Abstract
This chapter takes the theory to the group level, using computer simulations to analyze social influence as socially distributed information processing. In so doing, this line of research identifies conditions under which the delegation of processing to others can lead to errors, resulting in opinions and decisions that are counter-productive and sometimes disastrous for the group. Trust is a dynamic variable that plays the role of the control parameter in the delegation of information processing. When the level of trust is optimal, the process results in accurate judgments and effective use of the group’s processing resources. Trust, however, is not always optimal, but rather can be too high or too low. When trust is too high, the process tends to promote over-confidence and erroneous judgments. When trust is too low, the process become inefficient and promotes the redundant processing of information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Asch, S.E.: Opinions and social pressure. 193(5), 31–35 (1955)
Back, K.W.: Influence through social communication. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 46(1), 9 (1951)
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., Adamic, L.A.: Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science. 348(6239), 1130–1132 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
Bar-Tal, D.: Shared beliefs in a society: social psychological analysis. Sage, London (2000)
Cialdini, R.B.: Influence: how and why people agree to things. Quill, New York (1984)
Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., Arvidsson, A.: Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. J. Commun. 64(2), 317–332 (2014)
Cosier, R.A.: The effects of three potential aids for making strategic decisions on prediction accuracy. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 22(2), 295–306 (1978)
de Bono, E.: Thinking hats. Little, Brown and Company, London (1985)
de Villiers, R., Woodside, A.G., Marshall, R.: Making tough decisions competently: assessing the value of product portfolio planning methods, devil’s advocacy, group discussion, weighting priorities, and evidenced-based information. J. Bus. Res. 69(8), 2849–2862 (2016)
Deutsch, M., Gerard, H.B.: A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51(3), 629 (1955)
Dietz, G., Den Hartog, D.N.: Measuring trust inside organisations. Pers. Rev. 35(5), 557–588 (2006)
Eagly, A.H., Telaak, K.: Width of the latitude of acceptance as a determinant of attitude change. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 23(3), 388 (1972)
Festinger, L.: Informal social communication. Psychol. Rev. 57(5), 271–282 (1950)
Festinger, L.: A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7(2), 117–140 (1954)
Haerkens, M.H., H, D., Van der Hoeven, H.: Crew resource management in the ICU: the need for culture change. Ann. Intensive Care. 2(1), 39 (2012)
Hardin, C.D., Higgins, E.T.: Shared reality: how social verification makes the subjective objective. Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3: the interpersonal context, pp. 28–84. The Guilford Press, New York (1996)
Harkins, S.G., Petty, R.E.: The effects of source magnification on cognitive effort and attitudes: an information processing view. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 40, 401–413 (1981)
Harkins, S.G., Petty, R.E.: Social context effects in persuasion: the effects of multiple sources and multiple targets. In: Paulus, P. (ed.) Advances in group psychology, pp. 149–175. Springer, New York (1983)
Harkins, S.G., Petty, R.E.: Information utility and the multiple source effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52(2), 260 (1987)
Hegselmann, R., Krause, U.: Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5(3), (2002)
Herbert, T.T., Estes, R.W.: Improving executive decisions by formalizing dissent: the corporate devil’s advocate. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2(4), 662–667 (1977)
Hollingshead, A.B.: Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 34(5), 423–442 (1998)
Hovland, C.I., Harvey, O.J., Sherif, M.: Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 55(2), 244–252 (1957)
Hutchins, E.: Distributed cognition. In: Neil, J.S., Paul, B.B. (eds.) The international encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, pp. 2068–2072. Pergamon Press, Oxford (2001)
Hutchins, E.: The distributed cognition perspective on human interaction. In: Enfield, N.J., Levinson, S.C. (eds.) Roots of human sociality. culture, cognition and interaction, pp. 375–398. Oxford, Berg (2006)
Jacoby, J., Morrin, M., Jaccard, J., Gurhan, Z., Kuss, A., Maheswaran, D.: Mapping attitude formation as a function of information input: online processing models of attitude formation. J. Consum. Psychol. 12(1), 21–34 (2002)
Janis, I.L.: Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1972)
Kruglanski, A.W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., De Grada, E.: Groups as epistemic providers: need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychol. Rev. 113(1), 84 (2006)
Latané, B., Nowak, A.: Attitudes as catastrophes: from dimensions to categories with increasing involvement. In: Dynamical systems in social psychology, pp. 219–249. Academic, San Diego (1994)
Lee, K.M., Nass, C.: The multiple source effect and synthesized speechdoubly-disembodied language as a conceptual framework. Hum. Commun. Res. 30(2), 182–207 (2004)
Levine, J.M., Higgins, E.T.: Shared reality and social influence in groups and organizations. In: Social influence in social reality: promoting individual and social change, pp. 33–52. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Ashland (2001)
Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C., Gillespie, N.: Models of interpersonal trust development: theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. J. Manag. 32(6), 991–1022 (2006)
Li, P.P.: Towards an interdisciplinary conceptualization of trust: a typological approach. Manag. Organ. Rev. 3(3), 421–445 (2007)
McCroskey, J., Burgoon, M.: Establishing predictors of latitude of acceptance-rejection and attitudinal intensity: a comparison of assumptions of social judgment and authoritarian personality theories. Speech Monogr. 41(4), 421–426 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757409375868
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.M.: Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415–444 (2001)
Noelle-Neumann, E.: The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. J. Commun. 24(2), 43–51 (1974)
Page, S.E.: The difference: how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2008)
Pariser, E.: The filter bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin, London (2011)
Putnam, R.D.: Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster, New York (2001)
Schachter, S.: Deviation, rejection, and communication. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 46(2), 190 (1951)
Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R., Rechner, P.L.: Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Acad. Manag. J. 32(4), 745–772 (1989)
Schwenk, C.R.: Devil’s advocacy in managerial decision-making. J. Manag. Stud. 21(2), 153–168 (1984)
Schwenk, C.R.: Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: a meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 47(1), 161–176 (1990)
Sherif, M.: The psychology of social norms. Harper, Oxford (1936)
Sherif, M., Sherif, C.: Acceptable and unacceptable behavior defined by group norms. Reference groups: exploration into conformity and deviation of adolescents. Harper & Row, New York (1964)
Sunstein, C.R., Hastie, R.: Making dumb groups smarter. Harv. Bus. Rev. 92(12), 90–98 (2014)
Uzzi, B., Dunlap, S.: How to build your network. Harv. Bus. Rev. 83(12), 53 (2005)
Wegner, D.M.: Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Mullen, B., Goethals, G.R. (eds.) Theories of group behavior, pp. 185–208, New York. Springer (1987)
Weisbuch, G., Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Nadal, J.P.: Interacting agents and continuous opinions dynamics. In: Heterogenous agents, interactions and economic performance, pp. 225–242. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nowak, A. et al. (2019). The Social Group as an Information Processing System. In: Target in Control. SpringerBriefs in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30622-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30622-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30621-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30622-9
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)