Helmut Lamm

Group-Induced Polarization of Attitudes and Behavior

Publisher Summary The chapter explains the group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior. The chapter highlights the concept of group polarization with four observations. First, remember that group polarization refers to a strengthening of the dominant tendency, not to increased cleavage and diversity within a group. Second, it denotes an exaggeration of the initial mean tendency derived from data averaged over groups (this includes between-subject designs where baseline choices made alone are compared with choices made by other people following group discussion of group decision.) Note, third, that the polarization hypothesis is a more precise prediction than group extremization, which denotes movement away from neutrality regardless of direction. Finally, group polarization can occur without individual group members becoming more polarized. This could easily happen if a sharply split group of people converged on a decision that was slightly more polar than their initial average. In addition, future study of group interaction seems, therefore, to have the potential of developing a creative synthesis between theory and its social usefulness, thus making this an area that fulfills Kurt Lewins vision for social psychology.

A longitudinal study of adolescents' future orientation (time perspective)

This longitudinal study was designed to test hypotheses concerning the influence of environmental changes in different groups (educational status; sex) of adolescents on their future orientation (FO). FO was measured through a free-response questionnaire on which the subjects indicated their hopes and fears (which were later categorized into various domains of life by independent judges). On a second questionnaire the subjects adjudged their present and future life in various given domains of life. The sample consisted of 24 male and 24 female adolescents, aged between 14–16 years at the time of the first measurement; the second measurement took place two years later. Half of the subjects of each sex were students at a Gymnasium (preparing for university study) at both times of measurement (“high social status”). The other half of the subjects of each sex were in their last year at the Hauptschule (continuation of elementary education) at the first time of measurement, and had taken up employment (e.g., an apprenticeship) by the time of the second measurement (“low social status”). At the time of the second measurement relatively more hopes and fears were voiced in the domains of personal development and occupation than at the first measurement. Independent of time of measurement, low-status subjects voiced relatively more hopes and fears related to the occupational domain, and boys had a more extended FO than girls. Low-status subjects — as compared to high-status subjects as well as to their own judgments at the first measurement — believed to a greater extent that the materialization of their hopes and fears depended on themselves rather than on external forces. These results support the assumption that FO cannot be dealt with as a global concept and that FO can be modified by change in the external environments, such as entry into an occupation.

Risk taking in the context of intergroup negotiation

Abstract Pairs of three-person male groups, working separately, came to unanimous decisions on preferred risk levels for one-half of the items in the choice dilemmas procedure. All subjects had previously filled out the full 12-item questionnaire. Each group elected a representative to defend the groups interests (high commitment). An alternate (medium commitment) was also selected. The remaining subjects constituted the nonrepresentative (low commitment). Each subject in one of the groups was then matched with his status equivalent in the other group. These dyads negotiated agreements for the six items where there was a previous reference group position (“fixed”) and for the six items where there were only prior individual positions (“open”). For both fixed and open items, non-representatives and alternates manifested risky shifts in their joint decisions, whereas representatives reached decisions through averaging. These results implied that high levels of commitment in the context of intergroup negotiation can disrupt the valuational processes underlying the risky shift in the standard intragroup situation.

An Attributional Analysis of Interpersonal Justice: Ability and Effort as Inputs in the Allocation of Gain and Loss

Summary Existing versions of equity theory offer no satisfactory basis for predicting which of two contributions (e.g., ability, effort) to a jointly produced outcome is perceived as more relevant and is thus given greater consideration in allocation decisions. Further, equity theory does not address the issue of whether negative outcomes (losses) are allocated differently from positive outcomes (gains). Drawing on attribution theory, we hypothesized that allocators 1) take effort more into account than ability, and 2) take between-member contribution differences more into account in gain than in loss conditions. Male and female Ss (N = 120) were asked to distribute financial gains or losses between the two members of a hypothetical performance team who contributed different or equal amounts of effort and ability to the team product. The findings supported Hypothesis 1; only tangential evidence was obtained for Hypothesis 2.

Need Consideration in Allocation Decisions: Is it Just?

Summary The assumption was examined that need-considering allocations follow a social responsibility norm and are in conflict with distributive justice norms. In a questionnaire experiment, 48 male Ss indicated how they would allocate money between two hypothetical persons who needed different sums of money but contributed equally toward earning the money. Experimental variations included the absence/presence of a request to allocate justly and the interpersonal attraction between the recipients. Given a just-allocation request, need consideration was found (i.e., the needier person received significantly more than half of the profit) in both attraction conditions. In the absence of a just-allocation request, need consideration was found only in the high-attraction condition.

A Review of Our Research on Group Polarization: Eleven Experiments on the Effects of Group Discussion on Risk Acceptance, Probability Estimation, and Negotiation Positions

This paper gives a summary of the procedures and results of 11 experiments on the effects of group discussion. A wide range of personality and situational features were manipulated as independent variables. The studies were conducted for the most part in West Germany and have been published previously in various German and English/American journals. The findings are interpreted through two principal current theories of group polarization (i.e., of the finding that group discussion enhances the initially dominant tendency of group members), the social-comparison and persuasive-arguments theories. The studies here presented (almost all providing evidence for group polarization) seem to provide somewhat greater support for the latter theory. The article also analyzes subversions of each theory and discusses the relative support these receive from the data of our studies.

An Analysis of Future Orientation and Some of its Social Determinants

Time will be understood here from an internal point of view, that is, as a person’s subjective experience. The psychological experience of time contains the experience of the past, the present and the future. This experience can be cognitively represented in the mind of a person; thus, cognitive abilities and intellectual training would be relevant for the way a person conceives of time. Furthermore, the motivational structure of a person determines the experience of time to some extent; past, present and future contain events which are more or less desirable for a person. Hence, the motivational tendency to approach or to avoid specific events is relevant for a person’s psychological experience of the future.

The effect of conceptual complexity on information search in a complex problem-solving task

Individuals varying in their level of integrative complexity (Schroder, Driver, & Streufert, 1966) requested information about a novel environment for use in solving a complex problem. Ss who are integratively complex are more active in this type of learning task (ask more questions) and request different types of information than their integratively simple counterparts.

Causal Explanation of Performance Differences and Allocations Among Friends

Summary In the study of the link between laymens causal explanation of performance differences and allocation decisions, 12 male and 12 female “Gymnasium” students were required to allocate a profit between two hypothetical persons, described as friends, who had produced that profit through joint work. In contrast to theoretical statements which predict equal allocations among friends, we predicted unequal allocations for cases in which the performance differences between producers were explainable through effort differences (as opposed to ability differences). Results confirm this hypothesis: 58% of Ss allocated gains unequally when performance differences were explainable by effort differences; allocations were significantly more unequal in this condition than when performance differences were explainable by differences in ability (p < .05). Results also show that in these cases (performance explained by effort) the extent of allocational inequality covaried with the extent to which the more diligent t...

Justice Considerations in Interpersonal Conflict

What role do justice considerations play in interpersonal conflict? Several authors have noted that justice considerations may help conflict resolution. Pruitt (1972), under the heading of “norm following,” delineates how “equity norms” may be used as a “method for resolving differences of interest,” and he also gives attention to the problems with equity norms in the context of conflict resolution. Writing on negotiation as one particular kind of conflict process, Pruitt (1982, pp. 58–64) shows how the availability of a “prominent” solution (that is, one that appears as just to both parties) may facilitate agreement.1