Online Publication of Undergraduate Studies 2019, Volume 10, Issue 1
Groupthink
Groupthink and the Decision Making Process YiLin Lee
In 1972, Irving Janis, a research psychologist, coined the term “groupthink” to refer to a phenomenon that occurs when members of a group prioritize unanimity over a realistic appraisal of the situation at hand. Since then, this theory has been frequently applied to other poor group decisions, including political incidents like the Bay of Pigs and scientific mistakes like the Challenger (Aldag & Fuller, 1993; Hogg & Hain, 2000). In modern society, a majority of decisions are highly dependent on groups. Small-scale groups such as sports teams, families, and even students enrolled in the same class make decisions on a daily basis. Furthermore, large-scale and high-stakes groups such as the United States Senate, jury panels, Boards of Directors, and the United Nations are all examples of groups in charge of decisions that have widespread consequences. These psychological concepts such as groupthink have consistently been applied to the realm of politics in attempts to understand the trends of large-scale social movements (Walker, 2002). The danger of groupthink is pervasive in these contexts, where the prioritization of solidarity and disregard for personal opinions could result in poor decisions detrimental for the group’s members and non-members. A poor or defective group decision influenced by groupthink is characterized by a failure to consider other, more favorable alternatives before reaching a conclusion (Baron, 2005). For a decision-making process to be considered defective, it must fulfill one of four dimensions: (1) failure to create contingency plans, (2) lack of information search, (3) biased assessment of costs and benefits, and (4) incomplete consideration of all decision options (Baron, 2005). To prevent groupthink from occurring, it is important to understand these dimensions and the factors that enable the process. An example of groupthink that has more large-scale implications could be that of the United States Senate, since Senators are expected to vote in front of other members in ways that other Congressional representatives are not. While the US Senate drafts authorizing, appropriations, and entitlement legislation to represent and protect the diverse interests of the United States people, the process of groupthink directly counters the organization’s goal in giving a voice to all citizens equally. Thus, this paper explored the four dimensions of defective decisionmaking processes through the case study of the United States Senate, in order to answer the following question: What are the antecedent conditions that lead to groupthink in decisionmaking processes, and how can their occurrence be prevented?
Perception of Anonymity One of the major dimensions of defective decisionmaking that research on groupthink explores is the perception of anonymity within groups (Sassenberg & Postmes, 2002). High anonymity occurs when individual characteristics (e.g., sex, age, name) are withheld from other members of the group, and low anonymity occurs when the opposite is true (Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1997). The relationship between the perception of anonymity and the decision to conform in a group can be seen through group pressure, specifically when individual opinions are distorted by the majority view and the pressure for conformity overwhelms rational individual judgement (Tyson & Kaplowitz, 1977). For example, research finds that individuals who are not guaranteed anonymity are more likely to conform to group opinions than those who are (Tsikerdekis, 2013). Increased anonymity within the group is also associated with increased social influence; since individuals cannot be identified by other group members, they are more willing to bring forth dissenting opinions (Sassenberg & Postmes, 2002). One way to decrease the pressure to conform would be by increasing individual anonymity. However, in high-profile groups such as the United States Senate, anonymity is not something that can be granted to group members. While voting in the House of Representatives is done electronically and individually, voting in the United States Senate occurs in front of all other members, which is intended to hold Senators accountable for representing the opinions of the people who voted for them (Bullock & Brady, 1983). However, literature on groupthink suggests that this practice is counter-productive, since decreased anonymity is associated with an increased tendency for groupthink, and Senators might conform to larger group practices as a result (Sassenberg & Postmes, 2002; Tsikerdekis, 2013; Tyson & Kaplowitz, 1977). Social Identity Another preceding condition studied in groupthink research is social identity and the perception of group members’ views by other members of the group. Social identity theory claims that part of a person’s self-concept is dependent on the groups with which they are associated; thus, a person’s view of themselves is heavily influenced by the group(s) they identify with (Tajfel, 1974). Individuals with strong identification to the group are more likely to express their concerns with the group decision, while those who weakly identify with the group are more likely to change their opinion to fit into their perceptions Literature Review | 17
