24.3: Group Dynamics and Setting the Agenda

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 95249

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

Many group deliberations exhibit a similar structure. A range of options are proposed and discussed. At some point, an option arises that no one strongly objects to (even if they don’t like it very much). At this point further options are not well received, and some version of this proposal has a good chance of being accepted. In other words, a group tends to focus on ideas that happen to be brought up early in the discussion and to give most of their weight to preferences that are expressed relatively early.

This means that the order in which options are introduced can affect a group’s decision (later we will see that the order in which things are voted on can determine which one will win). This is so, because groups often have a bias to minimally acceptable solutions that come up relatively early in discussion.

Heuristics and Biases in Groups

Throughout this course, we have seen that individuals are susceptible to various fallacies and biases. Groups can commit the conjunction fallacy, rely too heavily on inferential heuristics, and ignore information about base rates. Moreover, just as individuals are often guilty of self-serving biases, groups are often guilty of group-serving biases.

Out-group Homogeneity Bias

But new sorts of biases enter the picture when we turn to groups. Perhaps the most important is the tendency to see other groups (especially “outgroups”; e.g., people of other races, religions, countries, sexual orientation) as more homogeneous than they really are. In other words, groups tend to see themselves as quite varied, whereas members of other groups are thought have much in common. Not only are the members of out-groups seen as more similar than they really are, they are often thought to share stereotypical attributes.

There are probably various reasons for this. Often, in-group members have limited interaction with those in the out-group, and so they don’t see the wide variations among members of that group. In this case, people rely on a small and biased sample of the out-group based on limited interactions, news reports, or conventional “wisdom” about members of the out-group. As we will see in a later chapter, this bias about other groups can promote stereotypes, which in turn lead to prejudices and ethnocentrism. If the members of a group seem reasonably similar, then we will be more inclined to generalize from the behavior of a small sample of them than if we thought of the group as more heterogeneous.