Passage
Twenty-two adults (mean age 49.5) were recruited to participate in a study they were told was to assess beliefs about cancer risk. All participants were in good health; neither they nor any first-degree relatives had been diagnosed with cancer.In the first phase of the study, participants viewed a brief video about the epidemiology and prevalence of cancer in the United States, and then were randomly assigned to one of four groups and asked to estimate the probability that they would develop cancer in their lifetimes. Group 1 consisted of seven study participants who each arrived at their estimates independently and without discussion. Group 2 consisted of seven study participants who were asked to agree on a group estimate after discussion (with unlimited time) . Group 3 contained seven members who were also asked to arrive at a consensus estimate after discussion (with unlimited time) : Six were study participants and the seventh was a confederate who suggested a very low estimate. Group 4 likewise contained seven members: Two were study participants and the other five were confederates who each suggested low estimates. Group 4 members were limited to 5 minutes of discussion and then asked to arrive at individual estimates.For the second phase of the study, four members of Group 1 who arrived at independent estimates of 20% or lower were put into a new group (Group 5) , then were given unlimited time to discuss their initial estimates and arrive at a group estimate (Table 1) .Table 1 Group Composition, Protocol, and Estimate of Developing Cancer in One's Lifetime
S. E. Asch ©1956 American Psychological Association.
-What does the Group 5 estimate most demonstrate?

Question

Passage
Twenty-two adults (mean age 49.5) were recruited to participate in a study they were told was to assess beliefs about cancer risk. All participants were in good health; neither they nor any first-degree relatives had been diagnosed with cancer.In the first phase of the study, participants viewed a brief video about the epidemiology and prevalence of cancer in the United States, and then were randomly assigned to one of four groups and asked to estimate the probability that they would develop cancer in their lifetimes. Group 1 consisted of seven study participants who each arrived at their estimates independently and without discussion. Group 2 consisted of seven study participants who were asked to agree on a group estimate after discussion (with unlimited time) . Group 3 contained seven members who were also asked to arrive at a consensus estimate after discussion (with unlimited time) : Six were study participants and the seventh was a confederate who suggested a very low estimate. Group 4 likewise contained seven members: Two were study participants and the other five were confederates who each suggested low estimates. Group 4 members were limited to 5 minutes of discussion and then asked to arrive at individual estimates.For the second phase of the study, four members of Group 1 who arrived at independent estimates of 20% or lower were put into a new group (Group 5) , then were given unlimited time to discuss their initial estimates and arrive at a group estimate (Table 1) .Table 1 Group Composition, Protocol, and Estimate of Developing Cancer in One's Lifetime

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

11ecba2d_0cbd_265e_a3bf_33c98205a45a_MD0008_00 Group polarization occurs when the average attitude or proposed course of action of a group becomes more extreme after group discussion. For example, if the average favorability rating for a political candidate among group members becomes even more extreme after group discussion, group polarization has occurred. Group opinions or attitudes can polarize in either direction (ie, become relatively more positive or more negative compared to original average). Group polarization is more likely to occur when the group is composed of members who share a similar opinion to begin with. The members of Group 5 were the four members originally in Group 1 who arrived at the lowest independent risk estimates (no higher than 20%). As part of Group 5, they collectively arrived at an even lower risk estimate of 10% after group discussion, reflecting group polarization. (Choice A) Regression to the mean refers to the tendency of extreme data points in a distribution to regress toward the mean value of the distribution upon repeated measurements. For example, an athlete who has an outstanding performance in one game is likely to underperform in the next game. This effect would predict that the Group 5 estimate would be less, not more, extreme. (Choice B) The social facilitation effect refers to the enhancement of performance when an individual has an audience (eg, people tie their shoes faster when being watched), but it predicts that only simple or well-learned tasks improve. This effect does not explain why the Group 5 estimate was even lower. (Choice C) Social desirability bias describes the tendency of research subjects to respond to experimental questions in a way that makes them look better in the eyes of the experimenter, such as overestimating positive behaviors (eg, exercising) and underestimating negative behaviors (eg, drinking alcohol). This bias is unrelated to group members coming to a consensus estimate for cancer risk. Educational objective: Group polarization occurs when the average attitudes/opinions of group members become more extreme after group discussion. Group polarization is more likely to occur in groups composed of like-minded members. Opinions can be polarized toward either extreme.

Passage Twenty-Two Adults (Mean Age 49.5) Were Recruited to Participate in in a Study