Reference no: EM131335889

Introduction

On April 14, 1994, in Northern Iraq, two U.S. F-15 fighter planes, mistaking two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters for enemy aircraft, shot them down, costing the lives of all 26 American, British, French, and Turkish military personnel. Investigations soon revealed a series of blunders in decision making. For instance, there were 19 people involved in the airborne warning and control system (AWACS) team, and not one of them reported the presence of the Black Hawks to a senior officer because the senior officer was sleeping during a critical time period. As a result, the F-15s broke two key rules of engagement by flying below 10,000 feet and failing to determine the nationality of the aircraft in question. When the investigative board asked all of the parties involved about who was responsible, their answers were alarmingly similar: They did not know. Later, West Point Professor Scott Snook, in his book Friendly Fire, attributed this incident to social loafing, noting that the responsibility was "spread so thin no one felt compelled to act."

This week you look at the social psychology of group membership and social relationships. You examine how groups can both bolster each other and detract from individual reasoning. You explore the serious consequences of individual responsibility in the face of negative group mentality, such as in groupthink, group polarization, social loafing, and social inhibition.

1. Social Facilitation, Social Inhibition, and Social Loafing

As you may recall in the work of Triplett (1898), the presence of others in a bicycle race was found to enhance individual performance. This is called social facilitation (Williams, Harkins, &Karau, 2007). At times, however, the presence of others can detract from individual performance, which is termed social inhibition (Crisp & Turner, 2007). Similarly, social loafing can occur when an individual's performance within a group decreases due to his or her reliance on others in the group (Crisp & Turner, 2007).

For this Discussion, review the media program, Week 5: The Virtual Office. Focus on the characters in the media and determine which characters displayed social facilitation, social inhibition, and social loafing.

With these thoughts in mind:

Discussion/Assignment: A description of the characters in the media program demonstrating social loafing, social inhibition, and social facilitation. Explain how you identified them. Then, select one of the characters and, using the current literature, explain two ways you might mitigate their behavior.

2. Impact of Group Behavior

Group polarization can be defined as the process that can occur after group interaction, when an initial group attitude (e.g., "Our company is the best at providing Service B in this community") becomes more extreme (e.g., "Our company is the best at providing Service B in this entire region"). Group polarization may be particularly likely when the issue at hand is deemed particularly "important" (Crisp & Turner, 2007, p. 169).

Groupthink is considered a more extreme version of group polarization and refers to decreased flexibility in group processing and can, in turn, lead to decreases in group productivity. This has never been more evident than in the space shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986, when Challenger exploded in mid-flight. In this case, evidence suggests that groupthink played a major role in this event.

For this Discussion, review this week's Learning Resources. Pay particular attention to the impact of groupthink and group polarization. In addition, using the Walden Library, research alternatives to groupthink and group polarization and select an article that discusses an alternative.

With these thoughts in mind:

Discussion/Assignment: A description of a situation in which you experienced or observed negative consequences resulting from groupthink or group polarization. Then describe two consequences as a result of groupthink or group polarization in your example. Finally, using an article from the current literature, explain how one alternative to groupthink or group polarization could have been used in that situation.