The Social Side of Decision Making
The Social Side of Decision Making
In our group for this assignment we used a few techniques to arrive at a combined agreement. Group Polarization was definitely present in this group, so was dictatorship and conformity. The group worked together verbally; since a face to face was not applicable. Moscovici & Zavalloni describe group polarization as a “tendency for a group discussion to amplify the inclinations of group members.” (Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M., 1969). Group polarization creates what Moscovici & Zavalloni call the risky shift, where group members will more likely tend to agree to disagree and take more risks than if the member of the group were to be working alone independently. When people are in a group they are more likely to advocate riskier courses of action than if they were doing the project on their own. (Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M.1969).
For example, we in the group took risks to “trust” the other member to know what they were doing to help make our grade the best, and we relied on the compiler to create an outstanding paper using the information we all provided toward the assignment.
We also applied dictatorship; someone who planned the project and how it would be completed, with deadlines and responsibilities of all parties. In a group dictatorship “tends to be more accurate than individual judgments, accuracy depends in part upon how group members combine their answers. (Davis, 1973). Being that there were 7 working members of the group, we all had to do a portion of the assignment and then agree on a process and layout of the paper and then how our individual answers and interpretations were to be combined to make one glorious project for all of us.
We used five the techniques as described in the text of Plous; consensus, dialectic, dictator, Delphi and collective. (1993). Doing so we believed that following these techniques that we would arrive at a more accurate group judgment.
Asch found that one of the situational
In our group for this assignment we used a few techniques to arrive at a combined agreement. Group Polarization was definitely present in this group, so was dictatorship and conformity. The group worked together verbally; since a face to face was not applicable. Moscovici & Zavalloni describe group polarization as a “tendency for a group discussion to amplify the inclinations of group members.” (Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M., 1969). Group polarization creates what Moscovici & Zavalloni call the risky shift, where group members will more likely tend to agree to disagree and take more risks than if the member of the group were to be working alone independently. When people are in a group they are more likely to advocate riskier courses of action than if they were doing the project on their own. (Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M.1969).
For example, we in the group took risks to “trust” the other member to know what they were doing to help make our grade the best, and we relied on the compiler to create an outstanding paper using the information we all provided toward the assignment.
We also applied dictatorship; someone who planned the project and how it would be completed, with deadlines and responsibilities of all parties. In a group dictatorship “tends to be more accurate than individual judgments, accuracy depends in part upon how group members combine their answers. (Davis, 1973). Being that there were 7 working members of the group, we all had to do a portion of the assignment and then agree on a process and layout of the paper and then how our individual answers and interpretations were to be combined to make one glorious project for all of us.
We used five the techniques as described in the text of Plous; consensus, dialectic, dictator, Delphi and collective. (1993). Doing so we believed that following these techniques that we would arrive at a more accurate group judgment.
Asch found that one of the situational