Page 267 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

250 Chapter 9

Group Polarization
Group members can and should influence each other, but such influence can produce
Group Polarization the group polarization tendency, which refers to the finding that group members often
The tendency for make decisions that are more extreme (either more risky or more cautious) than the
79
group members to individual members’ initial preferences. Group members push themselves further in
make decisions that a particular direction than where they initially started. Two explanations have been
are more extreme proposed for this. 80
(more risky or Social Comparison Theory (SCT) focuses on psychological factors; it suggests that
cautious) than they as members get to know each other’s values, they want to appear “correct” and may
would make exaggerate opinions in the direction that they believe the group values positively. For
individually.
example, if you are mildly liberal politically and you are in a group that seems to value
liberal thought, then you might be tempted to exaggerate how liberal you are. Thus, if
the group or cultural norm favors risk (as with many business decisions in our
culture), the group will shift toward risk; if caution is the cultural norm (as with a
decision affecting a child’s life), the group shifts toward caution.
The second explanation for group polarization focuses on cognitive factors.
Persuasive Arguments Theory (PAT) says that the number, salience, and novelty of
arguments in a particular direction persuade members to move in that direction.
Thus, if members initially favor risk (or caution), there will be more and stronger
arguments presented in favor of risk (or caution); the persuasive power of these
arguments shifts the group in that direction.
Studies have found support for both SCT and PAT. Whether SCT or PAT better
explains choice shift in a specific group may depend on conditions within the group.
For example, when the task becomes more ambiguous, SCT seems to explain shifts
81
better, but as task ambiguity decreases, PAT makes more sense. The type of task
matters; SCT explanations prevail for tasks requiring judgment, but PAT explains the
choice shifts better for intellective tasks that have correct answers. 82
An intriguing study of burglar behavior by Cromwell et al. supports the concept
of group polarization and confirms that both cognitive and emotional factors come
83
into play during group decision making. Burglars normally rate potential targets on
the basis of the risks associated with those targets. When burglars work in groups, one
burglar may point out risks the others miss, so they collectively take into account risk
cues they may not have noticed working alone. For example, in one group of three
burglars, two rated a particular house a 6 (with 10 the lowest risk), but the third bur-
glar, a woman, pointed out that the time was nearly 3 PM, school would soon be out,
and many children were likely to be playing nearby. The burglars collectively reas-
sessed the risk as 2.
At the same time, burglars working together apparently increase each other’s
excitement and egg each other on. In the same study, burglars in groups were more
likely to go on multiple burglary sprees, hitting multiple targets, something that indi-
vidual burglars did not and would not do. These findings about burglar risk and cau-
tion, which seem incompatible, can be reconciled as follows. Burglars deciding to
commit a crime experience high rates of arousal, which is increased by the presence
of others. This social facilitation effect can lead to increased risk taking. However,
assessing a particular site for degree of risk is actually a low- arousal state that requires
cognitive information- processing skill, which is helped by the presence of others.

gal37018_ch09_225_258.indd 250 3/28/18 12:37 PM