Social Psychology Help in Understanding Responses to the
Current Pandemic
PSYC 2015 - Social Psychology
University of Cincinnati
November 17, 2023
In this essay I will consider the responses to the coronavirus pandemic
on two main levels; Government responses (policies, rules and
restrictions, decision making processes etc.) and Public responses
(protests, conspiracy theorists, individual’s mental health etc.). I will
discuss how social psychology can be used to rationalise group’s and
individual’s behaviours, by applying theories centering around group
dynamics, social norms and intergroup processes.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
Government response; Group dynamics; group-think theory etc.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Government has been
scrutinised for acting too slowly, too late, or just taking the wrong
approach in trying to control the virus (Perrigo, 2020). Through the
use of social psychology, the government’s responses can be
rationalised and explained. For example, the group dynamics of the
government, regulatory and advisory groups can influence group
processes, such as decision making, which can be mistaken or flawed
when certain dynamics occur. Several politicians, scientists and
journalists have reported that ‘groupthink’ may’ve impaired the
government’s ability to make proper decisions in response to the virus
(Heneghan and Mahtani, 2020).
Groupthink (Janis, 1972) occurs within a group when the desire for
group cohesion is greater than individual’s want for a successful
outcome, leading to dysfunctional decision making and adverse
outcomes. Groupthink can develop when a group has strong
leadership, little outside input and the desire for unanimous
agreement, these are ‘antecedent’ conditions. These conditions make
the group believe that they’re invulnerable, unanimous in their
decision and inherently moral and rational. When a groupthink
dynamic occurs, there is pressure on all members to conform,
dissenting members are made to feel ostracised, and part of an
‘outgroup’ (as opposed to the main ‘ingroup’). The resulting
symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, failing to;
effectively assess objectives, search thoroughly for relevant
information and examine key risks.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the
Health Select Committee and former UK Health Secretary, said that
“Our response was conditioned on this idea that [coronavirus] was
something you can’t stop” (Channel 4 news, 2020). Having this pre-
existing notion that the spread of the virus was inevitable may’ve been
resultant from a groupthink dynamic.
Hunt, as have several others, cited groupthink as the reason for the
UK’s slow and confused responses, also claiming that had scientific
advice presented to ministers been more “transparent” the UK would
have taken a different course of action during the early stages of the
virus (Allegretti, 2020). The reported lack of transparency is a major
barrier to effective and democratic decision making as there is no
accountability, and so politicians can make decisions without having
to face the consequences. This may mean that risky, or venal
decisions, are more likely to be made; for example, the government
may favour saving the economy rather than people’s lives. Clearly,
this lack of transparency is dangerous and (Geoghegan and Corderoy,
2020).
Many government decisions have been named as being reckless and
irrational, the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOTHOS) has been
criticised for being a cause of the ‘second wave’ of the virus in the UK
(Skopeliti, 2020), whilst the failure to implement any border measures
to prevent the spread of the virus was described as “inexplicable”
(Metcalfe, 2020).
It’s clear that there have been many poor decisions, but what’s more
worrying is that it seems the government has failed to learn from their
mistakes and continue to make unwise decisions. Sir David King,
former Chief Scientific Advisor, has suggested that groupthink has
been the main cause of ill-thought government policies, also saying
that – for Economic reasons – politicians want to avoid a lockdown,
and that that’s why lockdowns had been delayed (Channel 4 news,
2020). In regard to government decision making in response to the
pandemic, groupthink may’ve occurred in some UK advisory bodies
including; NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats
Advisory Group) and SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on
Emergencies).
In an article discussing the UK government’s shortcomings in dealing
with the virus, Richard Coker wrote that “Coronavirus can only be
beaten if groups such as SAGE are transparent and accountable”
(Coker, 2020, p.1). Also advising that expert advice shouldn’t always
be taken so readily, saying that ‘expert’ theories may be lacking in
real evidence. This news article examined the stages of groupthink
that may’ve occurred in government decision making processes and
gave advice on how it could be prevented in the future; through
transparency, inclusivity and accountability.
Groupthink has been said to also occur in ill-defined ‘ad-hoc’ groups,
whose members aren’t well acquainted and who haven’t yet worked
together (Forsyth 2020). This may’ve been a particularly prevalent
problem for the government in February, as groups who may not have
worked closely together would’ve been thrust together and pressured
to work effectively.
The government’s failings may’ve started before Covid-19 even
existed though; NERVTAG recommended increased PPE and
ventilator supplies in a 2017 pandemic response rehearsal – yet these
were not approved at the time. Dr Phillip Lee, a former minister said
that the government has been “asleep on the job” in regard to
preparing for such a pandemic.
However, considering the unprecedented nature of these current
events in recent times, it may be harsh to criticise the government for
all of their failings, as so many variables and considerations have to be
made, and under such great pressure. Although, the failure to consider
and prevent groupthink occurring may’ve been the governments
greatest failing.
Anti-lockdown protests UK (+US); relative deprivation theory
and group polarisation
Especially likely with the widespread use of social media these days;
echo chambers(?)
In response to growing frustration at government measures, several
countries have seen protests occur, due to growing frustration from
people being forced to continue to have to lockdown and postpone
their ‘normal’ lives. Social psychology can be used to explain this
response, and its underlying causes. Using theories of group
dynamics, we can explain that, in group situations, decisions are more
likely to be riskier or more extreme, leading to more daring behaviour.
The idea of a ‘risky shift’ was first introduced in the 1920’s, to
describe the idea that groups make riskier decisions that individuals.
Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) put this down to a diffusion or
responsibility, Collins and Guetzkow (1964) theorised that it was due
to risk takers being more confident, and so more likely to persuade
others to take risks, whilst Brown (1965) suggested risk taking in
groups is associated with a higher social status, meaning people avoid
low risk positions.
More recent thinking has explained that risky shift is actually a facet
of ‘group polarisation’, and that groups don’t necessarily always take
riskier decisions, but that groups make more extreme decisions; which
can either be riskier, or more cautious; this is dependent on the initial
attitudes presented by the group. Group polarisation occurs when
discussion prompts attitudes held by the individual group members to
become more extreme than they would be on an individual level
(Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006). The two main theories as to why this
occurs are; mutual persuasion, the idea that mere discussion of
arguments for/ against an action exposes individuals to the consensus
opinion, and social comparison, which explains that the desire to be
more extreme than the average group member motivates polarisation
(similar to Brown’s explanation).
In regard to the pandemic, group polarisation may lead to the belief
that the virus is a ‘hoax’ designed for one reason or another with the
aim of taking away individual’s freedom.
Protests in Barcelona in late October followed the decision by the
Spanish government to announce a ‘six-month state of emergency’ in
response to the pandemic. Protestors chanted “Libertad” (meaning
freedom) whilst protesting in the streets, Jones (2020) wrote that
people protesting were part of a violent and irrational minority, and
detailed the response of Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez who
said responsibility, unity and sacrifice are necessary to beat the
pandemic.
Cite studies, refence social media, link to coronavirus
In the ‘Group Dynamics when Battling a Pandemic’ article (Parks,
2020) groupthink is given as an explanation for protests against the
pandemic restrictions. The paper uses the USA to articulate this point;
The rise of rule-breakers (Davies, 2020) noted that, during the
pandemic, rules are constantly changing, creating an ambiguous
situation, and that this is likely to cause people to interpret rules to suit
themselves, and that therefore these new rules were ineffective. Social
norms is able to explain this; creating new laws is relatively easy, but
the development of new social norms and etiquettes is much more
difficult to create, and so disobeying laws (or interpreting them to suit
ones-self) is much easier to do, as there are no ‘injunctive’ social
norms to go by. The situations ambiguity may therefore explain how,
or why people are seemingly ‘disobeying’ the rules.
Protestors want freedom, believe virus is a hoax, distrust in the
government; intergroup bias against government
Relative deprivation and coronavirus; experience of discontent when
being deprived of something to which one believes they’re entitled to;
economic, political or social, leading to hostility and prejudice toward
oppressors/ those with-holding desired freedoms (government).
Accentuated by the wide-spread use of social media today, as social
comparison with peers is much more likely to happen
People live in a perceived world and respond to events in a way that
they see fit (Stekelenburg, 2013). Social psychology aims to explain
why people in the same situation react in different ways, using the
causes of thoughts, feelings and actions – and how these are
influenced by social contexts to make sense of this. Classical models
of protest name protest as a way to express objection to perceived
injustice, frustration or a sense of relative deprivation (Lind and Tyler,
1988). Whilst more current explanations observe collective identity as
the reason for protest (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000),
Klandermans (2008). Also noted the mediating role of social
embeddedness in this process.
