Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Sun, 19 Oct 1997 05:21:24 +0100
Hi, Gene and the Lila Squad,
Gene Kofman wrote:
> Maggie wrote:
> <snip>...
> > ...Groups of people commonly functioned
> > within the realm of social/biological interactions, with individual
> > leaders functioning in the intellectual/social realm. Now, that kind
> of >group function still exists, but there is another, one in which the
> group >works with intellectual/social interactions and patterns, and
> structures >itself to be open to Dynamic Quality.
> This is exciting. Do you have any examples of the group discussions James
> Stoner used to prove his point.
>
Here's what I have. The original study is listed as
Stoner, J. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving
risk. Unpublished master's thesis, Massachusetts Instuitute of Technology,
Boston.
I started to check in the University library, ERIC and other databases for the
text, but no luck yet.
I found the Stoner reference in a group dynamics text. I have a hard time
placing credibility in any particular passage from a textbook in the social
field, as they all seem really murky and confused (IMHO), but this might be an
instance of something I've been looking for. In trying to puzzle out the
dynamics of school reform, one of my concerns has been to determine what
exactly is being asked of our schools, and why (or whether) it is different
from before.
I should probably admit here that I really burned out on this a few years ago,
and while part of me wants to go on and continue the work, for the most part I
keep finding reasons to be doing something else.
Here's the passage I read that brought this back to mind. The book is
"Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills" by David W. Johnson and Frank
P. Johnson (sixth edition). The passage is on page 236.
begin passage
In 1961, James Stoner (1961), then a MIT graduate student in industrial
management, compared risk-taking by individuals and groups for his master's
thesis. He wanted to test the commonly held belief that groups were more
conservative in their decisions than individuals were. Stoner's procedure,
which was followed in dozens of later experiments, posed some decision dilemmas
to people by themselves. Each problem described a decision faced by a
fictitious person. The subject's task was to advise the person how much risk
to take. For example, what advice would you give the person in this item?
"Henry is a writer who is said to have considerable creative talent but who so
far has been earning a comfortable living by writing cheap westerns. Recently
he has come up with an idea for a potentially significant novel. If it could
be written and accepted it might have considerable literary impact and give a
big boost to his career. On the other hand, if he is not able to work out his
idea or if the novel is a flop, he will have expended considerable time and
energy without renumeration."
"Imagine that you are advising Henry. Please check the LOWEST probability that
you would consider acceptable for Henry to attempt to write the novel. Henry
should attempt to write the novel if the chances that the novel will be a
success are at least:
___ 1 in 10 ___ 4 in 10 ___ 7 in 10
___ 2 in 10 ___ 5 in 10 ___ 8 in 10
___ 3 in 10 ___ 6 in 10 ___ 9 in 10
___10 in 10 (Place a check here if you think Henry should attempt the novel
only if it is certain that the novel will be a success.)"
After marking their advice on a dozen items similar to this one, subjects would
be placed in groups of five or so members and discuss each item and reach an
unanimous decision on how much risk the person should take. Much to everyone's
surprise, the decisions chosen by the group were by and large riskier than
those selected before discussion. The finding was immediately dubbed the
"risky shift" phenomenon. Over 300 research studies have since been conducted
on this issue. Most of these studies used Stoner's method and found that group
decisions were indeed riskier. Other research indicates that group discussion
intensifies all sorts of attitudes, beliefs, values, judgments, and perceptions
[Myers, D. (1982). Polarizing effects of social interaction. In H.
Brandstatter, J. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kreichbauer (Eds.), Group decision
making. New York: Academic Press.]
More recently, researchers have realized that although group discussion often
produces a shift in individual opinions, such a shift is not necessary in the
direction of greater risk. It could be in the direction of greater
cautiousness (a "caution shift"). If the initial opinions of the group tend
toward conservatism, then the shift resulting from group discussion will be
towards a more extreme conservative opinion (Fraser, 1971; [Myers, D. and
Bishop, G. (1970) Discussion Effects on Racial Attitudes. Science 169,
778-779). The term "group polarization", therefore, has replaced the term
risky shift. When people discuss issues in groups, there is a tendency to
polarize decisions by deciding on a more extreme course of action than would be
suggested by the average of their individual judgments, but the direction of
this shift depends on what was initially the dominant point of view. Groups
seem to be more secure than individuals in adopting positions that are more
liberal or conservative than those originally held by the members (Myers and
Lamm, 1976, The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83,
602-627).
end passage
This last paragraph seems to give a common-sense explanation for the
phenomenon, but I think MoQ might give a better one.
All my reasoning and past research, such as it is, is in the Amiga computer,
and now I mostly use a PC since it talks to the internet and my printer so much
better. For some reason, this makes me feel really awkward and disorganized.
I started to write up the background for this idea for the group last week, but
I didn't finish, and want to be careful. I'll try to do it if you're
interested.
Thanks.
Maggie
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST