Social Psychology

1
Social Psychology

• Prof. Michael Milburn

2
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

3
If you have not been assigned to a group
yet--please see me after class
4
A Social Psychological Analysis of 12 Angry Men

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

5
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

6
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

7
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)
8
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

9

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

10
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
11
So, risky shift is a special case of a more
general phenomenon now called Group Polarization
12
III. Explanations for the Group Polarization
phenomenon

• Persuasive Arguments
• Social Comparison

13
Persuasive Arguments
Arguments favoring RISK
Bob
Jeff
Sue
Arguments favoring CAUTION
14
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

15
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

16
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

17
Myers and Kaplan results
Guilty
JUDGMENTS OF GUILT
14
High guilt cases
12
10

• Initial Ratings

8
6
Low guilt cases
4
Not Guilty
18
Myers and Kaplan results
JUDGMENTS OF GUILT
14
High guilt cases
12
10
Not discussed
8
6
Low guilt cases
4
Initial
Final
19
Myers and Kaplan results
JUDGMENTS OF GUILT
14
High guilt cases
12
Discussed
10
Not discussed
8
6
Low guilt cases
4
Initial
Final
20
So, how does this all apply to an understanding
of 12 Angry Men?
21
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
22
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

23
Meek hesitant 2 easily swayed
Loud flashy 7 bully coward
Social Characteristics of Jurors
Slick bright superficial 12 snob
no understandi- ing of people
Angry bitter bigot 10 no value on
life
Honest dull witted 6 careful
Naïve frightened young 5
takes obligations seriously
Thoughtful gentle seeks truth 8
strong wants justice compassion
Forceful opinionated sadistic 3
humorless intolerant
Refugee ashamed humble 11 honest seeks
justice
Mild gentle old 9 courageous
Small, petty not bright (foreman) formal
dogged
Wealth feels above rest 4
concerned with facts
Socially Undesirable
Socially Desirable
24
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

25
If you have not been assigned to a group
yet--please see me NOW