Social Psychology

Prof. Michael Milburn

Checklist for THIS Thursday group meeting [Sept. 20]--things you should have done already
Appoint a group leader and an observer Group leader plans discussion/quiz Observer duplicates PMR forms for group to fill out at end of meeting Group members study course reading material in preparation for the group meeting

If you have not been assigned to a group yet--please see me after class

A Social Psychological Analysis of 12 Angry Men

Research on Group Process and Decision Making--The Theory of Group Polarization

In books on jury process--12 Angry Men is treated as a joke

A switch from 11-1 in one direction to 12-0 in the other is a statistical rarity Nevertheless, 12 Angry Men is a convincing movie. Why? Movie conforms to known principles of group dynamics

Steps in the decision-making process as portrayed in 12 Angry Men

Time 1--initial individual decisions are made (11-1 for guilty) Time 2--convene as a group--discuss the problem Time 3--a group decision is reached (0-12 for not guilty) These steps parallel the group process of research in Group Polarization

Theory of Group Polarization

I. History of research
A. Major dimension for decisions is riskiness B. Early research (Whyte, 1956)groups avoid risk C. Stoner (1961)groups make riskier decisions 1. Story of Mr. A 2. Choice dilemmas (Risky Shift)

Stoners Risky Shift research replicated hundreds of times with original choice dilemmas
Average risk scores following discussion are more risky than scores made preceding discussion Not every group becomes riskier Of every group that moves in the direction of risk, not every member becomes riskier

1 in 10 A 2 in 10

Most risky

Unanimous

E,F 3 in 10 4 in 10 5 in 10 B,C 6 in 10 7 in 10 8 in 10 9 in 10 10 in 10 Most cautious Initial Mean Unanimous group decision

group decision riskier than mean of initial individual decisions Not everyone becomes riskier-primarily those near middle of the scale (5 in 10)

Final

II. Risky Shift research

A. However, not all items produced the risky shift--some shifted toward caution 1. Mr. M & Ms. T 2. Henry B. The more risky (or cautious) the initial mean, the greater the shift in the risky (or cautious) direction (Myers & Arenson) C. Reformulated as Group Polarization

So, risky shift is a special case of a more general phenomenon now called Group Polarization

III. Explanations for the Group Polarization phenomenon

Persuasive Arguments Social Comparison

Persuasive Arguments
Arguments favoring RISK

Bob

Jeff

Sue Arguments favoring CAUTION

Ebbeson and Bowers--Persuasive arguments

Used Stoners original risk dilemmas Tape recorded scripts of discussions, varying proportions of arguments Subjects made initial judgment; listened to discussion; made new judgment
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6

Risky

Mean shift

.1

.3

.5

.7

.9

Conservative

Proportion Risky Arguments

Social Comparison
Any specific choice dilemma evokes either risk or caution Before knowing others decisions, people make choice of what appears desirable Following discussion, people motivated to change position relative to other people

Jury Research--evidence for Group Polarization effects

Kalven & Zeisel (1966)--90% of unanimous juries research verdict consistent with initial majority vote Myers & Kaplan (1976)--simulated juries deliberating traffic felony cases; discussion produces shift in initial direction

Myers and Kaplan results

Guilty
14 12 10 8 JUDGMENTS OF GUILT High guilt cases

Initial Ratings
Low guilt cases

6
4

Not Guilty

Myers and Kaplan results

JUDGMENTS OF GUILT 14 12 10 8 Not discussed High guilt cases

6
Low guilt cases 4

Initial

Final

Myers and Kaplan results

JUDGMENTS OF GUILT 14 12 10 8 Discussed Not discussed High guilt cases

6
Low guilt cases 4

Initial

Final

So, how does this all apply to an understanding of 12 Angry Men?

Persuasive Arguments explanation in 12 Angry Men-In the trial, there was a biased sampling of arguments heard, favoring guilt
Overall arguments and evidence favor not guilty verdict

Arguments favoring guilty heard initially in trial

Arguments favoring not guilty heard later in jury deliberation

Social Comparison in 12 Angry Men

After discussion, vote is 6 to 6, social comparison likely to enter process Self-presentation of a conscientious juror Either have qualities or behave like other people who appear to have them Switches occur in order of social desirability

Social Characteristics of Jurors

Meek hesitant 2 easily swayed

Loud flashy 7 bully coward

Honest dull witted 6 careful

Slick bright superficial 12 snob; no understandiing of people

Angry bitter bigot 10 no value on life

Thoughtful gentle seeks truth 8 strong wants justice compassion

Mild gentle old 9 courageous

Nave frightened young 5 takes obligations seriously

Refugee ashamed humble 11 honest seeks justice

Small, petty not bright (foreman) formal dogged

Wealth feels above rest 4 concerned with facts

Forceful opinionated sadistic 3 humorless intolerant

Socially Desirable

Socially Undesirable

Conclusion

12 Angry Men understandable in terms of the causal processes that have been found to influence group decision making: Persuasive arguments Social comparison Social Psychology identifies the causal processes that influence social behavior--not just personalities, but also characteristics of situations

If you have not been assigned to a group yet--please see me NOW