Group Thinking VI

Social influence, in the previous examples, was limited to the case where all participants in the group were initially treated as equals (even when the suggestion was to listen only to the most confident people, that was a characteristic determined a posteriori.). But it is not always the case. It often happens that, when we have to make a decision in a social context, one or more individuals hold a special position, for example, as bosses or as authorities in the subject.


In a very famous (and also infamous) experiment, Stanley Milgram decided to investigate how it was possible that nazism could dominate Germany, when most Germans were actually not murderous psychopaths. The setting of the experiment was simple. One scientist was at the room controlling the situation while two people, being tested, were assigned to two different roles. One of them was tied to a chair connected to a machine that could be turned on to administer electric shocks to the sitting person. The task of the second individual was to switch the button that caused the shock, when instructed.


Questions were asked to the first subject and when those questions were answered correctly, no shock was administered. However, each error was to be punished with a shock, starting at the small voltage of 15V. Each error made the shock 15V stronger than the previous one, up to a final shock of 450V.


What the second subject, who inflicted the shocks, didn't know was that no real shock was been applied and that the person tied to the chair was an actor instructed to act as if the shock was real. The actor would get some answers right and some wrong, showing just some discomfort at first. Eventually, the actor would beg for the experiment to stop, showing very clear signs of distress and pain. And the scientist would instruct the second subject to keep on with the shocks, despite those pleas.


Milgram reported that, despite many people showing signs of extreme stress while hearing the cries of pain from the actor, 65% of them kept obeying the scientist up to the maximum voltage. The experiment had several problems and can be criticized in many ways, including the serious ethical problem of the horrible psychological pain it caused to the people who kept pressing the button despite their own begging for the scientist to stop. Comparisons with nazism are indeed not exact for a series of factors and the 65% figure is actually the percentage of the experiment where most people agreed with the scientist, while other problems were reported on how well the experiment script was followed (see, per example, Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments ).


Despite all those problems, and remembering that the 65% figure is almost certainly an inflated one, the experiment shows how one authority figure that we trust (a scientist conducting an experiment where we were assured nobody would actually be harmed) can make us even do actions we are viscerally opposed to. In this case, no change of opinion was actually observed, but actions were not what we would expect from normal, thinking human beings.

Group Reasoning V

The possibility of a better judgment when using groups is a tool we might want to employ, while avoiding the circumstances where phenomena like groupthink happens. That means that solid evidence on when we should expect problems and when the wisdom of crowds is expected to work on out favor is required.

Indeed, one first question that comes to mind is how strong the influence between the member of a group needs to be so that we should start to worry. Lorenz et al designed an experiment to address that question. During their experiments, they asked people to answer factual questions and, after they have expressed their opinion with no group influence, they provided information about the answers of other people. Each subject had, then, the opportunity of changing their original answer. What they observed was that, while the group was initially ``wise'' (in the sense of wisdom of crowds), the social influence tended to diminish the diversity of observed answers to such a degree that it was possible that the correct value was no longer included in the range of answers. And, despite that, the confidence of the individuals  in the social answer was increased! This shows that even weak social influence can undermine the wisdom of the crowds effect. The authors suggest that opinions should be obtained with no element of social influence in order to capture the advantages of group reasoning.

Of course, while desirable, it is not always possible to eliminate the social influence inside the group in a meaningful way. De Polavieja and collaborators, while studying this problem, have suggested that the beneficial effects of group reasoning can still be obtained, even under the presence of social effects if we just use the opinions of the very confident people, who did not change their initial opinions, despite the social pressure. Note that while groupthink can be a very powerful influence, it might not be enough to convince everyone and independent minded individuals might be able to retain the initial range of views. And, with that, the wisdom that was presented in the crowd before interaction.

Such a proposal, however, might be labeled as anti-democratic (the word democracy, unfortunately, is nowadays used even to defend positions that defend that just a small fraction of the interested parties should be listened to, arguments that use it should be read with extreme caution), depending on the context where it might be applied. The general advise to make the social influence between deciders as small as possible, however, stands. This does not mean that the different alternatives should not be presented to voters, quite the opposite. What the literature shows is that interaction between the voters should be minimum, not between the people presenting and debating the alternatives. In large societies, most voters do not interact with other, unlike the laboratory experiments and, therefore, it is not clear that groupthink will happen.

The situation is very different in committees or smaller gatherings. In this cases, the internal pressures inside the group might indeed destroy our ability to think and replace it with our desire to conform. This is not just true about the final opinions. In her work on the performance of groups and individuals, Gayle Hill also studied how the interaction might affect brainstorm sessions. What she observed was that, when people were asked to plan new ideas for a brainstorm session and bring them ready, the added independent work was consistently more creative than when the ideas were thought during a meeting.

The composition of a group is also a key factor in the quality of its reasoning. Ilan Yaniv studied how well a group was capable to avoid framing effects. Framing effects happen when people change their decisions simply because the question they had to answer was presented to them (framed) in different words. In this study, Yaniv observed that by increasing heterogeneity in the group, simply by assigning individuals to different frames, had a very strong impact on getting rid of the biases, while homogeneous groups performed much worse than individuals.

In a review of the literature in the area, Elizabeth Mannix and Margaret A. Neale discussed the benefits and problems observed under many different circumstances of increasing diversity in a groups. They concluded that there are types of heterogeneity that can make a group have problems in the areas of interpersonal attraction and liking, such as differences in race/ethnicity, gender or age. But, from an information processing point of view, diversity should be able to improve the group results, despite possible management problems it might cause. In particular, underlying, less obvious differences such as different backgrounds, education or personalities were indeed associated with improvements in performance.

The conclusion of all these experiments seem to be that there is, indeed, a lot of knowledge and intelligence in a group, but crowds are very stupid. They make mistakes individuals would rarely make.

Human Stupidity: Historical: Group Reasoning IV

The consequences of social influence that emerge from these observations are disturbing ones. I am sure that some readers might have trouble accepting, even after all the evidence presented so far on our reasoning shortcomings. But the extent to which we can be influenced by a group of people, even when that group is wrong, is something that is very well documented. In a famous experiment, Solomon Asch  proposed a very trivial question to his subjects, based on the figure bellow. 

 

The people involved in the experiment should just state which of the three lines in the right card (A, B, or C) had the same length as the line in the left card. When asked the question in the control situation, with no influence of anyone else, those who were being tested picked the correct option (line C) 99% of the times. The purpose of the experiment was to see how people would react when the information from others disagreed with their perception. In order to test it, a part of the subjects were tested in a situation where they first listened to the individual opinions of other people, who were actually actors. Those actors were instructed to provide the correct answer in some of the trials, but the wrong one (line A) in most of them. In each trial, all actors provided the same answer.

What Asch observed was that, when the actors provided the wrong answer before the individual being tested answered, this person would make the wrong choice up to 75% of the times. The effect required a minimum majority of 3 people to be observed. However, the effect did not become stronger as more actors were added, all in agreement with the wrong choice.


More recently, evidence about what might be happening inside our brains was obtained by testing the reactions of people while conducting  functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of their brains. Eisenberger et al were able to observe that, when we experience rejection, the participants showed brain activity similar to that observed when people experience real physical pain. Of course, this does not answer if people actually changed their perception of the world or if they would just agree with the majority while still somehow noticing that majority opinion was wrong.



While investigating that, Berns et al observed that both perceptual and emotional processes were involved in our brains in circumstances similar to those of the Asch experiment. Adding to that, Klucharev et al found clear evidence that our conformity to the group norms or opinions happen through learning mechanisms. This suggests that the influence of the group might actually change the way people perceive the world.



Social influence is pervasive and we are rarely aware of it. Even through social media, it was possible to detect that emotion can be contagious, without any non-verbal cues, simply by reading about the emotions of a friend. While this specific work was was criticized by the use of Facebook data without explicit user consent (implicit consent from accepting the terms of service was assumed by the authors, PNAS added a comment to the beginning of the article to point this possible problem), it highlights very clearly how we are actually influenced even with very little information.