Groupthink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Groupthink describes a decision making process, where the group members go along with what they believe is the consensus. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is usually used as a derogatory term after the results of a bad decision.

1 Origin
2 Causes of groupthink
3 Symptoms of groupthink
4 Classic cases of groupthink
5 Preventing groupthink
6 Criticism
7 Works cited
8 See also

[edit] Origin

The term was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte in Fortune:

"Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well."

Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject (9):

"A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."

The word groupthink was intended to be reminiscent of Newspeak words such as "doublethink" and "duckspeak", from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (Janis 9).

[edit] Causes of groupthink

Irving Janis, who did extensive research on groupthink, looked at the causes of groupthink. In his book, Victims of Groupthink, he studied several presidents’ foreign policy decisions. He examined the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban missile crisis, and the Korean and Vietnam wars. After examining how these decisions were made, he concluded that there were three main causes of groupthink (Janis 197):

1. Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink. The closer they are, the less likely they are to raise questions to break the cohesion.

2. The group isolates itself from outside experts. In order to make a well informed decision, the group needs to invite qualified experts to help weigh the possible risks.

3. Strong leadership leads to groupthink, because the leader is more likely to promote his/her own solution.

Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

1. Directive leadership.

2. Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.

3. Insulation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

[edit] Symptoms of groupthink

In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (197).

1. A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.

2. Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.

3. An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

4. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.

5. Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.

6. Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

7. An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.

8. Mindguards- self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.

[edit] Classic cases of groupthink

Most classical cases of groupthink come from the government. The presidential cabinet and NASA have been most closely studied. They are under extremely high stress, with direct leadership. It is very easy for them to slip into groupthink. NASA actually used sociologists in the aftermath of the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster to examine how the groups failed in preventing the disaster (Giddens 114-15). The sociologists concluded that the individual fears were suppressed, in order to make the launch deadline.

The most studied case of groupthink is the Bay of Pigs invasion (Giddens 109). The main idea of the Bay of Pigs invasion was to train a group of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba and spark a revolution against Fidel Castro’s communist regime. The plan was fatally flawed from the beginning, but none of President Kennedy’s top advisors spoke out against the plan. Kennedy’s top group of advisors fit every one of the main causes of groupthink. They had all been educated in the countries top universities, causing them to become a very cohesive group. They were also all afraid of speaking out against the plan, because they did not want to upset the president. The Presidents brother, Robert Kennedy, took on the role of a mind guard, telling dissenters that it was a waste of their time, because the President had already made up his mind (Janis 41). They also did not consult military leaders in order to make sure that the plan was strategically sound. The Bay of Pigs invasion was flawed from the beginning, but groupthink suppressed any possible dissenters. The invasion turned out to be a horrible failure and an extreme embarrassment for the new president.

The Challenger Space Shuttle disaster is also a classic case of groupthink. The Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff on January 28, 1986 (Vaughan 33). The launch had been originally scheduled for January 22, but a series of problems pushed back the launch date. Scientists and engineers throughout NASA were anxious to get the mission underway. The day before the launch an engineer brought up a concern about the o-rings in the booster rockets. Several conference calls were held to discuss the problem and the decision to go ahead with the launch was agreed upon. The group involved in making the Challenger decision met several of the symptoms of groupthink. They ignored warnings that contradicted the group’s goal. The goal was to get the launch off as soon as possible, and it ended up being a fatal mistake. They also suffered from a feeling of invulnerability, up until that point NASA had an almost spotless safety record. They also failed to completely examine the risks of their decision; they played it off as if it was nothing important. These misjudgments lead to the tragic loss of several astronauts, and a huge black mark of NASA’s near perfect safety record.

[edit] Preventing groupthink

According to Irving Janis, decision making groups are not necessarily doomed to groupthink. He also claims that there are several ways to prevent it. Janis devised seven ways of preventing groupthink (209-15):

1. Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.

2. Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.

3. The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.

4. All effective alternatives should be examined.

5. Each member should discuss the groups ideas with trusted people outside of the group.

6. The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.

7. At least one group member should be assigned the role of devil’s advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.

By intentionally avoiding the causes of groupthink, group decision making can be very productive. One of the best examples of avoiding groupthink comes from the Cuban missile crisis (Janis 148-49). John F. Kennedy had learned valuable lessons from experiencing groupthink during the Bay of Pigs fiasco. During group meetings, he invited outside experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed group members to carefully question them. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members within their seperate departments. He also divided the group up into sub-groups, in order to partially break the group cohesion. The group was broken up and reassembled many times, constantly changing the group dynamics. JFK would also deliberately absent himself from the meetings. He did not want to press his opinion upon the group, he wanted his advisors to be able to think and discuss freely without their boss sitting right next to them. When a person’s boss is sitting next to them, they are less likely to think outside the box. President Kennedy successfully avoided groupthink. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully. JFK was successful in avoiding groupthink, because he deliberately avoided the causes.

Devils advocates are also a great way of preventing groupthink (Janis 215). Devils advocates are pre-assigned dissenters, who must challenge the ideas of the main group. They can often bring up points that would be otherwise ignored. Devils advocates help to eliminate the stigma of being the first to disagree. The devils advocate idea works best when the members of the group do not know who the devils advocate is. The devils advocate could be assigned through drawing cards, or some other similar random device. When the group members do not know who the devils advocate is, they are not sure if a dissenter is the devils advocate, or if he/she is expressing an honest concern.

[edit] Criticism

There has been much criticism about the groupthink theory. Robert S. Baron contends that recent investigation and testing has not been able to defend the connection between certain antecedents with groupthink (219-253). That is due to the fact that the groupthink theory is very difficult to test in a lab situation. Alfinger and Esser also came to the same conclusion (40). After concluding their study, they stated that better methods of testing Janis' symptoms were needed. It is impossible to create in labs the same conditions under which important government groups work. It is impossible to create the same levels of stress and pressure experienced by high level government officials, with the future of the entire nation hanging in the balance. Baron also contends that the groupthink model applies to a far wider range of groups than Janis originally concluded. This remains to be untested. However, it can be speculated that most people who have worked in a group setting can identify some of the symptoms of groupthink.

[edit] Works cited

Baron, R. S. (2005). So Right It's Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making. In Zanna, Mark P (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 37. (219-253). San Diego. Elsevier Academic Press.

Giddens, Anthony, Mitchell Duneier, and Richard P. Appelbaum. Essentials of Sociology. New York. W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.

Janis, Irving L. Victims of Groupthink. Boston. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972.

McCauley, Clark. "The Nature of Social Influence in Groupthink: Compliance and Internalization." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 57 (1987). 250-260.

Richardson Ahlfinger, Noni, and James K. Esser. "Testing the Groupthink Model: Effects of Promotional Leadership and Conformity Predisposition." Social Behavior and Personality (2001). 31-42.

Vaughan, Diane. The Challenger Launch Decison: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 1996.