for comparing group processes GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

41. Nominal groups Interacting groups Delphi groups Structured face-to-face group meeting. Low flexibility. Low variability in behavior of groups. Unstructured face-to-face group meeting. High flexibility. High variability in behavior of groups. Structured series of questionnaires and feedback reports. Low variability in respondent behavior. Overall methodology GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

42. Interacting groups Nominal groups Delphi groups Socio-emotional. Group maintenance focus. Balanced focus on social maintenance and task role. Task instrumental focus. Role orientation GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

43. Interacting groups Nominal groups Delphi groups Low. Focused “rut” effect. Higher. Independent writing. Hitch-hiking round robin brainstorming. High. Isolated writing of ideas. Relative quantity of ideas GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

44. Interacting groups Nominal groups Delphi groups Reactive search. Short issue focus. Task avoidance tendency. New social knowledge. Proactive search. Extended issue focus. High task centeredness. New social and task knowledge. Proactive search. Controlled issue focus. High task centeredness. New task knowledge. Search behavior GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

45. Interacting groups Nominal groups Delphi groups Conformity pressures inherent in face-to-face discussions. Tolerance for nonconformity through independent search and choice activity. Freedom to not conform through isolated anonymity. Normative behavior GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

46. Interacting groups Nominal groups Delphi groups Member dominance in search, evaluation and choice phases. Member equality in search and choice phases. Respondent equality in pooling of independent judgments. Equality of participation GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

47. Interacting groups Nominal groups Delphi groups Person centered. Smoothing over and withdrawal. Issue centered. Confrontation and problem solving. Issue centered. Majority rule of pooled independent judgments. Method of problem solving GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

48. Interacting groups Nominal groups Delphi groups High lack of closure. Low feeling of accomplishment. Lower lack of closure. Higher feeling of accomplishment. Low lack of closure. Medium feeling of accomplishment. Decision process closure GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

49. Interacting groups Nominal groups Delphi groups Low administrative time and costs. High participant time and cost. Medium administrative time, cost and preparation. High participant time and cost. High administrative. Resource utilization GRA 6820 Strategic Choice

50. Holdout slides GRA 6820 Strategic Choice