GRA 6820
The Social Psychology of
Decision Making
(Harrison, Ch.8)
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
1
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
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
2
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
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
3
Limits to team learning
Shared
vision
+
Defensive
Behaviors
+
Tendency to
generate shared
insight
+
+
B2
Fear of
failure
+
Blame or
defensive
behaviors
+
Willingness
for public
reflection
B3
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
+
+
Number of
diverse
viewpoints
+
B4
Interpreting
actions as
“failures”
+
Potential for
conflict
+
Willingness to
Communicate
Joint
experimentation
R1
+
Expectations
Collaborative
Learning
Degree of
collaborative
design
Conflict
avoidance
behaviors
+
-
Interpreting
Actions
+
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
Level of
trust
4
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
5
Classification of collective decision
theories
Theoretical
Perspective
Individual
Preferences
Information
Group Decision
Theory
Different
Not considered
Same
Considered
Different
Considered
Team Theory
n-Person Game
Theory
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
6
Nested hierarchy of team design
problems
Decision
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
7
Why do groups fail...?
(or, when 2 + 2 = 3)
• Ineffective leadership skills
• Lack of rigorous methods
• Wrong group structure
• Group member homogeneity
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
8
Factors affecting group judgment
• Input variables
• Conformity
• Polarization
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
9
Input variables affecting group
processes
• Task norms.
• Process norms.
• Group size.
• Group communication patterns.
• Perceived member status.
• Individual personality characteristics.
• Group experience.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
10
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.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
11
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...
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
12
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:
1. Values associated with Individuality.
2. Values associated with Conformity.
The ”Establishment” tends to like
Conformists better than Non-conformists.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
13
Conformity
• Variables that affect conformity behavior
Whether the majority opinion unanimous or not.
Kind of person the individual is (low in selfesteem, 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
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
14
Group cohesiveness:
Causes and consequences
Causes
Consequences
Positive
Enjoy group membership
Severe initiation
Lots of time
together
Small groups
Group
Cohesiveness
External threat
Low absenteeism
and turnover
Negative
Lose sight of goals
May work against
organizational interests
History of
success
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
Participate in group
activities
Accept group’s goals
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
15
Conformity in extremis:
Groupthink
Tight knit,
cohesive group
Observable behaviors
* Incomplete statement of
objectives or problem
definition.
Group leadership and
structural problems
* Group is insulated.
* Ineffective leadership
* Wrong structure.
* Lack of rigorous
methods.
* Similar group members.
COMPULSIVE
NEED FOR
AGREEMENT
* Failure to reconsider
rejected alternatives.
* Poor information search.
* Lack of critical thinking
due to biases.
Situational factors
* Failure to re-examine risks
of the first choice.
* High stress.
* Low expectations.
* Recent failure.
* Difficulty with the
problem.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
* Incomplete search for
alternatives.
* Failure to develop a
contingency plan.
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
16
Groupthink in action:
The National Security Council and the Bay of Pigs - 1961
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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.
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
17
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.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
18
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.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
19
Dysfunctional group behaviors
• Anchoring Effect
• Inequality of Participation
Causes...
• Deference to seniors
• Have less to offer
• Less data
• Wrong group structure
Percent
Participation
High
“Old hands”
Extroverts
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
Low
Status
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
“Newcomers”
Introverts
20
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.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
21
Self justification – an example
Washington Post News Service, November, 1971
22
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
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
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
23
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?
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
24
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
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
25
• Definition
Prejudice (fordom)
– 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.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
26
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?
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
27
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?
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
28
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.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
29
Coordinating mechanisms
Coordinating Mechanism
Rules, policies and procedures
Goal-setting and planning
processes
Direct contact and committees
Focus
• Specific actions
• Expected results
• Informal focus on
decision processes
Task forces and temporary teams
• Formal, intermittent focus
on decision processes
Permanent teams and departments
• Formal, continuous focus
on decision processes
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
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.”
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
Group processes
•
Interacting group
•
Nominal group technique
•
Delphi group
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
32
Interacting group characteristics
• Most common group structure.
• Problem statement by the group leader.
• Unstructured discussion.
Consequences for problem solving...
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
33
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.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
34
The Nominal Group technique
1. A small group identifies the
issue and receives instructions.
3. Each participants’ ideas are
presented, one at a time,
and recorded.
2. Participants privately write
down ideas about problem solving.
4. Each idea is discussed, clarified
and evaluated by the group.
5. Participants privately rank the
ideas in their order of preference.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
6. Highest ranking idea is
taken as the group’s decision.
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
35
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.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
36
The Delphi technique
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…
If consensus is
reached…
7. Solutions are compiled
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
Solution
37
The Delphi method:
Characteristics
• Physically dispersed.
• Systematic collection and combination of
information.
• Consensus achieved through feedback.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
38
The Delphi method
Advantages
Disadvantages
• Isolated generation of
ideas.
• Lack of socio-emotional
satisfaction.
• Problem complexity
addressed in the process.
• Possible communication and
interpretation problems.
• Proactive search behavior.
• Conflicting and
incompatible ideas are
resolved by pooling.
• Anonymity and isolation.
• No face-to-face problem
solving to resolve conflicts.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
39
Dimensions for comparing group
processes
• Overall methodology
• Equality of participation
• Role orientations
• Problem solving methods
• Relative quantity of ideas • Closure decision process
• Search behavior
• Resources utilized
• Nominal behavior
• Time requirements
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
40
Overall methodology
Interacting
groups
Nominal
groups
Unstructured
face-to-face
group meeting.
Structured
face-to-face
group meeting.
High flexibility.
Low flexibility.
High variability in
behavior of groups.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
Low variability in
behavior of groups.
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
Delphi
groups
Structured series
of questionnaires
and feedback
reports.
Low variability in
respondent
behavior.
41
Role orientation
Interacting
groups
Socio-emotional.
Group maintenance
focus.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
Nominal
groups
Balanced focus on
social maintenance
and task role.
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
Delphi
groups
Task instrumental
focus.
42
Relative quantity of ideas
Interacting
groups
Nominal
groups
Delphi
groups
Low.
Higher.
Independent writing.
High.
Focused “rut” effect.
Hitch-hiking round
robin brainstorming.
Isolated writing of
ideas.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
43
Search behavior
Interacting
groups
Nominal
groups
Delphi
groups
Reactive search.
Proactive search.
Proactive search.
Short issue focus.
Extended issue
focus.
Controlled issue
focus.
High task
centeredness.
High task
centeredness.
New social and
task knowledge.
New task knowledge.
Task avoidance
tendency.
New social
knowledge.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
44
Normative behavior
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.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
45
Equality of participation
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.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
46
Method of problem solving
Interacting
groups
Nominal
groups
Delphi
groups
Person centered.
Issue centered.
Issue centered.
Smoothing over
and withdrawal.
Confrontation and
problem solving.
Majority rule of
pooled independent
judgments.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
47
Decision process closure
Interacting
groups
Nominal
groups
Delphi
groups
High lack of closure.
Lower lack of
closure.
Low lack of closure.
Low feeling of
accomplishment.
Higher feeling of
accomplishment.
Medium feeling of
accomplishment.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
48
Resource utilization
Interacting
groups
Nominal
groups
Delphi
groups
Low administrative
time and costs.
Medium
administrative time,
cost and
preparation.
High administrative.
High participant
time and cost.
High participant
time and cost.
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
49
Holdout slides
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
50
Experimentation in social psychology
Challenges…
– Control versus Impact
– Realism
• Experimental realism – experiment has an impact
on the respondent and forces a serious approach
• Mundane realism – how similar the laboratory setup
is to the outside world
– Deception
• Often needed to achieve experimental realism
• Requires disguising the true purpose of the study
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
51
Experimentation in social psychology
Challenges (continued)
– Ethical problems
• Unethical to tell lies to people
• Telling lies can lead to invasion of privacy
• Experimental procedures can entail unpleasant
experiences
 Do the Ends justify the Means?
– Post-experimental session
• Used to un-do discomforts and deceptions
• Turn the experiment into an educational
experience for the respondent
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
52
Something to think about…
• Morality of finding out unpleasant things…
– What is the moral responsibility of the
researcher for what is discovered?
– Example
• Use of Nazi medical data by researchers.
• Potentially very useful, but…
• Social scientists are frequently confronted with
value judgments like this in their work.
• Again…
Do the Ends justify the Means?
The Social Psychology of Decision-Making
GRA 6820
Strategic Choice
53