Polarization as a function of meaning and consequences

Studied the effect of meaning and consequences on shifts toward extreme judgments (polarization) as a result of group discussion. Since it was hypothesized that high levels of both meaning and consequences would activate pressures to conform to the appropriate cultural norm, greater polarization was predicted under those conditions. Consequences were varied by asking subjects how willing they were to participate in another actual (high consequences) or hypothetical (low consequences) experiment. Meaning was varied by information that the proposed experiment would have high or low social and scientific significance. Sixty male college students discussed their preferences in three-person groups. Prediscussion, consensus, and postdiscussion scores were obtained; the critical polarization scores were computed on the basis of individual's movement away from the prediscussion mean of their group. Partial support for the hypotheses is provided by a cross-over interaction (p < .05) in changes from the prediscussion to consensus scores, which indicate greater polarization in the high-meaning, low-consequence condition, and in the low-meaning, high-consequence condition. The results are discussed with respect to their implications for research in which subjects do not expect real consequences to follow from their statements of opinion.     

Polarized Norms and Social Frames of Reference: A Test of the Self-Categorization Theory of Group Polarization

Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) explains group polarization as conformity to a polarized norem which defines one's own group in contrast to other groups within a specific social context. Whether the ingroup norm is polarized or not depends on the social comparative context within which the ingroup defines itself. It was predicted from self-categorization theory that an ingroup confronted by a risky outgroup will polarize toward caution, an ingroup confronted by a caution outgroup will polarize toward risk, and an ingroup in the middle of the social frame of reference, confronted by both risky and cautious outgroups, will not polarize but will converge on its pretest mean. Our experiment adopted a modified version of the risky-shift paradigm, in which subjects gave pretest, posttest, and group consensus recommendations on three choice dilemma item-types (risky, neutral, or risky). The frame of reference was manipulated by confronting the ingroup with an outgroup lying on one or the other side, or both sides, of the ingroup distribution. This procedure was successful in producing a polarized theoretical ingroup norm in the appropriate conditions. Subjects' posttest opinions converged on their estimations of the consensual ingroup position, which in turn was polarized or not in line with the theoretical norm. There was some evidence that the degree of behavioral convergence and estimations of the ingroup consensus were a partial function of the extent to which subjects identified the group. There was also the usual main effect for item-type: Subjects converged on a norm polarized toward risk on risky items and toward caution on catious items. The results are consistent with self-categorization theory.     

Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality

The effect of diversity in individual prediscussion preferences on group decision quality was examined in an experiment in which 135 three-person groups worked on a personnel selection case with 4 alternatives. The information distribution among group members constituted a hidden profile (i.e., the correct solution was not identifiable on the basis of the members' individual information and could be detected only by pooling and integrating the members' unique information). Whereas groups with homogeneous suboptimal prediscussion preferences (no dissent) hardly ever solved the hidden profile, solution rates were significantly higher in groups with prediscussion dissent, even if none of these individual prediscussion preferences were correct. If dissent came from a proponent of the correct solution, solution rates were even higher than in dissent groups without such a proponent. The magnitude of dissent (i.e., minority dissent or full diversity of individual preferences) did not affect decision quality. The beneficial effect of dissent on group decision quality was mediated primarily by greater discussion intensity and to some extent also by less discussion bias in dissent groups.     

Responsibility diffusion and drive enhancement effects on risky shift1

Discussion produced expected risky and cautious shifts on choice dilemma items It was predicted from responsibility diffusion theory that, compared with low-anxious, high-defensive groups, high-anxious, low-defensive groups produce greater risky shift It was predicted from drive enhancement theory that, compared with low-anxious groups, high-anxious groups produce greater risky shift on risk-dominant items and greater cautious shift on caution-dominant items The results of two experiments failed to confirm either interpretation Surprisingly, significant shifts were obtained in a control condition     

Self-image,perception of peers' risk acceptance and risky shift

Twelve four-person female groups of subjects displaying the typical underestimation of their peers' (relative to their own) risk acceptance were compared with twelve groups of subjects who (slightly) overestimated their peers' risk acceptance. Risk level was measured by responses to a set of hypothetical decision situations known to elicit risky shift on the basis of previous research. Risky shift following group discussion was not found to be different for the two types of groups, casting doubt on the widely suggested role of peer underestimation in risky shift. Nor was risky shift affected by whether or not group members stated their individual decisions publicly at the close of discussion. Larger group risky shifts were accompanied by higher self-ratings given by group members on a number of polarity scales. In discussing the findings, we outline an explanation of group-induced shifts in risk taking, emphasizing the motivational and informational inducements provided by group discussion whereby group members come to discard their prior positions in favor of more aspired ones.     

记忆抑制在正常人群与抑郁人群中的研究进展

抑郁症认知障碍的突出表现之一为患者的负性记忆偏向。已有研究常关注患者对负性信息自下而上的选择性注意,往往忽略了自上而下执行控制障碍对记忆的影响。近年研究提示,抑郁症患者和抑郁状态个体的记忆抑制缺陷在其负性记忆偏向的形成和维持中起到了重要作用,无法有效地主动抑制负性记忆可能是患者持续性负性反刍的主要原因。从抑郁症自上而下的执行控制缺陷入手,研究患者的记忆抑制障碍与其主要症状－负性反刍间的相关性,不仅能从理论上丰富Beck的抑郁症认知模型,还能指导临床建立更准确的预后评估指标,同时制定更有效的治疗方案。本文分别介绍了健康成人及抑郁症患者和抑郁状态个体的记忆抑制研究现状,并就当前在抑郁人群研究领域亟待解决的三个问题进行了探讨。     

On predicting minority influence

Paralleling closely an experiment on group polarization by Vinokur and Burnstein (1978), subjects discussed one of three risky, cautious, or neutral choice dilemmas. For each of the value items, one half of the six-person groups consisted of a cautious minority and a risky majority; the other half consisted of a risky minority and a cautious majority. The minorities always consisted of trained confederates. The results indicated that on risky items minorities that argued for risk had more influence than minorities advocating caution; on neutral and cautious items the majority was not influenced by the minority whether it advocated the risky or cautious alternative.     

Polarization and moderation of person perception judgements as a function of group interaction style

Studied the effects of group discussion on the extremity of person perception judgements with a view towards (a) evaluating the role of alternative ‘modes of interaction’ in selectively inducing polarization or moderation of judgements, and (b) further extending the generality of the group polarization phenomenon. Two traditional theories of group shift (leadership theory, value theory) were also evaluated. Both the video-taped stimuli and the subject, object and situation-relevant measuring instrument were specially developed in a pilot study (N = 90) in order to approximate real-life conditions. The person stimuli were rated by subjects (N = 72) in a traditional repeated measures design, with a control group for familiarization effects. Free exchange of opinions in group discussion was either encouraged or discouraged. A significant polarization effect with marked postdiscussion recidivism was found when spontaneous interaction was encouraged, while group consensus judgements were more moderate in the more formalized group interaction condition. Neither of the traditional theories examined were supported by the data. The results are discussed in term of their potential relevance to real-life groups specializing in person perception judgements (juries, interviewing panels), and the connection between the mode of interaction formulation and other recent theories of the group shift are examined, with some suggestions for the further elaboration of the present model.     

German Philosophy and German Psychological Warfare

The effects of pretesting upon group risk taking were investigated with 68 undergraduate sociology students. Comparisons were made of four treatment conditions: (a) with pretest and group discussion, (b) with pretest but without group discussion, (c) with group discussion but without pretest, and (d) with neither pretest nor group discussion. Posttest scores on choice dilemma questionnaire items showed a risky shift following group discussion, but failed to show any main effects of pretesting or any significant pretesting × discussion interaction effects. These results fail to replicate the findings of Castore, but they are in harmony with other studies. It is concluded that effects of pretesting upon the group-induced shift toward risk are probably not substantial.     

Comparing Risky Decision Making Under Conditions of Real and Hypothetical Consequences

In a series of three experiments, subjects made risky decisions under conditions of hypothetical or real consequences. Task variations across experiments included: (1) type of risk (monetary gambles or investments of time and effort), (2) within-subject and between-subjects manipulations of consequence condition, and (3) single or multiple decisions. The hypothesis of no difference between choices in real and hypothetical consequence conditions was retained in each experiment. Supplemental analyses ruled out various “artifactual” interpretations of the null results. Discussion focused on conditions in which researchers can and cannot infer decision makers’ actual risk preferences from their responses in laboratory tasks.     

Comment on “group shift to caution at the race track”

A recent study by McCauley, Stitt, Woods, and Lipton on the effects of three-person group discussions at the race track claims a systematic shift toward greater caution in betting choices, a result in contrast with the typical laboratory finding of group risky shifts. This study is criticized for an apparent statistical oversight. It is quite plausible that an apparent cautious shift could have arisen as an artifact of the distribution of original positions of the bettors being skewed in the risky direction. This type of potential artifact has been discussed before in the risky shift literature, but is especially stark in the present context. It is recommended as standard procedure for the present data and other similar data that initial group position be indexed with the median rather than the mean, or that other precautions be taken to eliminate the confounding effects of skewness on the assessment of risky or cautious group shifts.     

Enhancing hypnotic susceptibility: interpersonal and rapport factors

This research supported the hypothesis that hypnosis can be thought of as a set of potentially modifiable social-cognitive skills and attitudes. A low-interpersonal-training treatment devised by Gorassini and Spanos (1986) was compared with a treatment designed to modify not only cognitive factors but also to augment rapport with the trainer and diminish resistance to responding (high-interpersonal training). Fifty percent of the initially unhypnotizable subjects in the high-interpersonal condition tested as being highly susceptible to hypnosis (high susceptibles) at posttest on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Shor & Orne, 1962); 25% of the unhypnotizable subjects in the low-interpersonal condition responded comparably. Eighty-three percent of the medium-susceptibility (medium susceptibles) subjects tested as being highly susceptible at posttest in both conditions. Practice-alone control subjects' performance was stable across testings. The study was the first to demonstrate that treatment gains generalize to a battery of novel, demanding suggestions (generalization index) that have been found to differentiate highly susceptible subjects from unhypnotizable simulating subjects. The importance of rapport was evidenced by the finding that rapport ratings paralleled group differences in hypnotic responding and that rapport correlated substantially with susceptibility scores at posttest and with the generalization index. Whereas initial hypnotizability scores correlated significantly with retest susceptibility scores, initial hypnotizability failed to correlate significantly with the generalization index.     

Associative false recognition occurs without strategic criterion shifts

In the DRM (Deese/Roediger and McDermott) false memory paradigm, subjects studied lists of words associated with nonpresented critical words. They were tested in one of four instructional conditions. In a standard condition, subjects were not warned about the DRM Effect. In three other conditions, they were told to avoid false recognition of critical words. One group was warned before study of the lists (affecting encoding and retrieval processes), and two groups were warned after study (affecting only retrieval processes). Replicating prior work, the warning before study considerably reduced false recognition. The warning after study also reduced false recognition, but only when critical items had never been studied; when critical items were studied in half the lists so that subjects had to monitor memory for their presence or absence, the warning after study had little effect on false recognition. Because warned subjects were trying to avoid false recognition, the high levels of false recognition in the latter condition cannot be due to strategically guessing that critical test items were studied. False memories in the DRM paradigm are not caused by such liberal criterion shifts.     

Establishing Arbitrary Stimulus Classes via Identity-matching Training and Non-reinforced Matching with Complex Stimuli

The present study investigated whether training on an identity match-to-sample task followed by non-reinforced matching probes with complex stimuli leads to the emergence of multiple arbitrary matching performances and arbitrary stimulus classes in preschool children. In Experiment 1, eight subjects were trained on a colour-matching task (A-A). Then they received tests with complex AB and AC colour-form stimuli (AB-A, B-AB; AC-A, C-AC). These tasks were designed to help subjects respond to both elements of each complex stimulus. Subsequent B-A, C-A, A-B, A-C, B-C, and C-B tests revealed that all subjects had acquired class-consistent colour-form and form-form relations. Experiment 2 examined whether these results could be replicated when subjects were encouraged to respond to the colour elements of some (AB) complex stimuli and to the form elements of other (AC) stimuli. The procedures were the same as in Experiment 1 except that during the first test only A-AB and C-AC tasks were used. Six of eight subjects demonstrated all tested relations.     

选项框架和认知负载对风险决策的影响

本研究采用实验法探讨了选项框架和认知负载对风险决策的影响。结果发现:(1)不同的认知负载条件下,被试在正向框架下表现出风险回避,负向框架下表现出风险寻求,出现了框架效应现象;(2)相对于认知负载条件下,被试在无认知负载的负向框架下更偏好于风险选项,而正向框架下的风险偏好没有显著变化,即无认知负载条件下框架效应较强。这表明,框架效应不仅仅是启发式系统作用的结果,分析式系统也在其中发挥着重要的作用。     

Motivational determinants of coalition formation

Coalition preferences of 300 male and female subjects were ascertained under varying motivational conditions. Two of the experimental conditions repeated the typical three-person coalition paradigm, with a monetary reward (extrinsic motivation) offered for the winning of a luck-determined game. In a third condition, skill rather than luck influenced the outcome and no monetary reward was given for winning (intrinsic motivation). Two additional conditions examined coalition preferences in a mixed-motive situation, with either a small or a large monetary reward offered for winning a skill-related game. In the extrinsic motivation condition, the low and the medium resource persons typically desired to coalesce, contrary to the wishes of the excluded, high resource player. In contrast, the coalition between the low and the medium resource persons also was preferred by the high resource player in the intrinsic motivation condition. Coalition conflict was intermediate in the mixed-motive conditions. In sum, it was demonstrated that coalition formation and interpersonal conflict are dependent upon the motivational determinants of group activity.     

Intragroup effects on intergroup negotiation

The article is introduced by an analysis of how the effects of a negotiator's intragroup status (leader versus non-leader) on his negotiation performance (in particular, toughness) may be modified by such factors as the source of the status assignment (e.g., election versus imposition) and the presence and timing of position formation in the group. The accountability experienced by a negotiator vis à-vis his group is proposed as the central intervening variable mediating status effects on negotiation. In a series of (previously published) experiments, all using the same procedural paradigm — a prenegotiation, intragroup phase followed by intergroup negotiation among equal-status group delegates, the issues requiring a choice between higher and lower risk levels — some of the above variables and additional ones, were investigated. Overall, there was evidence of greater toughness among group-elected leaders (relative to non-leaders) and among subordinates (relative to imposed, ?dictatorial' leaders). The latter effect obtained only when the negotiators were being continuously monitored by, and had to consult, their respective group partners during the negotiations. Results concerning risky shift (enhancement of risk acceptance through the negotiation discussions) are considered in the light of relevant theory.     

The cross-situational validity of risk as a value

Demand characteristics and risk are confounded on the choice dilemma items. Thus, it is difficult using that instrument to determine if individuals view themselves as more risky than others because of a cultural value of risk or instructional demand characteristics. The present study asked Ss to make judgments for themselves and for others on either the choice dilemmas (with risk-oriented or risk-neutral instructions) or on one of three other measures of risk taking (behavior prediction scale, risk of aversive consequences, zero expected value bets) which have exhibited the risky shift but do not have the instructional problems of the choice dilemmas. Only on the choice dilemmas did Ss view themselves as being more risky. On all other measures, Ss viewed themselves as either equal to or more conservative than others. These findings cast doubt on the validity of value type theories as general explanations for the risky shift.     

物质主义价值观与时间压力对个体风险决策的影响

本研究考察物质主义价值观和时间压力对个体风险决策的影响。根据被试在物质主义问卷上的得分,以27%为标准筛选出高低物质主义倾向被试,采用有无时间压力情境下的爱荷华赌博任务和仿真气球冒险任务对高低物质主义价值观被试的风险决策行为进行研究。实验结果显示,在两种决策任务中,物质主义倾向和时间压力间均存在显著的交互作用,有时间压力的情境下高物质主义倾向个体比低物质主义倾向个体表现出更多的风险寻求,无时间压力情境下,高低物质主义倾向个体在风险决策上无显著差异。时间压力增加了高物质主义倾向个体的风险寻求。时间压力对风险决策的影响与决策任务有关,在仿真气球冒险任务中,时间压力使决策者表现出现风险规避;在爱荷华赌博任务中,时间压力使决策者表现出风险寻求。     

Enhancement of visual perception under conditions of short-term exposure to sensory isolation: a comparison of procedures for altering vigilance

An experiment was conducted to determine the pre- and posttest performance of subjects on a signal-detection task for the following three experimental conditions: sensory isolation, sensory alertness, and sensory relaxation. All subjects were assessed on 36 pretest and 36 posttest trials. Each block of 36 trials consisted of 12 "strong signals," 12 "weak signals," and 12 "no signals." Exposure durations for each experimental condition lasted for one hour. Analyses showed significant improvements in hits from the pretest trials to the posttest trials on the "strong" and "weak signals" for the sensory isolation condition. Moreover, on the posttest "weak signal" trials, subjects in the sensory isolation condition scored a significantly greater number of hits than did those in the sensory alertness or sensory relaxation conditions. It was concluded that sensory isolation produces perceptual enhancement, as measured by a signal-detection task.