Groupthink Can Be Avoided by Doing All of the Following Except:

Psychological miracle that occurs within a group of people

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the want for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs.^[1] This causes the grouping to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation.^[2] ^[3]

Groupthink is a construct of social psychology, but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political scientific discipline, management, and organizational theory,^[4] likewise as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.^[5] ^[half-dozen]

Overview [edit]

Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such every bit "conservatism" and "liberalism" in the U.Southward. political context ^[vii] or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in confinement).^[8] Nonetheless, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate grouping controlling, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the private members of the group.

The term was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte Jr.^[9] Virtually of the initial inquiry on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a enquiry psychologist from Yale Academy.^[10] Janis published an influential book in 1972, which was revised in 1982.^[11] ^[12] Janis used the Bay of Pigs disaster (the failed invasion of Castro's Republic of cuba in 1961) and the Japanese assail on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as his two prime case studies. Afterward studies have evaluated and reformulated his groupthink model.^[13] ^[xiv]

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of private inventiveness, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right conclusion has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing deportment against the "outgroup". Members of a group can frequently experience under peer pressure to "continue with the crowd" for fright of "rocking the gunkhole" or of how their speaking out will be perceived by the remainder of the group. Grouping interactions tend to favor articulate and harmonious agreements and information technology can be a cause for business when little to no new innovations or arguments for amend policies, outcomes and structures are called to question. (McLeod). Groupthink can often exist referred to every bit a group of "aye men" because grouping activities and group projects in general get in extremely easy to pass on not offering constructive opinions.

Some methods that have been used to annul group think in the by is selecting teams from more diverse backgrounds, and even mixing men and women for groups (Kamalnath). Groupthink can exist considered past many to be a detriment to companies, organizations and in whatsoever work situations. Most positions that are senior level demand individuals to exist independent in their thinking. There is a positive correlation found betwixt outstanding executives and decisiveness (Kelman). Groupthink also prohibits an organization from moving forward and innovating if no i ever speaks up and says something could be washed differently.

Ancestor factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group construction, and situational context (e.k., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

History [edit]

William H. Whyte Jr. derived the term from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, and popularized information technology in 1952 in Fortune magazine:

Groupthink being a coinage – and, admittedly, a loaded i – a working definition is in order. We are not talking near mere instinctive conformity – it is, later 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 expert equally well.^[ix] ^[xv]

Irving Janis pioneered the initial enquiry on the groupthink theory. He does not cite Whyte, simply coined the term once again by illustration with "doublethink" and like terms that were part of the newspeak vocabulary in the novel Nineteen Eighty-4 by George Orwell. He initially divers groupthink as follows:

I utilise the term groupthink equally a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons appoint in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that information technology tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context, groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments every bit a result of grouping pressures.^[10] ^: 43

He went on to write:

The main principle of groupthink, which I offer in the spirit of Parkinson's Law, is this: "The more amiability and esprit de corps there is among the members of a policy-making ingroup, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against outgroups".^[x] ^: 44

Janis prepare the foundation for the study of groupthink starting with his research in the American Soldier Project where he studied the consequence of farthermost stress on group cohesiveness. Afterward this report he remained interested in the ways in which people brand decisions under external threats. This interest led Janis to written report a number of "disasters" in American foreign policy, such every bit failure to anticipate the Japanese set on on Pearl Harbor (1941); the Bay of Pigs Invasion fiasco (1961); and the prosecution of the Vietnam War (1964–67) by President Lyndon Johnson. He concluded that in each of these cases, the decisions occurred largely because of groupthink, which prevented contradictory views from beingness expressed and subsequently evaluated.

After the publication of Janis' book Victims of Groupthink in 1972,^[11] and a revised edition with the championship Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes in 1982,^[12] the concept of groupthink was used^{[ by whom? ]} to explain many other faulty decisions in history. These events included Nazi Germany's decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, the Watergate scandal and others. Despite the popularity of the concept of groupthink, fewer than ii dozen studies addressed the miracle itself post-obit the publication of Victims of Groupthink, betwixt the years 1972 and 1998.^[4] ^: 107 This was surprising considering how many fields of interests it spans, which include political scientific discipline, communications, organizational studies, social psychology, management, strategy, counseling, and marketing. One tin well-nigh probable explain this lack of follow-upward in that grouping research is difficult to deport, groupthink has many independent and dependent variables, and it is unclear "how to translate [groupthink's] theoretical concepts into appreciable and quantitative constructs".^[4] ^{: 107–108}

Nevertheless, outside enquiry psychology and sociology, wider culture has come to find groupthink in observable situations, for instance:

" [...] critics of Twitter point to the predominance of the hive mind in such social media, the kind of groupthink that submerges independent thinking in favor of conformity to the grouping, the collective"^[16]

"[...] leaders often have beliefs which are very far from matching reality and which tin become more extreme as they are encouraged past their followers. The predilection of many cult leaders for abstruse, ambiguous, and therefore unchallengeable ideas can farther reduce the likelihood of reality testing, while the intense milieu control exerted by cults over their members means that nigh of the reality available for testing is supplied by the group surround. This is seen in the miracle of 'groupthink', alleged to have occurred, notoriously, during the Bay of Pigs fiasco."^[17]

"Groupthink past Coercion [...] [G]roupthink at to the lowest degree implies voluntarism. When this fails, the arrangement is not higher up outright intimidation. [...] In [a nationwide telecommunications company], refusal by the new hires to cheer on control incurred consequences non unlike the indoctrination and brainwashing techniques associated with a Soviet-era gulag."^[18]

Symptoms [edit]

To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:^[xix]

Blazon I: Overestimations of the group — its ability and morality

Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type 2: Closed-mindedness

Rationalizing warnings that might claiming the group'southward assumptions.
Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

Cocky-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
Illusions of unanimity amidst group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Direct pressure level to conform placed on any member who questions the grouping, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Causes [edit]

Janis prescribed three antecedent weather to groupthink.^[xi] ^: 9

High group cohesiveness. Janis emphasized that cohesiveness is the chief gene that leads to groupthink. Groups that lack cohesiveness can of course make bad decisions, but they practise not experience groupthink. In a cohesive group, members avert speaking out against decisions, avoid arguing with others, and piece of work towards maintaining friendly relationships in the group. If cohesiveness gets to such a high level where there are no longer disagreements between members, then the grouping is ripe for groupthink.
- deindividuation: group cohesiveness becomes more important than private freedom of expression
Structural faults. Cohesion is necessary for groupthink, only information technology becomes even more likely when the group is organized in ways that disrupt the communication of information, and when the group engages in carelessness while making decisions.
- insulation of the grouping: can promote the development of unique, inaccurate perspectives on bug the grouping is dealing with, and tin can so pb to faulty solutions to the trouble.
- lack of impartial leadership: leaders tin completely control the group discussion, by planning what will exist discussed, only allowing sure questions to be asked, and request for opinions of but certain people in the grouping. Closed mode leadership is when leaders announce their opinions on the issue before the group discusses the issue together. Open manner leadership is when leaders withhold their opinion until a later time in the discussion. Groups with a airtight way leader have been found to be more biased in their judgments, peculiarly when members had a high degree for certainty.
- lack of norms requiring methodological procedures
- homogeneity of members' social backgrounds and ideology
Situational context:
- highly stressful external threats: Loftier stake decisions can create tension and feet, and grouping members then may cope with the decisional stress in irrational ways. Grouping members may rationalize their determination past exaggerating the positive consequences and minimizing the possible negative consequences. In attempt to minimize the stressful situation, the group will make a quick decision with piffling to no discussion or disagreement about the determination. Studies have shown that groups nether high stress are more likely to make errors, lose focus of the ultimate goal, and use procedures that members know have not been effective in the past.
- recent failures: can lead to low self-esteem, resulting in agreement with the group for fear of being seen every bit wrong
- excessive difficulties in determination-making tasks
- fourth dimension pressures: group members are more concerned with efficiency and quick results, instead of quality and accuracy. Additionally, fourth dimension pressures tin can lead to group members overlooking important data regarding the issue of word.
- moral dilemmas

Although it is possible for a situation to comprise all three of these factors, all three are non always present fifty-fifty when groupthink is occurring. Janis considered a high degree of cohesiveness to exist the most important antecedent to producing groupthink and always present when groupthink was occurring; nonetheless, he believed loftier cohesiveness would non always produce groupthink. A very cohesive group abides to all group norms; whether or not groupthink arises is dependent on what the group norms are. If the group encourages private dissent and culling strategies to problem solving, it is likely that groupthink will be avoided even in a highly cohesive grouping. This ways that loftier cohesion will atomic number 82 to groupthink only if one or both of the other antecedents is nowadays, situational context being slightly more than likely than structural faults to produce groupthink.^[20]

Prevention [edit]

As observed by Aldag and Fuller (1993), the groupthink miracle seems to rest on a set of unstated and generally restrictive assumptions:^[21]

The purpose of group problem solving is mainly to improve determination quality
Grouping problem solving is considered a rational process.
Benefits of group problem solving:
- variety of perspectives
- more information most possible alternatives
- better conclusion reliability
- dampening of biases
- social presence effects
Groupthink prevents these benefits due to structural faults and provocative situational context
Groupthink prevention methods will produce better decisions
An illusion of well-being is presumed to be inherently dysfunctional.
Grouping pressures towards consensus lead to concurrence-seeking tendencies.

Information technology has been thought that groups with the stiff power to piece of work together will be able to solve dilemmas in a quicker and more efficient style than an individual. Groups accept a greater corporeality of resource which lead them to be able to store and retrieve information more readily and come up with more than alternative solutions to a problem. In that location was a recognized downside to group trouble solving in that it takes groups more time to come to a conclusion and requires that people make compromises with each other. However, information technology was not until the research of Janis appeared that anyone really considered that a highly cohesive group could impair the group'southward ability to generate quality decisions. Tight-knit groups may announced to brand decisions ameliorate because they can come to a consensus quickly and at a depression energy cost; withal, over time this process of conclusion-making may decrease the members' ability to think critically. It is, therefore, considered past many to be important to gainsay the furnishings of groupthink.^[twenty]

According to Janis, controlling groups are not necessarily destined to groupthink. He devised ways of preventing groupthink:^[11] ^{: 209–215}

Leaders should assign each member the role of "critical evaluator". This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.
Leaders should not express an stance when assigning a task to a grouping.
Leaders should absent themselves from many of the group meetings to avert excessively influencing the issue.
The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the aforementioned problem.
All constructive alternatives should be examined.
Each member should discuss the group'southward ideas with trusted people outside of the group.
The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.
At least ane grouping member should be assigned the office of devil'south advocate. This should exist a dissimilar person for each meeting.

The devil'south advocate in a grouping may provide questions and insight which contradict the majority group in gild to avert groupthink decisions.^[22] A written report past Ryan Hartwig confirms that the devil's advocacy technique is very useful for group problem-solving.^[23] Information technology allows for conflict to be used in a fashion that is nearly-constructive for finding the best solution so that members will not have to go back and find a different solution if the first one fails. Hartwig too suggests that the devil'due south advocacy technique be incorporated with other group decision-making models such as the functional theory to find and evaluate alternative solutions. The main idea of the devil'southward advocacy technique is that somewhat structured disharmonize can be facilitated to non only reduce groupthink, simply to also solve problems.

A similar term to groupthink is the Abilene paradox, some other miracle that is detrimental when working in groups. When organizations autumn into the Abilene paradox, they have actions in contradiction to what their perceived goals may be and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve.^[24] Failure to communicate desires or beliefs can cause the Abilene paradox.

As explained in the Abilene paradox, the Watergate scandal is an example of this. Before the scandal had occurred, a meeting took place where they discussed the issue. I of Nixon's campaign aides was unsure if he should speak upwards and give his input. If he had voiced his disagreement with the group'due south decision, it is possible that the scandal could accept been avoided.

Other examples of how groupthink could exist avoided or prevented:

Subsequently the Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco, President John F. Kennedy sought to avoid groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crunch using "vigilant appraisal".^[12] ^{: 148–153} During meetings, he invited exterior experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed grouping members to question them carefully. He also encouraged grouping members to hash out possible solutions with trusted members within their dissever departments, and he fifty-fifty divided the group up into various sub-groups, to partially break the grouping cohesion. Kennedy was deliberately absent-minded from the meetings, so as to avert pressing his own opinion.

Cass Sunstein reports that introverts can sometimes be silent in meetings with extroverts; he recommends explicitly asking for each person's opinion, either during the coming together or afterwards in ane-on-1 sessions. Sunstein points to studies showing groups with a high level of internal socialization and happy talk are more prone to bad investment decisions due to groupthink, compared with groups of investors who are relative strangers and more willing to be argumentative. To avoid group polarization, where discussion with agreeing people drives an event further to an extreme than whatever of the individuals favored earlier the discussion, he recommends creating heterogeneous groups which contain people with different points of view. Sunstein also points out that people arguing a side they do non sincerely believe (in the office of devil's abet) tend to be much less effective than a sincere statement. This can be accomplished by dissenting individuals, or a group similar a Cherry-red Squad that is expected to pursue an alternative strategy or goal "for existent".^[25]

Empirical findings and meta-analysis [edit]

Testing groupthink in a laboratory is difficult considering synthetic settings remove groups from real social situations, which ultimately changes the variables conducive or inhibitive to groupthink.^[26] Because of its subjective nature, researchers have struggled to measure groupthink as a consummate phenomenon, instead frequently opting to measure its detail factors. These factors range from causal to effectual and focus on group and situational aspects.^[27] ^[28]

Park (1990) found that "only xvi empirical studies have been published on groupthink", and ended that they "resulted in only partial back up of his [Janis's] hypotheses".^[29] ^: 230 Park concludes, "despite Janis' claim that group cohesiveness is the major necessary antecedent factor, no research has shown a pregnant primary event of cohesiveness on groupthink."^[29] ^: 230 Park also concludes that enquiry on the interaction betwixt group cohesiveness and leadership style does not back up Janis' claim that cohesion and leadership style collaborate to produce groupthink symptoms.^[29] Park presents a summary of the results of the studies analyzed. According to Park, a written report by Huseman and Bulldoze (1979) indicates groupthink occurs in both small and big decision-making groups within businesses.^[29] This results partly from grouping isolation within the business. Manz and Sims (1982) conducted a study showing that autonomous work groups are susceptible to groupthink symptoms in the aforementioned manner every bit decisions making groups within businesses.^[29] ^[30] Fodor and Smith (1982) produced a study revealing that group leaders with high power motivation create atmospheres more than susceptible to groupthink.^[29] ^[31] Leaders with high power motivation possess characteristics similar to leaders with a "closed" leadership style—an unwillingness to respect dissenting opinion. The same study indicates that level of group cohesiveness is insignificant in predicting groupthink occurrence. Park summarizes a study performed by Callaway, Marriott, and Esser (1985) in which groups with highly dominant members "made college quality decisions, exhibited lowered state of anxiety, took more time to reach a decision, and made more statements of disagreement/agreement".^[29] ^: 232 ^[32] Overall, groups with highly dominant members expressed characteristics inhibitory to groupthink. If highly dominant members are considered equivalent to leaders with high power motivation, the results of Callaway, Marriott, and Esser contradict the results of Fodor and Smith. A study by Leana (1985) indicates the interaction betwixt level of grouping cohesion and leadership style is completely insignificant in predicting groupthink.^[29] ^[33] This finding refutes Janis' claim that the factors of cohesion and leadership style interact to produce groupthink. Park summarizes a report by McCauley (1989) in which structural conditions of the group were found to predict groupthink while situational atmospheric condition did not.^[fourteen] ^[29] The structural conditions included group insulation, group homogeneity, and promotional leadership. The situational conditions included group cohesion. These findings abnegate Janis' merits about grouping cohesiveness predicting groupthink.

Overall, studies on groupthink take largely focused on the factors (antecedents) that predict groupthink. Groupthink occurrence is often measured past number of ideas/solutions generated within a grouping, but in that location is no uniform, concrete standard past which researchers can objectively conclude groupthink occurs.^[26] The studies of groupthink and groupthink antecedents reveal a mixed torso of results. Some studies indicate grouping cohesion and leadership style to be powerfully predictive of groupthink, while other studies point the insignificance of these factors. Group homogeneity and grouping insulation are generally supported as factors predictive of groupthink.

Case studies [edit]

Politics and military machine [edit]

Groupthink can have a strong agree on political decisions and armed services operations, which may result in enormous wastage of man and textile resources. Highly qualified and experienced politicians and military commanders sometimes make very poor decisions when in a suboptimal group setting. Scholars such equally Janis and Raven attribute political and armed services fiascoes, such as the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Vietnam War, and the Watergate scandal, to the effect of groupthink.^[12] ^[34] More recently, Dina Badie argued that groupthink was largely responsible for the shift in the U.Southward. administration'southward view on Saddam Hussein that eventually led to the 2003 invasion of Republic of iraq by the United States.^[35] After the September 11 attacks, "stress, promotional leadership, and intergroup conflict" were all factors that gave rise to the occurrence of groupthink.^[35] ^: 283 Political instance studies of groupthink serve to illustrate the bear on that the occurrence of groupthink tin can accept in today's political scene.

Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis [edit]

The Us Bay of Pigs Invasion of April 1961 was the primary case study that Janis used to formulate his theory of groupthink.^[ten] The invasion plan was initiated past the Eisenhower assistants, just when the Kennedy administration took over, it "uncritically accustomed" the programme of the Fundamental Intelligence Bureau (CIA).^[10] ^: 44 When some people, such as Arthur Chiliad. Schlesinger Jr. and Senator J. William Fulbright, attempted to present their objections to the programme, the Kennedy team equally a whole ignored these objections and kept believing in the morality of their plan.^[10] ^: 46 Eventually Schlesinger minimized his own doubts, performing self-censorship.^[ten] ^: 74 The Kennedy team stereotyped Fidel Castro and the Cubans by failing to question the CIA about its many false assumptions, including the ineffectiveness of Castro's air force, the weakness of Castro's army, and the disability of Castro to quell internal uprisings.^[x] ^: 46

Janis argued the fiasco that ensued could have been prevented if the Kennedy administration had followed the methods to preventing groupthink adopted during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which took place just one year later in October 1962. In the latter crunch, substantially the same political leaders were involved in controlling, but this time they learned from their previous mistake of seriously nether-rating their opponents.^[10] ^: 76

Pearl Harbor [edit]

The assail on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, is a prime instance of groupthink. A number of factors such as shared illusions and rationalizations contributed to the lack of precaution taken by U.S. Navy officers based in Hawaii. The United States had intercepted Japanese letters and they discovered that Nihon was arming itself for an offensive assail somewhere in the Pacific Body of water. Washington took action by warning officers stationed at Pearl Harbor, merely their warning was non taken seriously. They assumed that the Empire of Japan was taking measures in the event that their embassies and consulates in enemy territories were usurped.

The U.S. Navy and Army in Pearl Harbor also shared rationalizations about why an attack was unlikely. Some of them included:^[12] ^: 83, 85

"The Japanese would never cartel endeavor a full-scale surprise assail confronting Hawaii considering they would realize that it would precipitate an all-out war, which the United States would surely win."
"The Pacific Armada concentrated at Pearl Harbor was a major deterrent against air or naval attack."
"Fifty-fifty if the Japanese were foolhardy to transport their carriers to attack us [the United States], nosotros could certainly detect and destroy them in plenty of fourth dimension."
"No warships anchored in the shallow h2o of Pearl Harbor could ever be sunk by torpedo bombs launched from enemy aircraft."

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster [edit]

On Jan 28, 1986, the US launched the Space Shuttle Challenger. This was to be monumental for NASA, every bit a high schoolhouse teacher was among the coiffure and was to be the showtime American noncombatant in space. NASA's engineering and launch teams rely on grouping piece of work, and in gild to launch the shuttle the team members must affirm each system is operation nominally. The Thiokol engineers who designed and built the Challenger's rocket boosters warned that the temperature for the day of the launch could result in full failure of the vehicles and deaths of the crew.^[36] The launch resulted in disaster and grounded space shuttle flights for nearly three years.

The Challenger example was subject field to a more quantitatively oriented test of Janis'southward groupthink model performed past Esser and Lindoerfer, who plant clear signs of positive antecedents to groupthink in the disquisitional decisions concerning the launch of the shuttle.^[37] The day of the launch was rushed for publicity reasons. NASA wanted to captivate and hold the attention of America. Having civilian teacher Christa McAuliffe on board to broadcast a alive lesson, and the possible mention by president Ronald Reagan in the Country of the Marriage address, were opportunities NASA deemed critical to increasing interest in its potential civilian space flying program. The schedule NASA gear up out to meet was, however, self-imposed. Information technology seemed incredible to many that an system with a perceived history of successful direction would have locked itself into a schedule it had no chance of coming together.^[38]

2016 United States presidential election [edit]

In the weeks and months preceding the 2022 United states of america presidential election, there was about-unanimity among news media outlets and polling organizations that Hillary Clinton's election was extremely likely. For example, on Nov 7, the twenty-four hour period before the ballot, The New York Times opined that Clinton then had "a consistent and clear advantage in states worth at least 270 electoral votes".^[39] The Times estimated the probability of a Clinton win at 84%.^[forty] Also on November 7, Reuters estimated the probability of Clinton defeating Donald Trump in the ballot at 90%,^[41] and The Huffington Mail service put Clinton's odds of winning at 98.two% based on "nine.8 million simulations".^[42]

The contradiction betwixt the election results and the pre-ballot estimates, both from news media outlets and from pollsters, may have been due to two factors: news and polling professionals couldn't imagine a candidate every bit unconventional every bit Trump condign president; and Trump supporters may have been under-sampled by surveys^[43] or may take lied to or misled pollsters out of fear of social ostracism.^[44]

Corporate world [edit]

In the corporate globe, ineffective and suboptimal group controlling can negatively affect the health of a company and cause a considerable corporeality of monetary loss.

Swissair [edit]

Aaron Hermann and Hussain Rammal illustrate the detrimental role of groupthink in the collapse of Swissair, a Swiss airline company that was thought to exist and so financially stable that information technology earned the title the "Flight Bank".^[45] The authors contend that, amongst other factors, Swissair carried ii symptoms of groupthink: the belief that the group is invulnerable and the belief in the morality of the group.^[45] ^: 1056 In addition, earlier the fiasco, the size of the visitor board was reduced, later on eliminating industrial expertise. This may have further increased the likelihood of groupthink.^[45] ^: 1055 With the board members defective expertise in the field and having somewhat similar background, norms, and values, the pressure to conform may accept become more prominent.^[45] ^: 1057 This miracle is called grouping homogeneity, which is an ancestor to groupthink. Together, these conditions may have contributed to the poor controlling process that eventually led to Swissair'south collapse.

Marks & Spencer and British Airways [edit]

Another example of groupthink from the corporate world is illustrated in the United kingdom-based companies Marks & Spencer and British Airways. The negative impact of groupthink took identify during the 1990s as both companies released globalization expansion strategies. Researcher Jack Eaton'south content analysis of media press releases revealed that all viii symptoms of groupthink were present during this period. The nigh predominant symptom of groupthink was the illusion of invulnerability as both companies underestimated potential failure due to years of profitability and success during challenging markets. Upwards until the consequence of groupthink erupted they were considered blue fries and darlings of the London Stock Exchange. During 1998–1999 the toll of Marks & Spencer shares fell from 590 to less than 300 and that of British Airways from 740 to 300. Both companies had already featured prominently in the Britain printing and media for more positive reasons to exercise with national pride in their undoubted sector-wide performance.^[46]

Sports [edit]

Recent literature of groupthink attempts to study the awarding of this concept beyond the framework of business organisation and politics. One particularly relevant and pop arena in which groupthink is rarely studied is sports. The lack of literature in this area prompted Charles Koerber and Christopher Neck to begin a case-study investigation that examined the outcome of groupthink on the conclusion of the Major League Umpires Association (MLUA) to stage a mass resignation in 1999. The determination was a failed try to gain a stronger negotiating stance against Major League Baseball.^[47] ^: 21 Koerber and Neck suggest that three groupthink symptoms tin can be found in the conclusion-making procedure of the MLUA. Beginning, the umpires overestimated the ability that they had over the baseball league and the strength of their group'due south resolve. The spousal relationship also exhibited some degree of closed-mindedness with the notion that MLB is the enemy. Lastly, there was the presence of self-censorship; some umpires who disagreed with the decision to resign failed to voice their dissent.^[47] ^: 25 These factors, forth with other decision-making defects, led to a decision that was suboptimal and ineffective.

Recent developments [edit]

Ubiquity model [edit]

Researcher Robert Baron (2005) contends that the connection between sure antecedents which Janis believed necessary has not been demonstrated by the current collective body of research on groupthink. He believes that Janis' antecedents for groupthink are incorrect, and argues that not merely are they "not necessary to provoke the symptoms of groupthink, only that they oftentimes will not fifty-fifty amplify such symptoms".^[48] As an culling to Janis' model, Baron proposed a ubiquity model of groupthink. This model provides a revised set of antecedents for groupthink, including social identification, salient norms, and low self-efficacy.

General grouping problem-solving (GGPS) model [edit]

Aldag and Fuller (1993) fence that the groupthink concept was based on a "small and relatively restricted sample" that became too broadly generalized.^[21] Furthermore, the concept is too rigidly staged and deterministic. Empirical support for it has also non been consistent. The authors compare groupthink model to findings presented by Maslow and Piaget; they contend that, in each case, the model incites bang-up interest and further research that, subsequently, invalidate the original concept. Aldag and Fuller thus propose a new model called the full general group problem-solving (GGPS) model, which integrates new findings from groupthink literature and alters aspects of groupthink itself.^[21] ^: 534 The primary difference between the GGPS model and groupthink is that the erstwhile is more than value neutral and more than political.^[21] ^: 544

Reexamination [edit]

Later scholars take re-assessed the merit of groupthink past reexamining case studies that Janis originally used to buttress his model. Roderick Kramer (1998) believed that, because scholars today accept a more sophisticated set of ideas about the general decision-making procedure and because new and relevant information nearly the fiascos have surfaced over the years, a reexamination of the example studies is appropriate and necessary.^[49] He argues that new show does not support Janis' view that groupthink was largely responsible for President Kennedy's and President Johnson's decisions in the Bay of Pigs Invasion and U.S. escalated military interest in the Vietnam War, respectively. Both presidents sought the communication of experts exterior of their political groups more than Janis suggested.^[49] ^: 241 Kramer also argues that the presidents were the last decision-makers of the fiascos; while determining which course of action to take, they relied more heavily on their own construals of the situations than on whatever group-consenting decision presented to them.^[49] ^: 241 Kramer concludes that Janis' explanation of the two military issues is flawed and that groupthink has much less influence on group decision-making than is popularly believed.

Groupthink, while it is thought to exist avoided, does have some positive effects. A case report by Choi and Kim ^[50] shows that with grouping identity, group performance has a negative correlation with defective conclusion making. This study also showed that the relationship betwixt groupthink and defective decision making was insignificant. These findings mean that in the right circumstances, groupthink does not ever have negative outcomes. It as well questions the original theory of groupthink.

Reformulation [edit]

Whyte (1998) suggests that commonage efficacy plays a large unrecognised office in groupthink because it causes groups to go less vigilant and to favor risks, two item factors that characterize groups affected by groupthink.^[51] McCauley recasts aspects of groupthink'due south preconditions past arguing that the level of bewitchery of group members is the nigh prominent gene in causing poor decision-making.^[52] The results of Turner's and Pratkanis' (1991) written report on social identity maintenance perspective and groupthink conclude that groupthink tin can be viewed as a "collective endeavor directed at warding off potentially negative views of the group".^[6] Together, the contributions of these scholars have brought about new understandings of groupthink that assist reformulate Janis' original model.

Sociocognitive theory [edit]

According to a new theory many of the basic characteristics of groupthink – e.grand., strong cohesion, indulgent temper, and exclusive ethos – are the upshot of a special kind of mnemonic encoding (Tsoukalas, 2007). Members of tightly knit groups have a tendency to represent significant aspects of their customs as episodic memories and this has a anticipated influence on their grouping behavior and collective ideology.^[53]

References [edit]

^ "Leadership Glossary: Essential Terms for the 21st Century". Choice Reviews Online. 52 (11): 52–5672-52-5672. 2015-06-18. doi:ten.5860/option.190440. ISSN 0009-4978.
^ "Organisational behaviour - Docsity". www.docsity.com . Retrieved 2020-05-27 .
^ "Groupthink". Ethics Unwrapped . Retrieved 2020-05-27 .
^ ^a ^b ^c Turner, M. E.; Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). "Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: lessons from the evaluation of a theory" (PDF). Organizational Behavior and Human being Determination Processes. 73 (two–3): 105–115. doi:x.1006/obhd.1998.2756. PMID 9705798. S2CID 15074397. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-10-xix.
^ Wexler, Mark Due north. (1995). "Expanding the groupthink explanation to the study of gimmicky cults". Cultic Studies Journal. 12 (1): 49–71.
^ ^a ^b Turner, M.; Pratkanis, A. (1998). "A social identity maintenance model of groupthink". Organizational Behavior and Homo Decision Processes. 73 (2–iii): 210–235. doi:ten.1006/obhd.1998.2757. PMID 9705803.
^ Sherman, Mark (March 2011), "Does liberal truly mean open-minded?", Psychology Today
^ Cain, Susan (January xiii, 2012). "The rising of the new groupthink". New York Times. .
^ ^a ^b Whyte, W. H., Jr. (March 1952). "Groupthink". Fortune. pp. 114–117, 142, 146.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^eastward ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Janis, I. L. (November 1971). "Groupthink" (PDF). Psychology Today. five (half dozen): 43–46, 74–76. Archived from the original on April 1, 2010. {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: a Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN0-395-14002-1.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^eastward Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN0-395-31704-5.
^ 't Hart, P. (1998). "Preventing groupthink revisited: Evaluating and reforming groups in government". Organizational Behavior and Human Determination Processes. 73 (2–iii): 306–326. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2764. PMID 9705806.
^ ^a ^b McCauley, C. (1989). "The nature of social influence in groupthink: Compliance and internalization". Periodical of Personality and Social Psychology. 57 (2): 250–260. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.250.
^ Safire, William (August 8, 2004). "Groupthink". The New York Times . Retrieved February 2, 2012. If the committee's other conclusions are as outdated as its etymology, nosotros're all in trouble. 'Groupthink' (one word, no hyphen) was the championship of an article in Fortune mag in March 1952 by William H. Whyte Jr. ... Whyte derided the notion he argued was held by a trained aristocracy of Washington's 'social engineers.'
^ Cross, Mary (2011-06-30). Bloggerati, Twitterati: How Blogs and Twitter are Transforming Popular Culture. ABC-CLIO (published 2011). p. 62. ISBN9780313384844 . Retrieved 2013-11-17 . [...] critics of twitter point to the predominance of the hive listen in such social media, the kind of groupthink that submerges contained thinking in favor of conformity to the group, the collective.
^ Taylor, Kathleen (2006-07-27). Brainwashing: The Science of Idea Command. Oxford University Press (published 2006). p. 42. ISBN9780199204786 . Retrieved 2013-eleven-17 . [...] leaders often have behavior which are very far from matching reality and which can get more extreme as they are encouraged by their followers. The predilection of many cult leaders for abstract, ambiguous, and therefore unchallengeable ideas tin can farther reduce the likelihood of reality testing, while the intense milieu command exerted by cults over their members ways that most of the reality available for testing is supplied by the group surroundings. This is seen in the phenomenon of 'groupthink', declared to take occurred, notoriously, during the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
^ Jonathan I., Klein (2000). Corporate Failure by Pattern: Why Organizations are Built to Neglect. Greenwood Publishing Grouping. p. 145. ISBN9781567202977 . Retrieved 2013-11-17 . Groupthink by Compulsion [...] [Thou]roupthink at least implies voluntarism. When this fails, the organisation is not above outright intimidation. [...] In [a nationwide telecommunication company], refusal by the new hires to cheer on command incurred consequences not unlike the indoctrination and brainwashing techniques associated with a Soviet-era gulag.
^ Cook Yard., The Theory of Groupthink Applied to Nanking, Stanford University, accessed 12 December 2020
^ ^a ^b Hart, Paul't (1991). "Irving Fifty. Janis' "Victims of Groupthink"". Political Psychology. 12 (2): 247–278. doi:x.2307/3791464. JSTOR 3791464. S2CID 16128437.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Aldag, R. J.; Fuller, S. R. (1993). "Across fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink miracle and a new model of group determination processes" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 113 (3): 533–552. doi:ten.1037/0033-2909.113.3.533. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-06-18.
^ Aamodt, M. G. (2016). Group behavior, terms, and conflict. Industrial/organizational psychology: An applied approach (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
^ Hartwig, R. (2007), Facilitating problem solving: A instance written report using the devil'due south advancement technique, Briefing Papers - National Communication Association, published in Grouping Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, Number 10, 2010, pp 17-32, accessed 2 November 2021
^ Harvey, Jerry B. (1974). "The abilene paradox: The management of agreement". Organizational Dynamics. 3 (1): 63–80. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(74)90005-9. ISSN 0090-2616.
^ "Gauging Grouping Dynamics". Jan 21, 2015.
^ ^a ^b Flowers, Chiliad.L. (1977). "A laboratory test of some implications of Janis's groupthink hypothesis". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35 (12): 888–896. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.12.888.
^ Schafer, M.; Crichlow, Southward. (1996). "Antecedents of groupthink: a quantitative report". Periodical of Conflict Resolution. xl (three): 415–435. doi:10.1177/0022002796040003002. S2CID 146163100.
^ Cline, R. J. W. (1990). "Detecting groupthink: Methods for observing the illusion of unanimity". Communication Quarterly. 38 (2): 112–126. doi:10.1080/01463379009369748.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^{due east} ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Park, Due west.-W. (1990). "A review of enquiry on groupthink" (PDF). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. iii (iv): 229–245. doi:x.1002/bdm.3960030402. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-04-09.
^ Manz, C. C.; Sims, H. P. (1982). "The potential for "groupthink" in autonomous work groups". Human Relations. 35 (9): 773–784. doi:10.1177/001872678203500906. S2CID 145529591.
^ Fodor, Eugene M.; Smith, Terry, Jan 1982, The power motive every bit an influence on group decision making, Periodical of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 42(1), 178–185. doi: x.1037/0022-3514.42.1.178
^ Callaway, Michael R.; Marriott, Richard Thou.; Esser, James K., Oct 1985, Effects of dominance on grouping determination making: Toward a stress-reduction explanation of groupthink, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 49(4), 949–952. doi: x.1037/0022-3514.49.four.949
^ Carrie, R. Leana (1985). A fractional test of Janis' Groupthink Model: Effects of group cohesiveness and leader behavior on defective decision making, "Journal of Management", vol. 11(1), 5–18. doi: ten.1177/014920638501100102
^ Raven, B. H. (1998). "Groupthink: Bay of Pigs and Watergate reconsidered". Organizational Behavior and Homo Determination Processes. 73 (2/3): 352–361. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2766. PMID 9705808.
^ ^a ^b Badie, D. (2010). "Groupthink, Republic of iraq, and the War on Terror: Explaining U.s. policy shift toward Iraq". Foreign Policy Analysis. vi (iv): 277–296. doi:x.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00113.10. S2CID 18013781.
^ "CW Communications: Comparison of AM and FMD. Middleton, Introduction to Statistical Communication Theory, McGrawHill Book Company, New York, 1960 and, J. L. Lawson and G. E. Uhlenbeck, Threshold Signals, McGrawHill Volume Visitor, New York, 1950, contain extensive discussions of both AM and FM.", Advice Systems and Techniques, IEEE, 2009, doi:10.1109/9780470565292.ch3, ISBN978-0-470-56529-2
^ Hart, Paul't (June 1991). "Irving L. Janis' Victims of Groupthink". Political Psychology. 12 (two): 247–278. doi:x.2307/3791464. ISSN 0162-895X. JSTOR 3791464.
^ "Recovery after Challenger", Space Shuttle Columbia, Springer Praxis Books in Infinite Exploration, Praxis, 2005, pp. 99–146, doi:ten.1007/978-0-387-73972-4_3, ISBN978-0-387-21517-4
^ "Clinton has solid lead in Electoral College". New York Times. Nov 7, 2016. Archived from the original on November vii, 2016. {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
^ "Who will be President? Hillary Clinton has an 84% chance to win". New York Times. Nov 7, 2016. Archived from the original on November 7, 2016. {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
^ "Clinton Has 90% chance of winning". Reuters/Ipsos Land of the Nation Project. November 7, 2016. Archived from the original on November 8, 2016. {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
^ "Ballot 2022 forecast". Huffington Post. Nov 7, 2016. Archived from the original on November seven, 2016. {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
^ "How did everyone get it so wrong?". Politico. Nov 9, 2016. Archived from the original on November 9, 2016. Retrieved November 9, 2016.
^ Wilcox, Clifton (2010). Groupthink : an impediment to success. Xlibris Corp., Bloomington, IN. ISBN 1450046142
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Hermann, A.; Rammal, H. M. (2010). "The grounding of the "flight banking concern"". Management Determination. 48 (7): 1051. doi:10.1108/00251741011068761.
^ Eaton, Jack (2001). "Management advice: the threat of groupthink". Corporate Communications. 6 (four): 183–192. doi:10.1108/13563280110409791.
^ ^a ^b Koerber, C. P.; Neck, C. P. (2003). "Groupthink and sports: An awarding of Whyte's model". International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 15: 20–28. doi:10.1108/09596110310458954.
^ Businesswoman, R. (2005). "And then correct it's incorrect: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized grouping conclusion making". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 37: 35. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(05)37004-three. ISBN9780120152377.
^ ^a ^b ^c Kramer, R. M. (1998). "Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam decisions 25 years later: How well has the groupthink hypothesis stood the test of time?". Organizational Beliefs and Human Decision Processes. 73 (2/iii): 236–71. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2762. PMID 9705804.
^ Choi, J. Northward., & Kim, K. U. (1999). The organization application of groupthink and its limitations in organizations. Periodical of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 297-306.
^ Whyte, Yard. (1998). "Recasting Janis's Groupthink model: The key function of collective efficacy in decision fiascoes". Organizational Beliefs and Human Conclusion Processes. 73 (two/3): 185–209. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2761. PMID 9705802.
^ McCauley, C. (1998). "Group dynamics in Janis'south theory of groupthink: Astern and forrard". Organizational Behavior and Human being Decision Processes. 73 (2/three): 142–162. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2759. PMID 9705800.
^ Tsoukalas, I. (2007). "Exploring the microfoundations of group consciousness". Culture and Psychology. xiii (i): 39–81. doi:ten.1177/1354067x07073650. S2CID 144625304.