It refers to the tendency of group members to seek concurrence with each other, and frequently results in a process by which groups may come to make poor decisions. Generally, group interaction tends to lead to the polarization of responses. The opinions resulting from group discussion are more extreme and are more tolerant of a level of risk than the opinions of individuals prior to group discussion. Non-laboratory examples of groups in action include juries, families, and encounter groups. Although each of these groups exhibit some unique properties, each also demonstrates the applicability of general social-psychological principles.
Leadership is another characteristic that has emerged from group processes.
Leaders, of course, exert considerable influence over group members, while group members reciprocate by influencing their leaders. As we will see later, leaders differ greatly in their approaches to leading. Although many great men and great women have been studied, no single leadership characteristic has been consistently identified with successful great leaders. Great political leaders differ greatly from each other, but all seem to have some charismatic qualities that somehow seem to be matched to characteristics of the era. Studies have shown some clusters of behavior that are more typical of leaders than of non-leaders.