What's at stake
Discover more from Field Notes
Managing groupthink is a familiar and fundamental challenge to moderating groups. When groups are conducted in-person, written exercises are an essential and effective way to encourage respondents to reflect and commit to their personal positions before sharing. But do these approaches work in online settings?
On a recent study that included both individual interviews and small groups conducted virtually, we found that ad concepts fared worse in the groups than in the interviews, and this was especially true of more controversial - and thus, potentially breakthrough - ideas. In reviewing the transcripts closely to try to understand the group dynamic at work, I found that respondents in virtual groups often explicitly tied their own response to another’s, in a way that suggested a desire to connect and to convey respect. For example, after hearing another person speak, a respondent might begin, “I agree with what Janice said” before continuing with their thoughts. I’m not sure if this is happening more now than it would have in in-person groups - it’s been more than two years since I moderated an in-person group - but it feels different, as if respondents are trying harder to connect with their virtual peers.
To a degree I applaud this, because connection between respondents is part of what makes group discussions so fruitful. But I worry that the desire to connect may override individual opinion.
When evaluating concepts in an in-person group, I would typically employ private written exercises and then gather ratings publicly on a particular concept before discussing it, so that each respondent was forced to put a stake in the ground to publicly claim their individual point of view. But private written exercises are not feasible in a virtual setting - it’s impossible to know what the person is writing down, and there is no “evidence” that can be reviewed later, in the form of worksheets that are handed in to the moderator.
Fortunately, some platforms have polling features that can accomplish this very goal. After respondents view a concept, they can be asked to individually and privately answer a poll with a rating or gut reaction. Their responses are accessible to the moderator, who can use them to tease out differences of opinion.
Ultimately, a stake in the ground approach helps the moderator understand what individuals in a group are feeling privately. We all need to connect, but we don’t have to sacrifice our views to do so.