Understand Risky Shift

7/30/2019 Understand Risky Shift

1/26

Group PolarizationSeptember 14, 2006


2/26

Adding the Element of Interaction

Groups interact with one another to make

judgments and decisions.

E.g. Juries, Top Management Teams, Presidential

Cabinets.

Key Questions:

How judgments made by individuals compare to

judgments made by a group?

Does discussion lead groups to make good

decisions or bad decisions?


3/26

The Risky Shift: First Example

Helen is a writer who is said to have considerable

creative talent but who so far has been earning a

comfortable living writing cheap Westerns. Recently

she has come up with an idea for a potentiallysignificant novel. If it could be written and accepted,

it might have considerable literary impact and be a

boost to her career. On the other hand, if she cannot

work out her idea, or the novel is a flop, she will haveexpended considerable time and energy without pay.(Stoner, 1961)


4/26

Decision: What Should Helen Do?

Imagine that you are advising Helen. Pleasecheck the lowest probability that you wouldconsider acceptable for Helen to write the

novel.__ 1/10 __ 6/10

__ 2/10 __ 7/10

__ 3/10 __ 8/10__ 4/10 __ 9/10

__ 5/10 __ 10/10


5/26

Result:Groups Shift Toward Risk

Individuals marked their answers first while

alone, and then again after discussing their

opinions with a group.

Groups made riskier decision than individuals.

Risky Shift: A group consensus is almost

always riskier than the average decision

made by individuals prior to a group

discussion


6/26

The Case of Group Betting

People asked to make bets first as individualsthen as a group.

Results showed that groups shifted toward risk

by placing bets with a smaller probability ofwinning and by placing bets with a largerstake.

Key Boundary Condition: There must becommunication between groups members for ashift to be observed.


7/26

Why a Shift Toward Risk?

The Risk As Value Hypothesis: Moderate risk

is valued in our culture. Therefore, people

want to shift toward risky decisions to gain

status and approval from other groupmembers.

Is this an accurate statement about American

culture? Why or why not? Can you think of cases where risk is not valued?


8/26

The Cautious Shift??

Many experiments demonstrated a shift toward

risk, but sometimes people demonstrated a

shift toward caution after the group discussion.

Inconsistent results created major problems.

Is there a risky and a cautious shift?

The Risk as Value hypothesis cannot explain

this phenomenon.


9/26

Cautious Shift: An Illustration

Roger is a young married man with twoschool aged children and a secure but lowpaying job. Roger can afford lifes necessities

but few of its luxuries. He hears that the stockof a relatively unknown company may soontriple in value if its new product is favorablyreceived, but decline precipitously if it fails.

Roger has no savings. To invest in thecompany he is considering selling his lifeinsurance policy.


10/26

Risky or Cautious Advice?

Given Rogers situation, would you advise him

to sell his life insurance policy and make the

risky investment?

If a group were to discuss this issue, what

might their initial tendency be: To advise the

risky decision or the cautious decision?


11/26

Beyond the Risky Shift

The Risky Shift is not about risk at all.

Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969) re-

conceptualized the risky shift as a more

general phenomenon called group polarization.

Group Polarization: A group discussion

strengthens the average inclination of group

members.


12/26

Group Polarization: Example

Moscovici examined French students attitudestoward Americans (initially negative) andtoward de Gaulle (initially positive).

Attitudes toward Americans became MOREnegative after the discussion than before thediscussion.

Attitudes toward de Gaulle became MOREpositive after the discussion than before thediscussion.


13/26

Domains other than risk

Polarization of attitudes:

Attitudes toward war

Attitudes toward capital punishment

Attitudes of students toward their school.

Racial attitudes

Polarization of Juries

Dogmatic juries toward harsher sentences

Less dogmatic juries toward lenient sentences.


14/26

Class Demonstration

Each of you completed a survey about your attitudes

on several controversial issues.

I separated you into like-minded groups based on

your responses to the survey.OBJECTIVES:

To see if groups polarize on issues that dont involve risk

(like betting)

To get a feel for what its like to be in a polarization

experiment

To begin to think about why groups polarize.


15/26

Breastfeeding in Public

Polarization: Breastfeeding in Public

0

0.51

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Before Discussion After Discussion

Individual Opinion

Acceptable Unacceptable


16/26

Racial Profiling

Polarization: Racial Profiling

0

1

2

3

4

5

Before Discussion After Discussion

Individual Opinion

LOGICAL RACIST


17/26

Why Do Groups Polarize?

Discussion produces a commitment.

People become more committed to a viewpoint

when they express that viewpoint publicly and

therefore they become more extreme in theirjudgments.

No discussion: No polarization


18/26

Additional Mechanisms

How can we explain the phenomenon?

3 MAJOR explanations:

Group decision rules (e.g. Majority rules)

Social comparisons

Informational influence


19/26

Group Decision Rules

Majority Rules:

Example: A jury is deliberating a case

involving a traffic accident. Decision whether

to award between $10,000 & $50,000.

Pre discussion: 12 person jury. 2 would vote

for $10,000 and 10 would vote for $40,000:

Group Average: $35,000


20/26

Was there polarization?

Post-discussion: Majority wins and thedefendant is awarded 40,000 Pre-discussion: $35,000

Post-discussion: $40,000 Weaknesses of this theory:

Polarization occurs even in the absence of suchdecision rules

People can actually change their post-discussionjudgments (internalization).


21/26

Social Comparison

Most decision involve social values:

Caring for others, being adventurous, taking healthrisks, etc.

Prior to discussion most people believe theyare farther toward the favorable pole thaneveryone else.

During discussion people realize that otherpeople might endorse position farther towardthe socially desirable pole than them.


22/26

Social Comparison (cont)

Result: People are motivated to move farther toward

the socially desirable end of the scale.

Example: Should governments be allowed to torture

captured terrorists?

10 9 8 7 6 5

Never (AFTER) (BEFORE) Sometimes


23/26

Informational influence

People polarize when they hear persuasive

arguments.

3 Types of Information:

Direction: Arguments reflect dominant tendency

within the group

Persuasiveness: Is it trivial? Is it relevant?

Novelty: Have I heard the argument before?


24/26

Link to your group discussion

Which mechanism (s) did you find the most

convincing?

Do you think there any mechanisms that were

not mentioned? (E.g. Will groups with a

strong leader be more likely to polarize).

How can you reverse polarization tendencies?

How can you use polarization to your

advantage?


25/26

Discussion Questions (cont)

Why is it useful to know about polarization

tendencies?

How should we compose groups given this

information?

How can group polarization influence the

quality of a groups decision?

Are extreme decisions better decisions?


26/26

Next week

Jury Simulation.

NO ASSIGNED READING

Understand Risky Shift

Documents

Transcript of Understand Risky Shift