What Is Groupthink?By Derek Schaedig, published March 25, 2022 Show
by Saul Mcleod, PhD Groupthink refers to the tendency for certain types of groups to reach decisions that are extreme and which tend to be unwise or unrealistic Groupthink occurs when individuals in cohesive groups fail to consider alternative perspectives because they are motivated to reach a consensus which typically results in making less than desirable decisions. For example, group members may ignore or discount information that is inconsistent with their chosen decision and express strong disapproval against any group member who might disagree. Janis (1971, 1982) popularized the term groupthink; however, he did not originate the concept. That is generally accredited to George Orwell as he describes the psychological phenomenon as “crimethink” or “doublethink” in his famous dystopian novel titled 1984 (Orwell, 1949). Janis described groupthink early on as “the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action” (1972, p. 9). Groupthink typically connotes a negative effect. In fact, Janis described it originally in his book published in 1972 titled Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes as “a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures” (Janis, 1972, p. 9). Causes
SignsIn Janis’s first book, he cited eight symptoms of groupthink to look out for in order to avoid the phenomena from occurring (Janis, 1972).
Negative Impacts
Can Groupthink Ever be a Good Thing?Groupthink is generally considered a negative phenomenon. Groups generally can benefit from hearing a diverse set of perspectives and information and failing to do so can result in suboptimal decisions being made. However, it is true that groups who engage in groupthink can make decisions quickly (although they may not be the best decision possible). Also, anxiety can be reduced amongst the group because the group believes their decisions cannot be flawed. Groups who suffer from groupthink view themselves as untouchable (Janis, 1972). Furthermore, groups rationalize the decision they made, whether it was the best option or not, and therefore convince themselves that the risks they are assuming are not as great as they truly are. Lastly, the group may also believe that they are inherently morally right which helps the members of the group that they cease to feel shame or guilt. Overall though, groups should take precautions to avoid groupthink as much as possible. Groupthink in Real-Life ScenariosThe social and political consequences of groupthink may be far-reaching, and history has many examples of major blunders that have been the result of decisions reached in this way. Many case scenarios have been analyzed such as the Invasion of Iraq (Badie, 2010; Psychology Today Editors, 2021), the attempt to rescue the American prisoners the Vietnam war in the Son Tay raid (Amidon, 2005), and fraudulent behavior at WorldCom (Scharff, 2005) among many other flawed decisions cited for failing due to groupthink. However, the original real-life scenarios of groupthink discussed by Janis were the escalation of the Vietnam war, the Bay of Bigs Scandal, and the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Vietnam WarElected United States (U.S.) government officials during Vietnam showed signs of invulnerability (Janis, 1972). The U.S. suffered multiples failures and setbacks, but they continued with their war efforts ignoring the danger and warning signs because they believed they would win no matter what. Furthermore, the U.S. leaders rationalized their escalated bombing campaigns ignoring the negative feedback that they continuously received. The U.S. also viewed their decisions as inherently morally right. President Johnson considered the same four factors every Tuesday: the military advantage of the U.S., the risk to American aircraft and pilots, the danger of forcing other countries into the fighting, and danger of heavy civilian causalities. By engaging in this ritualization, they failed to effectively consider the morality of their decisions. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s domino theory was an example of stereotyping as well. By viewing the enemy and its surrounding countries as too incompetent to make their own correct decisions, the U.S. administration made decisions that escalated the war. Reportedly, Johnson once pressured former White House Press Secretary Bill Moyers to stop pushing back against the U.S. bombing campaign. Once, when Moyers entered a meeting, Johnson said of Moyers, “Well, here comes Mr. Stop-the-bombings.” Bay of Pigs President John F. Kennedy’s administration suffered from the illusion of invulnerability as well. Despite the plans to invade the Bay of Pigs leaking out, Kennedy’s administration proceeded with the plans ignoring the negative warning signs (Janis, 1972). Historian Arthur J. Schlesinger expressed his strong objections against the war to both President Kennedy and Secretary of State Dean Rusk individually, but when it came to the group discussions on the decision to invade or not, Schlesinger stayed quiet. He fell prey to believing that the ingroup was inherently moral, so Janis argues and kept his qualms quiet. Another symptom of groupthink that Kennedy and his group experienced was stereotyping (Janis, 1972). Kennedy and his team made three assumptions about the capabilities of Fidel Castro’s administration that proved to be incorrect. Kennedy’s administration assumed that Castro’s forces were so weak that a small group of U.S. troops could establish a beachhead at the Bay of Pigs. Secondly, the U.S. administration thought that just a fleet of B-26s could knock out Castro’s entire air force. The third assumption was that Castro was not smart enough to stop any internal uprisings. Kennedy and his team were wrong in all three assumptions because they negatively stereotyped the enemy and made faulty assumptions. Many members of the group self-censored as well. It seemed as if there was a unanimous decision within the ingroup to continue with the Bay of Pigs invasion, but Rusk failed to voice his contrary opinion even when three government officials outside of the group expressed their concerns. Pearl HarborDespite warning signs, the U.S. government failed to prepare for the attack on Pearl Harbor because they were subject to the illusion of invulnerability (Janis, 1972). They believed they were invincible against any attacks from the Japanese. The U.S. leaders also rationalized that the Japanese would never dare to attack the U.S. because that would be an act of war, and the U.S. believed they would handedly win and that their opponent viewed this the same. This stereotype and failure to view the situation from the enemy’s point of view led to the poor decision to not adequately prepare for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Opposition to the TheoryDespite a lot of support for the theory over the years, it has received some pushback as well. Sally Fuller and Ramon Aldag argue that being in a cohesive group has been proven to be effective (Aldag & Fuller, 1993; Fuller S.R. & Aldag R.J., 1998). They also argue that Janis’s theory is not empirically supported and can be inconsistent. Robert Baron reflects on the many years of research conducted on groupthink and concludes that the body of evidence has largely failed to support the theory (Baron, 2005). There has been a large body of experimental research conducted on groupthink especially in the years directly following the introduction of the theory. Notably, one study found mixed support for the theory (Flowers, 1977). Aligning with the groupthink theory, the groups in the study with directive leaders came up with fewer solutions, shared less information, and utilized fewer facts about the case before making a decision. On the other hand, the more surprising finding was that the more cohesive groups did not perform worse than the less cohesive ones. Opposing the group cohesion aspect of the groupthink theory as well, John Courtright found that group cohesion had no effect on a number of factors including creativity, feasibility, significance, competence, and number of possible solutions (Courtright, 1978). Another set of researchers found similar results when it comes to group cohesion (Fodor & Smith, 1982). Furthermore, both Callaway and Esser reported that both group cohesion and whether or not groups were told to consider all of the possible alternatives or given no instruction had no effect on task performance (Callaway & Esser, 1984). However, despite the opposition, many researchers have advocated for the theory in their work as well and groupthink is widely cited today (Hensley & Griffin, 1986; Tetlock, 1979). Also, many scholars have adjusted the theory to address the opposition’s findings including the ubiquity model (Baron, 2005), the general group problem-solving model (GGPS) (Aldag & Fuller, 1993), and the sociocognitive theory (Tsoukalas, 2007) just to name a few. How to Avoid GroupthinkTo avoid groupthink, leaders and group members alike can take a variety of steps to help prevent the phenomenon from occurring. Some potential solutions are below.
About the AuthorDerek Schaedig is a sophomore at Harvard College majoring in psychology. He’s also a goalie for the men’s ice hockey team, and is interested in abnormal psychology as well as creative writing. Fact Checking Simply Psychology content is rigorously reviewed by a team of qualified and experienced fact checkers. Fact checkers review articles for factual accuracy, relevance, and timeliness. We rely on the most current and reputable sources, which are cited in the text and listed at the bottom of each article. Content is fact checked after it has been edited and before publication. How to reference this article:Schaedig, D. (2022, March 25). What is Groupthink. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/groupthink.html Further Information Lunenburg FC. Group decision making: The potential for groupthink. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration. 2010;13(1). Bang, D., & Frith, C. D. (2017). Making better decisions in groups. Royal Society open science, 4(8), 170193. Rose, J. D. (2011). Diverse perspectives on the groupthink theory–a literary review. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4(1), 37-57. APA Style ReferencesAldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. (1993). Beyond Fiasco: A Reappraisal of the Groupthink Phenomenon and a New Model of Group Decision Processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.533 Amidon, M. (2005). Groupthink, politics, and the decision to attempt the Son Tay rescue. Parameters (Carlisle, Pa.), 35(3), 119. Badie, D. (2010). Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror: Explaining US Policy Shift toward Iraq: Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(4), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00113.x Baron, R. S. (2005). So Right It’s Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 219–253). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37004-3 Callaway, M. R., & Esser, J. K. (1984). Groupthink: Effects of Cohesiveness and Problem-Solving Procedures on Group Decision Making. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 12(2), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1984.12.2.157 Cherry, K. (2020, November 12). What is Groupthink? Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-groupthink-2795213 Courtright, J. A. (1978). A laboratory investigation of groupthink. Communication Monographs, 45(3), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757809375968 Flowers, M. L. (1977). A laboratory test of some implications of Janis’s groupthink hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(12), 888–896. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.35.12.888 Fodor, E. M., & Smith, T. (1982). The power motive as an influence on group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.178 Fuller S.R. & Aldag R.J. (1998). Organizational Tonypandy: Lessons from a Quarter Century of the Groupthink Phenomenon. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(23), 163–184. Hensley, T. R., & Griffin, G. W. (1986). Victims of Groupthink: The Kent State University Board of Trustees and the 1977 Gymnasium Controversy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30(3), 497–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002786030003006 Janis, I. (1971, November). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 84–89. Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes (pp. viii, 277). Houghton Mifflin. Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:734003 Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Signet Classic. Psychology Today Editors. (2021). Groupthink. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink Raven, B. H. (1998). Groupthink, Bay of Pigs, and Watergate reconsidered: Theoretical perspectives on groupthink: a twenty-fifth anniversary appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2–3), 352–361. Scharff, M. M. (2005). WorldCom: A Failure of Moral and Ethical Values. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 10(3), 35-. Tetlock, P. E. (1979). Identifying victims of groupthink from public statements of decision makers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1314–1324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1314 Tsoukalas, I. (2007). Exploring the Microfoundations of Group Consciousness. Culture & Psychology, 13(1), 39–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X07073650 Home | About Us | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Contact Us Simply Psychology's content is for informational and educational purposes only. Our website is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. © Simply Scholar Ltd - All rights reserved
Which of the following terms refers to the tendency of people to make more extreme decisions in a group?In social psychology, group polarization refers to the tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members.
What do you mean by decisionGroup decision-making (also known as collaborative decision-making or collective decision-making) is a situation faced when individuals collectively make a choice from the alternatives before them. The decision is then no longer attributable to any single individual who is a member of the group.
What a person gives up when making a decision is commonly called?Students should also be aware of opportunity cost—what a person gives up when a decision is made.
What are the different forms of group decision making?10 Group decision-making techniques your team needs to know. Brainstorming.. The Delphi Method.. Weighted Scoring.. Nominal Group Technique.. Possibility Ranking.. The Stepladder Technique.. Pros and Cons list.. Didactic Interaction.. |