Blog 2-The Risky Shift Phenomenon

Risky Shift, what is it, when does it occur and why does it happen? These three questions will form the basis of this essay and will be explored to try to make the risky shift phenomenon as clear as possible.

To begin this discussion, Risky shift and terms relating to risky shift will be defined to provide some parameters with which to explore the literature on this topic. Examples of risky shift will be given throughout the essay to emphasize what risky shift is and how rampant it is in everyday society. The essay will then investigate why this phenomenon occurs, the causes and possible ways to prevent this incident from occurring.

Unfortunately, a lot of the psychological literature on this particular topic was written in the 1960’s/1970’s when the term Risky Shift was most popular. With more current research, the term Risky Shift has been replaced with the term Group Polarization. These will be defined in more detail.

The term Risky Shift was first coined in in the early 1960’s and was used to describe the tendency for groups to take more risks than the same individuals within these groups would have taken had they been faced with the same problem alone (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). There were inconsistencies with early studies however, which lead some researchers to introduce the term ‘stingy shift’ which was basically the same as a risky shift in that the group would tend to agree on the decision, however in this case, the decision was to be more conservative, or stingy (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). This idea seems to correlate quite well with the basic principles of groupthink, which is "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action“ (http://www.bola.biz/communications/groupthink.html). Risky/Stingy shift can be seen to be evident within groupthink as a sub-set of typical thinking patterns that occur in group situations and can be observed in society in situations such as student bodies, government, sporting teams and jury’s. For example, one study examined what would occur if prejudiced students were asked to discuss racial issues and what would happen if non-prejudiced students discussed the same racial issues. The results? The prejudiced students became more prejudiced whilst the non-prejudiced students became more non-prejudiced (Myers & Bishop, 1970).

As this example demonstrates, there is the possibility for groups to take opposing views, one to lean towards risk whilst the other can lean towards conservatism. These inconsistencies were discovered quite soon after the term Risky/Stingy Shift was coined. As a result, researchers created the term Group Polarization or choice shift to be more appropriate in describing these group tendencies. Group Polarization can be defined as the tendency for people to make decisions that are more extreme when they are in a group as opposed to the decisions they would make individually (www.wikipedia.org). Group Polarization as shown by the prejudiced/non-prejudiced students is the effect the group has on individual thoughts. The term polarization in this phrase does not mean a split between the groups; rather it is a magnification of existing thought patterns to one extreme or the other (risky/stingy) resulting in a more extreme group decision.

Group Polarization can occur anywhere, anytime and anyone can do it. Occasions in the army where Group Polarization occurs is called incestuous amplification, whereby an individual will only listen to people with like beliefs, which in turn can lead to miscalculations and errors in judgement (http://www.wordspy.com/words/incestuousamplification.asp). Perhaps the most famous example of incestuous amplification and risky shift in a U.S. military sense is the case of the photo scandal of U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi inmates in Abu Ghraib prison. In defence of these crimes, the photographed soldiers said they were following orders as determined by their superiors (Kirk, 2004). Perhaps a more suitable explanation could be that the soldiers were experiencing a risky shift in that the group environment encouraged anti-social behaviour, and these beliefs were further cemented in that fact that these soldiers believed they were serving their country by behaving in this manner. It would be fair to say that these individual soldiers would not behave in the same manner if they had been in the same situation individually. As the soldier in the photos, Lynddie England has said, they were “just doing our jobs, which meant doing as we were told” (Kirk, 2004). The individual accountability for such actions has been removed and replaced by the sense of loyalty to ones job, therefore, Lynddie feels she was not responsible for her actions, she was just doing her job as set out be the military.

Whilst this example is quite famous, group polarization and the risky/stingy shift can be present in some quite normal, everyday situations. For example, sporting teams can adopt both risky or stingy shifts. A basketball team who is behind by two points with 20 seconds to go may adopt a risky shift and throw all their might into securing the ball and scoring a winning goal, whereas the opposing/winning team may adopt a stingy shift and attempt to protect the ball so as to secure the win. Juries can be seen to adopt the risky/stingy shift when delivering verdicts.

A further example, which is very pertinent to university life, especially in Canberra, is the incidence of binge drinking and the ensuing chaos. Recent cases involve mass drinking at local establishments with empty bottles being thrown, damaging private and university property and resulting in large repair bills. It is highly unlikely that the individuals who committed these acts would be likely to do so if they were drinking by themselves. It appears the culture of the ’group’ who were intoxicated and in festive moods resulted in the group choosing to express the festive occasion in an unsavoury manner.

Why does this seem to occur? There are varying explanations that attempt to provide a reason as to why group polarization occurs. For instance, a diffusion of responsibility throughout the group seems to give members of these groups a free rein to act as they see fit (Wallach, Kogan, & Bem 1964). The emotional bonds that are created within the group serve to decrease anxiety within the group and the actual risk of the situation seems less. Therefore, in the case of Lynddie England, she was a member of the United States Military, part of a large group, who was following orders by her superior. Within the group she perceives her responsibility to the individual (Iraqi prisoner) to be lower than her responsibility to the group (the Military), thus she carries out her duties with little sign of remorse.

A further explanation is provided by Collins and Guetzkow (1964) who suggested, particularly in the case of the Risky Shift phenomenon, that the presence of high risk-takers within the group influence the decisions of others within the group. This is highlighted by the example mentioned above of drunken university students. Most of the students involved are down-to-earth people day-by-day, whilst a few have quite big personalities. Add to the mix the effect of alcohol and the big personalities have the ability to influence the smaller personalities who are disinhibited by the effects of alcohol.

One possible explanation for the stingy shift phenomenon may be the fact the individuals within a group do not want to be seen to be letting their compatriots within the group down by choosing the risky decision and possibly failing, hence they choose the ‘safe’ option (http://www.changingminds.org/explanations/theories/risky_shift.htm).

One explanation which could provide insight into recent political decisions regarding the immediacy of the US and Australians Governments retaliation to threats of national security and their lack of action regarding climate change is humans tendency to over-react to immediate threats (terrorism) and to under-react to long-term threats (climate change) (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html).

The size of the group also has an effect on how susceptible the group will be to polarization. Research indicates that the larger the group, the larger the shift will be to either risk or conservatism. One real life example of this happening is the looting that occurred following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Ordinary citizens were photographed and documented looting stores for anything of worth. As so many people were seen to be looting, more people thought it would be acceptable for them to loot as well, therefore, as the looters group grew, more people felt a sense of deindividuation and a dissemination of responsibility within the group, thus justifying their decision to loot (Vidmar & Burdeny, 1971).

A further explanation is that of interpersonal comparisons. Basically mere exposure to the preferences of others is necessary and sufficient for group shift to occur. Furthermore, when an individual discovers that others within the group share their ideas more then they would have suspected, the individual tends to voice their opinions more. This can be because the group itself is discovered to be leaning more in the preferred direction or the individual is able to act out more within the group after observing another individual sharing the same thoughts (Myers, & Lamm, 1976).

The last influence to be discussed is termed as the normative influence and is a form of cognitive change that occurs within the group. The basis is that a discussion will take place concerning the issue at hand, which predominately favours the preferred direction (risk or conservative), and much new information favouring the preferred direction will be presented to the individuals in the group. The arguments will support pre-existing views held by the individual, cognitively cementing the thoughts of the individual who will then adjust their comments appropriately based on the discussion of the group (Myers, & Lamm, 1976).

In summation, the risky shift appears in every day life; however, there is an opposing view that aims to restore balance in group decision making called the stingy shift. Groups make decisions all the time, in government regarding how individuals will live their lives and without the stingy shift, perhaps the quality of life may not be as high. As such, group polarization is the more frequently used term in today’s’ psychological research and there are many examples mentioned above that highlight this phenomenon. There are many reasons as to why these incidences seem to occur, such as deindividuation and the diffusion of responsibility, but with this knowledge it is also evident that there are ways to consciously become aware of this phenomenon and attempt to control for its possible wayward effects.




References

Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. California: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Collins, B. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision-making. New York: Wiley

Definitions retrieved on 20th October from website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization

Groupthink definition retrieved on 20th October 2007 from website: http://www.bola.biz/communications/groupthink.html

Incestuous Amplification retrieved on 20th October 2007 from website: http://www.wordspy.com/words/incestuousamplification.asp

Johnson, K. The struggle for Iraq: Prison scandal; Guard featured in abuse photos says she was following orders. New York Times. Retrieved on 20th October, 2007 from website:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CEFD9103CF931A25756C0A9629C8B63

Myers, D. G., & Bishop, G. D. (1970) Discussion effects on racial attitudes. Science, 169, 778-779

Myers, D. G, & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 83. pp. 602-627.

Perceived Risk retrieved on 20th October 2007 from website:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html

Stingy Shift Explanation retrieved on 20th October 2007 from website: http://www.changingminds.org/explanations/theories/risky_shift.htm

Vidmar, N, & Burdeny, T. C. (1971). Effect of group size and item type in the “group shift’ effect. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. Vol. 3.

Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 263-274


Appendices

Theory and Research
This blog covers an extensive range of theory, however it was difficult to find relevant research on the term Risky Shift itself as it is an old concept. Using the term group polarization produced much better theory and has been included in this essay.
Using all terms produced a large amount of theory, which was very interesting, yet some was not relevant. Given the word limit, as much diverse theory and research was included as was possible.

Written Expression
This blog fits APA format and the language and examples used are relatable and useful in explaining the topic in understandable terms. The theory itself can be a little wordy and using the examples makes the bulk of the information more digestible to the reader.

Online Engagement
My engagement has been much better in Term 2 as compared to Term 1. I wrote and commented on extensive topics, adding videos and useful links that I thought were applicable to the topics. I aimed to address as many issues as possible and make my posts as entertaining as possible while still covering the topics discussed in class.