Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In social psychology, group polarization refers to the tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. These more extreme decisions are towards greater risk if individuals' initial tendencies are to be risky and towards greater caution if individuals' initial tendencies are to be cautious. [1]
Groupthink can be considered by many to be a detriment to companies, organizations and in any work situations. Most positions that are senior level need individuals to be independent in their thinking. There is a positive correlation found between outstanding executives and decisiveness (Kelman).
For example, deindividuation has been found to foster group identification and to induce greater opinion polarization in small groups communicating online. [20] In order to understand effects of factors such as anonymity and reduced cues on group behavior, one needs to take the social and inter-group context into account.
Group polarization refers to the finding that following group discussion, individuals tend to endorse a more extreme position in the direction already favored by the group. In Lee's study subjects were either assigned to a deindividuation or individuation condition.
The social identity approach suggests a more general approach to group decision-making than the popular groupthink model, which is a narrow look at situations where group and other decision-making is flawed. Social identity analysis suggests that the changes which occur during collective decision-making are part of rational psychological ...
Groupthink occurs when the group members are familiar with each other and seek each other's approval, especially in stressful situations. The diffusion of responsibility contributes to groupthink as when the diffusion of responsibility is occurring within a group, each group member feels less of a responsibility to express his or her own ...
Discrimination between in-groups and out-groups is a matter of favoritism towards an in-group and the absence of equivalent favoritism towards an out-group. [22] Out-group derogation is the phenomenon in which an out-group is perceived as being threatening to the members of an in-group. [23]
There are three processes of attitude change as defined by Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman in a 1958 paper published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution. [1] The purpose of defining these processes was to help determine the effects of social influence: for example, to separate public conformity (behavior) from private acceptance (personal belief).