Dr. miles. Ram H.
Psychological bulletin, (1976) 83(4), p602-627.
Qi Yan bo yi
904 18 13
Lyn
I. Summary:
Group polarization was first proposed by James stoner when 196 1 discovered the phenomenon of group discussion. In this paper, Myers and Ram first discuss the seven influencing factors in group discussion, and then explain them with three theoretical methods. The application of this theory is based on social psychology, discussing whether the group is superior to the individual in decision-making, and discussing two major phenomena in the process of group interaction: group polarization and group thinking. So this article is quite classic and important, especially in group interaction and group decision-making.
Second, the main idea of this article:
Group polarization: When a group is discussing an argument, people in the group seem to support more extreme positions than when they are alone. This phenomenon sometimes leads to a risky change, and sometimes it leads to a cautious change, depending on the initial views of team members.
In order to confirm this study, Myers and Ram first put forward seven influencing factors: attitude, jury decision, moral decision, judgment, personal perception, negotiation and conflict, and risk taking.
1. attitude: group polarization prediction is to increase the attitude gap between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups from similar discussions with others. In our society, so-called dilemmas often occur, and people will hold different attitudes and become polarized. For example, the United States attacked Afghanistan, and the attitudes of the warring factions and pacifists.
2. Jury decision-making: The jury is a small group, and the purpose of judgment is achieved through mutual discussion. Jzzett and Leginski( 1974) observed that in relatively unremarkable cases, the jury made relatively lenient sentences, but in relatively conspicuous and important cases, the jury made relatively harsh sentences.
3. Ethical judgment: In terms of moral obligation, although we believe in generous relief, after students' discussion, we find that it has become more stingy. However, students are more generous when discussing the use of funds.
4. Judgment: When the initial degree of polarization is strong enough, the consensus generated will also attract individuals to run to extremes.
5. Personal perception: Everyone has preconceived ideas. When students give positive hints when judging things, the result of judgment will be positive. On the other hand, if you give a negative hint, the result of the judgment will be negative.
6. Negotiation and conflict: The author compares the conflict between individuals and groups here. Group polarization confirms Janice's conflict argument. When there is a conflict between groups, members are likely to strengthen their beliefs in their actions.
7. Take risks: When people face difficulties, the team will conduct risk assessment. When the payoff of betting in the experiment is positive, the group will tend to take risks, and when the payoff is negative, it will tend to avoid risks.
In this paper, the author further explains the phenomenon of group polarization through three theories:
1. Group decision-making rules: Group decision-making principles (such as minority obeying majority) will promote polarization. This explanation also holds that in a group, people will be more willing to make risky decisions because the responsibility for their actions has been dispersed to all members.
(1) Population-induced migration is an internalized rather than temporary group product.
(2) When the pretest decision in group decision-making rules is cancelled, migration will still occur.
(3) skewness cannot explain group polarization.
2. Interpersonal comparison: This influence is socially regulated. From the process of social comparison, the view is that group members will compare their opinions with other members of the group. The need to be accepted and loved by the group will make the individual obey the general opinion of the group. There are three discussions about the dynamic study of human interaction:
(1) The difference between self-assessment and estimation of others' assessment of me.
(2) Whether the difference between self-evaluation and estimation of others' evaluation and ideal difference will lead to prediction migration.
(3) reveal the choice transfer after others' reaction.
3. Information influence theory: people get new information by listening to arguments in group discussions (Bernstein &; Vinokur, 1975). Because these arguments tend to support the original views of parliamentarians, people will hear more reasons to support their opinions. Groups can convince members of their original views, which leads to more extreme views.
Other theories that affect the phenomenon of group polarization are also mentioned in social psychology, such as value theory, cultural values (roger brown, 1965), responsibility dispersion theory, cognition and motivation factors, etc.
This paper reviews and its enlightenment to research;
Judging from the discussion of group polarization mentioned in this paper, the main significance behind it is to discuss group decision-making. In the real world, the individual's knowledge is limited, and the problems related to decision-making are usually decided by the relevant personnel of decision-making, and a decision-making scheme is selected. Such as: committees, boards of directors, work reports, etc. Group decision-making has advantages and disadvantages: 1. Through brainstorming, there is extensive knowledge and information; 2. With extensive information, more schemes can be produced; 3. Decision makers are easy to accept decisions; 3. It increases the legitimacy; On the contrary, its disadvantage is: 1. It takes a lot of time and cost, and the efficiency is poor; 2. The decision result may be the result of compromise; 3. The responsibility for the success or failure of the implementation results is shared, and there is no clear division; 4. Group decision-making process will lead to group thinking, and a few unique opinions will shrink and degenerate in analytical ability and thinking. Because members of the organization will be influenced by group norms, make decisions under pressure and lack personal opinions. 5. There will be risk transfer, making it easier to take risks (note 1).
In addition, from the group decision-making model, there are three models that can provide further discussion: 1. Collaborative interaction mode: having a consensus on organizational goals can make everyone mutually beneficial; 2. Political interaction mode: pursuing self-interest and political compromise; 3. Garbage can decision: The problem is not very important, and the "goals and means" are not clear.
Can teams make better decisions than individuals? There are different opinions on this issue, but it can be found from other documents that in order to avoid falling into group polarization or group thinking, some scholars have put forward some methods to help group decision-making, as follows: (Robbins, 1995)
1. Nominal grouping technology: relevant personnel are still present when problems occur, but it is forbidden to discuss with each other at will.
Step 1: Write down your opinion on the proposal.
Step 2: Everyone reports their opinions separately, but no discussion is allowed.
Step 3: The group begins to make a detailed evaluation of each opinion.
Step 4: Everyone scores each scheme separately, and the one with the highest score is the selected scheme.
Personal opinion: This may lead to a plan that everyone can compromise but can't "change the content", because some people's plans are good, but there are still shortcomings (that is, they lose the advantage of brainstorming in group discussion ...). Some people will say, "If the content is changed, it won't be the plan I supported at the beginning ...", while others will say, "These plans are not what I want ...".
2. Delphi method: there is no face-to-face discussion between members.
Step 1: Let the experts answer the questions anonymously and individually.
Step 2: Average the results and notify the experts.
Step 3: Ask the experts to discuss the feedback results again.
Step 4: Repeat the first step three or four times until you have specific opinions.
Personal opinion: Advantages: Both methods can be carried out in an orderly and efficient manner, and strong individuals or subgroups in the group are unlikely to affect all decisions, so the pressure of group norms can be alleviated. Disadvantages: It is difficult to produce innovative opinions in the process of discussion, which may cause harm to the group or norms because of the decrease of group norms. Despite the above shortcomings, both methods can improve the speed of group decision-making.
3. Brainstorming method: This method was put forward by Ales Osborn in How to Think. The appropriate time is creative thinking, problem solving and organizational planning. Its content refers to the development of employees' brains in enterprises in order to use their brains to put forward new ideas.
Step 1: Establish an elegant discussion space.
Step 2: Feel free and unrestrained.
The third step: express freely, without time limit.
Step 4: Express opinions on specific topics.
Personal opinion: Brainstorming method uses the methods of "combination" and "modification" to increase opinions-creating value by quantity. Its advantage is that it has many ideas, which can improve the lack of creativity in group decision-making, that is, it can improve the quality of decision-making; The disadvantage is that it often comes to a conclusion quickly before a complete idea is conceived (William Gordon).
4. process consultation (PC): PC was founded by Edgar H. Schein, a professor at MIT, in 1969. It is a method, attitude and philosophy to help individuals, groups, organizations and communities. Schein pointed out that PC is different from content consultation, the content is about what, and the process is about how to accomplish what. For example, the "content" discussed at the meeting may be a quality issue or a sales issue, while the "process" is how the group discusses, solves and makes decisions.
Personal opinion: PC really contributes to the quality of decision-making and team learning in the implementation process, and can successfully avoid group polarization and group thinking. However, PC takes a long time, and general organizations rely on consultants to consult, hoping that consultants can directly give answers (content), so it has limitations in practice.
5. Electronic conference: This method is a mixture of name group technology and computer technology. Its advantages are anonymity, honesty and quickness. Participants can enter any comments anonymously and all viewers can see them. At the same time, it allows individuals to be completely honest without worrying about any punishment.
Research inspiration:
Is group decision-making superior to individuals? Actually, it depends. During World War II, the Nazi Holocaust was a myth in group decision-making. After the attack, the United States decided to attack Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. Is the decision-making process right or wrong? Peter Senge, the author of the fifth exercise, asked why in many teams, the IQ of each member is above 120, while the overall IQ is only 62. In the latest field of organizational development, there is a new technology about team development called appreciation survey. At present, I am curious about how AI technology can help the team improve its performance and how it can cause the paradigm shift of the team. And through the theory of group polarization, it discusses whether AI can change the situation of group polarization or group thinking.
Note 1: * Risk transfer: groups are more likely to take risks than individuals.
(1) Familiarity hypothesis: familiarity with the problem.
(2) Leadership Hypothesis: Risk-oriented people are often regarded as leaders.
(3) Value-at-risk theory: Moderate adventure is more "cultural" than caution-less real in the East.
(4) Responsibility diffusion theory: individuals mistakenly believe that they are not responsible for group decision-making.
References:
Wang sifeng, 200 1, expanding PC model with system thinking: a clinical-oriented case study
Translated by Wang Bingjun, 1995, Management. Huatai Bookstore in Taipei. Author: Stephen P. Robbins.
Xu, 1984, Management. Taipei, Donghua Bookstore.
Huang anbang, 1990, social psychology. Wu Nan Taibei Book Publishing Company. Authors: David O. Sears, Jonathan L. Friedman, L. Anne Pepplo.
Stephen P. Robbins (2000), Organizational Behavior, prentiss Hall International Company.
Gervase R. Bushe, an appreciative survey of the team. Published in Journal of Organizational Development, 16:3 (1998), page 4 1-50.
Jane Magruder Watkins, Bernard J. Mohr, 200 1, appreciative inquiry, Josey-Bass/Pfeiffer A Wiley Company, San Francisco.
Group polarization phenomenon
Dr. miles. Ram H.
Psychological bulletin, (1976) 83(4), p602-627.
1. Origin: Group polarization was first proposed by James stoner when 196 1 discovered the phenomenon of group discussion.
Second, seven major impacts:
In order to confirm this research, Myers and Ram first put forward seven major influences:
1. attitude: the main battle is more important, and the main battle is more important.
2. Jury Decision: Murderer and Terrorism.
3. Moral judgment: Only I cheat others; No one cheated me.
4. judgment: after the discussion, it is still attractive to run to the extreme.
5. Personal opinion: preconceived view of bin Laden.
6. Negotiation and conflict: The more conflicts, the firmer the belief.
7. Adventure: The attack will win and the attack will fail.
Three, three theories:
1. Group decision-making rules: Group decision-making principles (such as minority obeying majority) will promote polarization. This explanation also holds that in a group, people will be more willing to make risky decisions because the responsibility for their actions has been dispersed to all members.
(1) Population-induced migration is an internalized rather than temporary group product.
(2) When the pretest decision in group decision-making rules is cancelled, migration will still occur.
(3) skewness cannot explain group polarization.
2. Interpersonal comparison: This influence is socially regulated. From the process of social comparison, the view is that group members will compare their opinions with other members of the group. The need to be accepted and loved by the group will make the individual obey the general opinion of the group. There are three discussions about the dynamic study of human interaction:
(1) The difference between self-assessment and estimation of others' assessment of me.
(2) Whether the difference between self-evaluation and estimation of others' evaluation and ideal difference will lead to prediction migration.
(3) reveal the choice transfer after others' reaction.
3. Information influence theory: people get new information by listening to arguments in group discussions (Bernstein &; Vinokur, 1975). Because these arguments tend to support the original views of parliamentarians, people will hear more reasons to support their opinions. Groups can convince members of their original views, which leads to more extreme views.
Fourthly, other theories that affect the phenomenon of group polarization are also mentioned in social psychology, such as value theory, cultural values (roger brown, 1965), responsibility dispersion theory, cognition and motivation factors.
My opinion on the implementation steps of project content
Relevant personnel are still present when there is a problem with the nominal group technology, but it is forbidden to discuss with each other at will. Step 1: Write down your opinion on the proposal;
Step 2: everyone reports their opinions separately, but no discussion is allowed; Step 3: the group begins to make a detailed evaluation of each opinion;
Step 4: Everyone scores each scheme separately, and the highest score in the end is the choice of scheme. In this way, we may get a plan that everyone can compromise but can't "change the content", because some people's plans are good, but there are still some shortcomings (that is, they lose the advantage of brainstorming in group discussions ...), some people will say "the content has changed, so it is not the plan I supported at the beginning ...", while others will say "the content has changed."
Delphi members do not discuss face to face. Step 1: Let experts answer questions anonymously and individually;
Step 2: average the results and inform the experts;
Step 3: Ask the experts to discuss the feedback results again;
Step 4: repeat the first step three or four times until you have specific opinions; Advantages: Both methods can be carried out in an orderly and efficient manner, and strong individuals or subgroups in the group are unlikely to affect all decisions, so the pressure of group norms can be alleviated.
Disadvantages: It is difficult to produce innovative opinions in the process of discussion, which may cause harm to the group or norms because of the decrease of group norms. Despite the above shortcomings, both methods can improve the speed of group decision-making.
Brainstorming was put forward by Ales Osborn in How to Think. The appropriate time is creative thinking, problem solving and organizational planning. Its content refers to developing employees' brain mines and stimulating their brains to put forward new ideas. Step 1: Establish an elegant discussion space.
Step 2: Feel free and unrestrained.
The third step: express freely, without time limit.
The fourth step: the brainstorming method for expressing opinions on specific topics uses the methods of "combination" and "modification" to increase opinions-creating value by quantity. The advantage of this is that there are many ideas, which can improve the lack of creativity in group decision-making, that is, it can improve the quality of decision-making; The disadvantage is that it often comes to a conclusion quickly before a complete idea is conceived (William Gordon).
Electronic conference is a combination of name group technology and computer technology. Its advantages are anonymity, honesty and quickness. Participants can enter any comments anonymously and all viewers can see them. At the same time, it allows individuals to be completely honest without worrying about any punishment.
Process Consultation (PC) PC was founded by Edgar H. Schein, a professor at MIT, in 1969. It is a method, attitude and philosophy to help individuals, groups, organizations and communities. Schein pointed out that PC is different from content consultation, the content is about what, and the process is about how to accomplish what. For example, the "content" discussed at the meeting may be a quality issue or a sales issue, while the "process" is how the group discusses, solves and makes decisions. In the process of implementation, PC really contributes to the quality of decision-making and team learning, and can successfully avoid group polarization and group thinking. However, PC takes a long time, and general organizations rely on consultants for consultation, hoping that consultants can give answers directly, so it has its limitations in practice.