Lecture 9 - Groupthink, political polarisation, relative deprivation Flashcards
(16 cards)
1
Q
A
2
Q
groupthink
A
- one reason why we like group decisions is that it reduces accountability of decisions. it’s not ‘you’
- UK govt inquiry attributes groupthink as a factor behind iraq invasion
> argues there was overconfidence and not enough certainty
> states that diplomacy options had not been exhausted - Grube et al 2023 - groupthink, polythink and the challenges of decision making in cabinet gov. argues the strongest driver of groupthink is the psychological disposition towards conflict of individual prime ministers
3
Q
group decision making
A
- group decision making can lead to groupthink where members become fixed to a certain way of thinking
- groupthink can lead to a lack of creativity but more dangerous it can lead to calamitious decisions that affect lives e.g. vietnam war
- Janis (1972) - groupthink encouraged when groups are highly cohesive, insulated (private), have directive leadership and situation is high risk/stress
- groupthink can lead to self-censorship, collective rationalisations, illusion of unamity, illusion of invulnerability (belief the decision cannot go wrong as you are in the group), and increased belief that the group is morally right (Janis 1984)
4
Q
janis (1984) model of groupthink
A
- janis proposed a model of groupthink that has several antecedents (variables/factors that need to happen before groupthink can occur)
1. illusion of invulnerability
2. group rationalisations
3. belief the group is morally right
4. group holds outgroup stereotypes
5. group applies pressure to individuals to conform
6. self-censorship prevents criticism
7. illusion of unamity - there are many real world political situations consistent with this model
5
Q
evidence to support groupthink
A
- Turner & Pratkanis (1998) concerns:
1. only 24 studies conducted on groupthink since Janis’ model up to late 90s. maybe due to methodological issues requiring large samples, ethics, effect not consistent?
2. conceptual issues - some researchers say all antecedents are needed to provide evidence of groupthink. some say not all are needed, but when more antecdents are present would see stronger evidence of groupthink. others say it depends on situational factors
3. they warn against groupthink being intuitive but based on case studies and lacking empirical support. contextual/situational factors seem to be best supported
6
Q
contextual factors of groupthink
A
- may occur more in certain political (heirarchical) and/or religious (dogmatic) groups where there is pressure for public conformity (compliance) even if no private conformity exists
- it is more likely if the group has a mind guard - a person who try to protect the group from information that could disrupt consensus
- it may also depend on attitudes towards group decision making e.g. there is a common layperson assumption that groups make better decisions
- factors include: social identities, personalities, reputations, diplomacy, accountability and depends on how much you identify with the group
7
Q
maybe polarisation instead of group think
A
- Stoner (1961) - when pp’s asked to consider if engineer should risk moving to new company that pays more but less secure, pp’s made riskier choice when in group rather than indiv
- the risky shift - view pulled one way or another based on group ideas to make a riskier decision
- but when asked whether someone should invest their son’s inheritance money in a risky high reward stock, opposite pattern was observe - context influenced the group decision
- group polarisation effect - group decisions are more polarised but only in the direction the group was initially facing. groups make more extreme decisions but context vital
- can think in terms of SIT prototypes - you have a certain idea of what a type of person is like and the perfect member. If exposed, you can become more like them because you want to be more like the ideal of the group
8
Q
Evidence of contextual factors (group identity) and polarisation effects
A
- suhey (2015) - political decisions are not made in a vacuum but are constantly being influenced by others
> assessed catholic identity, political views and demographics. randomly exposed to ingroup (catholic) or outgroup (evangelical) political views. when exposed to progressive catholics views become more progressive and less conservative. when exposed to evangelicals also changed their position to distinguish from outgroup.
> the stronger identity the more conservative their beliefs = group identity matters in beliefs
> more pride for catholic conservative and least for evangelicals - shows being exposed to other group members on same issues can change your beliefs
- in politics: Han and Federico (2017) when exposed to media, algorithms feed certain info you want to see. found if you are democrat you would be more persuaded if a democrat said something. same for conservatives = perceived validity from ingroup. when hearing views from outgroup you may dismiss the view as it is seen as less valid
9
Q
can empirical reasoning protect against groupthink/polarisation
A
- van bavel (2020) scientsists should be less vulnerable to group think as they understand hunches are not evidence
> but scientists are are driven by social identity processes e.g. trump cutting research funding especially in red states
> science identity can help but it definitely does not stop group identity - to stop groupthink best to ask people what they think, have diversity in your team and encourage critical thinking
10
Q
relative deprivation
A
- a sense of having less than we are entitled to
11
Q
correlations between economic unrest and race riots
A
- watts suburb of LA (1965) - percieved injustice and arrest of 3 black family members, $35m property damage, 34 killed, notable high unemployment deprivation in african-american communities (99% of pop in suburb)
- south central los angeles (1992) - direct response to the jury acquittal of 4 white policemen for beating of rodney king. set against a background of rising unemployment and deep disadvantage in black communities
12
Q
relative deprivation and social unrest
A
- berkowitz 1972 - intergroup prej and discrim is function of neg experiences
> aversive events
> aggressive associations between target group/indiv and aversive event
> provides a long hot summer explanation - e.g. race riots in LA heatwave 1965 - explanation consistent with J curve hypothesis - sharp decline in a trend where RD may be experienced at times of rapid economic decline
- RD as a function of perceived discrepancies between wealth and economic wealth
- idea is that as we get older should expect better QOL. But, compared to older generations do not get same economic reward.
- over time hope to have a linear relationship between money age and qol. RD occurs when there is a gap between what we think and what we currently have.
- when the ingroup has less and an outgroup has more = group based rd.
- Bianchi et al 2018 - looked at patterns of consumer behaviour over time when economy bad. white pp’s had more implicit bias against black people when economy was bad. white americans less likely to buy music from black artist in economic recession.
13
Q
collective violence model
A
- berkowitz 1972
1. RD
2. frustration
3. aversive environmental conditions amplify frustration
4. indiv acts of aggression
5. indiv acts of aggression exaccerbated by aggressive stimuli
6. aggression becomes more widespread and assumes role dominant response
7. aggression spreads rapidly through social facilitation
8. collective violence
14
Q
types of relative deprivation
A
- runciman (1966)
- egoistic RD - more indiv based. a feeling of personally having less than we feel entitled to relative to our personal aspirations or to other indivs
- fraternalistic RD - more group based. sense that our group has less than it is entitled to, relative to the collective aspirations or other groups.
- these types of deprivatuin have found to be independent in survey studies (crosby 1982)
15
Q
group based RD can be a powerful political tool
A
- Obaidi et al (2020) - british muslims more likely to be extreme than non-british muslims. group based RD predicted extremism most.
- RD affects minority groups as well, not just majority groups. it’s another example of how group based RD is politically dangerous.
- Macdougall et al (2020) - RD was a key factor in understanding leave voting for brexit in people in manchester
16
Q
criticisms of RD
A
- Gurney & Tierney (1982) - RD and social movements: critiques classic studies arguing there are too many conceptual and theoretical limitations for the theory to be useful
- dated and new research needed