No “I” in Team: The Relationship Among the Groupthink Level, Compliance-Gaining

Strategies, and Voter Preference of UP Diliman’s Political Parties

And Student Voters in the USC Elections AY 2016-2017

by

Rachel Megan R. Aglaua

An Undergraduate Thesis

Presented

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts in Speech Communication

University of the Philippines

College of Arts and Letters

Diliman, Quezon City

May 2018
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................................. 1
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER I................................................................................................................................... 6
Background of the Study............................................................................................... 6
Statement of the Problem............................................................................................ 10
Objectives.................................................................................................................... 10
Scope and Limitations................................................................................................. 11
Significance of the Study............................................................................................ 12

CHAPTER II ............................................................................................................................ 16
Review of Related Literature.................................................................................... 16
Synthesis................................................................................................................... 42
Theoretical Framework............................................................................................. 44
Conceptual Framework............................................................................................ 49
Hypotheses............................................................................................................... 51

CHAPTER III ............................................................................................................................ 54

Methodology................................................................................... 54

CHAPTER IV ............................................................................................................................. 65
Findings, Analyses, Interpretations.......................................................................... 65

CHAPTER V............................................................................................................................125
Summary.............................................................................................................. 125
Conclusion........................................................................................................... 135
Implications........................................................................................................... 137
Recommendations................................................................................................. 140

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................142
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................143
APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................150
 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
How do I start saying thank you when I know this is not enough? In thinking about my life and
where I am right now, there are special people who have dedicated their time, patience, and kindness just
to help me get to where I am going.
To the members of UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP, STAND UP, and to the student voters who
answered my survey, thank you for your participation and your understanding.
To Sir Marti Rodriguez, I want to say thank you for patiently guiding me in achieving my first
major milestone as a student. Pursuing this study has become a great passion of mine and when I knew
that you were going to be my thesis adviser, I knew that my thesis was going to be in great hands. Thank
you for your constant communication, your warmth, and your wisdom Sir. I am lucky to be your first
thesis advisee and I am excited for the future students that you will mentor. Again, thank you, Sir.
To Ma’am TP De Luna and Sir Marvin Olaes, thank you for dedicating enough time to improve
my research. I deeply appreciate both of your efforts in reading my drafts, panneling my defense, and
guiding me on how to achieve my study’s full potential. I extend my sincerest gratitude to you Ma’am TP
and Sir Marvin.
To my patient and cooperative statistician, Ms. Rosevelle Dizon, thank you for accepting the task
to analyze my data and thank you for allowing so many adjustments. I would not have finished my study
without you.
To my friends from the Philippine Collegian, thank you for helping me gather more respondents.
Kenneth Zapata, thank you for designing the publicity material that I posted on Facebook. Sanny Afable,
I know that being the current editor-in-chief is already a heavy responsibility but thank you anyway for
helping me in administering the survey in your office.
To my Model United Nations - UP Diliman family who rooted for me in finishing this thesis,
thank you so much. Baby Shark Regina Romero and Buddy Rigel Gomez, thank you for attending my
thesis defense. When the both of you entered the room, I felt lighter and happier. Thank you, guys.
To my newly found friend whom I wish I have met earlier in my college life, Kath Sohn, thank
you for helping in my thesis by accompanying me in running for the respondents. Thank you also for
being a sweet friend whom I can walk to from our dorm to our classes and vice versa. You are now
officially my favorite korean. Love you Kath and I hope to see you after graduation.
To my closest friend who allows me to sleep in her room when I am scared, thank you Carriz
Nana. This semester was a game-changer for the both of us. We achieved the things we wanted and at the
same time, are still hoping for the things that keep us waiting. You accepted me when you saw my darkest
 2

side, and you supported me in the endeavors that I pursued. Here’s to more memories and more stories to
come. Thank you, Can. Our journey together does not end here.
To my best friend of eight years, the person who makes me cry because of too much laughter,
thank you for the endless support that you keep giving me, Georgette Battad. Wow. Who knew that I
would be writing your name on my thesis already? Last time I checked, we were just laughing at our high
school classroom, telling stories about our love lives. Thank you for taking care of me and thank you for
always believing in me. You should now that I believe in you, too, Gette. From the bottom of my heart,
thank you.
To my boyfriend and bestfriend, Lorenz Cabinta, I do not know how to write my thank you to
you simply because I know it does not amount to the kindness and understanding you keep giving me
everyday. Nonetheless, thank you for standing by me unconditionally. Whether we are watching a tv
series, tagging each other in memes, or crying and studying together, maybe all at the same time, I know
that it is you want to do all these things with. Thank you, my love, for everything.
Lastly, to my family who have supported and loved me since the beginning of my life, thank you
so much. To my father, Elvis Aglaua, daddy, your cakes always make me feel at home and your hugs are
the warmest thing I will ever come to know of. Daddy, I know you may doubt yourself sometimes but
please know that I am proud of you and I am so lucky to have you as my father. I will always be your
little girl, daddy and I hope I made you proud.
To my mother, Racquel Aglaua, who inspired me to pursue law and to fight for the marginalized,
thank you. Ever since I was a young girl, you have always helped me in my achievements. From my first
story-telling contests to my academic papers, your opinions always had great importance in my works.
Thank you for allowing me to open up about any problem I have and thank you for being my best friend,
mommy. Everything I do is to make daddy and you proud. From the sincerest part of my heart, thank you
ma.
To my sister and brother, Sasha Aglaua and Dale Aglaua, there is nothing I would rather do than
to hug and annoy the both of you all day. Thank you Sha and Dale for your love, care, and support even
when you don’t always admit it. I will always be your ate and I will do anything I can to protect the both
of you. I love you both and I cannot wait until I am the one who will be reading your theses someday.
To everyone who included me in their prayers and who rooted for me in this life, I want to extend
my deepest gratitude to all of you.
 3

Most importantly, I want to say thank you to God. I have been blessed by so many of Your gifts
and sometimes, I feel guilty for not acknowledging them all. Thank you, Lord for continuously loving me
and for not letting me lose my faith in you. The road is still long but with You, anything is possible.
 4

ABSTRACT

The study focuses on the groupthink level and the compliance-gaining strategies of UP

Diliman’s political parties, which are UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND UP who ran in

the USC elections AY 2016-2017.

The research has four objectives: 1) To determine the groupthink level and characteristics

of UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND UP; 2) To identify their compliance-gaining

strategies; 3) To identify the relationship between the political party’s level of groupthink and the

students’ voter preference, and to also identify if there is a correlation between the political

party’s compliance-gaining and students’ voter preference; 4) And to determine the relationship

between the groupthink level of each political party and the compliance-gaining strategies that

they used.

Through the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, results reveal that there is no significant

difference in the groupthink level of the political parties. Next, the results of the research also

reveal that of the 16 compliance-gaining strategies, Liking was the most used. It was also

established three correlations in groupthink and voter preference: 1) There is a high positive

correlation between the groupthink level of KAISA UP and their likelihood of being voted by the

voters (voter preference); 2) There is a high positive correlation between the groupthink level of

STAND UP and their likelihood of being voted by the voters (voter preference); 3) there is a

high positive correlation between the groupthink level of UP AYANSA and their likelihood of

being voted by the voters (voter preference). There were also high correlations found with all the

political parties’ strategies and the preference of the student voters.

 5

Lastly, the findings of the research revealed that there is no correlation between the

groupthink level of the political parties and the compliance-gaining strategies that they employed

during the USC elections AY 2016-2017.

The study implies that: 1) Student politicians and voters are still unfamiliar with the

dangers of groupthink in policy decision-making; 2) Party members and student voters may

compare and contrast the university’s political parties since their groupthink level and

characteristics have been determined 3) the presence of groupthink in a decision-making body

and the compliance-gaining strategies they employ greatly affect the public’s perception of the

group.
 6

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

On September 19, 1935, Julio Nalundasan, a prominent politician from Ilocos Norte, ran

for congressman and won in the first elections held under the law that made the Commonwealth

of the Philippines. He successfully dethroned the ten-year reign of former congressman (and

brother of Dictator Ferdinand Marcos), Mariano Marcos. Nalundasan died shortly after,

assassinated in his home. Ferdinand Marcos was incarcerated for the murder of Julio Nalundasan

three years later. However, through the decision of Associate Justice Jose P. Laurel, Ferdinand

Marcos was appealed on October 22, 1940. (Gomez, 2015; Notable Biographies, 2009).

Associate Justice Laurel was a known friend of Marcos, and his stand to acquit the young

Marcos influenced the Supreme Court (Gomez, 2015) despite having all the pieces of evidence

to hold accountability. The move to convict him was now overturned by a deciding body

influenced by groupthink.

Groupthink is the practice of making decisions as a group, which results to poorly made

and unchallenged decisions, which leads to the deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality

testing, and moral judgment,” caused by group pressures or strong coercion by a leader (Janis,

1972).

Jose P. Laurel’s ability to convince his former colleagues in freeing Marcos (Gomez,

2015) can be described by the groupthink characteristic of promotional leadership, wherein

leaders or dominant members of a group forward a decision so persistently that it causes other

members of the group to oppress themselves from voicing out their opposing views and
 7

reservations. This practice of self-oppression is also called self-censorship, another characteristic

of groupthink (Baptist, 2015; Janis, 1972).

Irving Janis (1972), the social psychologist that developed the theory of groupthink,

published a study that revealed how some foreign policy disasters were deeply rooted from

groupthink, such as the USA’s invasion of Cuba’s Bay of Pigs, the escalation of the Vietnam

War, and the failure to preempt the Japanese bombing of the Pearl Harbor (Hill, 2018).

Groupthink has destabilized several countries by affecting its decision-making process,

and the Philippine government is not immune to this. The acquittal of Ferdinand Marcos for the

murder of Julio Nalundasan is a prime example of how a decision-making body was victimized

by groupthink, causing a dictatorship to rise for 22 years.

Important decisions influenced by groupthink are still passed and implemented since

groupthink is also heavily involved with the act of persuasion. Groupthink is about the

persuasion of a group and the ways in which it can penetrate and extremely alter individual

thought. Annie Mandard (2017) of Penn State University perfectly explains it by saying,

“humans desire to feel wanted and needed, and that can often come in the form of finding one’s

group -- be it at a job, in a political circle, as part of a sect of religion, through identity labels, or

markers, and more.”

When Associate Justice Laurel argued in the Supreme Court to acquit Marcos, he needed

to persuade his colleagues and to gain their compliance into agreeing with him. Leaders who can

forward faulty and half-baked decisions are not only successful because they have a dominating

character. Rather, they are also good influencers who know which compliance-gaining strategies

are effective in persuading their members to obey and follow them (Baptist, 2015).
 8

Political leaders and government officials have used different compliance-gaining

strategies to secure their positions and to forward their agenda. Same is true with Ferdinand

Marcos who was able to successfully persuade the Supreme Court into accepting his appeal and

Julio Nalundasan won over Mariano Marcos because of the compliance-gaining strategies he

used in his campaign. Despite groupthink having an effect on the internal workings of group

decision-making, compliance-gaining strategies are also able to have an effect on the people that

the group is targeting. A prime example of how compliance-gaining strategies is used by a

certain group on a specific kind of people are student political candidates running for elections.

Student political candidates are politicians in the making. Events such as the First

Quarter Storm and the Diliman Commune displayed the power of students in contributing to the

achievement of democracy and liberation of the nation from the dark times of Ferdinand Marcos’

Martial Law.

Both of these events marked the start of Marcos’ downfall and both of these events were

led by UP Diliman student leaders. At times when the country has been overwhelmed by social

turmoil and oppression, students were able to fight for an important yet marginalized segment of

the society (Altbach, 1967).

Despite the many value-adding actions they have donated to the betterment of the

community, these parties also impede solving some issues in the UP community. This makes

some decisions unethical and unprofessional. This kind of behaviour can be seen in the three

political parties when they destructively criticize each other with gossips and failed projects

when it comes to various issues in the university such as the STS and the Magna Carta. This

practice is best manifested during University Student Council (USC) elections; when black
 9

propaganda about each party is circulating and ad hominem attacks toward each political

candidate are proliferating.

Regardless of these student politicians’ participation in black propaganda and

mudslinging, they are still able to persuade voters into voting for them. Even though the effects

of groupthink have heavily influenced the reputation of a political party, the compliance-gaining

strategies of these political candidates are still successful in getting them elected.

According to Kurtbas (2015), voter preference can be affected by three factors: the

sociological factors, rational factors, and party identification. Now, the question taps this

concepts and see what groupthink level and compliance-gaining strategies increase the likelihood

of the political parties into being voted.

Therefore, in studying the groupthink level of the three main political parties in UP

Diliman, it is necessary to examine their behaviour during the election season, more specifically

during the USC elections AY 2016-2017, in order to know how if their groupthink level has

affected their performance in initiating students to join and to vote for them. More specifically, it

is valuable to explore their compliance-gaining strategies in order to identify how their

groupthink level influenced their preference in using compliance-gaining strategies on their

voters or co-students.

Furthermore, with UP as the country’s premier academic institution, it is crucial to know

the behaviour and movements of the political candidates as they will also become the future

leaders of the country. There is relevance in studying the groupthink level of UP ALYANSA,

KAISA UP and STAND UP in order for students to become vigilant in identifying whether an

ideology is endangering the university’s community or not.

 10

Statement of the Problem

What is the relationship among the groupthink level, compliance-gaining strategies, and

voter preference during the USC elections AY 2016-2017?

Objectives

1. To determine:

a. The groupthink level and characteristics of UP ALYANSA;

b. The groupthink level and characteristics of KAISA UP;

c. The groupthink level and characteristics of STAND UP;

2. To identify:

a. The compliance-gaining strategies UP ALYANSA;

b. The compliance-gaining strategies of KAISA UP;

c. The compliance-gaining strategies of STAND UP;

3. To identify if there is a correlation between:

a. Political Party’s level of Groupthink and Voter Preference:

i. UP ALYANSA’s level of groupthink and the students’ voter preference;

ii. KAISA UP’s level of groupthink and the students’ voter preference;

iii. STAND UP’s level of groupthink and the students’ voter preference;

b. Political Party’s Compliance-gaining Strategies and Voter Preference:

i. UP ALYANSA’s compliance-gaining strategies and voter preference;

ii. KAISA UP’s compliance-gaining strategies and voter preference;

iii. STAND UP’s compliance-gaining strategies and voter preference;

4. To determine the relationship between:

 11

a. UP ALYANSA’s groupthink level and their compliance-gaining strategies;

b. KAISA UP’s groupthink level and their compliance-gaining strategies;

c. STAND UP’s groupthink level and their compliance-gaining strategies.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

The researcher shall focus on the three main political parties in UP Diliman, which are

UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP and STAND UP.

Moreover, the researcher shall study the parties’ level of groupthink derived from their

group-decision making process, and from here, the researcher shall also explore their

compliance-gaining strategies used during the election season of AY 2016-2017.

While the researcher wants to study their group decision-making process during the said

elections, the researcher will not study their entire group decision-making process since

conception. The researcher recognizes that gathering contact information on the older members

of UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP and STAND UP would be a much more difficult task to achieve

since some of their members have already graduated, left the university, and/or pursued further

studies either abroad or in another academic institution.

Moreover, the researcher recognizes that all political parties have partner organizations.

With this study, however, the researcher will exclusively study the candidates who ran during the

said election season in the USC.

While the study will heavily focus on the electoral candidates from UP ALYANSA,

KAISA UP and STAND UP during the said election’s time frame, the researcher will no longer
 12

tackle independent candidates since they are not a part of a political party making groupthink

less of a concern with them.

Lastly, the current study shall also focus on the two types of voter preference: the

political parties’ likelihood of being voted based on their groupthink level and the compliance-

gaining strategies that they used. The researcher shall employ 100 students who voted in the

USC elections 2016-2017. The voters shall equally come from the four clusters of UP Diliman,

with 25 coming from the Arts and Letters cluster, 25 coming from the Management and

Economics cluster, 25 from the Science and Technology Cluster, and 25 from the Social

Sciences and Law cluster.

It is important to also tackle the perspective of the voters to make the research more

holistic.

Significance of the Study

In studying the groupthink level of the political parties in UP Diliman and the

compliance-gaining strategies they employed during the AY 2016-2017 elections, voters can

have a better understanding in the group decision-making processes of UP ALYANSA, KAISA

UP and STAND UP about the crucial issues in the Philippines and in the university such as

extrajudicial killings, Federalism, contractualization, free education, the Socialized Tuition

System, Magna Carta, General Education reduction and such.

Since UP has always been identified as the microcosm of the Philippines, it is important

to observe how the university leaders tackle issues today as they will become the future leaders

of the country.
 13

To support this, Foubert and Grainger (2006) state that “Students with higher levels of

involvement in student organizations reported greater levels of psychosocial development in the

areas of establishing and clarifying purpose, educational involvement, career planning, life

management, and cultural participation.”

As of now, there is still no undergraduate, masters, or even a doctorate study in UP

Diliman which examines groupthink levels and its correlation on other factors, but there is

related literature about compliance-gaining strategies employed by politicians in the university.

Most importantly, studies about the political parties of UP Diliman are yet to be pursued. There

is a need to research on student politicians and campus politics because because these two factors

make an academic institution a “democratic school.” Thus, democratic schools produce future

voters and politicians in a nationwide scheme. Studies have found that adults who are politicians,

activists, and some voters today were reported to have been involved in student governments

while they were in school (Print and Saha, 2009).

Thus, pursuing this research is significant for the following reasons: first, for the

respondents, this research may be used as a handbook or a guide in decision-making to reflect on

their own levels of groupthink. Political party members will be able to utilize this study to avoid

or, at least, minimize practicing groupthink. With each political party being a respondent of this

study, the members will be able to recognize their group’s mistakes and further improve on

becoming a more helpful and socially relevant political group.

Second, voters and the student body of the university can benefit from this study as they

can compare and contrast the political parties during elections. In this study, the compliance

gaining strategies of UP Alyansa, Kaisa UP, and STAND UP are specified and rooted from their
 14

groupthink level. With this in mind, students of the university will be able to scrutinize and think

critically on who to vote for elections, since the voters can understand why a certain compliance

gaining strategy is being used on them.

To give an example on how a specific campaign strategy is used, Erkel et al (2016) state

in their paper, One for All or All for One: The Electoral Effects of Personalized Campaign

strategies, “Personalized campaigns are effective, but mostly for candidates with high positions

on the ballot list or candidates with enough resources to set up an effective personalized

campaign. This means that the strategy to cultivate personal votes has the least effect for those

candidates who could benefit from it the most.”

Third, the research can also be benefited by future researchers in the field of Speech

Communication, Political Science, Sociology, or Psychology. Since this study delves on

organizational or group communication, academics can pursue this research further by

investigating how the organizational culture of political parties influence their groupthink level

and their compliance gaining strategies. Moreover, since this research tackles the political

parties’ groupthink symptoms and level, Political Science scholars can extend the scope of this

research by comparing groupthink of student political parties with that of national political

parties, since UP has always been discerned to be a microcosm of the Philippine Society.

Lastly, because this study deals with the employment of difference compliance gaining

strategies, academics from the field of Psychology can continue this research by exploring the

effects of the compliance gaining strategies used on both the political candidates and the voters.

Therefore, exploring this issue as a research topic is very timely and helpful not only to

the field of Speech Communication but also to other fields in the humanities and in the social
 15

sciences since the elements of groupthink, compliance-gaining, and political parties have not

been explored to its fullest potential yet. Subsequently, this study will also contribute to society

as there are innumerable politicians today – local, national, and international – who are looming

the future with their rhetoric’s ability to destabilize a society, or maybe even a whole country.
 16

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In studying the behaviour and movement of the three main political parties in UP

Diliman, it is important to know the relevant elements that are surrounding the topic of the

current study for the researcher to be able to trace its progress today. The history and relevance

of student politics and party systems, the different definitions of groupthink, the diverse

arguments on compliance-gaining strategies and the various perspectives that shaped the concept

of voter preference are all encapsulated in the studies cited below. These are all necessary in

guiding the current study in meeting and attaining the objectives of this research.

STUDENT POLITICS AND THE PARTY SYSTEM

Over the years, the students of the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman have

graced the pages of notable nationwide newspapers such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the

Manila Bulletin, and the Philippine Star not only because of the success that they continuously

bring to the country, but also because of the strong protest actions that they demonstrate against

the past and present injustices that are occurring in Philippine society. UP students are

remarkably politically and socially active that a stereotype has been created about the said

university, being labelled as an academic institution for activists and communists (Tan, 2018).

While it is no lie that UP houses the most politically active students in the nation, the

involvement of students in socio-political agenda is not a novel phenomenon to UP. Rather,

students have embodied an extremely essential role as agents of change in numerous developing
 17

nations, since time immemorial, according to Philip Altbach in his paper, Student Politics

(1967).

Altbach (1967) explains that the reason why students can become so heavily involved in

politics is the fact that they themselves are a type of elite – they are the presumptive elite

(Altbach, 1967) since their education has prepared them to take a “vital role in a modernizing

society.” The education that they have been bestowed is a tool that continuously awakens

students regarding the issues that are surrounding them. Hence, Altbach (1967) writes that

“students were instrumental in independence struggles and that, generation of leaders was trained

in these student movements.”

True enough, the three main political parties of UP Diliman which are UP ALYANSA,

KAISA UP, and STAND UP have all been created in response to the turbulent time of the

society back then. First, UP ALYANSA was formed during the commotion for former President

Joseph Estrada’s impeachment in 2000. Second, KAISA UP was born after some leaders in UP

ALYANSA had political and ideological differences and fraternity conflicts; hence, creating a

new party. And third, STAND UP emerged when the nation was in need of a genuine militant

group that combated the looming Marcos regime in 1966. Therefore, the previous Sandigan Para

sa Mag-aaral at Sambayanan (SAMASA) – Tunay, Militante, at Makabayang Alyansa (TMMA)

was officially renamed STAND UP (Philippine Collegian, 2013).

Singh and Singh (1950) validates, rationalizes, and explains this student-political

occurrence in their paper, Role of Political Parties, when they concluded that it is the duty of

political parties to educate the people and create interest in them “for the ideologies of the
 18

parties.” Moreover, political parties are present since they are the best medium for the

consolidation and expression of public opinion.

Altbach (1967) also argued that students may be “seemingly weak, without arms, and

relatively few in numbers,” but they can be organizationally potent and politically powerful

under certain situations. Moreover, Altbach (1967) concludes that students who are politically

active are responsible for the futures of their countries, since they constitute the incipient elite.

This argument is then elaborated by Saha and Print’s (2009) in Student School Elections

and Political Engagement: A Cradle of Democracy, where they state “students who do vote or

run for office, are also more prone to feel prepared to vote as adults, to actually intend to vote, to

know more about politics, and to have already experiences some form of political activism, such

as attending rallies.”

However, what differentiates Saha and Print’s (2009) study with that of Altbach’s (1967)

is the fact that the political engagement of students does not only contribute to the betterment of

the society as a whole (as Altbach would state it), Saha and Print (2009) adds that participation in

student government and community service activities form a civic identity within the self.

Moreover, as compared to Altbach (1967) who did not specify which political engagements

influence students the most, Saha and Print (2009) concludes that school elections may be the

“cradle” of democracy since school elections make students experience a fundamental

democratic practice-first hand.

Student activists who have organized themselves through the use of political parties have

contributed great efforts in the betterment of the society because they have been given

democratic power by student-voters in the university.

 19

Political parties gain power from the people when they are able to persuade voters to

accept and support them. Second, if accepted, the political parties have the opportunity to shape

the government in accordance to their ideology. And third, “the great strength of the party

system lies in handling over the keys of the masterful state to those who can convince by the

force of their appeal.” Therefore, Singh and Singh (1950) highlight the importance of persuasion,

compliance-gaining, and individual appeal in establishing a threshold in the society, in their

paper, Role of Political Parties.

A proof of this is UP ALYANSA’s success in the passage of the Anti-Discrimination

Bill, as well as KAISA UP’s persistent lobbying for the Six Will Fix Bill, and STAND UP’s

triumph in forwarding free education and championing the rights of Indigenous People in the

recent Manilakbayan, which all facilitated the society towards a better one.

It is no doubt that with these pieces of evidence, political parties are huge and influential

driving forces for socio political changes in the UP community, and even in the Philippine

society as a whole. However, Singh and Singh (1950) elevates the discourse by saying that

political parties supply peaceful measures for a change in the government, but with certain

prerequisites.

It is important to note that while political parties all aim to make changes for the society,

these political parties have ideological and moral differences as well. Singh and Singh (1950)

explain that despite the aim of political parties to forward for a democracy, it is also their

mandate to promote a “complete concentration of power” in a majority. Hence, members of the

party are under the strict surveillance and discipline of their party. Singh and Singh (1950)

specifically write that “a party-member is a creature of the party.” Once a person is a member of
 20

a certain political party, he/she cannot exercise his individual judgment on certain political issues

because they all have to be inculcated onto the party’s mandate and ideology.

To understand how such unity happens in political parties, Goren (2005) explains how

the core political values are strengthened in political parties through his paper, Party

Identification and Core Political Values. Just like what Singh and Singh concludes in their paper,

Goren (2005) states that a person’s party identification or partisan identity is more stable or

stronger than the principles that he/she holds. Moreover, Goren (2005) argues that “party

identification constraints beliefs about equal opportunity, limited government and moral

tolerance.” Furthermore, the core political values of an individual, which are developed within

him/her while he/she is inside the political party, shape a number of abstract beliefs about the

good and just society, making members of a political party united in their way of thinking.

Hence, Singh and Singh (1950) consolidates this by blatantly concluding “to vote against

the party is to vote for the opposition and that means political suicide.”

This kind of constrained behaviour in a political party can lead to a faulty step in group

decision-making that is called groupthink (Baptist, 2015), which will be elaborated later on. The

problematic aspect of being in a political party is when members are turned into empty

receptacles who embody their stances and ideology blindly (Singh and Singh, 1950). This

becomes dangerous in a sense because if this type of organizational behaviour is already

practiced by student leaders in the university, there is no doubt that this type of blind-following

behaviour will be carried outside the academe.

Therefore, in talking about members of political parties being constrained by the nature

of the organization, we now enter the topic of groupthink.

 21

GROUPTHINK

Student elections in UP Diliman is also the season of black propaganda, political

scandals, and political party leakages (Serafica, 2015). However, what is more problematic about

the student elections in UP Diliman is how pressing societal problems such as fraternity

violence, the passage of magna carta, and the campaign for free education are all being

overshadowed, underestimated, and taken for granted because student officials and people who

are vying to be one are all focused on making their political party and their candidates appear

better than the other, to the extent of unethically sabotaging the reputation of the rival political

parties (Serafica, 2015).

The question now arises: why do people, despite being intellectual and competent

leaders, still practice unethical behaviour even when they are aware of what they are doing? This

is what Ronald R. Sims (1992) posits in his paper, Linking Groupthink to Unethical Behavior in

Organizations. Sims tackles the weakness of an organization as a collective or as a whole.

Hence, he answers the question by stating how “people can choose to engage in acts they

consider unethical when the culture of an organization and its prevailing reward structure

overwhelm personal belief systems.” Therefore, because of groupthink, the prevailing culture of

an organization is influenced and in turn, the presence or absence of ethical behaviour in

organizational and members’ actions become at stake.

Paul ‘t Hart (1996) had the same view with Sims (1992). Both of these scholars saw how

groupthink caused overconfidence that led to the government committing uncalculated risks.

Thus, ‘t Hart (1996) writes that “once group members become committed to a course of action,
 22

they may refuse (for both public and private reasons) to alter or abandon it, even when it is

already failing.”

‘t Hart did not focus on the organization as a collective. Rather, his study elaborated on

the psychological implications of the members and the behaviors of the members individually.

Sims (1992) took Irving Janis’ definition of groupthink and applied it to his study, which

is a “collective pattern of defensive avoidance” (Irving Janis, 1972; 1982).

In Sims’ (1992) research, he found that three major companies committed groupthink.

These companies are Beech-Nut, E.F. Hutton, and Salomon Brothers. Sims (1992) found that

these companies were all pressured to be unanimous because they were blinded by the inherent

belief that their company is great at what it does regardless of what happens.

Sims (1992) noted that arrogance is the idea that not only can your company never make

a mistake, but no one else can ever be right. Second, loyalty is the unwillingness to question the

unethical behaviour of a group/organization. These two factors led to the downfall of the three

companies.

Thus, Sims (1992) warned that the danger of groupthink is how it is only recognized after

a group has already made a disastrous decision. Hence, members ask “how can we be so blind?”

‘t Hart (1996) answers that the members’ blindness can be attributed to their unwavering

compliance to authority, thus resulting in groupthink. While Sims (1992) notes that arrogance

and loyalty are factors that cause groupthink, ‘t Hart (1996) notes that groupthink is also caused

because of the members’ strong desire to please each and to please their leader the most.

According to ‘t Hart, members see that their leader’s affirmation is the greatest reward anyone

can gain, and this is the only thing that matters as of the moment.
 23

However, despite the strong element of compliance to authority, ‘t Hart (1996) saw that

members tend to practice two types of groupthink when the group has been placed under extreme

duress. First, group members exhibit “collective overoptimism” when members expect to

succeed. Members are enthusiastic to take action and are hesitant in criticizing each other.

Second, group members display “collective avoidance” when they expect to fail. Flight

behaviour such as attempting to leave, denounce and limit the participation in the group takes

place, leaving the group with unresolved issues.

While Sims’ (1992) and t’Hart’s (1996) studies focused on the members who are

inoculated by groupthink, Domic J. Packer (2009) concentrated on the leader (or strongly

identified members) who influences the way weakly identified members on his study, Avoiding

Groupthink: Whereas Weakly Identified Members Remain Silent, Strongly Identified Members

Dissent About Collective.

In contrast to Sims (1992) and t’Hart (1996) who studied companies and its

organizational culture, Packer (2009) tested individuals to see how the voicing out of one’s

opinions is usually monopolized by strongly identified members, making the conversation

limited to them only since weakly identified members tend to keep their ideas to themselves.

In Packer’s research, he studied 78 Ohio State University undergraduates to identify what

they thought could be a problem at their university.

The results of the study showed that weakly identified members suppressed their

concerns about group problems if they knew that the majority would disagree with them. Also,

weakly identified members who privately rated a problem as collectively harmful, publicly
 24

expressed greater concern if they expect that other students were also concerned about the same

issue (Packer, 2009).

Moreover, strongly identified members did not hold back in giving their concerns as

compared to the way weakly identified members did. Hence, Packer found that strongly

identified members who privately rated a problem as collectively harmful publicly expressed the

same level of concern regardless of their beliefs about other students’ opinions. Moreover,

strongly identified members were unafraid to express their dissenting opinions about a group

problem they believed was collectively harmful (Packer, 2009).

Hence, Packer (2009) concludes that “effective group decision making requires an ability

to change suboptimal patterns of collective behaviour by addressing group problems.”

All in all, these three studies discovered that groupthink can be of great detriment not

only to companies but to all organizations that encapsulate basic group dynamics. While Packer

explored on how weakly identified members are silenced by the aggressive and assertive

opinions of strongly identified members, ‘t Hart acknowledges that members of a group are

blinded by their strong desire to please the leader, regardless if the leader’s orders are moral or

not. Sims (1992) argued that since groupthink causes members to blindly follow the leader

because they think highly and superior of themselves as a group, unethical behaviors and faulty

decisions are made due to a lack of critical thinking in the group’s decision-making process.

However, out of all of these studies, Richard Walter Baptist (2015) was one of the first

scholars to develop an instrument in measuring the predictors of groupthink. In his masters

dissertation, Measuring Predictors of Groupthink: Instrument Development and Validation,

Baptist (2015) administered a quantitative research questionnaire to 253 participants, 137 of that
 25

were students and 116 were working adults. The participants came from Illinois State University,

Illinois Wesleyan University, and Heartland Community College.

Baptist’s (2015) new survey instrument for exploring the predictors of groupthink has

survived the careful examination of factor analysis procedures and reliability analysis. Thus,

Baptist (2015), through the regression model, was able to identify statistically significant

predictors of groupthink, which are Collective Efficacy, Trust, High cohesiveness, Anxiety, and

Conformity. Moreover, through the Groupthink Occurrence model, Baptist (2015) was also able

to discover Promotional Leadership as a statistically significant predictor as well.

Aside from these six predictors, Baptist (2015) also investigated the relevance of

Concurrence Seeking and Hidden Profiles as predictors of groupthink.

Thus, Baptist (2015) concluded that Collective Efficacy, Trust, High Cohesiveness,

Promotional Leadership, Anxiety, Hidden Profiles, Trust and Conformity can all contribute

together in increasing the possibility toward committing groupthink.

 26

Table 1: Richard Baptist’s Predictors of Groupthink

RICHARD BAPTIST’S PREDICTORS OF GROUPTHINK (2015)

CONCEPT DEFINITION

High Cohesiveness Members are more focused on preserving the

group harmony than on making efficient and
ethical decisions

Promotional Leadership Leaders forward their opinions so strongly

that members are intimidated to present other
solutions to a problem

Conformity Members abide with the majority’s preferred

decision despite having reservations about it

Concurrence seeking The presence of mindguards in a group; these

are members who protect the leader by
promoting his/her preferred decision over
anything else

Anxiety Members are forced to make a decision

involving a moral dilemma or a high risk of
material losses

Collective Efficacy Makes a group feel over-confident and

complacent with their decision-making
process

Hidden Profiles When members choose not to disclose unique

information because they are too shy or too
intimidated to speak out

Trust When members practice self-censorship so as

to not steer away from the perceived
consensus

Among these six variables, Baptist (2015) and Janis (1972) both state that High

Cohesiveness is the “chief culprit” behind groupthink and bad decisions (Sims, 1992). This

variable has the strongest impact because it makes the group focus more on preserving the
 27

harmony inside the group than making efficient and ethical decisions (Baptist, 2015; Sims,

1992). Members of a group are able to focus more on themselves than on quality decision-

making because of entitativity, which is the “degree to which members of a group recognize or

legitimize being a part of said group.” Because of entitativity, members develop a very strong

bond with their co-members and are able to see the significance of their membership. Thus, they

are able to legitimize the existence and the purpose of the group which leads to the group being

highly cohesive (Baptist, 2015; Mullen & Copper, 1994). High cohesiveness is deeply rooted in

identity preservation (Baptist, 2015). While high cohesiveness in a group indicates a strong

possibility for groupthink to be committed, this variable is still deemed as beneficial. Thus,

cohesiveness has always been encouraged among groups and organizations (Baptist, 2015).

However, too much cohesion has drawbacks that will cause the downfall of a group. An

unregulated amount of high cohesiveness in a group can pressure members to blindly conform,

practice deindividualization, and commit groupthink (Baptist, 2015).

The next variable that was found significant was Promotional Leadership. This happens

when group leaders forward their standpoints firmly that members are unable to voice out their

opinions and the group fails to recognize other solutions for a problem (Baptist, 2015). Because

of Promotional Leadership, groups are just able to tackle the viewpoint of their leader, discuss

fewer facts, propose fewer alternative solutions, and express fewer moral concerns (Baptist,

2015; Fodor and Smith, 1982). When a leader has a higher need for power, dissenters are

discouraged to speak out and members are subconsciously forced to adopt an illusion of

morality. Thus, Promotional Leadership begins to occur (Baptist, 2015; Moorhead and

Montanari, 1986).
 28

The third variable is Conformity. Irving Janis (1982) concluded that groupthink is “the

result of a non-deliberate conformity where group members come to believe that their own

reservations about the preferred group decisions are correct.” This concept is well manifested

when members choose to ignore their reservations in order to preserve the harmony inside the

group at the expense of critical thinking. This is also an accurate example of a concept under

Conformity, which is self-censorship. Even though members feel that the preferred group

decision may put the group at risk, they do not raise any differing opinions. According to

Anderson and Martin (1999) and Baptist (2015), “group members who tend to argue only the

issues or problems, instead of communicating to put down others in the group, also perceive the

other group members as experiencing satisfaction with the group’s communication and reaching

consensus.” More than this, it is also important to note that there are individuals who are more

susceptible to pressure, which is why they censor themselves and choose to conform instead,

especially when they are surrounded by outspoken and highly dominant members (Callaway,

Marriott, and Esser, 1985; Baptist, 2015). Thus, conformity can be very dangerous if it is

constantly practiced within a group. To avoid this, it is essential that leaders encourage each

member to participate and to contribute during meetings and assemblies (Leighter & Black,

2010; Baptist 2015).

Similar to conformity, Baptist (2015) found Concurrence Seeking to be relevant in the

subject of predicting groupthink as well. Concurrence seeking in groups is “the tendency toward

convergence and mutual agreement in problem-solving,” (Chapman, 2006; Baptist 2015).

However, what differentiates this variable from conformity is that concurrence seeking focuses

on the presence of “mindguards.” These are members of the group who protect the leader by
 29

promoting his/her preferred decision and opinions. Because of mindguards, there is pressure on

other group members to just agree on the preferred decision and to ignore their reservations.

Therefore, conformity focuses on the submissive members while concurrence seeking is centered

on dominant individuals who act as mindguards inside the group (Baptist, 2015). Mindguards

inside a group thrive on the illusion of morality, illusion of invulnerability and perception of

group consensus (Baptist, 2015). Moreover, because mindguards strongly forward the opinions

of the leader and their preferred group decision, members who disagree with them experience

uneasiness. To combat this internal dissonance, members choose to just concede without proper

consideration (Hennigsen et al., 2006; Baptist 2015).

What follows after concurrence seeking is Anxiety. Anxiety is relevant in the topic of

groupthink because members who commit this are forced to make a decision involving a moral

dilemma or a high risk of material losses (Janis, 1972; Baptist, 2015). Therefore, this kind of

stress produces a tremendous amount of anxiety among the members. However, what

exacerbates the anxiety inside the group is when they have failed previously already. Thus,

anxiety is most related to concurrence seeking and cohesiveness because the former variable is a

way of searching for mutual support as a coping mechanism for the produced anxiety while the

latter variable tells the members that even when they are experiencing disarray, at least they are

doing it as a whole and not as individuals. Moreover, despite anxiety being produced in a group,

members are still able to push through with their decisions because of concurrence seeking.

Scholars have discovered that “concurrence seeking is a stress-reducing process and is not

moderated by the occurrence of decision-making procedures” (Callaway et al., 1985).

Furthermore, in contrast with fear and threat, anxiety can be more manageable because it is a
 30

continuous feeling of low intensity. It is not an immediate threat. Rather, it has an orientation

towards the future (English & English, 1958). Therefore, anxiety can be harmful to a group

because it divides the members’ attention into two: crafting the right decision and managing their

mental state.

As opposed to anxiety that makes members feel nervous towards a decision, Collective

Efficacy, on the other hand, makes a group feel over-confident with their decision and become

complacent in their decision-making process. When a group has consistently been successful in

their endeavors, members tend to become overconfident, complacent, and lazy in researching on

how to better. Since these are practiced as a group, they now develop into collective efficacy

(Lindsley, Brass & Thomas, 1995; Sitkin, 1992;). According to Albert Bandura (1986), a

prominent scholar in the field of psychology, collective efficacy is a concept founded on the

notion of perceived self-efficacy. This concept is one of Bandura’s (1977, 1986) key ideas in his

Social Cognitive Theory. Bandura (1986) defined self-efficacy as “people’s judgments of their

own abilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain a desired performance.

It is concerned not with the skills one has, but with the evaluations of what one can do.” While

confidence is an essential factor in coming up with quality decisions, too much of it can develop

collective rationalizations, self-censorship, and an illusion of unanimity.

Another variable that was found reliable in predicting groupthink is Hidden Profiles.

Similar to conformity, hidden profiles can be seen when members choose not to disclose any

unique information during group discussions or meetings because they are either too shy or too

scared to speak out. What differentiates this from conformity is that hidden profiles focus more

on the unique information that is being withheld while conformity pressures members to blindly
 31

follow the preferred decision. . Not being able to share unique information to the group can cause

it to perform poorly or make half-baked decisions (Bonito, DeCamp, Ruppel, 2008). Henningsen

et al. (2006) expounds on the concept of a “hidden profile” as something that is created when the

group implemented or established a mediocre decision while members privately favored a

different plan. Relating this concept to compliance-gaining strategies, Stasser and Titus (1985)

claim that groups have a tendency to ignore the best choice particularly because they prefer the

option that is forwarded by the majority. Members choose to be silent about their preferred

options due to the pressures of compliance in the group (Cruz, Boster, & Rodriguez, 1997).

Moreover, Henningsen et al. (2006) state that groups that contain hidden profiles have a higher

tendency in experiencing mindguards than groups that have members who share more

information with each other. Thus, these conditions under hidden profiles work to raise the

possibility of committing groupthink.

Lastly, it was found that Trust among the group can also lead to groupthink. Trust in

Baptist’s (2015) study is defined as a “function of other team members’ perceived ability and

integrity, and its main function is to provide synergistic relations, or “teamthink” (Manz & Neck,

1995). While trust is often perceived as good element in group decision-making processes, too

much of it can lead to groupthink. An excessive amount of trust can cause group members to

practice self-censorship so as to not steer away from the perceived consensus (Erdem, 2003).

While members that trust each other can freely voice out their opinions and share information

and resources, too much trust can discourage members from doing these things because it may be

read as a sign of distrust among members. Thus, the group becomes less flexible, less diverse,
 32

and less encouraging when it comes to alternative solutions and contingency plans (Erdem, 2003;

Baptist, 2015).

All in all, Baptist (2015) used these variables to emphasize that the preservation of group

harmony can sometimes be useless especially when it is at the expense of the group’s morality

and stability. It is always important to consider other viewpoints and to foster critical thinking

among members of a group. However, it is also essential to recognize the skills and credibilities

of a leader. There is a need to master the art of balancing group camaraderie and critical

thinking. Otherwise, the group may become too cohesive to become critical or too diverse to

even be called a team. Thus, Baptist’s (2015) and Janis’ (1972) studies remain relevant in the

study of UP Diliman’s political parties because it is an inquiry on the groupthink level of these

relevant groups in the university. More importantly, the current study categorizes the strengths

and weaknesses of the three most influential political organizations in the university.

Thus, drawing it back to how the political parties in UP Diliman engage in unethical

campaign behaviors such as spreading black propaganda and throwing ad hominem attacks

(Rappler, 2015), it is important to remember that all of these things are done in the name of

winning in the University Student Council elections. Therefore, with this goal in mind, political

party members will do whatever it takes to gain the votes of student-voters as many as possible,

in whatever way they can do it.

After the discussion on groupthink the concept of compliance-gaining and its dynamics

warrant an explanation.
 33

COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES

In studying the political parties of UP Diliman and the groupthink level they have, it is

also essential to look at the compliance-gaining strategies employed by UP Alyansa, UP Kaisa,

and STAND UP to see how their groupthink level is manifested in ways in which they persuade

students to invest in them through support and votes.

Tracing this factor to see the relevance of this element to political parties and groupthink,

it is important to note that political parties campaign candidates who can convince the masses

through the force of their appeal (Singh and Singh 1950). Moreover, it is said that one of the

major paths towards groupthink is compliance to authority (Moreland, 1996).

Gerald Marwell and David R. Scmitt’s (1967), Compliance-Gaining Behavior: A

Synthesis and Model, expound on the notion in social psychology that all behaviour is goal-

directed. They state that all throughout life, people spend an ample amount of time trying to get

others to behave in ways they want to. These techniques to gain compliance can either be direct

(such as threats or bribes) or subtle (impression management).

Marwell and Schmitt identified six basic strategies that are commonly used by

individuals: 1) Physical force; 2) Aversive Stimulation; 3) Punishment; 4) Reward; 5) Pointing

up reward contingencies, 6) and Manipulating Situational Stimuli.

While the rest can be self-explanatory, terms such as Aversive Stimulation and

Manipulating Situational Stimuli are in need of expounding. The former refers to aversive

controls such as confinement or physical abuse which are done until the target person gives his

compliance to the actor. The latter, meanwhile, refers to how the actor changes situational

characteristics to make the target person more inclined in complying. Impression management is
 34

an example of a Manipulating Situational Stimuli measure. This refers to the actor making

him/herself appear more credible and/or legitimate to the target person. Hence, Marwell and

Schmitt state that “the actor’s ability to determine the impression he presents frequently bears

importantly upon his success in gaining compliance” (1967).

In Marwell and Schmitt’s study, they forwarded a model that focuses on the individual.

They write, “actors will tend to behave in order to obtain the rewards from the compliance of the

target person at the least possible cost.” They explained that in choosing a certain technique of

compliance, an actor (the convincer) bases it on his behavioral repertoire, which refers to the

“various techniques an actor has at his command in the interaction with target person” and on

two grounds: the effectiveness of the technique in obtaining compliance; and the costs associated

with the use of that technique (1967).

Similaryl, Gerald Miller et al.’s (1977) study, Compliance-gaining message strategies: A

Typology and Some Findings Concerning Effects of Situational Differences, also explored the

concept of compliance-gaining through the influence of message sources on persuasive

effectiveness.

The researchers collected data from three separate samples: 1) 81 students from

communication classes in a large Midwestern university, 2) 82 students from speech and theatre

classes at a two-year community college, and 3) 21 career Army recruiters enrolled in extension

classes of a Midwestern liberal arts college (Miller et al., 1977).

While Marwell and Schmitt used six strategies to study the respondents, Gerald Miller et

al. used certain strategies encompassed in four situations: 1) Non-interpersonal; short term
 35

consequences, 2) non-interpersonal; long-term consequences, 3) interpersonal; short-term

consequences, 4) and interpersonal,; long term consequences (1967).

While these grounds present a concrete process of seeing how people conduct their

compliance-gaining techniques, Marwell and Schmitt state that mapping an individual’s

behavioral repertoire on the level of techniques would be too difficult and too tedious of a

process. They proposed that analysing the situation in terms of technique would be better of

these techniques are turned into a more specific and concrete term – strategies, hence the term

compliance-gaining strategies (1967).

In another study conducted by Marwell and Schmitt as well (1967), the scholars were

able to determine the most commonly utilized compliance-gaining strategies. The 16

compliance-gaining strategies that were identified are: Promise, Threatening, Showing Expertise

About Positive Outcomes, Showing Expertise About Negative Outcomes, Liking, Pre-Giving,

Aversive Stimulation, Debt, Moral Appeal, Positive Self-Feeling, Negative Self-Feeling, Positive

Altercasting, Negative Altercasting, Altruism, Positive Esteem, and Negative Esteem (Abelo,

2014; Marwell and Schmitt, 1967).

Table 1 presents the strategies and how they are used as forms of persuasion. (Abelo,

2014; Marwell and Schmitt, 1967).

 36

Table 1: Typology of Gerald Marwell and David Schmitt’s Sixteen Compliance-Gaining

Strategies

MARWELL & SCHMITT’S COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES (1967)

PROMISE Promises a reward when the person complies

THREATENING Implies that punishment will ensue if the person does

not comply

SHOWING EXPERTISE ABOUT POSITIVE Shows how good things will happen to the people who
OUTCOMES will comply

SHOWING EXPERTISE ABOUT NEGATIVE Shows how bad things will happen to the people who
OUTCOMES will comply

LIKING Displays friendliness

PRE-GIVING Gives a reward prior to asking for compliance

AVERSIVE STIMULATION Applies punishment until compliance is reversed

DEBT Claims that the person owes something due to previous

favors

MORAL APPEAL Claims that compliance is the morally correct thing to

do

POSITIVE SELF-FEELING Tells the person how good he/she will feel if he/she
complied

NEGATIVE SELF-FEELING Tells the person how bad he/she will feel if he/she
complied

POSITIVE ALTERCASTING Associates compliance with people who have good

qualities

NEGATIVE ALTERCASTING Associates compliance with people who have bad

qualities

ALTRUISM Seeking compliance and presenting it as a favor

POSITIVE ESTEEM Claiming that a person will be liked by others more if

he/she complies

NEGATIVE ESTEEM Claiming that a person will be liked by others less if

he/she complies
 37

Millet et al. (1977) showed that strategies are highly situational-bound. They found that

respondents were more likely to use strategies that place the target person in a positive frame of

mind. Moreover, a friendly mode of persuasion is superior to an unfriendly or hostile

compliance-gaining strategy. Moreover, the study showed that a mode of persuasion which

heavily displays a logical line of thought is successful most of the time. According to the study,

“Reward-oriented and activation of commitment with positive connotation strategies will exhibit

high likelihoods of use, thus reflecting the general trend of the results.”

Lastly, the study A Model of Properties of Compliance-Gaining Strategies by William J.

Schenck-Hamlin et al. (1982) took two types of approaches in dealing with compliance-gaining

strategies. The first one is the investigative approach on the efficacy of messages that induce

compliance and second is the taxonomy of the compliance-gaining messages.

In studying compliance-gaining strategies, Schench-Hamlin et al. (1982) focused on the

actor’s symbolic activity in the persuasion processes as compared to Marwell and Miller who

focused on the compliance-gaining strategies and the situation in which they are to be employed.

Schench-Hamlin et al. (1982) argue that in selecting a message designed to appeal to the targets

person, the communicator chooses the message that will most likely induce the desired response

from the target person. Moreover, Schench-Hamlin et al. argue that while goal specificity cannot

be found in all compliance-gaining attempts, knowing what the actor wants to elicit from the

target person is an important determinant of effectiveness.

Furthermore, Schench-Hamlin et al. (1982) proposes a model that classifies compliance-

gaining strategies into four types of strategies, based on different elements: 1) sanction, 2) Need,

3) explanation, and 4) circumvention.

 38

In conducting the study, the researchers used employed three naïve coders to

independently read 402 randomly selected messages collected from the data gathered. Then, the

coders were tasked to write down all message types found in the material. Furthermore, the

results showed that “strategies related to each other in compliance-gaining classificatory system

is more fully understood, as are differences in the rhetorical potency of the strategies, and their

consequent effects on the actor-target relationship.”

Finally, the model which the researchers forwarded distinguished compliance-gaining

messages from other message types. The researchers found out that deceit is no longer a

compliance-gaining strategy. Rather, it is an interpersonal tactic. Schench-Hamlin (1982)

differentiates strategy from tactic by defining the former as an overall plan by which influence is

accomplished while the latter is defined as a more particular and specific tool utilized in

persuasion that can be found in all strategies.

VOTER PREFERENCE

In researching about the groupthink level of the political parties in UP Diliman together

with the compliance-gaining strategies that they employed during the election AY 2016-2017,

voter preference becomes relevant because this shifts the focus from the political candidates to

the voters.

The fight for universal suffrage has long been a struggle for people around the world.

With the rise of democratic governments, the growth and development of the right of suffrage

has inseparably evolved as well (Dunkelberger and Rumberger, 1931).

 39

According to George Dunkelberger and Eldon Rumberger (1931), elections have become

more inclusive and the right to vote has been exhibited by different kinds of people. In

Dunkelberger and Rumberger’s study, Who are the Voters? (1931), they classified the voters into

five classes: Class A, which is composed of doctors, lawyers, teachers, ministers, engineers and

other professionals; Class B, which are businessmen, manufacturers, large merchants, brokers,

and retired people; Class C, which is made up of clerks, salesmen, stenographers, shopkeepers,

and small manufacturers; Class D, which are skilled laborers, tradesmen, railroaders, mechanics,

and farmers; and Class E which is composed of unskilled laborers, housewives, domestics, etc.

From their study, Dunkelberger and Rumberger (1931) found that even when the right to

vote was made to be inclusive in order to be true to the spirit of democracy, people generally do

not seem to appreciate their right to vote particularly because they do not see it as a privilege.

Because of this, voting was not taken seriously by a number of people. However, the people who

give their vote with seriousness and a clear understanding of it are educated individuals who

dedicated enough time into thinking on who and what kind of candidate should they elect

(Dunkelberger and Rumberger, 1931).

Dunkelberger and Rumberger (1931) states that “education sustains a high positive

relationship to good citizenship as evidenced in the exercise of the suffrage of right.” In

improving the quality of elections, both the political candidates and the voters have to be

educated. Thus, it can be said that one of the major factors that affect how people vote and who

they vote for is education.

To support this, Dr. Ihsan Kurtbas’ (2015) study on The Factors Influencing Voting

Preferences in Local Elections “An Empirical Study” found that approximately 48.4 percent of
 40

voters conducted no or very little research before elections. Moreover, Kurtbas (2015) found out

that “as the level of education increased, the number of people who cared for the former

activities of the candidate increased.”

Aside from education, Kurtbas’ (2015) explored other factors that affected the voting

preference of voters and he found out that there are three overarching themes that encapsulate

such factors: Sociological factors, Rational Factors, and the Theory of Psychological

Identification with the Party. It states here that in choosing who to vote for, voters base their

choices on the sociological benefits that they can get such as collective and social links. Next,

voters formulate their votes by rationally studying the subject matter and provided services in

line with his/her own interests. Lastly, voters cast their choices according to how they identify

themselves with the political party.

From these, Kurtbas (2015) found that the largest portion of the voters, 28.7 percent,

stated that the most influential factor on their voting preference is the ideology of the candidate.

This is a supporting evidence to the theory of Psychological Identification with the Party.

However, Rosenberg et al. (1986) argues a different perspective. While Kurtbas (2015)

believes that party identification affects voter preference the most, Rosenberg et al. (1986) in

their paper, The Image and the Vote: The Effect of Candidate Presentation on Voter Preference,

discovered that the appearance and the image of a candidate have a strong influence on voter

preference as well.

Rosenberg et al. (1986) studied 104 undergraduates from a major California university.

The researchers studied how people would vote given the fact that they all had equal information
 41

on all candidates. Subjects were given campaign flyers that include the platform and the faces of

the political candidates.

From this research procedure, Rosenberg et al. (1986) found out that candidates with

favorable appearance had higher votes compared to their opponent. Through a multivariate

analysis, researchers were able to conclude that image and appearance have a strong and

statistically significant influence on the vote. Moreover, an interesting discovery in their paper

revealed that while the candidates’ party affiliations and positions on campaign issues were

included in the fliers, the photographs of the candidates have a stronger and more consistent

influence on the vote (Rosenberg et al., 1986).

To consolidate these studies, Kurtbas (2015) discovered that three factors affect voter

preference: sociological factors, rational factors, and party identification while Rosenberg et al.

(1986) believes that image and appearance also have a strong influence on how people cast their

votes.

While these two perspectives facilitate the current study in identifying how voter

preference is developed, Christ (1985) suggests that emotion is also important in the study of

voter preference and in discriminating which voters are decided and which ones are the

undecided.

Christ’s paper (1985), Voter Preference and Emotion: Using Emotional Response to

Classify Decided and Undecided Voters, state that a political candidate’s emotion-eliciting

qualities could be employed in identifying which of the voters are undecided and decided,

together with their voter preference.

 42

Christ (1985) state his study is relevant in the field of voter preference for three reasons:

first, it supported the hypothesis that emotions have an important role in voter preference.

Second, it forwarded a method for discriminating between voters even when they were unable to

identify their own candidate preferences. Third, the emotion-eliciting quality scales became a

“clarification” tool for some voters who were doubting their decision about the candidates.

While the study supported the general hypothesis of the research that emotion-eliciting

qualities of political candidates can be of help in classifying candidates, Christ (1985) wrote four

limitations of his research.

First, the testing and fitting of the discriminant model may be problematic if applied with

the same data. Second, validation of the findings is limited. Third, it could be raised that

respondents who answered to the “leaning question” should really be considered as decided

voters. Fourth, there is a need to raise a degree of sophistication with regard to word meanings

since this is what semantic differential requires.

All in all, the study still served its purpose in the field of voter preference in seeking for a

method that discriminates the undecided voters from that of the decided voters using emotion.

SYNTHESIS

In the studies cited above, three common denominators can be found.

First, both the political parties and the element of groupthink are motivated by

compliance. According to Singh and Singh (1950), political parties are led by candidates who are

well-versed in capitalizing on their eloquence to persuade the masses. Same is true with
 43

groupthink. Moreland (1996) expounds that one of the reasons why groupthink is proliferated in

the organizational culture is the members’ unwavering loyalty and compliance to authority.

Second, in the studies cited above, political parties, groupthink, and compliance-gaining

strategies can all affect a society to a great extent.

According to Altbach (1967), “even where students have unquestioned political intact,

they can do little more than precipitate changes which others must implement.” Moreover, Sims

(1992) explained that groupthink happens when a group puts more importance on organizational

counternorms that lead to organizational benefits, thus enticing and supporting unethical

behaviour. Sims (1992) also added that this kind of mentality led to the Adolf Hitler’s rise to

power and Ronald Reagan’s faulty US administration. Lastly, Marwell and Schmidt (1967)

explained that when used on a grand scale, compliance-gaining strategies can be dangerous as

this is motivated by the actor’s desire to control the behaviour of another. As it can be seen in the

news, strong yet tyrannical leaders such as President Rodrigo Duterte and USA President Donald

Trump both utilize a strong and effective set of compliance-gaining strategies.

Regardless of the groupthink level and the compliance-gaining strategies of the political

parties, it is imperative to note that their group decision-making processes has a specific goal in

mind -- to persuade the voters to vote for them. In connection with this, Kurtbas (2015) identified

three kinds of factors that influence the voters’ preference in choosing a candidate: sociological

factors, rational factors, and party identification.

Thus, the study aims to determine if the groupthink level and the compliance-gaining

strategies of the political candidates have an effect on the voter preference of the students.
 44

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theories utilized by the researcher to achieve the objectives of the study are the

following: Irving Janis’ Groupthink Theory (1983) and Ajzen and Fishbein’ Theory of Planned

Behavior/Reasoned Action (1991).

Groupthink Theory (1983)

Irving Janis (1983) explains that groupthink is “the mode of thinking that persons engage

in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to

override realistic appraisals of alternative courses of action.” Janis (1983) how groupthink causes

a decrease in mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgments due to great pressure from

the group.

Symptoms of groupthink begin to appear when members of the group prevent themselves

from criticizing or opposing their leaders’ or colleagues’ ideas for fear of disrupting the group

harmony. Members are too pressured to maintain unity in the group that they seek complete

concurrence which is erroneously interpreted as consensus.

Janis (1983) states that conformity within a group increases as group cohesiveness

increases as well. Groupthink causes members to suppress their critical thoughts when they

internalize that their opinions oppose the majority’s standpoints. This practice is also called self-

censorship. Thus, the more cohesive the group, the more members suppress their doubts and

reservations. This makes them automatically believe whatever the leader proposes to do.

Therefore, poorly made decisions of the leader are passed because members are afraid or anxious

in contesting it.
 45

Janis classified eight symptoms of groupthink: Pressure, Self-censorship, Unanimity,

Invulnerability, Rationale, Morality, Stereotypes, and Mindguards.

Pressure refers to how victims of groupthink apply direct pressure to any member who

expresses reservations about the validity of the arguments supported by the majority. Self-

censorship, however, explains how members of the group stay silent about their doubts and

controls themselves from speaking against the decisions or shared illusions forwarded by the

leader or by the majority. Third, Unanimity is when members of a group arrive at a unanimous

standpoint, making them believe that their opinion must be true at all costs. This consensual

validation prevents the group from practicing critical thinking and reality testing. Next,

Invulnerability is occurs when members share an illusion of invulnerability, which causes them

to become overconfident. Thus, they are willing to take uncalculated risks without seeing the

obvious dangers that may lead the group to its downfall. Rationale is when members of a group

ignore negative feedback and rationalize how to discount warning signs of danger. Meanwhile,

victims of groupthink practice the symptom of Morality when they believe that everything they

do is morally justified. Hence, the ethical and moral consequences of their decisions are ignored.

Next, Stereotypes happen when members of the group hold stereotypes for their “enemy

groups.” Their image of the other groups affect their interaction because it might cause inter-

group attack and/or miscommunications that will heavily impede on the productivity of the

group. Lastly, Mindguards is when members of the group appoints themselves as protectors of

the leader and the members from opposing information that might disrupt the complaceny they

have established.
 46

Further studies have used Irving Janis’ definition for groupthink to jumpstart their

researches on the same field. Sims (1992) defined groupthink as “a collective pattern of

defensive avoidance.” Moreover, Sims (1992) described a number of shared characteristics of

cohesive decision-making groups that have been held accountable for some policy debacles.

Janis stateed “all these groupthink dominated groups were characterized by strong pressures

toward uniformity, which inclined their members to avoid raising controversial issues,

questioning weak arguments, or calling a halt to soft-headed thinking. By facilitating the

development of shared illusions and related norms, groups make fault decisions.” Furthermore,

Sims (1992) mentioned Trevino’s model of groupthink which states that “individuals’ (and

groups’) standards of right and wrong are not the sole determinant of their decisions. These

beliefs interact with other individual characteristics (such as locus of control) and situational

forces (such as organization’s rewards, punishment and its culture). These factors shape

individual and group decisions and behaviour that result from them.” With this, both Janis and

Sims hold organizational culture accountable for harnessing circumstances and individual

characteristics that result to groupthink.

 47

Fig. 1: Irving Janis’ Groupthink Theory

Theory of Planned Behavior/Reasoned Action (1990)

The Theory of Reasoned Action formulated by Ajzen and Fishbein describes how a

person’s behavior is motivated by his/her intention to perform the behavior. Thus, this intention

is a function of his/her attitude toward the behavior and his/her subjective norm. The theory

states that the best predictor of behavior is intention, which is the cognitive manifestation of a

person’s preparedness to perform a given behavior. Intention is also the immediate antecedent of

the behavior.
 48

The theory classified three determinants for intention: their attitude toward the specific

behavior, their subjective norms, and their perceived behavioral control. First, the theory states

that only specific attitudes toward the specific behavior can predict that behavior. Second, there

is also a need to measure people’s subjective norms, which is their beliefs about how the people

they care about will see the behavior in question.

To predict a person’s intentions, it is important to identify the beliefs they hold and the

attitudes that they possess. Moreover, perceived behavioral control is defined as a person’s

perceptions of his/her ability to perform a certain behavior.

Thus, these predictors lead to intention which leads to a specific behavior.

Fig. 2: Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior

 49

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual framework signifies the map and flow of thought of the study. The

research has four main elements, which are the three main political parties of UP Diliman – UP

Alyansa, UP Kaisa, and STAND UP – Groupthink symptoms, Compliance-gaining Strategies,

and Voter Preference.

The overarching element of the framework is the political party. This recognizes that the

political party encapsulates the concepts of groupthink and compliance-gaining strategies. This

means that a political party has a certain level of groupthink that is defined by eight

characteristics: High Cohesiveness, Promotional Leadership Scale, Conformity, Concurrence

Seeking, Anxiety, Collective Efficacy, Hidden Profiles, and Trust (Baptist, 2015). While each

member of a political party has a unique stand on certain issues about the university and the

nation, these individuals unite to become a political party. Thus, the minds of the members are

honed and shaped in accordance to the political party’s doctrine, basic tenets, organizational

culture, and ideology (Singh and Singh, 1950).

When the political parties convene and conduct decision-making procedures, their

opinions and ideologies are molded to match the principles and tenets of the political parties

which they are encapsulated in (Singh and Singh, 1950).

The achievement of a unanimous ideology on all parties can be strongly caused by

proliferation of groupthink in the organizational culture of the political party (Sims, 1992). This

represents the second level of the framework, which shows the different groupthink symptoms

that can be exhibited by each political party.

 50

Once the unanimity of ideology and stances has been achieved through groupthink, this

will be manifested in how political parties behave publicly. From advertising their ideologies to

their invitation to vote for their political candidates, the groupthink-influenced rhetoric in which

they ask students to support them is manifested in the compliance-gaining strategies that the

three political parties employ. The second level of the framework represents this.

While there are eight characteristics that influence the groupthink level of a political

party, there are also 14 compliance-gaining strategies that political party candidates utilize in

persuading voters to vote for them and in shaping the voters’ candidate preference. These

strategies are: Promise, Threat, Expertise (Positive), Expertise (Negative), Liking, Pre-giving,

Aversive Stimulation, Debt, Moral Appeal, Self-feeling (Positive), Self-feeling (Negative),

Altruism, Esteem (Positive), and Esteem (Negative).

The framework displays the current study’s hypothesis that a political party’s level of

groupthink affects which compliance-gaining strategy is used by the group.

Thus, the conceptual framework of the study displays how the interplay of a party’s

groupthink level and compliance gaining strategies affect the voter preference of the students in

UP Diliman.

The researcher’s goal now is to determine all the political parties’ level of groupthink,

which groupthink characteristic is the most dominant in a political party, which of the political

parties exhibit the groupthink characteristics the most, and if there is a correlation between the

groupthink level of the political parties and their likelihood of being voted by the voters.

Moreover, the researcher also aims to know which compliance-gaining strategy is most often

used by each political party, which of the political parties use certain compliance-gaining
 51

strategies the most, and if there is a correlation between the compliance-gaining strategies of the

political candidates and the voters’ perceived compliance-gaining strategies employed by their

preferred political party. Finally, the researcher’s goal is to see if there is a correlation between

the groupthink level of the political parties and the compliance-gaining strategies that they use.

All in all, the researcher banks on the notion that when political parties campaign for their

candidates, they also forward their ideological and political agenda.

 52

HYPOTHESES

Variable 1

H1: The groupthink level of the political parties in UP Diliman influenced their likelihood

of being voted by the voters.

Ho: There is no relationship between the groupthink level of the political parties in UP

Diliman and their likelihood of being voted by the voters.

Variable 2

H1: The compliance-gaining strategies of the political parties in UP Diliman influenced

the voters’ perceived compliance-gaining strategies as employed by their preferred

political party.

Ho: There is no relationship between the compliance-gaining strategies of the political

parties in UP Diliman and the voters’ perceived compliance-gaining strategies as

employed by their preferred political party.

Variable 3

H1: The groupthink level of the political parties in UP Diliman influenced the

compliance-gaining strategies that they used during the USC Elections AY 2016-2017.

Ho: There is no relationship between the groupthink level of the political parties in UP

Diliman and the compliance-gaining strategies that they used during the USC Elections

AY 2016-2017.
 53

DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. Compliance-gaining Strategy

Conceptual Definition: Set of behaviours which the actor shall do to obtain the rewards from

the compliance of the target person (Marwell & Schmitt, 1967).

Operational Definition: Modes of persuasion that the political parties of UP Diliman employed

to gain votes during the USC elections AY 2016-2017.

2. Groupthink

Conceptual Definition: “A collective pattern of defensive avoidance” (Irving Janis, 1972; 1982,

Sims, 1992).

Operational Definition: Major setback in group decision-making which makes UP Alyansa,

KAISA UP, and Stand UP dogmatic and blind followers to their leaders. This also contributes to

faulty decision-making.

3. Political Parties

Conceptual Definition: “...consists of persons, who hold some common views on important

public questions that want to control the government with the purpose of putting their principles

into operation (Singh and Singh, 1950).

Operational Definition: Refers to the three main political parties of UP Diliman which are UP

Alyansa, UP Kaisa, and STAND UP. Each political party is made up of students who have the

same or similar sets of ideology and beliefs.

 54

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The study will be a quantitative research. Since the study plans on investigating the

groupthink level and compliance-gaining strategies of the three political parties in the University

of the Philippines, Diliman, it is necessary to conduct an inquiry and investigation on the

respondents’ group decision-making processes and persuasion skills and techniques.

Research Participants

In order to accomplish the objectives of the study, the researcher shall gather data from

two groups of respondents. First are the members of UP Alyansa, UP KAISA, and STAND UP

who ran in the university-wide election during the school year 2016-2017. Second, 100 students

from the four academic clusters of the university shall be employed.

For the first group of respondents, the researcher shall procure the list of the student

candidates and its contact information from Philippine Collegian. These shall be the official

respondents of the study.

The researcher shall relay a two-pronged questionnaire – one for identifying their level of

groupthink and the other is for inquiring about their compliance-gaining strategies.

For the second group of respondents, the researcher shall also administer a mirror version

of the candidates’ survey which is revised to identify the voter preference of the students. The

survey shall be a two-pronged questionnaire that will be given to UP Diliman students who voted

in the USC elections AY 2016-2017. The first part of the survey shall inquire about their

perceived groupthink level of the political party they favor the most while the second part of the
 55

survey shall inquire about their perceived compliance-gaining strategies of the political party

they favor the most as well.

The researcher shall administer this to 100 divided into four clusters: 25 voters from the

Arts and Letters Cluster, 25 voters from the Management and Economics Cluster, 25 voters from

the Science and Technology cluster, and 25 voters from the Social Sciences and Law Cluster.

Sampling design

The researcher shall employ the non random, purposive sampling technique in gathering

both groups of respondents.

In identifying the candidates who ran in the USC elections AY 2016-2017, the researcher

shall procure the official list of candidates from the Philippine Collegian’s official Facebook

page. According to the official list of candidates from the Philippine Collegian’s Facebook Page

(2017), nine students ran under the slate of UP ALYANSA, 9 ran under the slate of KAISA UP,

and 14 people ran under the slate of STAND UP.

For the next group of respondents, the researcher will be needing 100 respondents from

the four academic clusters of the university for better representation: 25 voters from the Arts and

Letters Cluster, 25 voters from the Management and Economics Cluster, 25 voters from the

Science and Technology cluster, and 25 voters from the Social Sciences and Law Cluster.

To be able to gather these number of students immediately, the researcher shall post a

publicity material on her Facebook to inform UP Diliman students about the survey, as well as

the prerequisite of having voted last AY 2016-2017.

Research Instruments

The study shall have two types of survey and the surveys shall have two parts.
 56

The first type of the survey shall be administered to the political candidates who ran in

the USC elections AY 2016-2017.

The first part of the survey shall aim to identify the level of groupthink manifested by the

three political parties. This shall answer the first objective. Meanwhile, the second part of the

questionnaire shall identify the compliance-gaining strategies used by Alyansa, KAISA, and

STAND UP during the USC elections AY 2016-2017. This part shall answer the second

objective.

The second type of survey shall be a mirrored version of the first type of survey, revised

to identify the perceived groupthink level and compliance gaining strategies of their preferred

political party in UP Diliman. This questionnaire shall be administered to a sample of 100 voters,

with 25 students that will equally come from the four clusters of the university.

For the descriptive section of the survey questionnaire, the researcher shall gather

information about the respondents’ demographic profile such as their name (optional), age, sex,

gender, province/city, and socio-economic status defined by their UP Socialized Tuition System

(STS) bracket.

The first part of the survey shall be dedicated in identifying the perceived groupthink

level of their preferred political party. All questions in this part of the survey shall start by asking

“Are you likely to vote for a party that...” or “Are you likely to vote for a party that has a leader

that...” followed by the same groupthink instrument for the candidates. The second part of the

survey’s purpose is to determine which compliance-gaining strategies are successful in

increasing the likelihood of a candidate being voted.

 57

Lastly, the researcher laymanized the terms by using group decision-making skills and

campaign strategies instead of groupthink and compliance-gaining strategies respectively to

make the concepts more understandable to the respondents and for them not to manipulate their

answers.

A. Level of Groupthink

The first part of the first research instrument is based on Richard Walter’s (2015) Baptist

quantitative survey questionnaire in his masters dissertation, “Measuring Predictors of

Groupthink: Instrument Development and Validation.”

The questionnaire shall examine the relationship between the concept of groupthink and

the variables of eight groupthink qualities, which are (1) highly cohesive groups, (2) promotional

leadership, (3) conformity, (4) concurrence seeking, (5) anxiety, (6) collective efficacy, (7)

hidden profiles, and (8) trust.

The questions in the survey questionnaire shall be adapted and contextualized according

to the current study’s nature and objectives. It will be verified using Cronbach’s Alpha to check

if the instrument’s reliability still measures their respective variables.

Next, the survey questionnaire shall contain 49 questions divided into eight scales that are

based on eight characteristics of Janis’ Groupthink Model – (1) highly cohesive, (2) promotional

leadership, (3) conformity, (4) concurrence seeking, (5) anxiety, (6) collective efficacy, (7)

hidden profiles, and (8) trust.

The survey items shall be arranged using a 5-point Likert scale. The respondents shall

indicate their level of agreement on each item in the survey questionnaire, ranging from

“strongly agree” (5) to “strongly disagree” (1).

 58

B. Compliance-Gaining Strategies

The second section of the first research instrument is derived from the survey questionnaire

of Gerald Marwell and David R. Schmitt’s (1967) study, Dimensions of Compliance-Gaining

Behavior: An Empirical Analysis.

Moreover, the questionnaire shall have 48 questions that will measure 16 compliance-

gaining strategies through a six-point Likert scale ranging from “Definitely would use” (6) to

“Definitely would not use” (1). The 16 Compliance-Gaining strategies are: Promise, Threat,

Expertise (Positive), Expertise (Negative), Liking, Pre-Giving, Aversive Stimulation, Debt, Moral

Appeal, Self-Feeling (Positive), Self-Feeling (Negative), Altercasting (Positive), Altercasting

(Negative), Altruism, Esteem (Positive), and Esteem (Negative). These items will help the

researcher in identifying which compliance-gaining strategies were used by the three political

parties. From the results, the researcher will also be able to compare the three political parties

and the different strategies they employ.

Research Procedures

Phase I. The researcher shall revise the questions in the two survey questionnaires of the two

studies cited above in accordance to the objectives and nature of the study.

Next, the question for the candidates shall contain questions that will identify the level of

groupthink each political party in UP Diliman possesses as well as compliance-gaining strategies

utilized by the respondents while part II for the voters shall include have items that will identify

their preferred political party’s level of groupthink.

The questions to be used in the first part of the first research instrument shall be obtained

from Richard Walter’s (2015) Baptist quantitative survey questionnaire in his masters
 59

dissertation, “Measuring Predictors of Groupthink: Instrument Development and Validation” and

from Gerald Marwell and David R. Schmitt’s (1967) study, Dimensions of Compliance-Gaining

Behavior: An Empirical Analysis.

These questions shall be revised and contextualized to the current study and also

validated for reliability.

Lastly, all the adapted survey questionnaires shall undergo a pilot test administered to 10

students to see if questions are clear enough for the respondents to understand. More importantly,

the pilot test procedure will scrutinize the survey if it is adequate enough in achieving the second

objective of the research, which is to identify the compliance-gaining strategies used by the three

main political parties of UP Diliman.

Phase II. After the researcher has revised and contextualized the survey questionnaires in

accordance to the current study, the researcher shall implement a pilot study using the newly

revised survey questionnaires.

Phase III. After the pilot study has been implemented, the researcher shall procure the list of the

first group of respondents from the official Facebook page of the Philippine Collegian since this

is the most convenient and accessible way for the researcher. After which, the candidates who

ran in the USC elections ay 2016-2017 shall be informed about the study being a study on their

group decision-making skills and campaign strategies.

 60

For the second group of respondents, the researcher shall post a publicity material, which

includes the online link of the survey, on Facebook to inform voters from last year’s election

about the study.

Phase IV. After identifying the first group of respondents, the researcher shall send the online

link of the survey to the Facebook accounts of the candidates since this is the most accessible

way to contact them. The researcher shall also give physical copies of the survey to the

candidates (if preferred) to make the answering of the survey more convenient for them.

For the second group of respondents, the researcher shall post a publicity material, which

includes the online link of the survey, on Facebook to inform voters from last year’s election

about the study. The researcher will also ask help from instructors for data gathering. This shall

help the researcher in gaining more respondents.

Furthermore, the researcher shall inform the respondents that answering the survey can

take up to 30 to 45 minutes for the respondents to answer the survey completely, accurately, and

honestly at their convenience.

Phase V. After tabulating the results of the survey questionnaire into a Microsoft Excel

document, the document shall be analyzed by a Statistics-major student from the College of

Statistics, UP Diliman, to correlate the three variables, which are the levels of groupthink and the

compliance-gaining strategies of the Alyansa, KAISA, and STAND UP, and how both of these

variables correlates with the students’ voter preference.

The Spearman’s correlation coefficient test shall be used to find out the correlation

among the data. T-test shall also be employed to identify if there is a significant different in the
 61

groupthink level of the political parties and the Cronbach alpha test shall be used as a reliability

test for the study.

Phase V. After the data has been statistically analyzed, the researcher shall now analyze the data

obtained from the survey questionnaires.

Statistical Treatment

The study shall employ the Spearman’s rho correlation to determine the correlation of

the political parties’ groupthink level and the voter preference of the students, and the correlation

of the political parties’ compliance-gaining strategies and the voter preference of the students.

Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test shall also be employed to identify if there is a significant different in

the groupthink level of the political parties and the Cronbach alpha test shall be used as a

reliability test for the study.

Data Analysis

1. To attain the first objective of the study which determines the level of groupthink of UP

Alyansa, UP KAISA, and STAND UP, survey questionnaires shall be grouped together per

party. The mean scores of the respondents per strategy shall be computed. In the scale used, 5 is

the highest possible score referring to “Strongly Agree” while 1 is the lowest possible score

referring to “Strongly disagree.”

Score items with the strongest characteristics of groupthink are:

Highly cohesive – 1, 2, 3

Promotional leadership scale – 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Conformity – 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

Concurrence seeking – 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

 62

Anxiety – 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

Collective Efficacy – 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

Hidden Profiles – 39, 30, 41,

Trust –42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

Therefore, if respondents scored high in these items and it coincided with their party’s

mean score, it means that the party exudes high level of groupthink. The research instrument is

derived from Baptist’s (2015) Instrument Development and Validation for measuring predictors

of groupthink.

2. In order to accomplish the second objective of the study, which is to identify the compliance-

gaining strategies used by the three main political parties of UP Diliman, the mean scores of the

respondents (questionnaires shall be grouped per party) per strategy are going to be computed. In

the scale used, 5 is the highest possible score (referring to Strongly Agree) while the lowest

possible score is 1 (referring to Strongly Disagree). The range of the scale is:

1-2 – low

2.01-3.9 – moderate

4-5 – high

The 16 compliance-gaining strategies are based on Marwell and Schmitt’s (1967) research

instrument. Score items with the strongest compliance-gaining strategies are:

Promise - 1, 17, 33

Threat - 2, 18, 34

Showing expertise about positive outcomes -3, 19, 35

Showing expertise about negative outcomes - 4, 20, 36

 63

Liking - 5, 21, 37

Pre-giving - 6, 22, 38

Aversive Stimulation - 7, 23, 39

Debt - 8, 24, 40

Moral Appeal - 9, 25, 41

Positive Self-feeling - 10, 26, 42

Negative Self-feeling - 11, 27, 43

Positive Altercasting - 12, 28, 44

Negative Altercasting - 13, 29, 45

Altruism - 14, 30, 46

Positive Esteem - 15, 31, 47

Negative Esteem - 16, 32, 48

3. To meet the third objective of the study, which is to determine the relationship between the

level of groupthink each political party manifests and the compliance-gaining strategies that they

use, the data analysis procedure shall correlate the level of groupthink of each political party

obtained from the first research instrument, with each of the 16 compliance-gaining strategies

identified above through the Spearman’s Rho Correlation Coefficient to analyze the relationship

of the two variables. Next, the results of the qualitative interview shall be juxtaposed with the

correlated results of the groupthink level and compliance-gaining strategies of the political

parties.
 64

4. In order to meet the last objective which is to correlate the political parties’ level of groupthink

with the students’ voter preference and to correlate the political parties’ compliance-gaining

strategies with the students’ voter preference, the results of the survey from the first group of

respondents and the results of the survey from the second group of respondents shall be analyzed

using the Spearman’s rho correlation to see if there is a correlation among these variables.

Since the second survey is a mirror version of the first survey, the data of the voters shall

also be analyzed with the same tests with the candidates’

Using Richard Baptist’s (2015) study and Marwell and Schmitt’s (1967) research paper,

the survey items answered by 100 students shall be analyzed.

 65

CHAPTER IV

Findings, Analyses, and Interpretations

The current study conducted a quantitative research on the groupthink level and the

compliance-gaining strategies of UP Diliman’s political parties, which are UP ALYANSA,

KAISA UP, and STAND UP. This research also determined if there is a correlation between the

political parties’ level of groupthink and the students’ voter preference, and if there is a

correlation between the political parties’ compliance-gaining strategies and the students’ voter

preference.

Thus, this chapter presents the findings, analyses, and interpretations of data. The data

gathered is obtained from two groups of respondents. The first group contains the complete

slates of candidates who ran in the USC elections AY 2016-2017 from UP ALYANSA, KAISA

UP, and STAND UP. The second group of respondents contain 100 voters, with 25 coming from

the Arts and Letters cluster, 25 coming from the Management and Economics cluster, 25 coming

from the Science and Technology cluster, and 25 coming from the Social Sciences and Law

cluster.

I. Demographic Profile of Respondents

A. Age

For the first group of respondents, the sample size is 32. Of the 32 respondents, 13

are 21 years old, 10 are 22 years old, 3 are 20 years old, 3 are 19 years old, 2 are 23

years old, and 1 is 28 years old.

Pie Chart 1 presents the first sample size distribution according to age.
 66

Pie Chart 1: First Sample Size Distribution According to Age

For the second group of respondents, the sample size is 100 voters with 25 coming from

the Arts and Letters cluster, 25 coming from the Management and Economics cluster, 25 coming

from the Science and Technology cluster, and 25 coming from the Social Sciences and Law

cluster.

Out of the 100 respondents, 1 is 40 years old, 1 is 31 years old, 3 are 25 years old, 3 are

24 years old, 1 is 23 years old, 7 are 22 years old, 16 are 21 years old, 38 are 20 years old, 23

people are 19 years old, 6 people are 18 years old, and 1 person is 17 years old.

Pie chart 2 presents the second sample size distribution according to age.
 67

Pie Chart 2: Second Sample Size Distribution According to Age

B. Sex

For the first group of respondents, out of 32, 16 are male and 16 are female.

Pie 3 presents the first sample size distribution for the first group of respondents

according to sex.

Pie Chart 3: First Sample Size Distribution According to Sex

 68

For the second set of respondents which are the voters, the sample size is 100. Out

of a hundred respondents, 52 are male while 48 are female.

Pie chart 4 presents the second sample size distribution for the second group of

respondents according to sex.

Pie Chart 4: Second Sample Size Distribution According to Sex

 69

C. College

Out of the 32 political candidates that make up the first set of respondents, 6 respondents

are from the College of Engineering, 4 are from the National College of Public Administration

and Governance , 3 are from the College of Mass Communication, 3 are from the College of Arts

and Letters, 3 are from the College of Home Economics, 2 are from the College of Social

Sciences and Philosophy, 2 are from the College of Science, 2 are from the College of

Education, 2 are from the College of Law, 2 are from Cesar E.A. Virata School of Business, 1 is

from the School of Economics, 1 is from the College of Human Kinetics and 1 is from the

College of Social Work and Community Development.

Pie chart 5 presents the first sample size distribution for the second group of respondents

according to the respondents’ home college.

Pie Chart 5: First Sample Size Distribution According to College

Next, out of the 100 student voters that comprise the second set of respondents, 21

respondents were from the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, 19 were from the College

of Arts and Letters, 10 were from the College of Engineering, 9 were from the National College

of Public Administration and Governance, 8 were from the School of Economics, 8 were from
 70

the College of Science, 5 were from the College of Architecture, 4 were from Cesar E.A. Virata

School of Business, 4 were from the College of Mass Communication, 3 awee from the College

of Human Kinetics, 3 were from the College of Education, 2 were from the Asian Institute of

Tourism, 2 were from the College of Law, 1 was from the School of Statistics, and 1 was from

the College of Home Economics.

Pie Chart 6 presents the second sample size distribution for the second group of

respondents according to the respondents’ home college.

Pie Chart 6: Second Sample Size Distribution According to College

D. Province/City

For the first set of respondents, 14 candidates were from Metro Manila, 3 candidates were

from Rizal, 2 were from Isabela, 2 were from Cavite, 2 were from Camarines Norte, 1 was from
 71

Quezon, 1 was from Pangasinan, 1 was from Laguna, 1 was from Iloilo, 1 was from Cebu, 1 was

from Camarines Sur, 1 was from Bulacan, 1 was from Benguet, and 1 was from Batangas.

Pie Chart 7 presents the first sample size distribution according to province/city.

Pie Chart 7: First Sample Size Distribution According to Province/City

For the second set of respondents that was comprised of 100 student voters, 43 were from

Metro Manila, 10 were from Albay, 7 were from Cagayan, 6 were from Rizal, 6 were from

Laguna, 4 were from South Cotabato, 3 were from Batangas, 2 were from Sorsogon, 2 were from

Isabela, 2 were from Iloilo, 2 were from Cavite, 1 was from Sarangani, 1 was from Samar, 1 was

from Quezon, 1 was from Pangasinan, 1 was from Palawan, 1 was from Oriental Mindoro, 1 was

from Misamis Oriental, 1 was from Leyte, 1 was from Capiz, 1 was from Benguet, 1 was from

Batanes, 1 was from Bataan and 1 was from Abra.

Pie Chart 8 presents the second sample size distribution according to province/city.
 72

Pie Chart 8: Second Sample Size Distribution According to Province/City

E. Socialized Tuition System (STS) Bracket

Of the 32 respondents for the first sample size, 12 respondents were from Bracket A, 11

were from Bracket C, 5 were from Bracket B, 3 were from Bracket E2, and 1 was from Bracket

D.

Pie Chart 9 shows the first sample size distribution according to STS bracket.

Pie Chart 9: Sample Size Distribution According to STS Bracket

 73

For the second group of respondents, 100 voters answered the survey. Of the 100

respondents, 45 were from Bracket A, 18 were from Bracket C, 17 were from Bracket B, 10

were from Bracket D, 5 were from Bracket E2, and 5 respondents chose not to disclose their

bracket.

Pie Chart 10 shows the second sample size distribution according to STS bracket

Pie Chart 10: Second Sample Size Distribution According to STS Bracket

D. Political Party

Only the first group of respondents were grouped according to their political parties.

Out of the 32 political candidates that participated in this study, 14 were from STAND

UP, 9 were from UP ALYANSA, and 9 were from KAISA UP.

Pie Chart 11 presents the sample size distribution according to political parties.

Pie Chart 11: Sample Size Distribution According to Political Party

 74

II. Instrumentation Discussion

For the current study, the researcher used a quantitative survey questionnaire to achieve

the four objectives: (1) to determine the groupthink level and characteristics of UP Diliman’s

three main political parties, which are UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND UP; (2) to

identify the compliance-gaining strategies of the three political parties, (3) to identify if there is a

correlation between the political party’s level of groupthink and the students’ voter preference,

and to also identify if there is a correlation between the political party’s compliance-gaining

strategies and the students’ voter preference; and (4) to determine the relationship of the political

parties’ groupthink level and the compliance-gaining strategies that they use;

The researcher based the survey questionnaire on Richard Baptist’s (2015) study,

Measuring Predictors of Groupthink and Gerald Marwell and David R. Schmitt’s (1967) study,

Dimensions of Compliance-Gaining Behavior: An Empirical Analysis.

The questionnaires from these studies were modified and were put together to form one

survey that would address the objectives of the study. To identify the groupthink level of the

political parties, 48 questions were included in the survey to accommodate this objective.
 75

Meanwhile, 49 items were dedicated to identify the compliance-gaining strategies of the UP

ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND UP.

To determine if the revised survey is apt for the current study, the questionnaire was

scrutinized by Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability analysis.

Table 12 presents the results of the Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability analysis for the

groupthink aspect of the survey. This survey was given to the first set of respondents which are

the political party members who ran in the USC elections AY 2016-2017 and to 100 voters, with

25 voters coming from each academic cluster.

 76

Table 12: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test for Groupthink

Groupthink Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test

Characteristics

No. of Items Party List Data Voters Data

Highly Cohesive 3 0.827 0.724

Promotional Leadership 8 0.805 0.651

Conformity 7 0.888 0.787

Concurrence-seeking 8 0.898 0.797

Anxiety 5 0.878 0.813

Collective Efficacy 7 0.842 0.868

Hidden Profiles 3 0.459 0.768

Trust 8 0.814 0.814

MEAN SCORE 0.8014 0.778

In employing a Cronbach alpha as a reliability test, a value that is 0.7 or higher is desired.

According to the table, one of the eight variables under the party list data is considered have low

reliability. The variable, hidden profiles, garnered a value of 0.459, which is lower than 0.7.

However, the instrument is still considered to be highly reliable because the mean score of the

party data is higher than 0.7, which is 0.8014.

Same is true with the data under the voters. Even when the value obtained under

promotional leadership is 0.651, a value that is lesser than 0.7, the instrument is still considered

highly reliable because the overall mean of the voters data is 0.974, a value that is higher than

0.7.

Table 13 presents the results of the Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability analysis for the

compliance-gaining strategies aspect of the survey. This was also given to the political party
 77

members who ran in the USC elections AY 2016-2017 and to 100 voters, with 25 voters coming

from each academic cluster.

Table 13: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test for Compliance-Gaining Strategies

Compliance-Gaining Strategy Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test

Party Data Voters Data

Promise 0.644 0.724

Threat 0.726 0.844

Showing expertise about positive 0.569 0.678

outcome

Showing expertise about negative 0.65 0.73

outcome

Liking 0.59 0.724

Pre-giving 0.164 0.657

Aversive Stimulation 0.829 0.811

Debt 0.378 0.736

Moral Appeal 0.793 0.819

Positive Self-feeling 0.545 0.812

Negative Self-feeling 0.447 0.851

Positive Altercasting 0.824 0.875

Negative Altercasting 0.784 0.842

Altruism 0.712 0.738

Positive Esteem 0.651 0.803

Negative Esteem 0.664 0.895

OVERALL 0.944 0.974

For the Compliance-Gaining Strategies section of the questionnaire, 10 out of 16

compliance-gaining strategies under the party data did not obtain a value that is greater than 0.7.
 78

Thus, it can be said that these are not reliable. However, since the overall score of the party data

is 0.944, a value greater than 0.7, the survey is still considered to be highly reliable.

Moreover, in the column under the voters data, only two out of the 16 compliance-

gaining strategies obtained a score that is lower than 0.7. However, since the overall score of the

voters data is greater than 0.7, this part of the questionnaire is also considered to be highly

reliable.

III. Test of Difference for the Groupthink Level of the Political Parties in UP Diliman

In order to test if there is a difference among the groupthink levels of UP ALYANSA,

KAISA UP, and STAND UP, the Wilcoxon Ranked Sign Test was used to analyze the data. This

test is the non-parametric counterpart of t-Test for Paired Samples. Moreover, this is used to

compare two related samples, whether there is significant difference between the two groups in

terms of a specific criteria or variable, which in this case is the groupthink score.

The software Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. The null

hypothesis of the test states that there is no significant difference between the two parties respect

to the groupthink scores. Meanwhile, the alternative hypothesis states that there is a significant

difference or that one is higher than the other. The decision rule of the test is to reject the null

hypothesis if the obtained p-value is less than the set 5% level of significance. Otherwise, there is

no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Table 14 presents the results of the analysis according to the Wilcoxon Ranked Sign Test

between the Groupthink Level of STAND UP and KAISA UP.

 79

Table 14: Wilcoxon Ranked Sign Test between the Groupthink Level of STAND UP and

KAISA UP

The obtained p-value is 0.781 which is greater than the set level of significance which is

0.05. Therefore, at 5% level of significance, there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that there

is significant difference between the groupthink scores of KAISA UP and STAND UP.

Next, the groupthink levels of UP ALYANSA and KAISA UP are now compared. Table

15 presents the results of Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test to determine the difference of between UP

ALYANSA’s and KAISA UP’s groupthink scores.

Level of Significance Obtained p-value (KAISA UP - STAND UP)

0.05 0.781
 80

Table 15: Wilcoxon Ranked Sign Test between the Groupthink Level of UP ALYANSA and

KAISA UP

The results of the Wilcoxon Ranked Sign Test reveals that the obtained p-value is 0.520.

This is greater than the set level of significance which is 0.05. Thus, at 5% level of significance,

it is safe to state that there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that there is significant

difference between the groupthink scores of UP ALYANSA and KAISA UP.

Level of Significance Obtained p-value (UP ALYANSA - KAISA

UP)

0.05 0.520

Lastly, the groupthink level of UP ALYANSA and STAND UP were scrutinized using

the same test to see if there is a significant difference in their groupthink scores.

Table 16 presents the data obtained from the Wilcoxon Ranked Sign Test.
 81

Table 16: Wilcoxon Ranked Sign Test between the Groupthink Level of UP ALYANSA and

STAND UP

The results obtained from the statistical test reveal that the obtained p-value is 0.598,

which is greater than the set level of significance which is 0.05. Therefore, at 5% level of

significance, there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant difference

between the groupthink scores of UP ALYANSA and STAND UP.

Level of Significance Obtained p-value (UP ALYANSA - STAND

UP)

0.05 0.598

IV. OBJECTIVE 1: Groupthink Level and Groupthink Characteristics

Despite the political parties having no significant difference in the groupthink level they

have with each other, it is still imperative to take note of the groupthink characteristics that
 82

distinguish a political party from the other. This shall answer the first objective of the study,

which is to determine the level of groupthink that UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND UP

have.

To know the groupthink scores of the political parties per groupthink characteristic, the

responses from the candidates were averaged to get the mean score per groupthink characteristic.

Moreover, to compare if the groupthink level of the political parties in UP Diliman matches their

voter preference in terms of groupthink, the responses of the voters were also averaged according

to each groupthink characteristic.

A. OBJECTIVE 1A: UP ALYANSA’s GROUPTHINK LEVEL AND GROUPTHINK

CHARACTERISTICS

Table 17 presents the results of the survey questionnaire for UP ALYANSA.

 83

Table 17: Results of UP ALYANSA’S Groupthink level and Characteristics

GROUPTHINK LEVEL AND CHARACTERISTICS

UP ALYANSA

Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation

Cohesive 3.63 4.00 4.00 1.11

Promotional 3.33 4.00 5.00 1.49

Leadership

Conformity 2.70 2.00 2.00 1.46

Concurrence Seeking 2.58 2.00 2.00 1.40

(Lowest)

Anxiety 2.87 2.00 2.00 1.00

Collective Efficacy 4.21 4.00 5.00 1.14

(Highest)

Hidden Profiles 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.86

Trust 3.69 4.00 4.00 0.78

OVERALL 3.38

According to the results of the survey questionnaire answered by UP ALYANSA, their

overall groupthink level is 3.38, which means that their groupthink level is moderate. Of the

eight groupthink characteristics that were put to the test, the test results reveal that Collective

Efficacy is the highest groupthink characteristic that UP ALYANSA exhibits. Baptist (2015)

explained that Collective Efficacy makes a group feel over-confident and complacent in their

decision-making process due to their prior continuous success.

For example, UP ALYANSA has been successful in leading the USC elections for two

years. During the USC elections in AY 2014-2015, the political party was able to grab the

positions for the chairperson, vice-chairperson, and six councilors. A year after that, UP
 84

ALYANSA reigned the USC elections AY 2015-2016 again by claiming the seats of the

chairperson, vice-chairperson, and eight councilors - an improvement in their success rate from

the previous year (Pineda, 2014; Pineda, 2015). This consistent success made UP ALYANSA the

most popular party list for a while. However, things took a turn when JP Delas Nieves, the

incumbent USC Chairperson of AY 2015-2016 and a former member of UP ALYANSA, was

expelled by his own political party for being involved in an incident caused by fraternity-related

violence (Medina, 2015; Philippine Collegian, 2016). Ever since this event, UP ALYANSA

started to experience severe backlash from the students, a clear example of how collective

efficacy can lead to the deterioration of a group (Baptist, 2015). According to the Philippine

Collegian (2016), “the incident only highlighted the council’s glaring mistake of not reinstating

the Committee on Organizations, Fraternities, and Sororities which has not existed since 2014.”

With the USC AY 2015-2016 being dominated by UP ALYANSA, the council’s mistakes and

shortcomings were associated and traced to the party, thus affecting the political party’s once-

untouchable reputation. When the USC elections happened for the school year 2016-2017, UP

ALYANSA was only able to elect one councilor from their party. The chairmanship and the

vice-chairmanship were won by STAND UP and the rest of the councilors came from either

KAISA UP or STAND UP, a complete opposite of what UP ALYANSA experienced in the past

two years.

Despite these, it is commendable to see that Concurrence Seeking is the least exhibited

groupthink characteristic of UP ALYANSA according to the results, with only a score of 2.58, a

value that is equivalent to having a low level of Concurrence Seeking. Baptist (2015) described
 85

this characteristic as having members of the group who protect the leader and his/her preferred

decision and opinions. These members are also called mindguards. This result is well supported

and explicitly manifested when UP ALYANSA ousted their own leader, JP Delas Nieves, for not

following his promise of quitting his fraternity in the event that it would be involved in a

fraternity-related violence (Medina, 2015). The ability of this political party to condemn a

prominent individual in a very public manner is a proof that UP ALYANSA does not have

mindguards and if they do, they are not enough in protecting the leader unconditionally (Baptist,

2015).

B. OBJECTIVE 1B: KAISA UP’S GROUPTHINK LEVEL AND GROUPTHINK

CHARACTERISTICS

Table 18 presents the results of the survey questionnaire for KAISA UP

 86

Table 18: Results of KAISA UP’s Groupthink Level and Groupthink Characteristics

GROUPTHINK LEVEL AND CHARACTERISTICS

KAISA UP

Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation

Cohesiveness 4.30 5.00 5.00 0.73

(highest)

Promotional 3.26 3.50 4.00 0.42

Leadership

Conformity 2.63 2.00 2.00 0.60

Concurrence Seeking 2.43 2.00 1.00 0.34

(Lowest)

Anxiety 2.58 2.00 2.00 0.86

Collective Efficacy 4.02 4.00 4.00 0.79

Hidden Profiles 4.22 4.00 4.00 0.58

Trust 3.74 4.00 4.00 0.55

OVERALL 3.40

Basing from KAISA UP’s responses in the survey questionnaire, the results present that

the political party has an overall groupthink score of 3.40. This means that KAISA UP exhibits a

moderate amount of groupthink level.

Out of the eight groupthink characteristics that were analyzed, results show that

Cohesiveness is the highest groupthink characteristic exhibited by KAISA UP, with a 4.30 score.

Meaning, KAISA UP is highly cohesive. This characteristic increases the possibility of

groupthink being committed because it is believed to be the “chief culprit” behind groupthink

and bad decisions (Baptist, 2015; Janis, 1972). While cohesiveness in a group is deemed to be

similar to camaraderie and unity, Irving Janis (1972) believes that an unregulated amount of this
 87

can pressure members to blindly conform to a decision, whether it is ethical or not (Baptist,

2015).

KAISA UP was formed in May 2005 by two separate organizations, making it the

youngest out of the three political parties in UP Diliman. The founders came from UP

ALYANSA and they were motivated to form a separate political party due to conflicting

ideologies. Ever since KAISA UP’s conception, they have been very vocal in advocating for

climate justice and the Six Will Fix campaign, which plans on allocating six percent of the

country’s gross national product for the education sector (Philippine Collegian, 2017). While

KAISA UP’s history shows that they are for inclusive activism, the party’s high cohesiveness is

manifested when the political party made two fraternity members from Upsilon Sigma Phi for

Chairperson and Vice Chairperson respectively during the USC elections AY 2016-2017 despite

the controversial issue that involved Upsilon Sigma Phi and Alpha Sigma (Boado and Calanog,

2017). This was the same issue that made UP ALYANSA expel their very own JP Delas Nieves.

The decision to put two fraternity members despite at the forefront of the political party is

very risky considering the issue of fraternity violence. However, KAISA UP still pushed through

with this plan (Boado and Calanog; 2017). This can be explained when Richard Baptist (2015)

said that members tend to focus more on themselves than on quality decision-making due to

entitativity, which is the “degree to which members of a group recognize or legitimize being a

part of said group.” Entitativity is a known bi-product of High Cohesiveness (Baptist, 2015).

Similar to UP ALYANSA, Concurrence Seeking is also the least exhibited groupthink

characteristic by KAISA UP, with a score of 2.43. The result coincides with the main criticism

against KAISA UP; that they often change sides on a specific issue. In the school year 2013-
 88

2014, when KAISA UP member, Alex Castro, became USC Chairperson, their stance on the

issue of the the Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP) - now the

Socialized Tuition System (STS) - was to reform it (Philippine Collegian, 2014). However,

KAISA UP has changed their side on the matter and is actually forwarding for the abolishment

of STS (Philippine Collegian, 2017).

This goes to show that KAISA UP is flexible and progressive because there are only a

few, and if not, no mindguards that serve as the protector of the leader’s opinion and standpoints.

To reiterate, Baptist (2015) explains that Concurrence Seeking focuses on dominant individuals

that thrive on the illusion of morality and illusion of invulnerability. Looking at the political

party’s history and their progressive background, it can be seen that they are not rigid on their

principles and that they can adjust their stances according to the needs of the student body. Thus,

their low level in concurrence seeking can aid KAISA UP from committing groupthink.

C. OBJECTIVE 1C: STAND UP’s GROUPTHINK LEVEL AND GROUPTHINK

CHARACTERISTICS

Table 19 presents the results of the survey questionnaire for STAND UP

 89

Table 19: Results of STAND UP’s Groupthink Level and Groupthink Characteristics

GROUPTHINK LEVEL AND CHARACTERISTICS

STAND UP

Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation

Cohesive (highest) 4.50 5.00 5.00 0.48

Promotional 3.04 3.00 4.00 0.58

Leadership

Conformity 2.68 2.00 2.00 0.82

Concurrence Seeking 2.62 2.00 2.00 0.88

Anxiety 2.59 2.50 2.00 1.00

Collective Efficacy 4.34 4.00 4.00 0.44

Hidden Profiles 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.51

Trust 3.58 4.00 4.00 0.67

OVERALL 3.42

The results of statistical analysis reveal that STAND UP has an overall groupthink score

of 3.42, meaning that the political party’s groupthink level is moderate. Out of the eight

groupthink characteristics that were put to the test, STAND UP exhibits High Cohesiveness the

most, with a groupthink score of 4.50.

Baptist (2015) explains that High Cohesiveness is the main antecedent of groupthink

because it makes the group focus more on preserving the harmony inside the group than on

making efficient and ethical decisions. As discussed previously, high cohesiveness in a group

can be very dangerous if members practice too much entitativity, which is the degree to which

members legitimize their membership in a group.

 90

STAND UP, ever since its creation in 1996, has always been proud in having a militant

spirit as they champion for a nationalistic and mass-oriented form of education (Philippine

Collegian, 2018). Moreover, STAND UP strongly believes that student-oriented predicaments

are not separated from the social perils that continue to destabilize the country’s socioeconomic

and political system. Thus, this party has always been at the forefront of organizing

mobilizations and protest actions against a repressive administration (Philippine Collegian,

2018).

While it can be seen here that STAND UP’s advocacy is clear and well articulated, the

party’s ideologies are also a source of entitativity among the members. STAND UP’s objectives

have made the party more cohesive and more united. The university saw how STAND UP was

able to fight for the students’ rights for education as well as the indigenous people’s right to their

ancestral lands (Philippine Collegian, 2017). Moreover, when calls to defund the Philippine

Collegian were brought up by Allan Pangilinan, a member of UP ALYANSA in 2016

(Philippine Collegian, 2016), Beata Carolino, then USC Councilor and a former member of

STAND UP, was able to defend the student publication against such repressive acts. When the

USC elections arrived for AY 2016-2017, STAND UP dominated the student elections and was

able to clinch the top two USC positions together with seven councilor seats (Onato, 2016).

However, during STAND UP’s leadership in the USC 2016-2017, students were

disappointed when the council decided not to push through with the Magna Carta, a document

that codifies the students’ rights. STAND UP reasons out that the Magna Carta recognizes the

presence of the “repressive STS” and it forces the students to surrender their rights to UP

Diliman’s Board of Reagents. There were strong calls that condemned STAND UP for being
 91

inflexible about this issue. Beata Carolino, the incumbent Vice Chairperson back then and a

former member of STAND UP, voiced out her support for the Magna Carta despite her political

party’s strong opposition for the document. In Carolino’s (2016) strong words, she explained her

stance on the issue, “Many people have asked me to clarify this and this is my response: I do

support it… The Magna Carta is an issue about students and it is devoid of color or partisanship.

It is not an end-all-be-all solution. The student movement will not falter if the document passes.”

After this, Carolino was no longer involved with STAND UP. A year after, Carolino posted on

her Facebook that she has been labeled as “anti free education” (Carolino, 2017) by her former

party mates.

Because of this series of controversies, the student body was not pleased with STAND

UP’s general performance - both inside the USC and outside of it. Thus, the following elections,

which is for AY 2017-2018, STAND UP was only able to secure one seat for councilor in the

USC, a complete opposite of what they experienced in the previous year. Due to the party’s high

cohesiveness, they were unable to hear the plight of the students and their former member.

Instead of catering to the needs of their constituents, STAND UP chose to maintain the group

harmony at the expense of their reputation and one of their most prominent members.

Another significant result obtained from the statistical test is STAND UP’s groupthink

characteristic score for Anxiety. The test results reveal that STAND UP exhibits Anxiety the

least, with only having a score of 2.59 - a value that is bracketed as low.

Richard Baptist (2015) expounds on anxiety’s relevance in the topic of groupthink by

saying that this characteristic forces the members to make a decision involving a moral dilemma

or a high risk of material losses. Because of the ultimatum, members experience a tremendous
 92

amount of anxiety among the members. While Beata Carolino can be a prime example for a

member that experienced anxiety and chose to make a decision that would appease her morality,

no member has done what Carolino did after she publicly supported Magna Carta. Since STAND

UP exhibits a high amount of cohesiveness, the entitativity of the members appease their moral

dilemma. Thus, they experience little to no anxiety at all (Baptist, 2015). Therefore, STAND

UP’s results impeccably coincide with each other.

D. COMPARISON OF THE GROUPTHINK LEVEL AND GROUPTHINK

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES IN UP DILIMAN

Since the groupthink level and groupthink characteristics of the political parties have

been determined already, it is important to juxtapose the results of UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP,

and STAND UP with each other to know which political party exhibits a certain groupthink

characteristic the most.

Table 20 presents the mean scores of UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND UP

according to their groupthink level and groupthink characteristics.

 93

Table 20: Groupthink Level and Groupthink Characteristics of UP Diliman’s Political Parties

CHARACTERISTIC KAISA UP STAND UP UP ALYANSA

High Cohesiveness 4.30 4.50 3.63

Promotional Leadership 3.26 3.04 3.33

Conformity 2.63 2.68 2.70

Concurrence Seeking 2.43 2.62 2.58

Anxiety 2.58 2.59 2.87

Collective Efficacy 4.02 4.34 4.21

Hidden Profiles 4.22 4.00 4.00

Trust 3.74 3.58 3.69

AVERAGE 3.40 3.42 3.38

While the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test says that there is no significant difference in the

groupthink levels of the political party, is still imperative to mention which political party has the

highest groupthink level, even if the difference is just a small value.

The table show that out of the three political parties in UP Diliman, STAND UP has the

highest level of groupthink, with a score of 3.42. KAISA UP holds the second highest level of

groupthink with an overall mean value of 3.40. Last, UP ALYANSA has the lowest groupthink

level among the three parties, with only 3.38 as its score.

Moving on to the comparison of the political parties’ groupthink characteristics, it can be

seen in the table that STAND UP has the highest score among the three parties in terms of

cohesiveness, with a value of 4.50. Just like what is explained above, STAND UP’s militant and

mass-oriented form of activism (Philippine Collegian, 2017) can be a great source for their

entitativity, which is the degree to which members feel legitimate of their group and their
 94

membership (Baptist, 2015). The higher the entitativity in a group, the more cohesive the group

becomes (Baptist, 2015).

Next, in terms of Promotional Leadership, UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the

three parties, with a score of 3.33. Promotional Leadership can be observed when group leaders

forward their positions aggressively. This paralyzes the members from voicing out any differing

opinions due to the fear of contradicting the leader. Thus, alternative solutions are not discussed

due to the lack of diversity in discussions (Baptist, 2015).

When it comes to Conformity, UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the political

parties with a value of 2.70. However, this score is still considered to be very low since the value

falls under the bracket of low conformity. Irving Janis (1982) said that groupthink is caused by a

non-deliberate conformity where group members persuade themselves to believe that their own

doubts about the established group decision is correct even if they know that it is not.

Out of the three parties, STAND UP has the highest score in terms of Concurrence

Seeking. However, with a score of 2.62, this level is still considered low. Concurrence seeking is

when groups have members that practice as “mindguards.” These individuals protect the

opinions and the standpoints of the leader, regardless if it is right or wrong (Baptist, 2015;

Chapman, 2006).

In terms of Anxiety, the results reveal that UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the

three political parties, with a score of 2.87. However, this is still considered low since the value

falls under the low bracket. Usually, groups experience anxiety when members are forced to

decide between a moral dilemma or a high risk of material losses (Baptist, 2015; Janis, 1972).

Because anxiety produces a tremendous amount of stress among the members, the attention of
 95

the group is divided between appeasing the members’ mental state and crafting the best decision

for the group.

For Collective Efficacy, the highest score belongs to STAND UP, with a high value of

4.34. Collective Efficacy is when the group feels over-confident as a whole because of prior

continuous success. Confidence is necessary in group decision-making. However, too much of

this can make the group overlook warning signs for danger. It can also cause members to feel

complacent and lazy since they believe that they no longer have to exert too much effort in

reaching their goals since they have already proven their success (Baptist, 2015).

Furthermore, KAISA UP takes the highest score in terms of Hidden Profiles, with a value

of 4.22. This means that KAISA UP exhibits a high level of Hidden Profiles since their score

falls under the high bracket. This groupthink characteristic is performed by the members when

they do not disclose any unique information for fear that it might destabilize the group harmony.

(Baptist, 2015). Hidden Profiles can affect the group decision-making process since it does not

exhaust all the quality ideas from the members. Thus, the group is only able to come up with

mediocre and half-baked decisions. Not being able to see the repercussions of these decisions

can lead to the downfall of the political party. (Bonito, DeCamp, Ruppel, 2008; Baptist, 2015).

Lastly, in terms of Trust, KAISA UP claims the highest score again with a value of 3.74.

However, this score is only considered as moderate. While trust often has a positive meaning in

group communication, an excessive amount of this can lead members to practice self-censorship

to protect the built consensus among the members (Erdem, 2003; Baptist, 2015). Too much trust

can transform the group in becoming less flexible, less diverse, and less encouraging in coming

up with alternative solutions and contingency plans (Erdem, 2003; Baptist, 2015).
 96

E. VOTER PREFERENCE AND GROUPTHINK CHARACTERISTICS

Now that the three parties’ groupthink level and groupthink characteristics, it is now time

to analyze the results of the voters. This will reveal the likelihood of the political parties in being

voted according to their groupthink. It is important to take note of this in order for future political

candidates to take note of what voters actually want to see in a political party and in a political

candidate.

Table 21 presents the results of the voters in terms of their preferred groupthink level and

groupthink characteristic

Table 21: Preferred Groupthink Level and Groupthink Characteristics of the Voters

VOTERS’ PREFERRED GROUPTHINK LEVEL AND GROUPTHINK

CHARACTERISTICS

Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation

High Cohesiveness 4.04 4.00 4.00 0.84

Promotional 3.14 3.00 2.00 1.38

Conformity 2.62 2.00 2.00 1.39

Concurrence Seeking 2.35 2.00 1.00 1.37

Anxiety 1.89 (Lowest) 2.00 2.00 0.89

Collective Efficacy 4.31 (Highest) 4.00 5.00 0.82

Hidden Profiles 4.22 4.00 4.00 0.78

Trust 3.88 4.00 4.00 1.07

OVERALL MEAN 3.31

The survey results of the voters reveal that they are most likely to vote for a political

party that has a groupthink level of 3.31, which is only a moderate amount of groupthink. The
 97

closest political party that comes close to this is UP ALYANSA, with a groupthink score of 3.38.

The next political party that comes close to the preferred groupthink level is KAISA UP, with a

score of 3.40. Lastly, the political party has the biggest difference with the preferred groupthink

level is STAND UP, with a score of 3.42.

According to the results of the voters, Collective Efficacy is the most acceptable

groupthink characteristic since the voters are most likely to vote for a political party that

possesses this as opposed to other groupthink characteristics. With a high score of 4.31, this

means that the voters are most likely to vote for a political party that exhibits this.

The second groupthink characteristic that is forgivable for the voters is Hidden Profiles.

With a score of 4.22, it means that voters are still likely to vote for a party that exhibits this as

compared to other groupthink characteristics.

The third groupthink characteristic that makes a political party still likely to be voted for

is High Cohesiveness. According to the results, voters has a preferred High Cohesiveness score

of 4.04, which still falls under the high bracket.

The fourth groupthink characteristic that still makes a political party likely to be voted for

is Trust. However, with groupthink characteristic score of only 3.88, the results say that voters

are neutral about political parties exhibiting this characteristic.

The fifth groupthink characteristic derived from the voters’ responses is Promotional

Leadership. However, since the score is only 3.14, the voters are neutral about political parties

exhibiting this characteristic since the value falls under the moderate level only.

The sixth groupthink characteristic that is ranked according to the responses of the voters

is Conformity. With a score of only 2.62, it is safe to say that political parties that exhibit this
 98

characteristic will lessen their likelihood of being voted since results reveal that voters do not

prefer political parties that exhibit conformity.

The seventh groupthink characteristic is Concurrence Seeking. With a score of 2.35, this

is the second to the lowest groupthink characteristic to be ranked by the voters. This means that

political parties that manifest this characteristic are less likely to be voted for since the score falls

under the low bracket.

The groupthink characteristic that has the lowest score is Anxiety, with a value of 1.89.

This means that political parties that exhibit this characteristic are less likely to be voted for. This

is the most crucial groupthink characteristic because it affects the political parties’ likelihood of

being voted for the most. According to Baptist (2015) anxiety is when members are forced to

decide if they want to appease their moral dilemma or if they want to make ends meet by

preventing any material losses. Thus, it is safe to conclude that voters dislike the idea of

members sacrificing their morality just to save the welfare of the party.

IV. OBJECTIVE 2: COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES

Now that the researcher has been able to determine that there is a correlation between the

political parties’ groupthink level and their likelihood of being voted, it is time to discuss the

compliance-gaining strategies of the UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND UP as well as the

preferred compliance-gaining strategies of the voters. This shall answer the second objective,

which is to identify the compliance-gaining strategies of the three specified political parties of

UP Diliman.

To know the Compliance-Gaining scores of the political parties per Compliance-Gaining

strategy, the responses from the candidates were averaged to get the mean score per Compliance-
 99

Gaining Strategy. Furthermore, for the researcher to compare if the preferred Compliance-

Gaining strategies of the voters match the Compliance-Gaining Strategies employed by the three

parties in UP Diliman, the responses of the voters were also averaged according to each

Compliance-Gaining Strategy.

A. OBJECTIVE 2A: UP ALYANSA’s COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES

Table 25 presents the results of the survey questionnaire for UP ALYANSA according to

Compliance-Gaining Strategies.
 100

Table 25: Results of UP ALYANSA According to their Compliance-Gaining Strategies

COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES

UP ALYANSA

MEAN MEDIAN MODE STANDARD

DEVIATION

Promise 3.22 4 5 1.69

Threat 2.00 1 1 1.21

Showing Expertise 3.81 4 5 1.27

About Positive
Outcomes

Showing Expertise 2.37 2 1 1.42

About Negative
Outcomes

Liking 4.56 5 5 1.01

Pre-Giving 1.30 1 1 0.67

Aversive Simulation 1.63 1 1 1.24

Debt 1.44 1 1 0.85

Moral Appeal 2.41 3 1 1.42

Positive Self- 1.93 1 1 1.44

Feeling

Negative Self- 1.37 1 1 0.93

Feeling

Positive Altercasting 3.22 3 2 1.22

Negative 1.74 1 1 1.23

Altercasting

Altruism 2.85 3 1 1.70

Positive Self- 1.37 1 1 1.08

Esteem

Negative Self- 1.11 1 1 0.32

Esteem
 101

The results of the survey questionnaire show that out of the 16 compliance-gaining

strategies that were tested, UP ALYANSA used Liking the most in the USC elections AY 2016-

2017. According to Marwell and Schmitt (1967), Liking works when a candidate tries to appear

as friendly and pleasant as possible in order for them to gain more votes. The votes signify that

the students complied with the political party. With a score of 4.56, this means that UP

ALYANSA used this very often. Items number 5, 21, and 37 tested this compliance-gaining

strategy. One of the questions in the survey is “I talked to the voters in my friendliest manner.”

The second most-often used compliance-gaining strategy of UP ALYANSA is Showing

Expertise About Positive Outcomes. With a score of 3.81, it means that the party’s use of this

strategy is only moderate and not as often as Liking. Marwell and Smitt (1967) said that Showing

Expertise About Positive Outcomes works when the candidates point out that the voters will be

rewarded if they will vote for UP ALYANSA. The items that tested this compliance-gaining

strategy are items number 3, 19, and 35. One of the questions in the survey is “I enumerated the

good things that could happen to voters if voters will vote for me/party mates.”

Lastly, the least used compliance-gaining strategy by UP ALYANSA in the USC

elections AY 2016-2017 is Negative Self-Esteem. This is when UP ALYANSA tells the voters

that the people whom they value will think worse of the voters if they will not vote for the

candidates. With a score of only 1.11, this signifies that they never (or very seldomly) used this

strategy in gaining compliance during the said election season.

B. OBJECTIVE 2B: KAISA UP’s COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES

Table 26 presents the results of the survey questionnaire for KAISA UP according to

Compliance-Gaining Strategies.
 102

Table 26: Results of KAISA UP According to their Compliance-Gaining Strategies

COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES

KAISA UP

MEAN MEDIAN MODE STANDARD

DEVIATION

Promise 2.33 1 1 1.54

Threat 1.19 1 1 0.56

Showing Expertise 2.67 3 1 1.57

About Positive
Outcomes

Showing Expertise 1.26 1 1 0.71

About Negative
Outcomes

Liking 4.15 4 5 0.82

Pre-Giving 1.33 1 1 0.92

Aversive Simulation 1.11 1 1 0.42

Debt 1.04 1 1 0.19

Moral Appeal 2.04 1 1 1.19

Positive Self-Feeling 1.41 1 1 0.80

Negative Self-Feeling 1.00 1 1 0.00

Positive Altercasting 1.70 1 1 0.99

Negative Altercasting 1.11 1 1 0.42

Altruism 2.15 2 1 1.43

Positive Self-Esteem 1.22 1 1 0.64

Negative Self-Esteem 1.04 1 1 1.19

The results of the survey questionnaire show that out of the 16 compliance-gaining

strategies that were tested, KAISA UP used Liking the most in the USC elections AY 2016-2017

as well. To reiterate, according to Marwell and Schmitt (1967), Liking works when a candidate
 103

tries to appear as friendly and pleasant as possible in order for them to gain more votes. The

votes signify that the students complied with the political party. With a score of 4.15, this means

that KAISA UP used this very often. Items number 5, 21, and 37 tested this compliance-gaining

strategy. One of the questions in the survey is “I talked to the voters in my friendliest manner.”

The second most-often used compliance-gaining strategy of KAISA UP is Showing

Expertise About Positive Outcomes as well. With a score of 2.81, it means that the party’s use of

this strategy is only moderate and not as often as Liking. Marwell and Smitt (1967) said that

Showing Expertise About Positive Outcomes works when the candidates point out that the voters

will be rewarded if they will vote for KAISA UP. The items that tested this compliance-gaining

strategy are items number 3, 19, and 35. One of the questions in the survey is “I enumerated the

good things that could happen to voters if voters will vote for me/party mates.”

Lastly, the least used compliance-gaining strategy that KAISA UP used in the USC

elections AY 2016-2017 is Negative Self-feeling, wherein the candidates tell the voters that they

will feel worse about themselves (voters) if they do not comply. With a mean score of only 1.00

and a Standard Deviation of 0.00, this signifies that they absolutely never used this strategy in

gaining compliance during the said election season.

C. OBJECTIVE 2C: STAND UP’s COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES

Table 27 presents the results of the survey questionnaire for STAND UP according to

Compliance-Gaining Strategies.
 104

Table 27: Results of STAND UP According to their Compliance-Gaining Strategies

COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES

STAND UP

MEAN MEDIAN MODE STANDARD

DEVIATION

Promise 2.48 2 1 1.63

Threat 1.48 1 1 0.83

Showing Expertise 2.67 2 2 1.49

About Positive
Outcomes

Showing Expertise 1.43 1 1 0.91

About Negative
Outcomes

Liking 3.69 4 4 1.32

Pre-Giving 1.21 1 1 0.72

Aversive Simulation 1.45 1 1 0.83

Debt 1.21 1 1 0.65

Moral Appeal 2.45 2 1 1.50

Positive Self-Feeling 1.95 1 1 1.41

Negative Self-Feeling 1.19 1 1 0.59

Positive Altercasting 2.33 2 1 1.24

Negative Altercasting 1.45 1 1 0.83

Altruism 1.90 1 1 1.25

Positive Self-Esteem 1.64 1 1 1.03

Negative Self-Esteem 1.21 1 1 0.47

The results of the survey questionnaire show that out of the 16 compliance-gaining

strategies that were tested, STAND UP used Liking the most in the USC elections AY 2016-2017

as well. To reiterate, according to Marwell and Schmitt (1967), Liking works when a candidate
 105

tries to appear as friendly and pleasant as possible in order for them to gain more votes. The

votes signify that the students complied with the political party. With a score of 3.69, this means

that STAND UP used this moderately only. Items number 5, 21, and 37 tested this compliance-

gaining strategy. One of the questions in the survey is “I talked to the voters in my friendliest

manner.”

The second most-often used compliance-gaining strategy of STAND UP is Showing

Expertise About Positive Outcomes as well. With a score of 2.67, it means that the party’s use of

this strategy is only seldom and not as often as Liking. Marwell and Smitt (1967) said that

Showing Expertise About Positive Outcomes works when the candidates point out that the voters

will be rewarded if they will vote for STAND UP. The items that tested this compliance-gaining

strategy are items number 3, 19, and 35. One of the questions in the survey is “I enumerated the

good things that could happen to voters if voters will vote for me/party mates.”

Lastly, the least compliance-gaining strategy that STAND UP used in the USC elections

AY 2016-2017 is Negative Self-feeling, wherein the candidates tell the voters that they will feel

worse about themselves (voters) if they do not comply. With a mean score of only 1.19 and a

Standard Deviation of 0.59, this signifies that they never, if not seldom, used this strategy in

gaining compliance during the said election season.

D. COMPARISON OF COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES AMONG THE

POLITICAL PARTIES OF UP DILIMAN

Since the compliance-gaining strategies of UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND UP

have been determined already, it is time to juxtapose the results of the political parties with each

other to identify which political party utilizes a certain compliance-gaining strategy the most.
 106

Table 28 presents the results of the political parties according to their compliance-gaining

strategies. They are put under one table for comparison.

Table 28: Results of the Political Parties According to their Compliance-Gaining Strategies

CHARACTERISTIC KAISA UP STAND UP UP ALYANSA

Promise 2.33 2.48 3.22

Threat 1.19 1.48 2.00

Showing Expertise About 2.67 2.67 3.81

Positive Outcomes

Showing Expertise About 1.26 1.43 2.37

Negative Outcomes

Liking 4.15 3.69 4.56

Pre-Giving 1.33 1.21 1.30

Aversive Simulation 1.11 1.45 1.63

Debt 1.04 1.21 1.44

Moral Appeal 2.04 2.45 2.41

Positive Self-Feeling 1.41 1.95 1.93

Negative Self-Feeling 1.00 1.19 1.37

Positive Altercasting 1.70 2.33 3.22

Negative Altercasting 1.11 1.45 1.74

Altruism 2.15 1.90 2.85

Positive Self-Esteem 1.22 1.64 1.37

Negative Self-Esteem 1.04 1.21 1.11

The table above show that out of the three parties in UP Diliman, UP ALYANSA utilized

Promise the most. With a score of 3.22, it can be said that UP ALYANSA uses this strategy

moderately. According to Marwell and Schmitt (1967), this compliance-gaining strategy is used

when a candidate promises a reward if the voters comply to what the parties want. In the context
 107

of the election, voting for the political candidates of a certain political party is a sign that the

voters have complied with that party. Items number 1, 17, and 33 in the second part of the survey

tested this strategy in the survey questionnaire. One of the questions under this category was “I

promised the voters a reward if they will vote for me/party mates.”

UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the three parties in terms of the Compliance-

Gaining Strategy of Threat. Meaning, UP ALYANSA, out of the three parties, used threat the

most. This is when the candidates say that the voters will be punished if they will not comply

(Marwell and Schmitt, 1967). Items number 2, 18, and 34 in the second part of the survey tested

this strategy in the survey questionnaire. One of the questions under this category was “I told the

voters the punishments inevitable for choosing not to vote for me/party mates.”

UP ALYANSA again scored the highest among the three parties, in terms of Showing

Expertise About Positive Outcomes. Meaning, UP ALYANSA, out of the three parties, used this

compliance-gaining strategy the most. This is when the candidates say that the voters will be

rewarded due to the “nature of things” only if they comply (Marwell and Schmitt, 1967). Items

number 3, 19, and 35 in the second part of the survey tested this strategy in the survey

questionnaire. One of the questions under this category was “I enumerated the good things that

could happen to voters if voters will vote for me/party mates.”

UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the three parties anew when it comes to

Showing Expertise About Negative Outcomes,. Meaning, UP ALYANSA, out of the three

parties, used this strategy the most. This is when the candidates say that the voters will be

punished due to the “nature of things” only if they comply (Marwell and Schmitt, 1967). Items

number 4, 20, and 36 in the second part of the survey tested this strategy in the survey
 108

questionnaire. One of the questions under this category was “I told the voters that they would

lose the opportunities that I intended to offer them if they would not vote for me/party mates.”

UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the three parties again in terms of Liking.

Meaning, UP ALYANSA, out of the three parties, used Liking the most. This is when the

candidates act friendly and pleasant as possible in order to get the compliance of the voters

(Marwell and Schmitt, 1967). Items number 5, 21, and 37 in the second part of the survey tested

this strategy in the survey questionnaire. One of the questions under this category was “I talked

to the voters in my friendliest manner.”

KAISA UP scored the highest in Pre-giving among the three parties, according to the

results, . Meaning, KAISA, out of the three parties, used Pre-giving the most. This is when the

candidates give rewards prior to requesting compliance (Marwell and Schmitt, 1967). Items

number 6, 22, and 38 in the second part of the survey tested this strategy in the survey

questionnaire. One of the questions under this category was “I gave the voters some form of gifts

prior to persuading the voters.” However, despite KAISA UP scoring the highest, their score

1.33 still signifies that they never, if not seldom, use this.

UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the three parties again in terms of Aversive

Stimulation,. Meaning, UP ALYANSA, out of the three parties, used this strategy the most. This

is when the candidates continuously punishes the voters making cessation contingent on

compliance (Marwell and Schmitt, 1967). Items number 7, 23, and 39 in the second part of the

survey tested this strategy in the survey questionnaire. One of the questions under this category

was “I told the voters that if they would not vote for me/my party mates, they would always feel
 109

regretful for not having done so.” However, despite UP ALYANSA scoring the highest, their

score 1.63 still signifies that they never, if not seldom, use this.

UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the three parties again when it comes to Debt,.

Meaning, UP ALYANSA, out of the three parties, used this Debt the most. This is when the

candidates tell the voters that the voters owe the candidates compliance because of the past

favors the candidates have done for the voters (Marwell and Schmitt, 1967). Items number 8, 24,

and 40 in the second part of the survey tested this strategy in the survey questionnaire. One of the

questions under this category was “I pointed out the past favors done for the voters and told

them that it was my turn to ask a favor from them, which was to vote for me/my party mates.”

However, despite UP ALYANSA scoring the highest, their score 1.44 still signifies that they

never, if not seldom, use this.

STAND UP scored the highest among the three parties in terms of Moral Appeal, with a

score of 2.45. However, even if STAND UP scored the highest, it only means that they use this

strategy seldomly because the value is not that high. Moreover, Marwell and Schmitt (1967)

explains that Moral Appeal is when candidates imply that the voters are immoral if they do not

comply with the candidates. Items that tested this strategy in the questionnaire are items number

9, 25, 41. An example of a question under this category is “I said that casting their votes for

me/my party would be an ethical thing to do.”

STAND UP scored the highest among the three parties again in terms of Positive Self-

Feeling, with a score of 1.95. However, even if STAND UP scored the highest, it only means

that they use this strategy seldomly because the value very low. Furthermore, Marwell and

Schmitt (1967) explains that Positive Self-Feeling is when candidates say that the voters will feel
 110

better about themselves if they vote for the candidates. Items that tested this strategy in the

questionnaire are items number 10, 26, 42. An example of a question under this category is “I

said that they would feel better about themselves if they would obey me.”

STAND UP scored the highest among the three parties again when it comes to Negative

Self-feeling, Meaning, STAND UP, out of the three parties, used this strategy the most. This is

when the candidates tell the voters that they will feel worse about themselves if they do not

comply (Marwell and Schmitt, 1967). Items number 11, 27, and 43 in the second part of the

survey tested this strategy in the survey questionnaire. One of the questions under this category

was “I told the voters that they would feel bad about themselves for not voting for me/my party

mates.” However, despite STAND UP scoring the highest, their score 1.95 still signifies that

they never, if not seldom, use this.

UP ALYANSA scored the highest in Positive Altercasting out of the three political

parties, which is when candidates tell the voters that people who would comply with the political

candidates have “good” qualities. The results reveal that UP ALYANSA obtained a score of 3.22

in this compliance-gaining strategy. Meaning, their use of this strategy is only moderate. Items

that test this strategy in survey questionnaire are 12, 28, and 44. A sample question of this is “I

said that they are intelligent and mature voters therefore they should vote for me/my party

mates.”

UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the three parties again in terms of Negative

Altercasting., Meaning, UP ALYANSA, out of the three parties, used this strategy the most. This

is when the candidates tell the voters that only people with bad qualities would not comply

(Marwell and Schmitt, 1967). Items number 13, 29, and 45 in the second part of the survey tested
 111

this strategy in the survey questionnaire. One of the questions under this category was “I said

that missing the opportunity to vote for me/my party mates is not the practical thing to do by an

intelligent individual.” However, despite UP ALYANSA scoring the highest, their score 1.74

still signifies that they never, if not seldom, use this.

UP ALYANSA again scored the highest in the compliance-gaining strategy Altruism,

which is when candidates tell the voters that the candidates need the voters’ compliance badly, so

the voters should comply for the candidates (Marwell and Schmitt, 1967). With a score of only

2.85, test results show that UP ALYANSA only utilized this strategy seldomly. Items that tested

this compliance-gaining strategy are 14, 30, 36. A sample question for this strategy in the survey

is “I said that I need their compliance badly.”

STAND UP scored the highest among the three parties again in terms of Positive Self-

Esteem,, with a score of 1.64. However, even if STAND UP scored the highest, it only means

that they use this strategy seldomly because the value very low. Furthermore, Marwell and

Schmitt (1967) explains that Positive Self-Esteem is when candidates tell the voters that the

people they value will think better of them if the voters comply with the candidates. Items that

tested this strategy in the questionnaire are items number 15, 31, 47. An example of a question

under this category is “I told the voters how the people they value would think better of them for

casting their votes for me/my party mates.”

STAND UP scored the highest among the three parties again when it comes to Negative

Self-Esteem, Meaning, STAND UP, out of the three parties, used this strategy the most. This is

when the candidates tell the voters that the people they value will think worse of them if the

voters do comply with the candidates (Marwell and Schmitt, 1967). Items number 16, 32, and 48
 112

in the second part of the survey tested this strategy in the survey questionnaire. One of the

questions under this category was “I pointed out how sad and upset the people would be towards

the voters if they chose not to obey.” However, despite STAND UP scoring the highest, their

score 1.21 still signifies that they never, if not seldom, use this.

E. VOTERS’ PERCEIVED COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES (VOTER

PREFERENCE)

Now that the compliance-gaining strategies of UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND

UP have been identified, it is now time to shift the focus to the voters. The test results shall

reveal the voters’ perceived compliance-gaining strategies employed by their preferred political

candidates/political party during the USC elections AY 2016-2017. The test results shall reveal if

the data from the political candidates and the data from the voters coincide with each other.

Table 29 presents the data obtained from the voters’ responses according to their

perceived compliance-gaining strategies employed by their preferred political party.

 113

Table 29: Results According to the Voters’ Perceived Compliance-Gaining Strategies

Employed by their Preferred Political Party

VOTERS’ PERCEIVED COMPLIANCE GAINING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY THEIR

PREFERRED POLITICAL PARTY

Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation

Promise 2.72 3 1 1.44

Threat 1.64 1 1 0.95

Showing Expertise About 3.02 3 4 1.34

Positive Outcomes

Showing Expertise About 1.94 2 1 1.09

Negative Outcomes

Liking 3.58 4 4 1.21

Pre-Giving 1.94 1 1 1.19

Aversive Simulation 1.57 1 1 0.95

Debt 1.97 2 1 1.18

Moral Appeal 2.06 2 1 1.21

Positive Self-Feeling 1.94 1 1 1.20

Negative Self-Feeling 1.50 1 1 0.94

Positive Altercasting 2.09 2 1 1.20

Negative Altercasting 1.63 1 1 1.04

Altruism 2.32 2 1 1.25

Positive Self-Esteem 1.84 1 1 1.13

Negative Self-Esteem 1.48 1 1 0.86

The survey results reveal that the voters’ preferred political party most likely used Liking

as their main compliance-gaining strategy since this has the highest score among the 16

compliance-gaining strategies which were put to the test. With a score of 3.58, it means that the
 114

voters’ preferred political party might have used Liking moderately. The political party that

utilized Liking the most was UP ALYANSA but the political party that has the closest Liking

score with that of the voters’ preferred political party’s score is STAND UP, which has a Liking

score of 3.69.

The second most likely used compliance-gaining strategy by the voters’ preferred

political party is Showing Expertise About Positive Outcomes, with a score of 3.02. The political

party that has the highest score in this compliance-gaining strategy is UP ALYANSA again. This

party also has the closest score with the voters’ perceived score of their preferred political party.

In terms of the voters’ perception on the least used compliance-gaining strategy of the

voters’ preferred political party, Negative Self-Esteem received the lowest score, with only 1.48.

This means that voters think that their preferred political party did not utilize, and if not seldom,

this compliance-gaining strategy during the USC elections AY 2016-2017. The party that has the

lowest score in this strategy is KAISA UP, with a value of 1.04 but the party that came closest to

the score of the voters’ is STAND UP, with a score of 1.21, the highest among the three parties

in UP Diliman.

V. OBJECTIVE 3A: CORRELATION BETWEEN THE POLITICAL PARTIES’

GROUPTHINK SCORES AND THE VOTERS’ GROUPTHINK SCORES

Now that the groupthink level of all the political parties and the preferred groupthink

level of the voters have been determined, it is now time to determine if there is a correlation

between these two variables. This shall answer the third objective, which is to identify if there is

a correlation between the political party’s level of groupthink and the students’ voter preference

when it comes to their preferred groupthink level.

 115

In determining the correlations between the two ordinal variables, the Spearman’s rho

correlation coefficient was the chose statistics to use. The correlation is significant if the

obtained p-value is less than the set 0.05 or 5% level of significance. Otherwise, the correlation

is not significant. Also, the closer the absolute value of the correlation coefficient to 1, the

stronger the correlation.

1. CORRELATION BETWEEN UP ALYANSA’S GROUPTHINK SCORES AND

VOTERS’ GROUPTHINK SCORES

Table 24 presents the data according to the correlation between UP ALYANSA’s

groupthink scores and the voters’ groupthink scores.

Table 24: Results According to the Correlation Between UP ALYANSA’s Groupthink

Scores and the Voters’ Groupthink Scores

Between UP ALYANSA’s groupthink scores and the voters’ groupthink scores, the

obtained correlation coefficient is 0.855 and the corresponding p-value is 0.000. Since the p-

value is less than the set 5% level of significance, this means that there is a significant positive

correlation between UP ALYANSA’s groupthink scores and the “preferred” scores from the

voters. To add, the correlation is high since the obtained value is close to 1. Thus, there is a high

positive correlation between the groupthink level of UP ALYANSA and their likelihood of being

voted by the voters.

 116

Summary of the Results between UP ALYANSA and Voters’ Preference

Level of Significance Obtained Correlation Coefficient P-Value

0.05 0.855 0.000

2. CORRELATION BETWEEN KAISA UP’S GROUPTHINK SCORES AND

VOTERS’ GROUPTHINK SCORES

Table 22 presents the data according to the correlation between KAISA UP’s groupthink

scores and the voters’ groupthink scores.

Table 22: Results According to the Correlation Between KAISA UP’s Groupthink Scores and

the Voters’ Groupthink Scores

Between KAISA UP’s and the voters’ groupthink scores, the correlation coefficient is

0.861with a corresponding p-value of 0.000. Since the p-value is less than the set 0.05 level of

significance, this means that there is a significant positive correlation between KAISA UP’s

groupthink scores and the “preferred” scores from the voters. Moreover, the value 0.861 is close

to 1 which indicates that the correlation is high. Furthermore, this means that there is a high

positive correlation between the groupthink level of KAISA UP and their likelihood of being

voted by the voters.

 117

3. CORRELATION BETWEEN STAND UP’S GROUPTHINK SCORES AND

VOTERS’ GROUPTHINK SCORES

Table 23 presents the data according to the correlation between STAND UP’s groupthink

scores and the voters’ groupthink scores.

Table 23: Results According to the Correlation Between STAND UP’s Groupthink Scores and

the Voters’ Groupthink Scores

For the correlation between STAND UP’s groupthink scores and the voters’ groupthink

scores, the obtained correlation coefficient is 0.839 with a corresponding p-value of 0.000. This

p-value is less than the set 0.05 level of significance which implies a significant positive

correlation between STAND UP’s groupthink scores and the “preferred” scores from the voters.

Also, it can be said that the correlation is high since the obtained coefficient is close to 1.

Therefore, there is a high positive correlation between the groupthink level of STAND UP and

their likelihood of being voted by the voters.

VI. OBJECTIVE 3B: CORRELATION BETWEEN THE POLITICAL PARTIES’

COMPLIANCE GAINING STRATEGIES AND THE VOTERS’ PERCEIVED

COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES OF THEIR PREFERRED POLITICAL

PARTY

Since the compliance-gaining strategies of the three political parties in UP Diliman have

been scored together with the voters’ perceived compliance-gaining strategies of their preferred
 118

political party, it is now time to check if there is a correlation between these two variables. This

shall also answer the third objective, which is to identify if there is a correlation between the

political party’s compliance-gaining strategies and the students’ voter preference.

In determining the correlations between the two ordinal variables, Spearman’s rho

correlation coefficient is the appropriate statistics to use. The correlation is significant if the

obtained p-value is less than the set 0.05 or 5% level of significance. Otherwise, the correlation

is not significant. Also, the closer the absolute value of the correlation coefficient to 1, the

stronger the correlation.

1. CORRELATION BETWEEN UP ALYANSA’s COMPLIANCE-GAINING

STRATEGIES SCORES AND VOTERS’ PERCEIVED COMPLIANCE-GAINING

STRATEGIES SCORES

Table 32 displays the results according to the correlation between UP ALYANSA’s

Compliance-Gaining Strategies Scores and the voter’s Perceived Compliance-Gaining Strategies

Scores employed by their preferred Political Party.

Table 32: Results According to the Correlation Between UP ALYANSA’s Compliance-

Gaining Strategies Scores and The Voters’ Perceived Compliance-Gaining Strategies Scores

Between UP ALYANSA’s compliance-gaining strategy scores and the voters’ perceived

compliance-gaining strategy scores employed by their preferred political party, the obtained

correlation coefficient is 0.825 and the corresponding p-value is 0.000. Since the p-value is less
 119

than the set 5% level of significance, this means that there is a significant positive correlation

between UP ALYANSA’s compliance scores and the perceived compliance-gaining strategy

scores from the voters. In terms of the degree of correlation, it can be said that it is high since the

value is close to 1. Hence, there is a high correlation between the compliance-gaining strategies

used by UP ALYANSA and the preference of the student voters in terms of compliance-gaining

strategies.

The following table of association is the basis of their level of relationship:

r Descriptive Level

+1.00 Perfect Correlation

+0.75-0.99 High Correlation

+0.51-0.74 Moderately High Correlation

+0.31-0.50 Moderately Low Correlation

+0.01-0.30 Low Correlation

0.00 No Correlation
 120

2. CORRELATION BETWEEN KAISA UP’S COMPLIANCE-GAINING

STRATEGIES SCORES AND VOTERS’ PERCEIVED COMPLIANCE-GAINING

STRATEGIES SCORES

Table 30 displays the results according to the correlation between KAISA UP’s

Compliance-Gaining Strategies Scores and the Voter’s Perceived Compliance-Gaining Strategies

Scores employed by their preferred Political Party.

Table 30: Results According to the Correlation Between KAISA UP’s Compliance-

Gaining Strategies Scores and The Voters’ Perceived Compliance-Gaining Strategies Scores

Between KAISA UP’s compliance-gaining strategies score and the voters’ perceived

compliance-gaining strategies scores employed by their preferred political party, the correlation

coefficient is 0.860 with a corresponding p-value of 0.000. Since the p-value is less than the set

0.05 level of significance, this means that there is a significant positive correlation between

KAISA UP’s compliance scores and the perceived compliance-gaining strategy scores from the

voters. Also, the correlation coefficient is close to 1 which means it is high. Therefore, there is a

high correlation between the compliance-gaining strategies used by KAISA UP and the

preference of the student voters in terms of compliance-gaining strategies.

The following table of association is the basis of their level of relationship:

 121

r Descriptive Level

+1.00 Perfect Correlation

+0.75-0.99 High Correlation

+0.51-0.74 Moderately High Correlation

+0.31-0.50 Moderately Low Correlation

+0.01-0.30 Low Correlation

0.00 No Correlation

3. CORRELATION BETWEEN STAND UP’S COMPLIANCE-GAINING

STRATEGIES SCORES AND VOTERS’ PERCEIVED COMPLIANCE-GAINING

STRATEGIES SCORES

Table 31 displays the results according to the correlation between STAND UP’s

Compliance-Gaining Strategies Scores and the voter’s Perceived Compliance-Gaining Strategies

Scores employed by their preferred Political Party.

Table 31: Results According to the Correlation Between STAND UP’s Compliance-

Gaining Strategies Scores and The Voters’ Perceived Compliance-Gaining Strategies Scores
 122

For the correlation between STAND UP’s compliance-gaining strategies scores and the

voters’ perceived compliance-gaining strategies scores employed by their preferred political

party, the obtained correlation coefficient is 0.781 with a corresponding p-value of 0.000. This p-

value is less than the set 0.10 level of significance which implies a significant positive

correlation between STAND UP’s compliance scores and the perceived compliance-gaining

strategy scores from the voters. Moreover, since the correlation coefficient is close to 1, it means

that it is high. Thus, there is a high correlation between the compliance-gaining strategies used

by STAND UP and the preference of the student voters in terms of compliance-gaining

strategies.

The following table of association is the basis of their level of relationship:

r Descriptive Level

+1.00 Perfect Correlation

+0.75-0.99 High Correlation

+0.51-0.74 Moderately High Correlation

+0.31-0.50 Moderately Low Correlation

+0.01-0.30 Low Correlation

0.00 No Correlation
 123

VI. OBJECTIVE 4: CORRELATION BETWEEN THE POLITICAL PARTIES’

GROUPTHINK SCORES AND COMPLIANCE SCORES

Since the groupthink level and compliance-gaining strategies of the political parties have

been determined, the first objective and the second objective have been met. Moreover, since the

voters’ preferred groupthink level and their perceived compliance-gaining strategies employed

by their preferred political party has also been determined already, it is now time to see if there is

a relationship between the groupthink level of each party and the compliance-gaining strategies

that they use. This is the fourth objective of the study and this section shall provide answers to it.

A. CORRELATION BETWEEN UP ALYANSA’s GROUPTHINK SCORES AND

COMPLIANCE SCORES

For the correlation between UP ALYANSA’s groupthink and compliance scores, the

results indicated no significant correlation. The obtained correlation coefficient of -0.159 with a

corresponding p-value of 0.279 which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance.

 124

B. CORRELATION BETWEEN KAISA UP’S GROUPTHINK SCORES AND

COMPLIANCE SCORES

For the correlation between KAISA UP’s groupthink scores and compliance scores, the

results indicate that there is no significant correlation between their Groupthink Scores and

Compliance Scores. This is proven by obtaining a correlation coefficient of 0.045 with a

corresponding p-value of 0.764 which is not significant at 5% level of significance.

C. CORRELATION BETWEEN STAND UP’S GROUPTHINK SCORES AND

COMPLIANCE SCORES

Between STAND UP’s groupthink and compliance scores, the results revealed no

significant correlation between their two scores. The test resulted to a correlation coefficient of

0.238 and the corresponding p-value for this is 0.103 which is not significant at 0.10 level of

significance.
 125

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The election season in UP Diliman displays how student politics transform intellectual

and prominent members of political parties spread explicit and uninhibited forms of black

propaganda during the USC elections just to destroy the reputation of their rival political

candidates (Serafica, 2015). It makes the whole university wonder why smart and revered groups

of students are able to do such acts without second thoughts.

The current study revolves around this mystery among other things. Through the

concepts of Groupthink, Compliance-Gaining Strategies, and Voter Preference, the researcher is

able to investigate on what drives these political parties to commit half-baked and unethical

decisions, how are political parties able to gain compliance from the voters, and what makes a

voter give away his/her support for a political party/political candidate despite the presence of

groupthink.

Irving Janis’ (1972) theory on Groupthink was used to guide the theoretical framework of

the study together with Marwell and Schmitt’s (1967) Typology of 16 Compliance-Gaining

Strategies.

The researcher created two survey questionnaires. The first survey was administered to

the political candidates who ran in the USC elections AY 2016-2017, a total of 32 respondents

with 9 who came from UP ALYANSA, 9 who came from KAISA UP and 14 who came from

STAND UP. Meanwhile the second questionnaire was administered to 100 voters. 25 of these

came from the Arts and Letters Cluster, 25 came from the Management and Economics cluster,
 126

25 came from the Science and Technology cluster, and 25 came from the Social Sciences and

Law Cluster.

The survey questionnaire had two parts. The first part investigated the groupthink

variable while the second part focused on the variable of compliance-gaining strategies. All in

all, the survey questionnaire was based on the two studies: Richard Baptist’s (2015) paper,

Measuring Predictors of Groupthink and Gerald Marwell and David R. Schmitt’s (1967) study,

Dimensions of Compliance-Gaining Behavior: An Empirical Analysis.

The survey questionnaire aimed to achieve these objectives:

1. To determine the level of groupthink that UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND UP;

2. To identify the compliance-gaining strategies of the three specified political parties of UP

Diliman;

3. To identify the relationship between the A) political party’s level of groupthink and the

students’ voter preference, B) and the political party’s compliance-gaining strategies and

the students’ voter preference; and

4. To determine the relationship between the groupthink level of each political party and the

compliance-gaining strategies that they use

To answer the first objective, the researcher derived the mean, median, mode, and

standard deviation scores of the political parties that were obtained from their answers in the

survey questionnaire. The statistics showed the groupthink level of the political parties as well as

the scores of their groupthink characteristics, which are High Cohesiveness, Promotional

Leadership, Conformity, Concurrence Seeking, Anxiety, Collective Efficacy, Hidden Profiles,

 127

and Trust. The scores of the political parties in these groupthink characteristics were averaged

per party to get the overall groupthink score of each political party.

To test if there is a difference in the groupthink level of the political parties, the

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used to compare the groupthink level of the three parties with

each other. The null hypothesis of the test states that there is no significant difference between

the two parties respect to the groupthink scores. Meanwhile, the alternative hypothesis states that

there is a significant difference or that one is higher than the other. The decision rule of the test is

to reject the null hypothesis if the obtained p-value is less than the set 5% level of significance.

Otherwise, there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

In comparing the Groupthink Level of STAND UP and KAISA UP, the results revealed

that the obtained p-value is 0.781 which is greater than the set level of significance which is 0.05.

Therefore, at 5% level of significance, there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that there is

significant difference between the groupthink scores of KAISA UP and STAND UP.

In juxtaposing UP ALYANSA’s and KAISA UP’s Groupthink level, the results of the

Wilcoxon Ranked Sign Test revealed that the obtained p-value is 0.520. This is greater than the

set level of significance which is 0.05. Thus, at 5% level of significance, it is safe to state that

there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that there is significant difference between the

groupthink scores of UP ALYANSA and KAISA UP.

Lastly, the groupthink level of UP ALYANSA and STAND UP were scrutinized using

the same test to see if there is a significant difference in their groupthink scores. The results

obtained from the statistical test reveal that the obtained p-value is 0.598, which is greater than

the set level of significance which is 0.05. Therefore, at 5% level of significance, there is no
 128

sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant difference between the groupthink

scores of UP ALYANSA and STAND UP.

Next, the mean, median, mode, and standard deviation were derived from the responses

of the political parties.

According to the results of the survey questionnaire answered by UP ALYANSA, their

overall groupthink level is 3.38, which means that their groupthink level is moderate. Of the

eight groupthink characteristics that were put to the test, the test results reveal that Collective

Efficacy is the highest groupthink characteristic that UP ALYANSA exhibits. Baptist (2015)

explained that Collective Efficacy makes a group feel over-confident and complacent in their

decision-making process due to their prior continuous success.

Basing from KAISA UP’s responses in the survey questionnaire, the results present that

the political party has an overall groupthink score of 3.40. This means that KAISA UP exhibits a

moderate amount of groupthink level. Out of the eight groupthink characteristics that were

analyzed, results show that Cohesiveness is the highest groupthink characteristic exhibited by

KAISA UP, with a 4.30 score. Meaning, KAISA UP is highly cohesive. This characteristic

increases the possibility of groupthink being committed because it is believed to be the “chief

culprit” behind groupthink and bad decisions (Baptist, 2015; Janis, 1972).

The results of statistical analysis revealed that STAND UP has an overall groupthink

score of 3.42, meaning that the political party’s groupthink level is moderate. Out of the eight

groupthink characteristics that were put to the test, STAND UP exhibits High Cohesiveness the

most, with a groupthink score of 4.50.

 129

While the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test says that there is no significant difference in the

groupthink levels of the political party, is still imperative to mention which political party has the

highest groupthink level, even if the difference is just a small value.

The table shows that out of the three political parties in UP Diliman, STAND UP has the

highest level of groupthink, with a score of 3.42. KAISA UP holds the second highest level of

groupthink with an overall mean value of 3.40. Last, UP ALYANSA has the lowest groupthink

level among the three parties, with only 3.38 as its score.

In comparing the political parties’ groupthink characteristics, it can be seen that STAND

UP has the highest score among the three parties in terms of cohesiveness, with a value of 4.50.

Next, in terms of Promotional Leadership, UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the

three parties, with a score of 3.33. When it comes to Conformity, UP ALYANSA scored the

highest among the political parties with a value of 2.70. However, this score is still considered to

be very low since the value falls under the bracket of low conformity. Out of the three parties,

STAND UP has the highest score in terms of Concurrence Seeking. However, with a score of

2.62, this level is still considered low. In terms of Anxiety, the results reveal that UP ALYANSA

scored the highest among the three political parties, with a score of 2.87. However, this is still

considered low since the value falls under the low bracket. For Collective Efficacy, the highest

score belongs to STAND UP, with a high value of 4.34. Furthermore, KAISA UP takes the

highest score in terms of Hidden Profiles, with a value of 4.22. This means that KAISA UP

exhibits a high level of Hidden Profiles since their score falls under the high bracket. Lastly, in

terms of Trust, KAISA UP claims the highest score again with a value of 3.74.
 130

Moving on to the second set of respondents, the voters’ answers were averaged per

groupthink characteristic. Next, the groupthink characteristics scores were also averaged to get

the overall groupthink level preferred by the voters. The survey revealed that voters are most

likely to vote for a political party that has a groupthink level of 3.31, which is only a moderate

amount of groupthink. The closest political party that comes close to this is UP ALYANSA, with

a groupthink score of 3.38. The next political party that comes close to the preferred groupthink

level is KAISA UP, with a score of 3.40. Lastly, the political party has the biggest difference

with the preferred groupthink level is STAND UP, with a score of 3.42.

To answer the third objective which is to identify if there is a correlation between the

political party’s level of groupthink and the students’ voter preference, the Spearman’s rho

correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlations between the two ordinal variables.

The correlation is significant if the obtained p-value is less than the set 0.05 or 5% level of

significance. Otherwise, the correlation is not significant. Also, the closer the absolute value of

the correlation coefficient to 1, the stronger the correlation.

Between KAISA UP’s and the voters’ groupthink scores, the correlation coefficient is

0.861with a corresponding p-value of 0.000. Since the p-value is less than the set 0.10 level of

significance, this means that there is a significant positive correlation between KAISA UP’s

groupthink scores and the “preferred” scores from the voters. Moreover, the value 0.861 is close

to 1 which indicates that the correlation is high. Furthermore, this means that there is a high

positive correlation between the groupthink level of KAISA UP and their likelihood of being

voted.
 131

For the correlation between STAND UP’s groupthink scores and the voters’ groupthink

scores, the obtained correlation coefficient is 0.839 with a corresponding p-value of 0.000. This

p-value is less than the set 0.05 level of significance which implies a significant positive

correlation between STAND UP’s groupthink scores and the “preferred” scores from the voters.

Also, it can be said that the correlation is high since the obtained coefficient is close to 1.

Therefore, there is a high positive correlation between the groupthink level of STAND UP and

their likelihood of being voted.

Between UP ALYANSA’s groupthink scores and the voters’ groupthink scores, the

obtained correlation coefficient is 0.855 and the corresponding p-value is 0.000. Since the p-

value is less than the set 5% level of significance, this means that there is a significant positive

correlation between UP ALYANSA’s groupthink scores and the “preferred” scores from the

voters. To add, the correlation is high since the obtained value is close to 1. Thus, there is a high

positive correlation between the groupthink level of UP ALYANSA and their likelihood of being

voted.

To answer the second objective which is to identify the compliance-gaining strategies of

the three specified political parties of UP Diliman, the responses from the candidates were

averaged to get the mean score per Compliance-Gaining Strategy. The results of the survey

questionnaire show that out of the 16 compliance-gaining strategies that were tested, UP

ALYANSA used Liking the most in the USC elections AY 2016-2017. Next, the results of the

survey questionnaire show that out of the 16 compliance-gaining strategies that were tested,

KAISA UP used Liking the most in the USC elections AY 2016-2017 as well. Lastly, the results
 132

of the survey questionnaire show that out of the 16 compliance-gaining strategies that were

tested, STAND UP used Liking the most in the USC elections AY 2016-2017 as well.

In comparing the compliance-gaining strategies of the political parties, results showed

that UP ALYANSA utilized Promise the most out of the three political parties. Next, in terms of

the Compliance-Gaining Strategy that is Threat, UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the

three parties. Meanwhile, in terms of Showing Expertise About Positive Outcomes, UP

ALYANSA again scored the highest among the three parties. When it comes to Showing

Expertise About Negative Outcomes, UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the three parties

anew. In terms of Liking, UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the three parties again.

Meaning, UP ALYANSA, out of the three parties, used Liking the most. According to the

results, KAISA UP scored the highest in Pre-giving among the three parties. In terms of Aversive

Stimulation, UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the three parties again. When it comes to

Debt, UP ALYANSA scored the highest among the three parties again. The results reveal that in

terms of Moral Appeal, STAND UP scored the highest among the three parties. The statistics

present that in terms of Positive Self-Feeling, STAND UP scored the highest among the three

parties again. When it comes to Negative Self-feeling, STAND UP scored the highest among the

three parties again. The survey results presents that, out of the three political parties, UP

ALYANSA scored the highest in Positive Altercasting. In terms of Negative Altercasting, UP

ALYANSA scored the highest among the three parties again. Next, UP ALYANSA again scored

the highest in the compliance-gaining strategy Altruism. Furthermore, the statistics present that in

terms of Positive Self-Esteem, STAND UP scored the highest among the three parties again.
 133

Lastly, when it comes to Negative Self-Esteem, STAND UP scored the highest among the three

parties again.

Since the compliance-gaining strategies of UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND UP

have been identified, the survey results reveal that the voters’ preferred political party most

likely used Liking as their main compliance-gaining strategy since this has the highest score

among the 16 compliance-gaining strategies which were put to the test.

To answer the third objective which is to identify if there is a correlation between the

political party’s compliance-gaining strategies and the students’ voter preference, the

Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient to determine the correlation between the two ordinal

variables. The correlation is significant if the obtained p-value is less than the set 0.05 or 5%

level of significance. Otherwise, the correlation is not significant. Also, the closer the absolute

value of the correlation coefficient to 1, the stronger the correlation.

Between KAISA UP’s compliance-gaining strategies score and the voters’ perceived

compliance-gaining strategies scores employed by their preferred political party, the correlation

coefficient is 0.860 with a corresponding p-value of 0.000. Since the p-value is less than the set

0.05 level of significance, this means that there is a significant positive correlation between

KAISA UP’s compliance scores and the perceived compliance-gaining strategy scores from the

voters. Also, the correlation coefficient is close to 1 which means it is high. Therefore, when the

compliance-gaining strategies of KAISA UP increases, the voters’ perceived compliance-gaining

strategy scores employed by their preferred political party also increases.

For the correlation between STAND UP’s compliance-gaining strategies scores and the

voters’ perceived compliance-gaining strategies scores employed by their preferred political

 134

party, the obtained correlation coefficient is 0.781 with a corresponding p-value of 0.000. This p-

value is less than the set 0.05 level of significance which implies a significant positive

correlation between STAND UP’s compliance scores and the perceived compliance-gaining

strategy scores from the voters. Moreover, since the correlation coefficient is close to 1, it means

that it is high. Thus, when the compliance-gaining strategies of STAND UP increases, the voters’

perceived compliance-gaining strategy scores employed by their preferred political party also

increases.

Between UP ALYANSA’s compliance-gaining strategy scores and the voters’ perceived

compliance-gaining strategy scores employed by their preferred political party, the obtained

correlation coefficient is 0.825 and the corresponding p-value is 0.000. Since the p-value is less

than the set 5% level of significance, this means that there is a significant positive correlation

between UP ALYANSA’s compliance scores and the perceived compliance-gaining strategy

scores from the voters. In terms of the degree of correlation, it can be said that it is high since the

value is close to 1. Hence, when the compliance-gaining strategies of UP ALYANSA increases,

the voters’ perceived compliance-gaining strategy scores employed by their preferred political

party also increases.

To answer the third objective which is to determine the relationship between the

groupthink level of each political party and the compliance-gaining strategies that they use, the

Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient to determine the correlation between the two ordinal

variables. The correlation is significant if the obtained p-value is less than the set 0.05 or 5%

level of significance. Otherwise, the correlation is not significant. Also, the closer the absolute

value of the correlation coefficient to 1, the stronger the correlation.

 135

For the correlation between KAISA UP’s groupthink scores and compliance scores, the

results indicate that there is no significant correlation between their Groupthink Scores and

Compliance Scores. This is proven by obtaining a correlation coefficient of 0.045 with a

corresponding p-value of 0.764 which is not significant at 5% level of significance.

Between STAND UP’s groupthink and compliance scores, the results revealed no

significant correlation between their two scores. The test resulted to a correlation coefficient of

0.238 and the corresponding p-value for this is 0.103 which is not significant at 0.05 level of

significance.

For the correlation between UP ALYANSA’s groupthink and compliance scores, the

results indicated no significant correlation. The obtained correlation coefficient of -0.159 with a

corresponding p-value of 0.279 which is not significant at 0.10 level of significance.

Conclusion

The research problem of the current study is to determine the relationship of the

groupthink level and the compliance-gaining strategies exhibited and employed by UP

ALYANSA, KAISA UP, and STAND UP. The hypothesis of the research is that the groupthink

level of the political parties in UP Diliman influenced the compliance-gaining strategies that they

used during the USC Elections AY 2016-2017. However, the results from the Spearman’s rho

correlation coefficient reveals that there is no correlation among these variables. Therefore, the

null hypothesis of the research is accepted.

Despite this, however, the research was able to establish two correlations with regards to

the political candidates and the voters that participated in the USC Elections AY 2016-2017.
 136

First, through Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient, the researcher discovered that there

is a high positive correlation between the political parties’ groupthink level and their likelihood

of being voted by the voters. Thus, the researcher has three conclusions in terms of these

variables:

1. There is a high positive correlation between the groupthink level of KAISA UP and their

likelihood of being voted by the voters (voter preference);

2. There is a high positive correlation between the groupthink level of STAND UP and their

likelihood of being voted by the voters (voter preference)

3. There is a high positive correlation between the groupthink level of UP AYANSA and

their likelihood of being voted by the voters (voter preference)

Second, through Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient, the results presented that there is

a high positive correlation between the political parties’ compliance-gaining strategies and the

voters’ perceived compliance-gaining strategies employed by their preferred political partie.

Hence, the researcher can conclude three things in terms of these variables:

1. There is a high correlation between the compliance-gaining strategies used by KAISA UP

and the preference of the student voters in terms of compliance-gaining strategies.

2. There is a high correlation between the compliance-gaining strategies used by STAND

UP and the preference of the student voters in terms of compliance-gaining strategies;

and

3. There is a high correlation between the compliance-gaining strategies used by UP

ALYANSA and the preference of the student voters in terms of compliance-gaining

strategies.
 137

With these established correlations in mind, the researcher concludes that while the

groupthink level of the political parties does not affect the compliance-gaining strategies they

employ, the groupthink level of the political parties highly influence the preferred groupthink

level of the voters. Moreover, the researcher also concludes that the compliance-gaining

strategies of the political parties highly affect the voters’ perceived compliance-gaining strategies

employed by their preferred political party.

Implications

From the results obtained by the research, three kinds of implications are stated in the

study.

The first type of implication revolves around the respondents of the study, which are the

members of UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP and STAND UP who ran during the USC Elections AY

2016-2017. Since the research was able to determine their groupthink level and the groupthink

characteristics that are most dominant in each political party, the members are informed about

the flaws that they made and are making in their group decision-making process.

For example, there is a positive connotation attached to cohesiveness, trust, and collective

efficacy (Baptist, 2015). However, what political parties and most voters do not know is that too

much of these attitudes can increase the possibility of a group committing groupthink. Because

they are unaware of these attitudes’ repercussions, they were able to make unethical actions and

even poorly planned decisions. An example of this is UP ALYANSA’s controversial efforts in

using the current USC’s accomplishment report and considering it their own. Many labeled the

party as “credit grabbers” for owning the accomplishments of the whole student council,

disregarding the efforts of the council members who belong to other parties and who ran
 138

independently in the elections (Montecillo, 2018). Another example of this is KAISA UP’s

disputed move to put fraternity members as the standard bearers of USC slate in the elections

2016-2017 despite the fraternity-related violence issue that heavily involved the USC

Chairperson of the school year 2015-2016 (Morales, 2016). Lastly, STAND UP was heavily

criticized by the student body when they were very vocal in their stance against the students’

Magna Carta (Punzalan, 2017). Despite seeing an overwhelming support for the document from

the students and from a prominent former member, Beata Carolino, the party remained rigid in

their objection of the document.

Through the current study, the political parties can conduct preventive measures from

committing poorly made decisions. Political party members will be able to utilize this study to

avoid or, at least, minimize practicing groupthink. With each political party being a respondent

of this study, the members will be able to recognize their group’s mistakes and further improve

on becoming a more helpful and socially relevant political group.

The second implication revolves around the 100 voters that participated in the event.

Since the study discovered that there is a high positive correlation between the groupthink level

of the political parties and their likelihood of being voted, the voters are now aware that

groupthink is not a preferred characteristic to have in group decision-making processes.

Moreover, voters and the student body of the university can benefit from this study as they can

compare and contrast the political parties during elections. In this study, the compliance gaining

strategies of UP ALYANSA, KAISA UP and STAND UP are specified and rooted from their

groupthink level. With this in mind, students of the university will be able to scrutinize and think
 139

critically on who to vote for elections, since the voters can understand why a certain compliance

gaining strategy is being used on them.

The third kind of implication involves the academic fields of Speech Communication,

Psychology and Political Science. There is no undergraduate, masters, or doctoral studies that

tackled the topic of the three political parties in UP Diliman despite them being the most

influential political groups in the premier university of the country (Tan, 2018).

Furthermore, the study can be benefited by future researchers in the field of Speech

Communication, Political Science, Sociology, or Psychology because the study examined the

subject of organizational and group communication. Academics can pursue this research further

by investigating how the organizational culture of political parties influence their groupthink

level and their compliance gaining strategies. Moreover, since this research investigates the

political parties’ groupthink symptoms and level, Political Science scholars can extend the scope

of this study by comparing groupthink of student political parties with that of national political

parties, since UP has always been considered as a microcosm of the country.

Lastly, because this study deals with the usage of the different compliance-gaining

strategies, academics from the field of Psychology can continue this research by exploring the

effects of the compliance gaining strategies used on both the political candidates and the voters.

Therefore, to reiterate the significance of this study, exploring this issue as a research

topic is very timely not only to the field of Speech Communication but also in other fields in the

humanities and in the social sciences since the elements of groupthink, compliance-gaining, and

political parties have not been explored to its fullest potential yet. Subsequently, this study will

also contribute to society as there are innumerable politicians today – local, national, and
 140

international – who are quick to make dangerous and unethical decisions just because they are

blinded by their leader and the illusion of morality. Thus, the goal of the study is to articulate the

reasons behind unprincipled decisions and to awaken the voters so as to prevent them from being

manipulated by groups influenced by groupthink.

Recommendations

While the current study has discovered significant findings in the fields of Speech

Communication, Political Science, and Psychology, further improvements can be done and are

recommended to obtain more accurate results.

1. Further studies can utilize a larger sample size in understanding the general nature of the

political parties in UP Diliman since its conception. Also, considering that only 100

voters were utilized in this study, it may be better if future researchers can employ a more

proportionate number of respondents to make the results on voter preference more

accurate and more apt for generalizations.

2. Instead of gathering respondents per cluster, it is recommended that the sample size

equally come from all colleges in the university so as to make representation of the

students complete and more holistic through random sampling.

3. It is better if future scholars that aim to pursue this study to use a local theory on

groupthink, compliance-gaining strategies, student politics and/or voter behavior.

4. Instead of focusing on the candidates that ran in the USC Elections 2016-2017, further

studies can be more encompassing if the sample size includes the people who ran in the

USC elections in the past five years so as to make the groupthink level of the political

party more accurate.

 141

5. Scholars can also conduct a qualitative study on this subject. Qualitative Interviews can

be of great help in understanding the ideologies, principles, basic tenets, and

organizational culture of the main political parties in the university.

 142

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 143

REFERENCES

Abelo, M. T. (2015). Probed: The Political Candidates and the Voters: The Relationship
Between the Compliance-Gaining Strategies of Political Candidates Ronny
Zamora and Jana Ejercito and the Voting Behavior of the Residents of San Juan
City during the May 2013 Elections (Doctoral dissertation, University of the
Philippines, Diliman, 2014). Quezon City, Metro Manila: University of the
Philippines.

Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1999). The relationship of argumentativeness and

verbal aggressiveness to cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction in small groups.
Communication Reports, 12, 21-31. doi: 10.1080/08934219909367705

Anunciacion, J. (2014, February 26). Checklist: Deconstructing the UPD USC 2013-2014.
Philippine Collegian. Retrieved May 8, 2018, from
https://issuu.com/philippinecollegian/docs/ish_24-25

Altbach, P. (1967). Student Politics. Transition , 25-27.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baptist, R. W. (2015). Measuring Predictors of Groupthink: Instrument Development and

Validation (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, 2015) (pp. 1-155).
Illinois: ISU ReD.

Boado, K., & Calanog, D. (2017, April 5). HotOff 2017 Sparks Debate on Frat Politics, Student
Representation. Tinig Ng Plaridel. Retrieved May 8, 2018, from
https://issuu.com/tinigngplaridel.net/docs/tnp-38-issue-1-spread
 144

Bonito, J. A., DeCamp, M. H., & Ruppel, E. K. (2008). The process of information sharing in
small groups: Application of a local model. Communication Monographs, 75, 136-157.
doi: 10.1080/03637750802082078

Callaway, M. R., Marriott, R. G., & Esser, J. K. (1985). Effects of dominance on group decision
making: Toward a stress reduction explanation of groupthink. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49, 949-952. doi: 10.1037/00223514.49.4.949

Carolino, B. [Beata] (2016, December 6). As the representative of CMCSC during the drafting of
the document last AY 2014-2015, I admit I raised not a single question [Facebook Status
Update]. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/beatamax/posts/10211326060732301

Carolino, B. [Beata] (2017, July 12). Sa araw na to tinawag akong anti free education [Facebook
Status Update]. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/beatamax/posts/10213509184509031

Chapman, J. (2006). Anxiety and defective decision making: An elaboration of the groupthink
model. Management Decision, 44, 1391-1404. doi: 10.1108/00251740610715713

Christ, W. G. (1985). Voter Preference and Emotion: Using Emotional Response to Classify
Decided and Undecided Voters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,15(3).
doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb00899.x

Dunkelberger, G. F., & Rumberger, E. K. (1931). Who are the Voters. American Sociological
Association,5(3), 159-161. doi:10.2307/2961331

Erdem, F. (2003). Optimal trust and teamwork: From groupthink to teamthink. Work
Study, 52(5), 229-233. doi: 10.1108/00438020310485958
 145

English, H. & English, A. (1958). A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and

psychoanalytic terms. New York, NY: Longmans.

Fodor, E. M., & Smith, T. (1982). The power motive as an influence on group decision making.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 178-185. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.178

Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., Eden, J., & Cruz, M. G. (2006). Examining the
symptoms of groupthink and retrospective sensemaking. Small Group Research, 37,
36-64. doi: 10.1177/1046496405281772

Ferdinand Marcos Biography. (2006, December). Retrieved May, 2018, from

http://www.notablebiographies.com/Lo-Ma/Marcos-Ferdinand.html

Gomez, B. (2015, September 10). “Murder most foul: Marcos' youthful exuberance.” Retrieved
May, 2018, from
http://news.abs-cbn.com/blogs/opinions/09/09/15/murder-most-foul-marcos-youthful-exu
berance

Goren, P. (2005). Party Identification and Core Political Values. American Journal of Political
Science , 49 (4), 881-896.

Hill, A. (2018, May 07). “Why groupthink never went away”. Retrieved from
https://www.ft.com/content/297ffe7c-4ee4-11e8-9471-a083af05aea7

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
 146

Kurtbas, I. (2015). The Factors Influencing Voting Preferences in Local Elections "An Empirical
Study". International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,5(9), 1st ser., 197-210.
Retrieved February 25, 2018, from
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_9_1_September_2015/18.pdf

Leighter, J. L., & Black, L. (2010). “I’m just raising the question”: Terms for talk and practical
metadiscursive argument in public meetings. Western Journal of Communication,
74, 547-569. doi: 10.1080/10570314.2010.512281

Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performance spirals: A

multi-level perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645–678. doi:
10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080333

Mandart, A. (2017, April 19). Groupthink, Identity, and the Politics of Persuasion. Retrieved
From
http://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/04/19/u05-groupthink-identity-and-the-politics-
of-persuasion/

Manz, C. C., & Neck, C. P. (1995). Teamthink: Beyond the groupthink syndrome in self-
managing work teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10, 7-15. doi:
10.1108/02683949510075155

Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. (1967). Compliance-Gaining Behavior: A Synthesis and Model. The
Sociological Quarterly , 317-328.

Medina, A. (2015, July 3). UP Alyansa expels student council chair, calls for resignation over
frat violence. GMA News. Retrieved May 8, 2018, from
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/metro/515310/up-alyansa-expels-student-
council-chair-calls-for-resignation-over-frat-violence/story/
 147

Medina, M. (2014, February 10). Did you know: Diliman Commune. Retrieved October 8, 2017,
from Philippine Daily Inquirer: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/576040/did-you-know-
diliman-commune

Miller, G., Boster, F., Roloff, M., & Seibold, D. (2009). Compliance-gaining message strategies:
A typology and some findings concerning effects of situational differences.
Communication Monographs , 37-51.

Moorhead, G., & Montanari, J. R. (1986). An empirical investigation of the groupthink

phenomenon. Human Relations, 39, 399-410. doi: 10.1177/001872678603900502

Morales, Y. (2016, April 16). Frat members, USC candidates: No room for violence in UP. Tinig
Ng Plaridel. Retrieved May 8, 2018, from
http://www.tinigngplaridel.net/news/2016/frat-members-usc-candidates-no-room-for-viol
ence-in-up/

Moreland, R. (1996). Reviewed Work: Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small Groups

and Policy Failure by Paul 't Hart. Political Psychology , 609-613.

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relationship between group cohesiveness and
performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210-227. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210

Onato, A. (2016, April 22). Botong Isko: STAND UP dominates USC elections. Tinig Ng
Plaridel. Retrieved May 8, 2018, from
http://www.tinigngplaridel.net/botong-isko/2016/botong-isko-stand-up-dominates-usc-ele
ctions/

Packer, D. (2009). Avoiding Groupthink: Whereas Weakly Identified Members Remain Silent,
 148

Strongly Identified Members dissent about collective problems . Psychological Science,

546-548.

Philippine Collegian. (2013, February 28). Party Profiles. Retrieved October 8, 2017, from

Philippine Collegian. (2017, April 5). Party Profiles. Philippine Collegian. Retrieved May 8,
2018, from https://issuu.com/philippinecollegian/docs/isyu_blg._16__5_abril_2017_

Pineda, H. C. (2013). KAISA standard bearers win the 2013 USC elections. Retrieved May 8,
2018, from https://upd.edu.ph/~updinfo/mar13/articles/KAISA_standard_bearers.html

Pineda, H. (2014). ALYANSA standard bearers prevail in the 2014 USC elections.
Retrieved May 8, 2018, from
https://upd.edu.ph/~updinfo/feb14/articles/alyansa_standard_bearers_prevail.html

Pineda, H. (2015). ALYANSA leads USC 2015 election. Retrieved May 8, 2018, from
https://www.upd.edu.ph/~updinfo/apr15/articles/ALYANSA_leads_USC_2015election.h
tml

Punzalan, J. (2017, April 6). #CampusIssue: How will the Magna Carta shape UP elections?
Rappler. Retrieved May 8, 2018, from
https://www.rappler.com/move-ph/166200-magna-carta-students-rights-up-diliman-electi
ons

Rosenberg, S. W., Bohan, L., McCafferty, P., & Harris, K. (1986). The Image and the Vote: The
Effect of Candidate Presentation on Voter Preference. American Journal of Political
Science,30(1), 108-127. doi:10.2307/2111296

Saha, L. J., & Print, M. (2009). Student School Elections and Political Engagement: A Cradle of
Democracy. International Journal of Educational Research , 22-32.
 149

Santos, R. J. (2014, February 27). Timeline: First Quarter Storm. Retrieved October 8, 2017,
from Rappler: https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/51292-timeline-first-quarter-storm

Schenck-Hamlin, W. J., Wiseman, R. L., & Georgacarakos, G. (1982). A Model of Properties of

Compliance-Gaining Strategies. Communication Quarterly , 92-100.

Serafica, R. (2015, April 25). #CampusIssue: An all-time low in UP Diliman Elections? Rappler.
Retrieved February 28, 2018, from
https://www.rappler.com/move-ph/90804-campus-issue-up-diliman-politics-elections

Sims, R. R. (1992). Linking groupthink to unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of

Business Ethics , 651-662.

Singh, S. C., & Singh, S. C. (1950). Role of Political Parties. Indian Political Science
Association , 20-29.

Sitkin, S. (1992). Learning from failure: The strategy of small losses. In B. M. Staw & L.L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making:
Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 1467-1478. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467

Tan, O. F. (2018, February 12). Why UP students must outgrow rallies. Inquirer. Retrieved
February 19, 2018, from http://opinion.inquirer.net/110968/students-must-outgrow-rallies

The Julio Nalundasan Murder, Lawphil Project (October 22, 1940) (Philippine Laws and
Jurisprudence Databank, Dist. file)
 150

APPENDIX

Survey Questionnaire (VOTERS)

Hi! I am Rachel Megan R. Aglaua, a Bachelor of Arts Speech Communication student from the
College of Arts and Letters, University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman. I am conducting a study
about the group decision-making skills of the three main political parties of UP Diliman. Please
complete this questionnaire as honestly and as accurately as you can. Answering this survey will
take about 30-45 minutes of your time. It is recommended that you achieve this in your leisurely
hour. Your answers will be used solely for academic purposes only. They shall remain
confidential. Thank you very much!

I. Respondent Profile
Name (optional):
Age:
Sex:
Year and Course: STS Bracket:
Province
II. Group-decision making skills

Directions: Please think of your perceived group experience of UP ALYANSA, UP KAISA,

and STAND UP during the USC elections AY 2016-2017 where, for you, the party made a
bad (e.g. made the group’s reputation suffer) decision. Of those experiences, please focus on
the worst decision the party has made. Then, answer the following questions with that
experience in mind. Write your answers on the blank spaces provided for each question.
1. What is the approximate size of your preferred political party? ___________
2. How long do you think had the group or team worked together before your
preferred political party made this bad decision? (Please indicate in months)
3. In your opinion, did party meet mostly face-to-face or virtually? (e.g. Facebook
chat) __________
Directions: Keeping the same experience in mind, please indicate how much you agree with
the following statements from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree) 3 (neutral), 4 (agree) to 5
(strongly agree).

Highly Cohesive
Are you likely to vote for a party that/has:
 151

1. A high degree of shared interest?

2. Considers themselves as highly cohesive?
3. Shares many of the same values?

Promotional
Are you likely to vote for a party which has a leader that:
4. Encourages others to express their own ideas?
5. Ensures equality of opinions?
6. Pushes personal decisions over the members’?
7. Strongly influences the final group decision?
8. Is approachable?

Are you likely to vote for a party that:

9. Often defers to the opinions of the leader?
10. Discusses fewer facts because the leader’s viewpoint is clear?
11. Reach decisions too quickly because of the leader’s comments?

Conformity
Are you likely to vote for a party that:
12. Often agrees with the party’s decision publicly but disagreed privately?
13. Feels pressured to agree with the group’s opinions?

Are you likely to vote for a party has members who:

14. Often keeps their opinions to themselves?
15. Freely express concerns with the proposed ideas?
16. Feel comfortable asking questions about a solution?
17. Often fail to express disagreement with other members?
18. Has doubts about the group’s decision, but stayed silent?
Concurrence Seeking
Are you likely to vote for a party that/has:

19. Members who feel pressured to not “rock the boat”/challenge the majority?
20. Members who feel pressured to just follow the group’s preferred decision?
21. A mind-guard ( Protector of the group leader or majority’s group decision’)?
22. Pressures members to agree with each other?
23. Does not fully acknowledge the opinions of those with a particular expertise in a
given area?
24. Encourages expressing reservations they had about the group decision?
 152

25. Prevents others from expressing opposing points of view?

26. Listens to other members’ doubts about the group?

Anxiety
Are you likely to vote for a party that/has:

27. Makes frantic decisions based on anxiety?

28. Fails to consider all possible alternatives to their decision due to the pressures of
expressed stress and anxiety?
29. Tries to escape from the stressful situation as quickly as they could?
30. Becomes defensive due to expressed stress?
31. Members who felt fear or anxiety over their group’s task?

Collective Efficacy
Are you likely to vote for a group that/has:
32. Expresses confidence with their decision?
33. Communicates a “can do” (confident and willing to deal with problems) attitude?
34. Believes that they can execute a plan to reach their goals?
35. Strongly communicates an ability for task completion?
36. Not easily discouraged?
37. “Stays in the course,” even when things looked bad?
38. Believes that they could solve their own problems if they worked together?

Hidden Profiles
Are you likely to vote for a group that:

39. Shares all information with each other about a problem or task?
40. Often discusses unique information (not known by all) before the discussion?
41. Recognizes and treats new information presented as important?

Trust
Are you likely to vote for a group that/has:

42. A Mutual sense of trust within the group?

43. Too much trust within the group?
44. Displayed signs of distrust (e.g. doubting, disobedience)?
45. Practices freedom of expression?
 153

46. A supportive group environment?

47. Members who have confidence in their group to make the right decision?
48. Often looks to their fellow group members for help?
49. Has members who feel comfortable sharing personal stories with their group?

Directions: As with the previous part, please answer the following questions about “groupthink.”
Groupthink is the term used to describe how certain conditions can lead a group to be highly
satisfied with what turns out to be an ineffective decision. It is a mode of thinking in which
members of a highly cohesive group strive for unanimity and consensus, which overrules their
motivation to realistically analyze other courses of action. The more cohesiveness a group has,
the more pressure it puts onto members of that group to maintain the cohesiveness. In turn, the
group invests more of its energy in keeping this cohesiveness intact than it does in making the
right decision.

(E.g. Group A believes that all tables are squares. Because the group is so united and cohesive,
no one raises a question on whether there are other shapes of tables. Thus, the group does not
make an effort in researching about other shapes of tables because this will disrupt their belief
and will cause a rift in their group cohesiveness.)

50. Are you more likely to vote for a political party you believe that commit groupthink in their
group decision-making? (yes, no, maybe) Please explain. (text box)
51. How many times are you willing to forgive a political party that you will vote in committing
groupthink?
52. How disastrous can the result of the group’s or team’s decision be before you withdraw your
support in that party? (scale from 1- 9)
53. In your opinion, how recently did your preferred group’s or team’s last instance of
groupthink occur? (text box)
 154

III. Campaign strategies

Directions: Below are descriptions of campaign message strategies, which candidates may
have used in order to elicit compliance from students during the USC elections 2016-2017.
With the perspective of a voter, please encircle the number corresponding to how likely you
will vote for a candidate using the strategies.
Always – 90%-100% of the time
Often – 80%-90% of the time
Sometimes – 50% - 70% of the time
Rarely – 10% - 40% of the time
Never – 0% of the time

Description Always Often Sometime Rarely Never

s

1. The 5 4 3 2 1
candidates
promised us a
reward if we
will vote for
them.

2. The 5 4 3 2 1
candidates told
us the
punishments
inevitable for
choosing not to
vote for them.

3. The 5 4 3 2 1
candidates
enumerated the
good things that
could happen to
us if we will
vote for them.
 155

4. The 5 4 3 2 1
candidates told
us that we
would lose the
opportunities
that we intended
to offer them if
we would not
vote for them.

5. The 5 4 3 2 1
candidates
talked to us in
their friendliest
manner.

6. 5 4 3 2 1
The candidates
gave us some
form of gifts
prior to
persuading us.

7. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates told
us that if we
would not vote
for them, we
would always
feel regretful for
not having done
so.
 156

8. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates
pointed out the
past favors done
for us and told
them that it was
their turn to ask
a favor from us,
which was to
vote for the
candidates.

9. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that casting our
votes for them
would be an
ethical thing to
do.

5 4 3 2 1
10. The
candidates said
that we would
feel better about
ourselves if we
would obey
them.

11. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates told
us that we
would feel bad
about ourselves
for not voting
for them.
 157

12. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that we are
intelligent and
mature voters
therefore we
should vote for
them.

5 4 3 2 1
13. The
candidates said
that missing the
opportunity to
vote for them is
not the practical
thing to do by an
intelligent
individual.

14. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that they need
our compliance
badly.

15. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates told
us, the voters,
how the people
we value would
think better of
us for casting
their votes for
the candidates.
 158

16. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates
pointed out how
sad and upset
the people
would be
towards us if we
chose not to
obey.

17. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates
enumerated all
the benefits we
would get if we
would vote for
them.

18. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that if we would
not vote for
them, there
would be a
corresponding
consequence.

19. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that electing
them would
ensure the voters
a better life
 159

20. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that not obeying
them would not
ensure us, the
voters, a better
life.

21. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates made
sure that us were
comfortable
towards me.

5 4 3 2 1
22. The
candidates
provided food
and/or
refreshments as
they discussed
with us.

23. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates told
the voters the
recurring feeling
of regret we
would have for
not voting for
them.
 160

24. The 5 4 3 2 1
candidates
reminded us, the
voters of a
situation where
they granted our
when asked us
to obey them as
a form of
gratitude.

25. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that it is a decent
and proper
decision to vote
them.

26. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that voting for
them would
make us feel
happy and proud
of our decision.

27. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that they would
feel dissatisfied
for not
complying with
them.
 161

28. The 5 4 3 2 1
candidates
said that
those who
would vote
for them
mates are
wise and
intellectual.

29. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that not
complying with
them is a bad
choice to make.

30. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that it would be
a big help and
they would
appreciate it if
we would vote
for them.

31. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that our family,
friends, and the
community
would think
highly of us if
we complied
with them.
 162

32. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates told
us how
disappointed our
family and our
community
would be for not
complying.

33. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates
spoke of the
rewards that we
would enjoy if
we elected them.

34. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates told
us the
consequences
that we would
get if we would
not vote for
them.

35. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that casting our
votes for them
would open
doors of
opportunities for
the candidates.
 163

36. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that if we would
not vote for
them, we would
lose the benefits
that we were
supposed to
acquire.

37. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates
showed us, the
voters, that they
were not a mere
candidate/campa
igner, but a
friend we could
go to.

38. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates
prepared a show
or performance
that would
entertain us, the
voters, before
they talked to us
into complying
with them.
 164

39. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates
spoke of the
disappointment
that we would
feel if we
decided not to
vote for them.

40. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates
recalled what
they did for us
during the times
that we needed
help.

41. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that voting for
them is the
morally right
thing to do.

42. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates told
us about the
sense of
fulfillment that
we would most
likely
experience if we
would vote for
them.
 165

43. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that we would
feel ashamed of
ourselves for not
complying.

44. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that voting for
them is a wise
man/s decision.

45. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates said
that those who
would not vote
for them are not
intelligent and
mature enough.

46. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates
enumerated their
personal reasons
on why they
needed our
obedience.

47. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates told
them how other
people would be
pleased and
 166

approved if we
would vote for
them.

48. 5 4 3 2 1
The
candidates told
us how the
people we value
would think
worse of us if
we would not
vote for them.
 167

Survey Questionnaire (CANDIDATES)

Hi! I am Rachel Megan R. Aglaua, a Bachelor of Arts Speech Communication student from the
University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman. I am conducting a study about the group decision-
making skills of the three main political parties of UP Diliman which are UP ALYANSA,
KAISA UP, and STAND UP. Please complete this questionnaire as honestly and as accurately as
you can. Answering this survey will take about 30-45 minutes of your time. It is recommended
that you achieve this in your leisurely hour. Your answers will be used solely for academic
purposes only. They shall remain confidential. Thank you very much!

I. Respondent Profile
Name (optional):
Political Party:
Age:
Sex:
College:
Year and Course: STS Bracket:
Province:

II. Group-decision making skills

Directions: Please think of your past group experience with your political party during the
USC elections AY 2016-2017. Recall a moment where your party made its most problematic
decision/action. Of those experiences, please focus on the worst decision your party has
made. Then, answer the following questions with that experience in mind. Write your
answers on the blank spaces provided for each question.
1. What was the approximate size of your political party (the people who ran in the
elections)? ___________
2. How long has the party worked together before this bad decision was made?
(Please indicate in months)
3. How did your group meet? Mostly face-to-face or virtually? (e.g.Messenger,
Facetime, Viber) __________
Directions: Keeping the same experience in mind, please indicate how much you agree with
the following statements from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree) 3 (neutral), 4 (agree) to 5
(strongly agree).

Highly Cohesive
 168

1. Our group communicated a high degree of shared interest.

2. I would consider our group to be highly cohesive.
3. Members of the group indicated they shared many of the same values.
Promotional
4. Our group encouraged others to express their own ideas.
5. Our group ensures equality of opinions.
6. Our leader pushes personal decisions over the members’.
7. Our leader strongly influences the final group decision.
8. The group often deferred to the opinions of the leader.
9. Our group discusses fewer facts because the leader’s viewpoint is clear.
10. Our group reached a decision too quickly because of our leader’s comments.
11. Our leader is approachable.

Conformity
12. I often agree with the party’s decision publicly but disagreed privately.
13. Our group feels pressured to agree with the group’s opinions.
14. I often keep my opinions to myself.
15. Our group can freely express concerns with the proposed ideas.
16. I felt comfortable asking questions about a solution.
17. I often failed to express disagreement with what someone else said.
18. I had doubts about the group’s decision, but did not say anything.

Concurrence Seeking
19. I felt pressure from the group to not “rock the boat”/challenge the majority?
20. I felt pressure to just go along with the group’s preferred decision.
21. Members of the group acted as mindguards, protecting the group leader or preferred
group decision from others.
22. The group pressured members to agree with each other.
23. As a group, we failed to fully acknowledge the opinions of those with a particular
expertise in a given area.
24. The group encouraged members to express reservations they had about the group
decision.
25. Some group members prevented others from expressing opposing points of view.
26. When I spoke up about any doubts I had, my fellow group members seriously listened
to me.

Anxiety
27. Because of our anxiety, our group was frantic in trying to make a decision.
 169

28. Our group failed to consider all possible alternatives to our decision due to the
pressures of expressed stress and anxiety.
29. Our group tried to escape from the stressful situation as quickly as we could.
30. Members of the group became defensive due to expressed stress.
31. I felt fear or anxiety over the group’s task.

Collective Efficacy
32. Our group expressed confidence with our decision.
33. Our group communicated a “can do” (confident and willing to deal with problems)
attitude.
34. Our group believed in its ability to execute a plan to reach our goals.
35. Our group strongly communicated an ability to complete the task at hand.
36. Our group was not easily discouraged.
37. Our group “stayed in the course,” even when things looked bad.
38. Our group believed we could solve our own problems if we worked together.

Hidden Profiles
39. Everyone shared all of the information they had about a particular problem or task.
40. Our group often discussed unique information (not known by all) before the
discussion.
41. Our group recognizes and treats new information presented as important.

Trust
42. There was a mutual sense of trust within the group.
43. There was too much trust within the group.
44. No one in the group wanted to break the feeling of trust by bringing up opposing
Ideas.
45. Our group practices freedom of expression.
46. Our group has a supportive environment.
47. I had confidence in our group members to make the right decision.
48. I often looked to my fellow group members for help.
49. I felt free comfortable sharing personal stories with my group.

Directions: Keeping the same group or team experience in mind, please answer the following
questions about “groupthink.” Groupthink is the term used to describe how certain conditions
can lead a group to be highly satisfied with what turns out to be an ineffective decision. It is a
mode of thinking in which members of a highly cohesive group strive for unanimity and
consensus, which overrules their motivation to realistically analyze other courses of action. The
 170

more cohesiveness a group has, the more pressure it puts onto members of that group to maintain
the cohesiveness. In turn, the group invests more of its energy in keeping this cohesiveness intact
than it does in making the right decision.

(E.g. Group A believes that all tables are squares. Because the group is so united and cohesive,
no one raises a question on whether there are other shapes of tables. Thus, the group does not
make an effort in researching about other shapes of tables because this will disrupt their belief
and will cause a rift in their group cohesiveness.)

50. Do you believe that your decision-making group or team committed groupthink?
(yes, no, maybe) Please explain. (text box)
51. How many times do you believe your group or team committed groupthink? (number
slider)
52. How disastrous was the result of your group’s or team’s decision? (scale from 1- 9)
53. How recently did your group’s or team’s last instance of groupthink occur? (text box)
 171

III. Campaign strategies

Directions: Below are descriptions of campaign message strategies, which you may have
used in order to elicit compliance from students during the USC elections 2016-2017.
Please encircle the number corresponding to how often you use the strategies.
Always – 90%-100% of the time
Often – 80%-90% of the time
Sometimes – 50% - 70% of the time
Rarely – 10% - 40% of the time
Never – 0% of the time

Description Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

1. I promised the 5 4 3 2 1
voters a reward if
they will vote for
me/party mates.

2. I told the voters 5 4 3 2 1

the punishments
inevitable for
choosing not to
vote for me/party
mates.

3. I enumerated 5 4 3 2 1
the good things
that could happen
to voters if voters
will vote for me/
party mates.
 172

4. I told the voters 5 4 3 2 1

that they would
lose the
opportunities that
I intended to offer
them if they would
not vote for me/
party mates.

5. I talked to the 5 4 3 2 1
voters in my
friendliest manner.

6. 5 4 3 2 1
I gave the
voters some form
of gifts prior to
persuading the
voters.

7. 5 4 3 2 1
I told the
voters that if they
would not vote for
me/ my party
mates, they would
always feel
regretful for not
having done so.

8. 5 4 3 2 1
I pointed out
the past favors
done for the voters
and told them that
it was my turn to
ask a favor from
them, which was
to vote for me/my
 173

party mates.

9. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that
casting their votes
for me/ party
mates would be an
ethical thing to do.

5 4 3 2 1
10. I said
that they would
feel better about
themselves if they
would obey me.

11. 5 4 3 2 1
I told the
voters that they
would feel bad
about themselves
for not voting for
me/ party mates.

12. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that they
are intelligent and
mature voters
therefore they
should vote for
me/my party
mates.
 174

5 4 3 2 1
13. I said
that missing the
opportunity to
vote for me/my
party mates is not
the practical thing
to do by an
intelligent
individual.

14. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that I
need their
compliance badly.

15. 5 4 3 2 1
I told the
voters how the
people they value
would think better
of them for casting
their votes for
me/my party
mates.

16. 5 4 3 2 1
I pointed out
how sad and upset
the people would
be towards the
voters if they
chose not to obey.

17. 5 4 3 2 1
I enumerated
all the benefits
they would get if
they would vote
 175

for me/ party

mates.

18. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that if
they would not
vote for me/ party
mates, there would
be a
corresponding
consequence.

19. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that
electing me would
ensure the voters a
better life

20. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that not
obeying me would
not ensure the
voters a better life.

21. 5 4 3 2 1
I made sure
the voters were
comfortable
towards me.

5 4 3 2 1
22. I
provided food
and/or
refreshments as I
discussed with the
voters.
 176

23. 5 4 3 2 1
I told the
voters the
recurring feeling
of regret they
would have for not
voting for
me/party mates.

24. I reminded the 5 4 3 2 1

voters of a
situation where I
granted the voters'
request when
asked them to
obey me as a form
of gratitude.

25. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that it is
a decent and
proper decision to
vote me/party
mates.

26. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that
voting for me
would make the
voters feel happy
and proud of our
decision.

27. I 5 4 3 2 1
said that we would
feel dissatisfied
for not complying
with me.
 177

28. I said that 5 4 3 2 1

those who
would vote for
me/ party
mates are wise
and
intellectual.

29. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that not
complying with
me is a bad choice
to make.

30. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that it
would be a big
help and I would
appreciate it if
they would vote
for me/ party
mates.

31. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that their
family, friends,
and the
community would
think highly of
them if they
complied with me.

32. 5 4 3 2 1
I told them
how disappointed
their family and
their community
would be for not
complying.
 178

33. 5 4 3 2 1
I spoke of the
rewards that they
would enjoy if
they elected me/
party mates.

34. 5 4 3 2 1
I told them the
consequences that
they would get if
they would not
vote for me/party
mates.

35. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that
casting their votes
for me/ party
mates would open
doors of
opportunities for
us

36. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that if
they would not
vote for me/ party
mates, they would
lose the benefits
that they were
supposed to
acquire.

37. 5 4 3 2 1
I showed the
voters that I was
not a mere
candidate/campaig
 179

ner, but a friend

they could go to.

38. 5 4 3 2 1
I prepared a
show or
performance that
would entertain
the voters before I
talked to them into
complying with
me.

39. 5 4 3 2 1
I spoke of the
disappointment
that they would
feel if they
decided not to
vote for me/party
mates.

40. 5 4 3 2 1
I recalled what
I did for them
during the times
that they needed
help.

41. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that
voting for
me/party mates is
the morally right
thing to do.
 180

42. 5 4 3 2 1
I told them
about the sense of
fulfillment that
they would most
likely experience
if they would vote
for me/party
mates.

43. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that they
would feel
ashamed of
themselves for not
complying.

44. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that
voting for
me/party mates is
a wise man/s
decision.

45. 5 4 3 2 1
I said that
those who would
not vote for
me/party mates
are not intelligent
and mature
enough.

46. 5 4 3 2 1
I enumerated
my personal
reasons on why I
needed their
obedience.
 181

47. 5 4 3 2 1
I told them
how other people
would be pleased
and approved if
they would vote
for me/party
mates.

48. 5 4 3 2 1
I told the
voters how the
people they value
would think worse
of them if they
would not vote for
me/party mates.
182