 This is part three of lecture nine. So far, we talked about the behavior of the individual in the group. And we also saw that groups do not necessarily bring out the best in us. On the contrary, we may start performing worse on the tasks that we are supposed to be doing. We also might show very anti-social behavior when we become part of a big group. But what happens if we are instructed to really work together with a group and specifically if we have to make decisions together? So there is way more knowledge available in groups than in one individual alone. And this is something that social psychologists refer to as transactive memory. So if you combine basically all the skills, all the memory capacities of all individuals, you have transactive memory and then you should be able to make much better decisions. However, our ability to make good decisions is often impaired when we become part of a group. And this is something that is referred to as process loss. So somewhere along the way, even though we actually have in theory the capacity to make a very good decision, we fail to do so. And we will now discuss two of the most sort of the biggest issues that can occur when people start making decisions together. The first one is group think and the second one is group polarization. So group think basically refers to the psychological process that if you have to make a decision together with a group, there is something that happens that impairs your capacity to make a good decision. And that is that oftentimes people are way more motivated to agree with each other, to remain harmonious in the group, to have a nice cohesive group in which everybody just goes along with each other, then to critically evaluate the decision and make a very good decision. And group think occurs oftentimes when big decisions have to be made, also consequent decisions with a lot of consequences. For example, political decisions. This happens for example with the decision of President Kennedy in 1961 to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, very famous political failure basically. So what he did was he basically invaded Cuba at the Bay of Pigs with a very small group of CIA agents. He was a bit cocky, he thought that he would just be able to with this very small manpower overthrow the Fidel Castro regime because the United States is so powerful. He doesn't need a lot of people and a lot of manpower to overthrow this regime. But Fidel Castro was much stronger than he anticipated and very quickly the CIA agents that invaded Cuba were captured and this was actually a winning moment for Castro and the US was really ridiculed all over the world for this complete failure. And this decision to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs is just so wrong in so many ways. And this is a very clear example of group think. So just to give you some context here, President Kennedy was just elected. So in 1961 he invaded Cuba in the 60s he was elected and it was a very close victory so he was super happy that he won and he surrounded himself with basically a group of advisors that really loved him and adored him. So all his advisors were really close to him. It was a very homogeneous group, very tight-knit. They had not yet made any big political decision. So they were basically clueless on well-developed methods for making complicated political decisions. They hadn't done so yet. This was the first big decision that Kennedy made and also what is really clear is that Kennedy from the beginning on he said out loud, I want to invade Cuba. He basically already made the decision. This was not something he discussed with the advisors. The only thing he asked the advisors was on detail, so how should I go about it? So he didn't even reconsider, he wouldn't reconsider doing it at all. So this is basically the perfect cocktail for group think to occur because we know that group think is more likely to occur in groups that are very cohesive, very close groups. If they are isolated from the rest, if their leader is very directive, Kennedy was a very directive authoritarian leader, poor decision-making procedures and stress, crisis, you know, stressful situation, definitely also adds to the likelihood that group think occurs. So he made this very bad decision and even though he was surrounded by people that should have told him, don't do it. This is a very bad idea. So how can group think be prevented? What could Kennedy have done, you know, to prevent him from making this political blunder? Well, first of all, it's very important that the leader reconsider his or her approach. So the leader should remain impartial, not say anything that sort of is an indication of the preference of the leader. So the complete opposite of what Kennedy did, he immediately made clear what he wanted to do. He shouldn't have done that, remain impartial. He should also seek anonymous opinions, okay, not ask people to say out loud what they think. Also for this, please think back of the Ash experiment, right, with on conformity. If participants could write down the answers anonymously, then they were indeed giving the correct answer. So giving your opinion anonymously definitely also helps for group members to speak up and also, you know, be more critical of the leader's ideas. A devil's advocate can be assigned. So that's one person in a group that's really assigned the position of, you know, think of criticism of this plan. So be very critical on this plan. Outside opinions should also be seeked. So ask outsiders for their opinion, people outside of your bubble, and develop a plan B. What if it fails? What is an other option, something that we can do? Or maybe something that's maybe even in the end, a better plan. Okay, so group think is definitely the cause of many political failures, but group think happens, you know, outside of politics as well. For example, in companies with very strong leaders, here you see, I can imagine that this is sort of the director, very authoritarian director of a certain company saying, yes, let's please vote on this motion for merging our company with the other company. And everybody, all the individuals on the table, think to themselves, no, this is a terrible idea, you've got to be kidding me, don't do it. But at the same time, they're all nodding their heads. And all saying, yeah, yeah, of course, very good idea. It's basically the ash experiment in decision making. And this is what we, as psychologists, refer to as pluralistic ignorance. So pluralistic ignorance is when people think, so people in a group think that everybody else is interpreting a situation in a certain way, which in fact they are not. So everybody else is thinking, I am probably the only one that is disagreeing, so I should just remain quiet and not speak up. And this is actually something that happens in the classroom as well, that I, for example, if I'm standing in front of a big lecture hall and there's a lot of students and I ask students, so are there any questions? Oftentimes I see people looking around like, I have a question, but nobody else is raising their hands. Also an example of pluralistic ignorance. Oftentimes you think I'm probably the only person in this entire room that doesn't get it. And I'm probably stupid because I'm not getting it, so I will just remain quiet and figure out the answer myself. And at the same time it's very likely that a lot of students, a lot of other people are thinking the same thing, so are also not getting it. But nobody dares to raise their hand, nobody dares to ask a question. So this is an example of pluralistic ignorance. Also please keep this in mind for the Q&A sessions that we have speak up, you know, because if you have a question, the likelihood that someone else in this group has the same question is very, very high. And maybe even, you know, a lot of people, maybe even the majority of the group is thinking the same. Okay, so so far we talked about groupthink, very important phenomena that occurs when groups make decisions together. Now let's move on to the second topic and that's group polarization. And in order to introduce that, let me tell you the story of Mark. Here's he, Mark. Mark is a high school teacher. He is pretty happy with his job, but he has this big dream of writing a novel. He has this idea of a novel for a long time and he knows, you know, I cannot write it in the evening hours, I need to focus, I need to, you know, just clear my agenda and go somewhere and just write all days. But yeah, should I do it? Should I quit my job to write my novel? And he's contemplating doing so and you know, of course, there's risks involved. He can, of course, his book can be a big failure. He cannot sell any copies and then if he quit his job, he might not get his job back. So, you know, there's risks involved in quitting his job. So today Mark has a meeting with a publisher who will estimate his chances that his book will be a success. And then this chance would be, you know, on a scale from one, probably a complete failure, to ten, definitely going to be a bestseller. So what do you think is an acceptable risk on a scale from one to ten? What is the number that you think would be a good outcome for this publisher to say, okay, I'll go for it? Okay, think about that for a moment and then let's imagine that you'll have a group discussion about this and you talk to each other and you talk about the situation and together you have to combine your opinions and come up with a number for Mark for his estimation on when he should quit his job. So this is an example of group decision-making and this is also an example of potential for group polarization because initially what you would think is, let's imagine you have certain outcomes that go from less risky, very safe outcomes to very risky. If you take the average of the individual choice, then this should be the group choice, right? If you take the average of all the individuals, some are a bit more risky, others are a bit less risky, then the average is just what the decision of the group will be. But this is not what happens. So Stoner's already demonstrated this in 1961, so if the average individual choice is already a little bit to the risky side, after discussing it with the group, the group decision will be even more risky and this is called group polarization. So you become more polarized, more extreme in your decision-making once you discuss it with the group. And if something like this occurs, so if the average individual choice is already a little bit risky and the group choice becomes very risky, this is called the risky shift. So later on, actually this experiment has been conducted and let's imagine let's go back to the situation of Mark and you get some additional info, namely Mark is actually at this very moment already broke. He has no money at all and he's also the single dad of these two super cute kids. So what do you think now? Should Mark quit his job to follow his dream? What would be an acceptable number, you know, from 1 to 10 to quit his job? So with this additional information, I bet you become a little bit more safe in your choice, right? If the average individual choice is less risky, then what you see is that the group choice becomes even safer and this is called the cautious shift. So people become more cautious, more conservative when they are already a bit on the safe side. So you might wonder, you know, good question, why does group polarization occur? Well, there's many explanations but I'll just focus on two key elements. First of all, the informational influence. Groups, group members give us information and specifically, if we start talking to our group members, they might come up with different arguments, some things that we have not considered yet and this is called the persuasive arguments interpretation. So group members come up with convincing arguments that you have not considered yet. So you are already maybe a bit to the risky side and then you hear additional arguments in line with this risky perspective and you think, yes, it's a very good idea to be more risky and you shift, so you become riskier because you just hear new information. So because you get new information, your decision becomes more polarized. One perspective. The other perspective, of course, is the normative influence. So we don't only follow the group because they give us information, we also follow the group because we want to fit in and we compare ourselves to other group members and especially if it's a cohesive group, a group that we love to be part of, we know that if a group is already leaning a bit towards the risky side, we compare ourselves to other group members and we want to be a good group member and take a little bit more of an extreme point of view as a self-presentation tool, basically, to be seen as a better group member. So you think, well, this group is already a bit extreme, a bit risky, so I'll present myself as even riskier. So I'll be sort of the leader of this risky group and if this happens, it's social comparison, you compare yourself to others, normative influence leading to more group polarization. So as a summary, and I'm sad that this is the conclusion again, groups do not always bring out the best in us. So also when it comes to making decisions in a group, even though we have the capacity to make very good decisions if you join all our forces and all our insights and all our opinions, we have to make sure that we prevent group think and group polarization to actually make a good decision.