last updated
12/5/2013
Problems of Deliberative
Groups
based on Cass
Sunstein' Infotopia. pp. 75-102
Thesis/ Themes
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.
-
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.
|