Groupthink: Its positive and negative implications

Chris Hickey Independent Study Dr. Fitzgerald 5/3/15 Groupthink: its positive and negative implications

How groups function in different circumstances will always remain a point of

interest for researchers. The group dynamics vary with the inclusion of each additional group member. I critically examined how group behavior influence individual decision-­‐making. The early sociologist Irving Janis conceptualized the idea of groupthink, an effect of conformity of group members when trying to reach a desired outcome. Given various group dynamics, groupthink may be more or less present in some groups more than others. Despite this variance, there are some fundamental traits that usually lead to groupthink.

Firstly, the notion of group cohesion is paramount. Group cohesion is how well group members work together and/or put the group before themselves. It is very hard to reach conformity in a group’s decision without any sort of cohesion.

Whether such group cohesion is beneficial or detrimental to the overall goal, groupthink tends to be more present in a more cohesive environment 10. Assisting with the group cohesion, there always seems to be some sort of innate need for affiliation. Social Scientist, Kurt Lewin analyzed small group behaviors’ cohesiveness, particularly when trying to make an objective decision without set criteria 6. He found that when group cohesion is high, this yields positivity, mutual liking, and solidarity. These members are driven to stay affiliated with group 6.

Seldom wish to be the complete isolated from a group, so it is entirely natural for one to have desires to be a part of the group. Given one’s individual temperament, one’s need for affiliation with the group may vary. Most just want to be accepted; it is one of the simplest forms of validation. Dorin Cartwright, esteemed sociologist, notes that the greater a group’s cohesiveness, the more security and self-­‐esteem members have and less anxiety 6. One’s desire to stay affiliated with a group may eventually outweigh one’s personal beliefs. This may repress a group member from objecting to the majority for fear of retribution.

Maintaining a focus for the group discussion is important to ensure progress.

Lacking any kind of set objectives or goals seems to be detrimental to the group decision-­‐making process. Objectives are measurable benchmarks that aid group members in discussion. Set objectives provide a sense of purpose for members, so everyone is consciously working toward the same goal 6. With set objectives in place, the only difference among members is execution, what each member thinks is the optimal route to attain the goal.

While various factors foster groupthink, one can take precautionary

measures to inhibit or lessen it. In order to prevent groupthink, a group needs some one willing to challenge the status quo. Group members must disregard their group affiliation, whether it is a strong or weak group tie 1. Allowing one’s group affiliation to dictate their decision-­‐making can represent the interests of the group rather than one’s personal interests. Failure to have group members challenge group norms allows groupthink to fester .

Though usually touted as a negative phenomenon in most academic literature, groupthink does not always result in the same outcome. Groupthink is not usually perceived in a positive light, yet some research suggests otherwise. An instance of groupthink that showcased the negative aspects of groupthink is the smoking study. The study examined the effects of groupthink on a group of recovering chain smokers 3. Each had entered the rehabilitation program in hopes of dropping their unhealthy habit, yet there was this understanding that one could only quit one addiction at a time. Many group members both drank and smoke, so while attending group meetings to drop a smoking habit, group members decided to concentrate their efforts on quitting drinking alcohol 3. They deemed quitting both as too difficult, and pledged to quite smoking after the program ended.

The outcome of each situation is can be examined as a continuum from most positive to most negative impact of groupthink on that situation. Groupthink, as defined by Irving Janis, “… A deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-­‐group pressures 6.” To provide more context to what is good and bad groupthink, they are defined as such: good groupthink is when a consensus is reached on what is perceived as normative good. Good groupthink promotes honest discussion as group members are striving towards the quintessential good. On the other end of the spectrum, bad groupthink is group or individual behaviors of uniformity overrides or quells honest discussions and who are scared to speak up. Bad groupthink is heavily founded in non-­‐normative decision-­‐making. Asking oneself what path is best to achieve normative good is more conducive to a healthy discussion than making uniform decision. A

confirmative group mentality is not healthy for effective decision-­‐making.

Additionally, complacency fosters negligence 6. The degree of good or bad groupthink is highly dependent on the group, the person, and/or the situation.

An integral player in groupthink is evidently the group, a collection of individuals with potentially differing points of view. How the group acts, whether it is as one collective voice or numerous individual voices, is indicative prevalence of the groupthink. Clearly the more collective the group, the more prevalent groupthink (good or bad) is.

Group norms develop as members identify what traits and behaviors are actionable in the group. The identified group norms provide a solid foundation that encourages groupthink. For instance, in the smoking group study, there were a precedent that members could not start to quit smoking until the cessation classes have ended 3. These group norms have overtaken what is best for each group member’s health. Clearly signs of bad groupthink are present by allowing the group norm to make such an impression on their choices even when it is to the detriment of their health. It is sad, but enlightening case.

In addition to the group norms in place, the intergroup relationships play a role in groupthink and its effect on members. Moreover, one’s ties to the group as either a weakly tied member, or outsider, or a strongly tied member, or insider, allow groupthink to influence their decision-­‐making 8. Weakly tied group members tend to be more vocal against what the group is deciding given their poor affiliation, whereas strongly tied members are more likely to not speak up against the group 7.

Janis suggests that informal group norms maintain interpersonal relationships 6.

Such interpersonal relationships lead to group roles; more specifically, insiders and outsiders. One’s role of an insider or outsider is dependent on the strength of one’s group tie and one’s intergroup relations. Where one is within the group highly affects one’s propensity to speak out against the group. Additionally, how will the group responds to dissention may vary based on their group role? Insiders, though less likely to vocalize their concerns to the group, may cause fewer waves when raising issue with the group 3. Examining the characteristics of the group is integral in understanding groupthink.

Characteristics of the individual group member are indicators of groupthink.

Similar to the characteristics of the group, an individual’s group role is a key component; however, this is observing the individual’s perceptions of their group role compared to their actual group role should those two constructs differ.

Comparing one’s self-­‐perceptions of their group status to their actual group standing can enlighten one about what makes individuals speak up in groups. For instance, if one perceives oneself as a strongly tied member, an insider making decisions with other group members following one’s lead, they may feel more compelled to speak their mind 9. Despite the potential inconsistency between one’s perceived and actual group status, the individual, if not self-­‐aware of his or her group status, will speak according to in accordance with his or her perceived group role.

The concept of opinion leaders and followers, in a group is another characteristic of the individual that differentiates between being fostering or inhibiting groupthink. An opinion leader is a group member that freely shares his or

her opinions with the intent to influence other group members. Conversely, a follower is a passive group member not usually speaking up and sticking to the status quo. Group members who are opinion leaders voices are considered more by the group than a follower. Referring back to the notion of group insiders and outsiders, outsiders were historically more likely to speak out against the majority decision 7. Their liberty to share their dissention was attributed the member’s lack of affiliation to the group. With that, outsiders’ opinions seem to not carry as much credence in a group decision-­‐making process simply due to disconnect from the group. It is a similar story for the followers. They tend to not formulate their own opinions, but rather, follow the opinions of others. This follower mentality enables groupthink 11. Encouraging members to be independent thinkers at the very least is an excellent way to prevent this phenomenon.

After analyzing the characteristics of the group and individual and their

respective influence on groupthink, the characteristics of the situation are the last perspective to examine. With that certain situational factors yield both bad and good groupthink. Something as basic as how group meetings are structured can influence decision-­‐making 12. Moreover, if the meeting’s structure is lacks a predetermined end goal and/or objectives, progress will be greatly derailed. The lack of focus on the end goal leads to bad groupthink with group members having something to strive for 12.

Another factor in what causes one to speak up, and hopefully inhibit

groupthink, is the concept of the public versus private decision-­‐making. When one knows if their decision will be made public or private affects one’s choice confidence

12. For instance, if a group member knows their decision will be made public, this

consciously affects their choice confidence. To avoid public backlash and ensure member choice confidence, some groups institute private decision-­‐making. Each member examines his or her choices and potential outcomes before making a decision. Whether the decision is publicized or privatized is really important.

Certain members who feel they have much to lose by making a public decision may opt to for alternative route despite if that is not in the best interest of the group 12.

Not only does one need to analyze of the privacy of group members’ decisions, but additionally review what each member has to lose from their decision. These situational factors largely affect why group members may or may not speak up.

Failure to speak up fosters groupthink, so preventive measures need to be taken.

As previously noted, groupthink predominantly occurs when there are no set objectives for the group decision-­‐making process. Furthermore, the group fails to explore potential alternatives and different processes. Failure to do so leads a group to “stay the course” and follow the group norm or precedent 8. Numerous options just go unrealized. If the lack of objectives and alternatives is a contributor to when groupthink occurs, then why do groups fail to include these in the decision-­‐making process? A strong group mentality offers a lot of security to its group members, and; thus, objectives and alternatives are ignored. Conforming to a group mentality does not allow for member’s to deviate from the uniform decision 8. The way to ensure a strong group mentality is to ensure each member feels a part of the group. While the idea of group insiders and outsiders has been discussed, not every outsiders is self-­‐ aware of his or her role in the group. In order to sustain a strong group mentality,

the insiders actively try to assure the outsiders that they are welcome and their opinions matter 7. Fostering a strong group mentality is about inclusion, whether it is perceived or actual 1. Make group members feel part of the group and they will be more likely to support the group and its decisions.

As previously mentioned, faulty decision making is integral when groupthink

is present. There are seven defects of group decision-­‐making, which lead to groupthink. The following are the seven defects in group decision-­‐making: there are few group alternatives, the group does not survey objectives, does not reexamine current methods with unexplored alternatives, does not consult experts to vet alternatives, does not reevaluate unsatisfactory alternatives to the majority, huge amounts of selective bias present, and no contingency plans developed to deal with potential set backs 6. Upon realizing any of these seven defects of group decision-­‐ making are present, groups should enact policies to inhibit such defective behaviors.

Unfortunately, sometimes complacency wins, and these issues are not addressed, thus allowing groupthink to fester.

Groupthink is a rather situational force. Though largely negative outcomes, it

has both instances of positive and negative results. Identifying when groupthink is a good or bad influence on a group is up to the discretion of the group members.

Group members should monitor themselves and other members to ensure the decision-­‐making process is not defective or flawed. Such a focus on member complacency also suggests that group protocol and processes must be reviewed and changed accordingly. By improving the group environment, members will feel more

apart of the group, and hopefully more inclined to speak up and challenge the status quo.

References 1.

Balcetis, E., Dunning, D., & Miller, R. (2008). Do collectivists know themselves better than individualists? Cross-cultural studies of the holier than thou phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1252-1267.

2. Briley, D., Wyer, R., & Li, E. (2014). A dynamic view of cultural influence: A review. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 557-571.

3.

Choi, J., & Kim, M. (1999). The Organizational Application Of Groupthink And Its Limitations In Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 297-306.

4.

Hofstede, G. (1983). NATIONAL CULTURES IN FOUR DIMENSIONS. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1/2), 46-74.

5.

Hofstede, G. (2006). What Did GLOBE Really Measure? Researchers’ Minds Versus Respondents’ Minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882-896.

6.

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

7.

Kameda, T., & Sugimori, S. (1993). Psychological entrapment in group decision making: An assigned decision rule and a groupthink phenomenon.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 282-292.

8.

Packer, D. (2008). Avoiding Groupthink: Whereas Weakly Identified Members Remain Silent, Strongly Identified Members Dissent About Collective Problems. Psychological Science, 20(5), 546-548.

9.

Park, W. (2000). A Comprehensive Empirical Investigation Of The Relationships Among Variables Of The Groupthink Model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 873-887.

10.

Rhee, E., Uleman, J., & Lee, H. (1996). Variations in Collectivism and Individualism by Intergroup and Culture: Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 1037-1054.

11.

Turner, M., Pratkanis, A., Probasco, P., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, Cohesion, And Group Effectiveness: Testing A Social Identity Maintenance Perspective On Groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 781796.

12.

Lamberton, Cait, Naylor, Rebecca, and Naws, Kelly “Same Destination, Different Paths: When and How Does Observing Others’ Choices and Reasoning Alter Confidence in Our Own Choices?” Same Destination, Different Paths: When and How Does Observing Others’ Choices and Reasoning Alter Confidence in Our Own Choices? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2013.