Outgroup homogeneity effect in psychology

 

Ingroup-Outgroup 2023
Geoffrey W Sutton & Bing AI

The outgroup homogeneity effect is a cognitive bias based on the finding that people in a group view outsiders as all alike in one or more characteristics.

Examples

Members of a political party view other party members as individuals with various characteristics but view people outside the party as having the same opinions, social values, or some other characteristic.

Members of a congregation view other members as being diverse in contrast to those outside whom the members see as all alike.

Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

Dr. Sutton’s posts are for educational purposes only. See a licensed mental health provider for diagnoses, treatment, and consultation.

Pluralistic ignorance effect in psychology

What are they thinking? 2023
Geoffrey W. Sutton & Bing AI

The pluralistic ignorance effect is a psychological phenomenon characterized by almost all people in a group privately disagree with what seems to be the view of the group. Each person, or most people, in the group holds a mistaken belief that everyone else has a different belief or opinion.

The individuals in the group are ignorant of the true beliefs or opinions of the others. They have reached a false conclusion.

In cases of injustice or wrongdoing, the consequences can be harmful if people do not challenge dangerous ideas.

Here is a quote from a paper by Dale Miller (2023).



Pluralistic ignorance is a situation where the plurality (group) is ignorant of (misperceives) itself-its beliefs, perceptions, and practices. The group experiencing pluralistic ignorance is not actually ignorant in the sense of lacking knowledge of where it stands but is rather mistaken as to where it stands (O'Gorman, 1986). A more descriptive, if less catchy, term might be collective misperception (Grant, O'Neil, and Stephens, 2009; Miller & Prentice, 1994). Despite being a common citation for pluralistic ignorance, Allport's 1924 Social Psychology did not mention the term; that awaited his 1931 book with his student, Daniel Katz (Katz and Allport, 1931). What Allport did discuss in his earlier tome was the "illusion of universality of opinions." He traced this "illusion", which he later renamed pluralistic ignorance, to two facts: 1) social life depends on individuals having knowledge of their peers' habitual feelings and practices, and 2) individuals must infer this knowledge from limited and thus potentially misleading information.

Read more in Miller's article.

Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

Dr. Sutton’s posts are for educational purposes only. See a licensed mental health provider for diagnoses, treatment, and consultation.

Social loafing effect in psychology

Looking at Work 2023
Geoffrey W Sutton & Bing AI

The social loafing effect is a psychological concept based on the finding that a person expends less effort on a group task than when they work on a project alone.

The history of the social loafing effect attributed to Bibb Latané, dates to the work of max Ringelmann.

A quote from a meta-analytic review follows.

Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. A meta-analysis of 78 studies demonstrates that social loafing is robust and generalizes across tasks and S populations. A large number of variables were found to moderate social loafing. (Karau & Williams, 1993)

Reference

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Ringelmann effect in psychology

The Ringelmann effect in psychology is a finding that people in a group are less productive when the size of the group increases.

The effect is named for French agricultural engineer, Maximilien Ringelmann. 

Read more

Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of experimental social psychology, 10 (4), 371-384.

 

Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

Dr. Sutton’s posts are for educational purposes only. See a licensed mental health provider for diagnoses, treatment, and consultation.

group polarization in psychology

 

Group polarization is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a group discussion leads individuals in the group to adopt more extreme or polarized views than they originally held. In other words, group polarization refers to the tendency of group discussion to amplify pre-existing opinions and attitudes.

The underlying mechanism of group polarization is social comparison theory, which posits that people often compare themselves to others to evaluate their beliefs and attitudes. In a group setting, individuals may shift their opinions toward the dominant view to fit in or appear more socially desirable. Moreover, the exchange of information among group members can lead individuals to adopt more extreme positions than they would have on their own.

Some common factors that contribute to group polarization include:

Group cohesion: When group members feel a strong sense of belonging, they may be more likely to adopt extreme views to maintain group harmony.

Informational influence: Group members may learn new information from each other that strengthens their pre-existing beliefs and leads them to become more extreme.

Normative influence: Group members may conform to social norms or expectations within the group, leading to polarization.

The consequences of group polarization can be significant, including the amplification of negative attitudes and the formation of extremist groups. To prevent group polarization, it is essential to encourage diversity of viewpoints and promote critical thinking and open-mindedness within the group.

 

Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

Dr. Sutton’s posts are for educational purposes only. See a licensed mental health provider for diagnoses, treatment, and consultation.

 

Groupthink in psychology

A group*

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a group of people with a shared goal or interest make decisions that prioritize maintaining group cohesion over critical thinking and rational decision-making. In other words, groupthink refers to the tendency of a group to conform to a consensus opinion, even if that opinion is flawed or incorrect.

Groupthink can occur in a variety of settings, including business, politics, and social groups. It often arises when there is a strong sense of cohesion and conformity within the group, leading members to prioritize agreement over independent thought.

Some common features of groupthink include:

• Overconfidence in the group's abilities and decision-making processes
• Pressure to conform to the group's views and avoid dissent
• Minimization of alternative viewpoints and information that contradicts the group's beliefs
• Stereotyping of outsiders or those who disagree with the group
• Illusion of unanimity, where the group assumes everyone is in agreement without testing for dissent.

The consequences of groupthink can be significant, including flawed decision-making, missed opportunities, and even disastrous outcomes. 

To avoid groupthink, it is essential to encourage independent thought, consider alternative viewpoints, and promote constructive criticism and debate within the group.

Groupthink and the Psychology of Religion

I have learned of groups of religious leaders making decisions about hiring or building based on consensus. When all agreed on a course of action, the group considered this to be God's leading or God's Spirit at work. In some cases, projects failed and people were lost considerable investments. In other cases, resources were wasted when an important hire did not work out. In such cases, groupthink and the overconfidence effect may be at work.

Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

Dr. Sutton’s posts are for educational purposes only. See a licensed mental health provider for diagnoses, treatment, and consultation.

 ---

*The photo is from Bing search for an image of "group" identified as free to use and share and does not imply the people are engaged in "groupthink."

Six Degrees of Separation- Small World Problem

Six degrees of separation is the name given by psychological scientist Stanley Milgram to a finding that people who do not know each other are linked by six or less people whose friends overlap. Milgram published the results in the first issue of a popular magazine, Psychology Today.

Milgram wanted to identify the number of links in a chain of people between the sender of a package to a target person unknown to the sender. He reported an example of a Kansas farmer whose package reached the target person in Cambridge, MA in only 4 days. There were only two people in between the sender and receiver. However, not all packages were received.

There were other studies. A Nebraska study revealed 44 completed chains out of 160. Kleinfeld (2000) observed that the participants were not randomly selected from the general population. Given the limited evidence, Kleinfeld did not find support in Milgram's work for either a small world or a big world. That is, in some cases, people are connected with a few links and in other cases, people seem to be isolated. And of course, not all chains were completed.

Since Milgram's work, others have looked at links in social networks. Goel and Watts (2009) found some support for chains having about 6-7 steps thus close to the Milgram report and supportive of a small world.

A study of people on Facebook (Edunov et al., 2016) found an average connection of only 3.74.

Note

The Six Degrees of Separation concept is related to the Social Dimension of functioning in the SCOPES model.




References

Edunov, S., Bhagat, S., Burke, M., Diuk, C, & Filiz, I.O. (2016, February 4).
Three and a half degrees of separation. Retrieved from https://research.facebook.com/blog/2016/2/three-and-a-half-degrees-of-separation/



Goel, S., Muhamad, R., & Watts, D.J. (2009). Social search in "Small-World" experiments. WWW '09.

Kleinfeld, J. (2000, October 2). Could It Be a Big World After All? What the Milgram Papers in the Yale Archives Reveal About the Original Small World Study. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sociology/watts/w3233/client_edit/big_world.html

Milgram, S. (1967). The small-world problem. Psychology Today 1: 61-67.

Please check out my website   www.suttong.com

   and see my books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Also, consider connecting with me on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

psychological safety

 

Psychological safety is a social setting characterized by evidence that people in that setting can ask questions, express concerns, make mistakes, and share ideas without feeling they will be punished, experience verbal abuse, or be targeted with microaggressions by other people in that setting.

Psychological safety is vital to teams in work, school, and organizational settings. When people do not feel safe to share a different idea or suggest downsides of other ideas, the business or organization can miss important information that may avoid disaster or lead to significant progress.

A key to psychological safety is trust. When one or more team members signal even mild threats, people may keep quiet to avoid embarrassment and humiliation. Perceived threats activate the fear circuit, which includes the amygdala. 

Effective leaders create a setting where strategic risks can be considered without fear.

Please check out my website   www.suttong.com

   and see my books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Also, consider connecting with me on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

HIPPO HIghest Paid Person's Opinion

In group studies, it is common for people of low power or status to suppress their opinion and shift to supporting the opinion of the Highest Paid Person. This can be seen as a survival strategy.

HIPPO or HiPPO is an acronym for the

Hi Highest

P paid

P person's

O opinion

HiPPO is also known as the HiPPO effect, Hippo syndrome, HiPPO culture, HiPPO management style, and the concept has been called HiPPO theory.

HiPPO effects can be seen in business closures when decisions by the top executive resulted in disaster. To avoid HiPPO disasters, decision makers in organizations need to create a psychological safe environment that permits the sharing of different opinions about products, services, and other decisions within an organization.

In the Psychology of Religion, HiPPO effects can be seen when religious leaders make decisions based on perceived divine revelation and refuse to take direction from church, school, and other organizational boards.

Reference

Kohavi, R. et al. (2007). Practical guide to controlled experiments on the Web" Listen to your customers not to the HiPPO. KDD'07. https://ai.stanford.edu/~ronnyk/2007GuideControlledExperiments.pdf 

**************************

Please check out my website   www.suttong.com

   and see my books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Also, consider connecting with me on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

***************************

Resource

A book that mentions the HiPPO problem is Think Again by Adam Grant

Book Review Link

Photo credit: I took the picture of the Hippo at the St Louis Zoo

Interpersonal Conflicts

 

Interpersonal conflicts may be relationship or task conflicts.

Relationship conflicts are marked by emotional clashes and even animosity.

Task conflicts are clashes of ideas and opinions.

In organizational studies, the worst performing teams began working on tasks with a high level of relationship conflict. High performing teams had task conflicts but low relationship conflicts.

Some task conflict is linked to higher creativity and better choices.

"The absence of conflict is not harmony, it's apathy."

Reference

Grant, A. (2021). Think again: The power of knowing what you don't know.   New York: Penguin Publishing Group, Viking.    

AMAZON

GOOGLE

Psychology of crisscrossing

Crisscrossing refers to people who are viewed as being members of more than one group. The group may be a recognized social group (e.g., religious, political) or a social category of people (e.g., ethnic, age, gender categories).

Crisscrossing helps reduce some forms of discrimination aimed at people who are members of an outgroup or low prestige category.

A member of a disparaged outgroup may become appreciated if the person is also a member of a socially valued group such as medical doctors or military heroes.

Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com

   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

   PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

Publications (many free downloads)

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     

  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)