Critically evaluate research concerned with decision-making in-groups - Give attention to minority and majority group influences.

Authors Avatar
TO DO: Discuss criticisms

Find something on minority influence

Group think group polarization.

Critically evaluate research concerned with decision-making in-groups. Give attention to minority and majority group influences.

Do individuals change their opinions when they learn that the majority of the group they belong to have a different opinion? Do they secretly keep their own convictions or do majority influences really change people's minds? Under which conditions do individuals manage to resist majority influence?

Alternatively are minority groups able to have an effect on the views of the majority, which characteristics would this group need to have in order to produce a successful effect, and also is there a difference in the amount of influence between the two groups. Lastly does the condition of the environment effects the outcome of group decisions. By looking at research conducted in these areas we will be able to find the answers to all those questions posed above.

To begin with it may be beneficial to define a few of the key terms that will be explored within the essay. Firstly what is a group some may ask, it has been defined by many but just to state a few; Lewin 1948 who stated that a group was 'a dynamic whole based on interdependence' and 'shared norms and interlocking roles' as defined by Newcomb 1957. In both these definitions we can see that two common features that appear are norms and interdependence this is also the case with other definitions giving. Suggesting that a group is something, which works around some form of 'normality' and mutuality. Therefore one may presume that when looking at group decision making there would be apparent signs of mutual agreement and 'normal' outcome. This will be looked at in depth later when analyzing the research conducted in this area.

The aim of this essay is to find and critically analyze some of the work done to try and find how much we can really know about decisions made in a group. How and why certain decisions are made and particularly what makes an individual change their decision when in a group. Paying close attention to majority and minority influence, and how each of these phenomena have been shown have great effects on individuals whilst making decisions in a group.

Majority influence is the term used when talking about an individual conforming to a viewpoint of the majority, usually a group or organization that they follow. A highly common phenomena in society and in the lives of individuals but sometimes can not be seen. Studies done on the issue of majority influence are done to find how real the phenomena of 'conformity' is and if majority influence really changes the minds of individuals or do individuals only agree overtly but keep their own views private.

The first study that will be looked at is one of the early social-influence experiments conducted by Muzafer Sherif 1935. Sherif's experiment involved the autokinetic effect whereby a point of light in an otherwise totally dark environment will appear to move randomly. Subjects were invited to estimate the amount of 'movement' they observed. Some of the participants made their estimates in groups first and then in following experiments made their decisions on their own. The other half of the group did the reverse. When participants were in-groups each member could hear the others' estimates. Ultimately, the group members' estimates converged towards a 'group estimate' regardless of what their original estimate was. Sherif found a fairly large degree of convergence among the judgments within the group. Thus, in the absence of any

'real' physical cues, group members used the judgment of others to modify their own judgments. Even though this famous experiment is not a majority influence or conformity experiment as Sheriff merely brought together a few people with different opinions and there was not present a large group with one particular opinion. Regardless of this the experiment does show that, when an individual is faced with different judgements of others they quickly abandon their own 'frame of reference and adopt that of the group'. Likewise a decision that was made when in a group continued to affect a person's judgement when the group was no longer present. The findings of this experiment may not be surprising or any way out of the ordinary as being influenced by others judgements is something quite ordinary especially if we are not sure about the stimulus. But would we expect the same results when we know that the opposing views are obviously in the wrong? Exactly how far do we blindly follow and accept others judgements? Asch who felt that Sheriffs experiments were not really showing conformity as the task was ambiguous and so it was difficult to measure exactly how willing individuals were to following the judgements of others. He suggested that if people 'yield to group pressure' (Crutchfield 1962) when the answer is obvious then there is much more likeliness of conformity than when the answer is not clear. And so in the early 1950's Asch conducted a series of experiments using the 'Asch paradigm'. In his experiments he put together a group of participants and asked them to match comparison lines with a standard line To begin with the experiment was shown as one, which is straightforward and obvious, and so for the first few trials all confederated agreed on the right answer. However as the experiment proceeded the confederates (who were the majority of the group) began agreeing on the wrong answer. The overall finding showed that the basic conformity rate was around the 32% mark, which is rather high, considering how straightforward the task was. Van Avermaet (1988) suggested that 'the results revealed the tremendous impact of an 'obviously' incorrect but unanimous majority on the judgements of a lone subject.' When these participants were interviewed after the experiments many of them confessed that the reason that they conformed was that hey wanted to please the experimenter and felt that by following what others were doing they were giving him results that he wanted. Others claimed that their reason for conformity was simply not to look as an 'outcast' even though they knew that the answer was wrong. From these findings we can see that both the groups despite having changed their judgements in conformity to the confederated still internally believed that their judgement was wrong. As so the influence was not able to truly change their mind. However when this same experiment was replicated but this time with 16 naïve participants and one confederate the answers given by the confederate were mocked and so the fear of being laughed at for giving the wrong answer had disappeared. It seems that the decision made by the individual when in a group depends on the environment and on the individual themselves. By looking closely at the findings of Asch we find that some individuals went through the whole experiment without conforming even once whereas others conformed on every 'critical' trial, showing that decisions are also made depending on the individuals personality whether dependant or independent. Despite Asch showing that individuals do conform to others judgements even when the answer may be wrong his work has been criticized by many. Critics have pointed out that the reason participants may conform is due to the fear of being ridiculed for exposing their true beliefs in public. And so they suggest that if the same participants were able to give their responses in private then conformity should drop. Crutchfield (1954) carried out one such experiment and found that conformity does drop the same was found by Deutsch and Gerad (1955) and by Asch himself in replicas of the study. Other critics have gone further and have suggested that levels of conformity in such experiments differ within and between cultures. Larsen (1974) found different levels of conformity within the American participants, he reported that in the 70's when American culture turned away from conformity and towards independence, conformity levels dropped. Several decades later when a review of conformity studies was done by Smith and Bond (1993) they concluded that among members of individualistic cultures conformity levels were lower in comparison to collectivist cultures.
Join now!


The studies from Sherif and Asch cited early show a prety robust

grouping effect. People conform to form consensus, even in artifical conditions,

even if that consensus opinion is obviously wrong. They form a collective

identity in the sense that the group has a consensus opinion. The individual

adapts their individual identity to compromise with the others in the group. In

the Sherif experiment they formed a consensus as to the illusory motion of a dot

of light. In the more extreme Asch experiment most subjects chose an obviously

wrong answer ...

This is a preview of the whole essay