Influence and Persuasion in Small Groups

Influence and Persuasion in Small Groups Charlan Jeanne Nemeth Jack A. Goncalo Univ of California, Berkeley Groups are an important fact of life., Almost every decision that you make involves other people, whether at home, at work or in social groups. Whether we think of juries coming to a verdict or Cabinet meetings that decide on war or peace, groups are important vehicles for decisions. Thus, the ways in which people influence one another in groups becomes paramount in our understanding of why some decisions are reached. In this chapter, we will be covering a myriad of influence processes that occur when we are in the presence of, or interacting with, other people. We will be taking a particular perspective on the research literature (for others, see especially, Davis, 1973 ; McGrath, 1984 Brown, 2000). We will start with the simple situation where people are expressing viewpoints n groups. We will then move to situations where people are interacting and trying to persuade one another. Repeatedly, we will confront a basic tenet that runs throughout this chapter. People in groups tend towards agreement. We are not content to have positions that differ; there is always a strain to find which position is correct or appropriate. From this perspective, the different influence processes that we will consider differ mainly in where the consensus is found. Sometimes it is the position favored by the majority, termed conformity. Sometimes, it is the position favored by the minority, termed minority influence. Sometimes we will find that it is more extreme than the average of the individuals; this is termed polarization. We will then explore when these processes are assets versus liabilities when we consider the quality of performance and decision making, the likelihood that “truth will prevail”. MAJORITIES and CONVERGENT THINKING I. CONFORMITY; The Power of Numbers A.The early studies: While most of us think we are quite independent, it is very disconcerting to realize how important sheer numbers are when it comes to influence. The power of peers and, in particular, the power of a majority is one of the most well established findings in Social Psychology. It is so powerful that, faced with a majority of others who agree on a particular attitude or judgment, we are likely to adopt the majority judgment whether their judgment is right or wrong. In a now classical study by Solomon Asch (1956), people came to an experiment in groups of 5 to 7. Unknown to the “real” subject, however, the other 4 to 6 people were confederates of the experiment. They were hired to agree on a judgment that was wrong. In this experiment, the group was shown a series of slides as illustrated in Figure 1. They saw a “standard” line and were asked to name which of the 3 comparison lines was equal to the standard. This task is easy. When people were alone, they were correct. In Figure 1, that answer is “2”. They knew which line was equal. However, in the experimental setting, the “real” subject

[1]  John D. Rogers,et al.  Devil's advocate versus authentic dissent: stimulating quantity and quality , 2001 .

[2]  Joseph P. Forgas,et al.  Social Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes , 2001 .

[3]  John C. Turner,et al.  Self-categorization principles underlying majority and minority influence , 2001 .

[4]  Joanie B. Connell,et al.  Improving Decision Making by Means of Dissent1 , 2001 .

[5]  E.,et al.  GROUPS : INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE , 2001 .

[6]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Diagnosing groups: the pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  A. Pratkanis,et al.  Theoretical Perspectives on Groupthink: A Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Appraisal. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[8]  Kramer,et al.  Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam Decisions 25 Years Later: How Well Has the Groupthink Hypothesis Stood the Test of Time? , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[9]  Whyte,et al.  Recasting Janis's Groupthink Model: The Key Role of Collective Efficacy in Decision Fiascoes. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[10]  Tetlock,et al.  Group Dynamics in Top Management Teams: Groupthink, Vigilance, and Alternative Models of Organizational Failure and Success. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[11]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Managing Innovation: When Less is More , 1997 .

[12]  Marc D. Street Groupthink , 1997 .

[13]  A. Pratkanis,et al.  Mitigating groupthink by stimulating constructive conflict. , 1997 .

[14]  Tudor Rickards,et al.  Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies , 1997 .

[15]  Gary Katzenstein,et al.  The Debate on Structured Debate: Toward a Unified Theory , 1996 .

[16]  Robin Martin,et al.  Minority influence and argument generation , 1996 .

[17]  R. Saavedra,et al.  A naturalistic minority influence experiment: Effects on divergent thinking, conflict and originality in work‐groups , 1996 .

[18]  John D. Rogers,et al.  Dissent and the search for information. , 1996 .

[19]  C. Dreu,et al.  Differential processing and attitude change following majority versus minority arguments , 1996 .

[20]  M. Bond,et al.  Cross-cultural social and organizational psychology. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[21]  Jennifer A. Chatman,et al.  Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. , 1996 .

[22]  G. Stasser,et al.  Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. , 1995 .

[24]  Rebecca A. Henry,et al.  Improving Group Judgment Accuracy: Information Sharing and Determining the Best Member , 1995 .

[25]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. , 1995 .

[26]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  Majority and minority influence : source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny , 1994 .

[27]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Group Cohesiveness and Quality of Decision Making , 1994 .

[28]  W. Wood,et al.  Minority influence: a meta-analytic review of social influence processes. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[29]  Christopher P. Neck,et al.  Group Decision Fiascoes Continue: Space Shuttle Challenger and a Revised Groupthink Framework , 1991 .

[30]  A. Maass,et al.  Social influence: The role of originality. , 1991 .

[31]  Charles R. Schwenk Effects of devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: A meta-analysis , 1990 .

[32]  John M. Levine,et al.  Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. , 1989 .

[33]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Minority Influence, Divergent Thinking and Detection of Correct Solutions , 1987 .

[34]  Diane M. Mackie,et al.  Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. , 1987 .

[35]  G. Mugny,et al.  Paradoxical effects of categorization in minority influence: When being an outgroup is an advantage , 1987 .

[36]  D. Wegner Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind , 1987 .

[37]  D. Isenberg Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. , 1986 .

[38]  John R. Montanari,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of the Groupthink Phenomenon , 1986 .

[39]  D. Schweiger,et al.  Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus , 1986 .

[40]  C. Nemeth Differential contributions of majority and minority influence , 1986 .

[41]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence. , 1985 .

[42]  Serge Moscovici,et al.  Perspectives on minority influence: Innovation and minority influence , 1985 .

[43]  G. Stasser,et al.  Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion , 1985 .

[44]  Carrie R. Leana A Partial Test of Janis' Groupthink Model: Effects of Group Cohesiveness and Leader Behavior on Defective Decision Making , 1985 .

[45]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs minority influence , 1983 .

[46]  Carol Sherrard,et al.  The power of minorities , 1982 .

[47]  E. Fodor,et al.  The power motive as an influence on group decision making. , 1982 .

[48]  S. Fiske,et al.  Social Psychology , 2019, Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences.

[49]  C. Nemeth Jury Trials: Psychology And Law1 , 1981 .

[50]  David G. Myers,et al.  Polarizing effects of social comparison , 1978 .

[51]  John A. Courtright,et al.  A laboratory investigation of groupthink , 1978 .

[52]  Matie L. Flowers A laboratory test of some implications of Janis's groupthink hypothesis. , 1977 .

[53]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs. unanimity decision rules. , 1977 .

[54]  I. Janis,et al.  Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment , 1977 .

[55]  Robert S. Baron,et al.  Reaffirmation of social comparison views of choice shifts: Averaging and extremity effects in an autokinetic situation. , 1976 .

[56]  R. E. Knox,et al.  Group caution at the race track , 1976 .

[57]  David J. Stang,et al.  Group Size Effects on Conformity , 1976 .

[58]  David G. Myers,et al.  Group-Induced Polarization in Simulated Juries , 1976 .

[59]  Amiram D. Vinokur,et al.  What a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: Nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of choice shifts , 1975 .

[60]  C. Nemeth,et al.  CREATING THE PERCEPTIONS OF CONSISTENCY AND CONFIDENCE. A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR MINORITY INFLUENCE , 1974 .

[61]  Roger S. Brown,et al.  Further comment on the risky shift. , 1974 .

[62]  Ebbe B. Ebbesen,et al.  Proportion of risky to conservative arguments in a group discussion and choice shift. , 1974 .

[63]  A. Vinokur,et al.  Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach. , 1974 .

[64]  B. Kanki,et al.  Patterning of the minority's responses and their influence on the majority , 1974 .

[65]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Interpersonal comparison versus persuasive argumentation: A more direct test of alternative explanations for group-induced shifts in individual choice , 1973 .

[66]  J. H. Davis Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. , 1973 .

[67]  I. Janis Victims Of Groupthink , 1972 .

[68]  S. Moscovici,et al.  Social Influence, Conformity Bias, and the Study of Active Minorities , 1972 .

[69]  Dean G. Pruitt,et al.  Conclusions: Toward an understanding of choice shifts in group discussion. , 1971 .

[70]  M. Billig,et al.  Risky shifts, cautious shifts, and group polarization , 1971 .

[71]  H. Fromkin Effects of experimentally aroused feelings of undistinctiveness upon valuation of scarce and novel experiences. , 1970, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[72]  D. Myers,et al.  Discussion Effects on Racial Attitudes , 1970, Science.

[73]  S. Moscovici,et al.  Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. , 1969, Sociometry.

[74]  John M. Levine,et al.  Consensus and conformity , 1969 .

[75]  S. Moscovici,et al.  The group as a polarizer of attitudes. , 1969 .

[76]  Dean G. Pruitt,et al.  THE RISKY SHIFT IN GROUP BETTING. , 1969 .

[77]  D. J. Schneider,et al.  Test of the "risk is a value" hypothesis. , 1969 .

[78]  R. Zajonc,et al.  Group Risk Taking in Professional Decisions , 1967 .

[79]  H. Zeisel,et al.  The American Jury , 1966 .

[80]  D. Bem,et al.  GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER RISK OF AVERSIVE CONSEQUENCES. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[81]  V. L. Allen Situational Factors In Conformity1 , 1965 .

[82]  M. Wallach,et al.  The roles of information, discussion, and consensus in group risk taking , 1965 .

[83]  D. Bem,et al.  DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND LEVEL OF RISK TAKING IN GROUPS. , 1963, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[84]  Vaughan Gm,et al.  Conformity to group pressure in relation to the value of the task material. , 1963 .

[85]  G. Mangan,et al.  Conformity to group pressure in relation to the value of the task material. , 1963, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[86]  D. Bem,et al.  Group influence on individual risk taking. , 1962, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[87]  David Krech,et al.  Individual in society : a textbook of social psychology , 1962 .

[88]  J. Stoner A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk , 1961 .

[89]  S. Asch Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. , 1956 .

[90]  S. Asch Opinions and Social Pressure , 1955, Nature.

[91]  M. Deutsch,et al.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[92]  S. Schachter Deviation, rejection, and communication. , 1951, Journal of abnormal psychology.