Group polarization effect on decisions by selected Kenyan secondary school disciplinary panels

This study investigated social group phenomenon of group polarization effects on disciplinary hearing decisions in selected Kenyan secondary school. The participants were 78 school personnel (females = 42%and males 58%) from ten secondary schools with both unisex (n = 39) and co-educational schools (n = 39). Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed. The results suggested group polarization effects in disciplinary hearing decisions, in that there were shifts from pre to post-disciplinary hearing decisions. Persuasive arguments and social comparisons significantly influenced group polarization decisions.Department of HE and Training approved lis

Social Interaction Effects and Choice Under Uncertainty. An Experimental Study

Extensive field evidence shows individuals’ decisions in settings involving choice under uncertainty (e.g. savings and investment choices) depend on the decisions of their peers. One hypothesized cause of peer group effects is social interaction effects: an individual’s utility from an action is enhanced by others taking the same action. We employ a series of controlled laboratory experiments to study the causes of peer effects in choice under uncertainty. We find strong peer group effects in the laboratory. Allowing feedback about others’ choices increases group polarization and reduces the likelihood that subjects will choose risky or ambiguous gambles. We observe spillover effects, as observing another’s choice of one risky (safe) gamble makes all risky (safe) gambles more likely to be chosen. Our design allows us to eliminate social learning, social norms, group affiliation, and complementarities as possible causes for the observed peer group effects, leaving social interaction effects as the likely cause. We use a combination of theory and empirical analysis to show that preferences including “social regret” are more consistent with the data than preferences including a taste for conformity.experimental economics; social interaction effects; risk; uncertainty

Influence, Information Technology & Group Polarization: A Field Study of a Virtual Team

This study examines influence and IT in group polarization. Group polarization is the tendency of group members to shift their initial positions to a more extreme direction following discussion. We hypothesize that informational influence is relatively more important than normative influence in causing group members to shift their positions and that IT can be used to enhance the effects of informational influence. Our investigation of group processes, influence and IT use by a virtual team responsible for forecasting ozone levels reveals several important findings. First, we find the heterogeneity of pre-discussion individual decisions and greater task uncertainty increase group polarization through a greater relative use of informational influence. Second, surprisingly, we find that the relative use of informational influence and the use of IT for persuasion are substitutive not complementary in their effects on group polarization. These findings have significant theoretical and practical implications for decision making in virtual teams

Polarization and opinion analysis in an online argumentation system for collaborative decision support

Argumentation is an important process in a collaborative decision making environment. Argumentation from a large number of stakeholders often produces a large argumentation tree. It is challenging to comprehend such an argumentation tree without intelligent analysis tools. Also, limited decision support is provided for its analysis by the existing argumentation systems. In an argumentation process, stakeholders tend to polarize on their opinions, and form polarization groups. Each group is usually led by a group leader. Polarization groups often overlap and a stakeholder is a member of multiple polarization groups. Identifying polarization groups and quantifying a stakeholder\u27s degree of membership in multiple polarization groups helps the decision maker understand both the social dynamics and the post-decision effects on each group. Frameworks are developed in this dissertation to identify both polarization groups and quantify a stakeholder\u27s degree of membership in multiple polarization groups. These tasks are performed by quantifying opinions of stakeholders using argumentation reduction fuzzy inference system and further clustering opinions based on K-means and Fuzzy c-means algorithms. Assessing the collective opinion of the group on individual arguments is also important. This helps stakeholders understand individual arguments from the collective perspective of the group. A framework is developed to derive the collective assessment score of individual arguments in a tree using the argumentation reduction inference system. Further, these arguments are clustered using argument strength and collective assessment score to identify clusters of arguments with collective support and collective attack. Identifying outlier opinions in an argumentation tree helps in understanding opinions that are further away from the mean group opinion in the opinion space. Outlier opinions may exist from two perspectives in argumentation: individual viewpoint and collective viewpoint of the group. A framework is developed in this dissertation to address this challenge from both perspectives. Evaluation of the methods is also presented and it shows that the proposed methods are effective in identifying polarization groups and outlier opinions. The information produced by these methods help decision makers and stakeholders in making more informed decisions --Abstract, pages iii-iv

Four Failures of Deliberating Groups

Many groups make their decisions through some process of deliberation, usually with the belief that deliberation will improve judgments and predictions. But deliberating groups often fail, in the sense that they make judgments that are false or that fail to take advantage of the information that their members have. There are four such failures. (1) Sometimes the predeliberation errors of group members are amplified, not merely propagated, as a result of deliberation. (2) Groups may fall victim to cascade effects, as the judgments of initial speakers or actors are followed by their successors, who do not disclose what they know. Nondisclosure, on the part of those successors, may be a product of either informational or reputational cascades. (3) As a result of group polarization, groups often end up in a more extreme position in line with their predeliberation tendencies. Sometimes group polarization leads in desirable directions, but there is no assurance to this effect. (4) In deliberating groups, shared information often dominates or crowds out unshared information, ensuring that groups do not learn what their members know. All four errors can be explained by reference to informational signals, reputational pressure, or both. A disturbing result is that many deliberating groups do not improve on, and sometimes do worse than, the predeliberation judgments of their average or median member

The Dark Side of Morality: Group Polarization and Moral Epistemology

This article argues that philosophers and laypeople commonly conceptualize moral truths or justified moral beliefs as discoverable through intuition, argument, or some other purely cognitive or affective process. It then contends that three empirically well-supported theories all predict that this ‘Discovery Model’ of morality plays a substantial role in causing social polarization. The same three theories are then used to argue that an alternative ‘Negotiation Model’ of morality—according to which moral truths are not discovered but instead created by actively negotiating compromises—promises to reduce polarization by fostering a progressive willingness to ‘work across the aisle’ to settle moral issues cooperatively. This article then examines potential methods for normatively evaluating polarization, arguing there are prima facie reasons to favor the Negotiation Model over the Discovery Model based on their hypothesized effects on polarization. Finally, I outline avenues for further empirical and philosophical research

Experimental Simulations and Tort Reform: Avoidance, Error and Overreaching in Sunstein Et Al.’s ‘Punitive Damages’

This article addresses tort reform claims made in Cass R. Sunstein, et al.\u27s Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide (2002)and related articles, research that was largely underwritten by the Exxon Corporation. Based upon a series of simulation experiments, those authors have made a general claim that juries are incapable of making coherent judgments about punitive damages. In this article I raise serious methodological problems bearing on the validity of the research, and, therefore, its ability to provide judges and legislators with useful information about juries and punitive damages

Extremism and Social Learning

When members of deliberating groups speak with one another, their predeliberation tendencies often become exacerbated as their views become more extreme. The resulting phenomenon -- group polarization -- has been observed in many settings, and it bears on the actions of juries, administrative tribunals, corporate boards, and other institutions. Polarization can result from rational Bayesian updating by group members, but in many contexts, this rational interpretation of polarization seems implausible. We argue that people are better seen as Credulous Bayesians, who insufficiently adjust for idiosyncratic features of particular environments and put excessive weight on the statements of others where there are 1) common sources of information; 2) highly unrepresentative group membership; 3) statements that are made to obtain approval; and 4) statements that are designed to manipulate. Credulous Bayesianism can produce extremism and significant blunders. We discuss the implications of Credulous Bayesianism for law and politics, including media policy and cognitive diversity on administrative agencies and courts.