last updated 12/5/2013

Problems of Deliberative Groups
based on Cass Sunstein' Infotopia.  pp. 75-102

Thesis/ Themes

• Group (face-to-face) deliberation is susceptable to big problems based on interactions/social influences and a poor information base (group and individual reasoning problem) for decision-making.

Key Concepts

• Poor Information Base Problems:

  AMPLIFICATION Errors:  For the reasons indicated below, the original or prevailing view/information in a deliberating group prior to discussion is likely to be amplified and held more intensely because it will be reinforced during discussion.  This is true even when the totality of the group's information (including information held solely by single individuals) shows the original view is likely wrong.

  • Heuristics - mental shorthands to reasoning and deciding.  These errors in using information lead to an inadequate information base, a poor understanding of the facts upon which decisions are based.

    • Availability - information that is familiar or highly salient is weighed more heavily in decision-making than less available information (which can easily be ignored even when it is more important and useful - e.g. the "shared knowledge" effect).

    • Representativeness - people tend to make judgements about unknown people or events by assuming they are similar (representative) of something that we do know that is similar in some way.

    • and a variety of others.

  • Informational preference influences -- Information/knowledge shared by many in the group is valued more than individually held information/knowledge ("HIDDEN PROFILES")

    • shared information is comes up in discussion more often.

    • shared information results in members having a more positive view of the source who brings it up (a reward).

    • hearing information discussed that one shares with others causes us to have a more positive view of ourselves (rewarding).
       

  • FRAMING - Groups can develop or share a common contextual understanding of what is important or how a decision should be made (i.e. a frame) that leads to a single view point that may be wrong. 

    • For example, what is the goal of health care reform/ how should it be evaluated?  Providing insurance for all?  Lowering costs?  Preserving individual choice and control?

• Social influences -- People wish not to stand out as different (risky to image)

  • Thus, little new information that is individually held is given. People defer to the group/others when they fear their statements will be punished, ridiculed or disliked.  [See CASCADES below]

  • Cognitively central people (the ones who share the most information with others in the group/ are most connected and communicative) have higher credibility than cognitively peripheral individuals who possess information different from most or all others (and perhaps information more useful to the group).  Thus, cognitively central people will be more influential to the exclusion of individually held information by others.
     

•  Groups function better and share information better when the benefits of good decision-making result in meaningful, real rewards for the individual members.
   

• POLARIZATION - "Deliberating groups typically end up in a more extreme position in line with their tendencies before deliberation began." (p. 92)  this occurs for the reasons above and due to pressures toward conformity and due to confidence gained by seeing others agree with prexisting views.
   

  • "Groups are more likely than individuals to escalate their commitment to a course of action that is failing -- and all the more so if members identify strongly with the groups of which they are a part." [i.e. potentially due to risky shift.  this is also called "escalation of committment" or "doubling down"] (p. 79)  This sort of escalation of committment occurs in part, because individuals and then the group gains confidence from hearing others agree with them.
     

• CASCADES

  • Informational cascades - information is repeated (perhaps because it is shared) by several members and then others.  Then, even those with different or conflicting information, go along.  Often members supress/ignore the differing viewpoint they hold in order to conform.

  • Reputational cascades - individuals who hear many others holding views different than their own will withold their views to protect their reputations.