Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such as "conservatism" and "liberalism" in the U.S. political context [7] or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude). [8]
The concept of herd mentality has been studied and analyzed from different perspectives, including biology, psychology and sociology. This psychological phenomenon can have profound impacts on human behavior. Social psychologists study the related topics of collective intelligence, crowd wisdom, groupthink, and deindividuation.
Instead, our decision is based on two factors: our comparison level, and our comparison level for alternatives. [ 29 ] In John Thibaut and Harold Kelley's social exchange theory , comparison level is the standard by which an individual will evaluate the desirability of becoming a member of the group and forming new social relationships within ...
In social psychology, people's tendency to align their beliefs and behaviors with a group is known as 'herd mentality' or 'groupthink'. [8] The reverse bandwagon effect (also known as the snob effect in certain contexts) is a cognitive bias that causes people to avoid doing something, because they believe that other people are doing it.
One angle of this approach was depicted in early works such as Le Bon's [2] and Freud's [3] who reasoned that there is a general influence of a crowd or group which makes the members of the group "feel, think and act" differently than they would have as isolated individuals.
Further behavioral, economic, and social psychology research was done by Todd Rose to demonstrate the interchangeability of the terms pluralistic ignorance and collective illusions. His findings of historical events, scientific studies and social media patterns indicate that by using either term one is saying the same thing.
Normative influence, a function of social impact theory, has three components. [41] The number of people in the group has a surprising effect. As the number increases, each person has less of an impact. A group's strength is how important the group is to a person. Groups we value generally have more social influence.
Sally Fuller and Ramon Aldag argue that group decision-making models have been operating under too narrow of a focus due to the overemphasis of the groupthink phenomenon. [2] [3] [4] In addition, according to them, group decision-making has often been framed in relative isolation, ignoring context and real-world circumstances, which is a likely consequence of testing group decision-making in ...