Groupthink
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Groupthink is a mode of thought whereby individuals intentionally conform to what they perceive to be the consensus of the group. Groupthink may cause the group (typically a committee or large organization) to make bad or irrational decisions which each member might individually consider to be unwise.
Contents [hide]
1 Origin
2 Groupthink
3 Causes and symptoms of groupthink
4 Preventing groupthink
5 Criticism
6 References
7 See also
8 External links
[edit]
Origin
The term was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte in Fortune[1]:
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. [2]
Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:
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. [3]
The word groupthink was intended to be reminiscent of Newspeak words such as "doublethink" and "duckspeak", from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.
[edit]
Groupthink
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Irving Janis originally studied how groupthink affected the Pearl Harbor bombing, the Vietnam War, and the Bay of Pigs Invasion.
Groupthink, and its related dysfunctional group behavior, the Abilene Paradox, wherein groups agree to pursue goals with which the individual members do not agree, continue to fascinate researchers in the field of Social sciences. The reason for this fascination is that these theories appear to explain the observed behavior of individuals and groups in many social contexts. For example, some researchers point to the Bay of Pigs Invasion as the archetype of the groupthink phenomenon. They note that the decision to execute this disastrous military campaign was made with almost unanimous agreement by President John F. Kennedy and his advisors. These advisors were, almost without exception, very similar in background to the President and lacked military command experience. General David M. Shoup, Commandant of the Marine Corps at the time and not part of the group, predicted failure for the invasion, which went forward with disastrous results.
Many other kinds of social organizations, such as businesses, have likewise been cited as examples of "groupthink." While some of this is undoubtedly just an example of revisionist history, or a search for scapegoats to explain past failures, it has nonetheless been observed many times that individuals sometimes produce strikingly better solutions to certain problems than groups of those same individuals do, and that the dissenting lone voice (even within a "groupthinking" organization), is the one that, retrospectively speaking, probably should have been followed (a prime example of this is the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster where an engineer warned the 0-ring would fail but was shouted down by his peers, although they harboured similar concerns).
It is important to observe that terms such as "groupthink" are generally intended to describe the decision process that resulted in an inferior decision, not to the inferior decision itself nor necessarily to the particular group that made a particular decision. Likewise, the phrase is never used to describe the same decision process if it resulted in glorious success. The term "groupthink" is generally used in a derogatory manner, being generally attached to poor decisions and not to collective successes, and usually post facto.
[edit]
Causes and symptoms of groupthink
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Janis's "antecedent conditions" likely to encourage groupthink:
High stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than the one offered by the leader(s)
High group cohesiveness
The persuasive strength of the group's leader
His eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:
Illusion of invulnerability
Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
Collective rationalization of group's decisions
Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
Self-appointed "mindguards" protect the group from negative information
His seven symptoms of a decision affected by groupthink:
Incomplete survey of alternatives
Incomplete survey of objectives
Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
Failure to re-appraise initially rejected alternatives
Poor information search
Selective bias in processing information at hand (see also confirmation bias)
Failure to work out contingency plans
Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:
Directive leadership
Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology
Insulation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis
[edit]
Preventing groupthink
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
One mechanism which management consultants recommend to avoid groupthink is to place responsibility and authority for a decision in the hands of a single person who makes the decision in private and can turn to others for advice. Others advise that a preselected individual take the role of disagreeing with any suggestion presented, thereby making other individuals more likely to present their own ideas and point out flaws in others' and reducing the stigma associated with being the first to take negative stances (see Devil's Advocate).
Anonymous feedback via suggestion box or online chat has been found to be a useful remedy for groupthink. Negative or dissenting views of proposals can be raised without any individual being identifiable by others as having lodged a critique. Thus the social capital of the group is preserved, as all members have plausible deniability that they raised a dissenting point.
Institutional mechanisms such as an inspector general system can also play a role in preventing groupthink as all participants have the option of appealing to an individual outside the decision-making group who has the authority to stop non-constructive or harmful trends.
Another possibility is giving each participant in a group a piece of paper, this is done randomly and without anyone but the receiver being able to read it. Two of the pieces of paper have "dissent" written on them, the others are blank. People have to dissent if the paper says so (like a Devil's Advocate), no-one is able to know if the other person is expressing dissent because they received a pre-marked "dissent" piece of paper or because it's an honest dissent. Also, as with every Devil's Advocate, there exists the possibility that the person adopting this role would think about the problem in a way that they wouldn't have if not under that role, and so promoting creative and critical thought.
Another way which is of special use in very asymmetric relations (as in a classroom) is to say something which is essentially wrong or false, having given (or being obvious that the persons that may be groupthinking know about that) the needed information to realize its inconsistency previously, if at the start of the class the teacher told the students that he would do so and not tell them when he did until the end of the class, they would be stimulated to criticize and "process" information instead of merely assimilating it.
An alternative to groupthink is a formal consensus decision-making process, which works best in a group whose aims are cooperative rather than competitive, where trust is able to build up, and where participants are willing to learn and apply facilitation skills.
[edit]
Criticism
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Recent research suggests that the observed phenomena are better accounted for by other theories. An excerpt from Professor Robert S. Baron’s 2005 review:
A review of the research and debate regarding Janis's groupthink model leads to the conclusion that after some 30 years of investigation, the evidence has largely failed to support the formulation's more ambitious and controversial predictions, specifically those linking certain antecedent conditions with groupthink phenomena. Moreover, research in the years since the theory's inception indicates that most of the "groupthink" phenomena described by Janis occur in a far wider range of group settings than he originally envisioned. Collectively, these data strongly suggest that Janis erred when identifying the necessary and sufficient antecedent conditions for groupthink. A ubiquity model of groupthink is introduced that specifies a revised set of antecedent conditions to explain why groupthink-like behavior occurs in mundane, temporary, and even minimal groups and yet is not an invariant feature of group decision making.
[edit]
References
^ William Safire, NYTimes Magazine (August 8, 2004)
^ [1]
^ [2]
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. (pp. 219-253). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-14044-7
Janis, I. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment. New York: The Free Press.
Schwartz, John & Wald, Matthew L. Smart People Working Collectively can be Dumber Than the Sum of their Brains: "Groupthink" Is 30 Years Old, and Still Going Strong. New York Times March 9, 2003. Full Reprint here.
[edit]
See also
Abilene paradox
Communal reinforcement
Crowd psychology
Group-serving bias
Group polarization
Hive mind
Informational cascade
Mob mentality
Pack Journalism
Peer pressure
Social comparison theory
Spiral of silence
Haragei
[edit]
External links
Article on Groupthink from MeatballWiki
Article on Groupthink from SourceWatch
A Collaborative Game by Lot23
Victims of Groupthink Image Gallery
Introduction to Groupthink
Retrieved from "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Groupthink is a mode of thought whereby individuals intentionally conform to what they perceive to be the consensus of the group. Groupthink may cause the group (typically a committee or large organization) to make bad or irrational decisions which each member might individually consider to be unwise.
Contents [hide]
1 Origin
2 Groupthink
3 Causes and symptoms of groupthink
4 Preventing groupthink
5 Criticism
6 References
7 See also
8 External links
[edit]
Origin
The term was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte in Fortune[1]:
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. [2]
Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:
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. [3]
The word groupthink was intended to be reminiscent of Newspeak words such as "doublethink" and "duckspeak", from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.
[edit]
Groupthink
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Irving Janis originally studied how groupthink affected the Pearl Harbor bombing, the Vietnam War, and the Bay of Pigs Invasion.
Groupthink, and its related dysfunctional group behavior, the Abilene Paradox, wherein groups agree to pursue goals with which the individual members do not agree, continue to fascinate researchers in the field of Social sciences. The reason for this fascination is that these theories appear to explain the observed behavior of individuals and groups in many social contexts. For example, some researchers point to the Bay of Pigs Invasion as the archetype of the groupthink phenomenon. They note that the decision to execute this disastrous military campaign was made with almost unanimous agreement by President John F. Kennedy and his advisors. These advisors were, almost without exception, very similar in background to the President and lacked military command experience. General David M. Shoup, Commandant of the Marine Corps at the time and not part of the group, predicted failure for the invasion, which went forward with disastrous results.
Many other kinds of social organizations, such as businesses, have likewise been cited as examples of "groupthink." While some of this is undoubtedly just an example of revisionist history, or a search for scapegoats to explain past failures, it has nonetheless been observed many times that individuals sometimes produce strikingly better solutions to certain problems than groups of those same individuals do, and that the dissenting lone voice (even within a "groupthinking" organization), is the one that, retrospectively speaking, probably should have been followed (a prime example of this is the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster where an engineer warned the 0-ring would fail but was shouted down by his peers, although they harboured similar concerns).
It is important to observe that terms such as "groupthink" are generally intended to describe the decision process that resulted in an inferior decision, not to the inferior decision itself nor necessarily to the particular group that made a particular decision. Likewise, the phrase is never used to describe the same decision process if it resulted in glorious success. The term "groupthink" is generally used in a derogatory manner, being generally attached to poor decisions and not to collective successes, and usually post facto.
[edit]
Causes and symptoms of groupthink
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Janis's "antecedent conditions" likely to encourage groupthink:
High stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than the one offered by the leader(s)
High group cohesiveness
The persuasive strength of the group's leader
His eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:
Illusion of invulnerability
Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
Collective rationalization of group's decisions
Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
Self-appointed "mindguards" protect the group from negative information
His seven symptoms of a decision affected by groupthink:
Incomplete survey of alternatives
Incomplete survey of objectives
Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
Failure to re-appraise initially rejected alternatives
Poor information search
Selective bias in processing information at hand (see also confirmation bias)
Failure to work out contingency plans
Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:
Directive leadership
Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology
Insulation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis
[edit]
Preventing groupthink
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
One mechanism which management consultants recommend to avoid groupthink is to place responsibility and authority for a decision in the hands of a single person who makes the decision in private and can turn to others for advice. Others advise that a preselected individual take the role of disagreeing with any suggestion presented, thereby making other individuals more likely to present their own ideas and point out flaws in others' and reducing the stigma associated with being the first to take negative stances (see Devil's Advocate).
Anonymous feedback via suggestion box or online chat has been found to be a useful remedy for groupthink. Negative or dissenting views of proposals can be raised without any individual being identifiable by others as having lodged a critique. Thus the social capital of the group is preserved, as all members have plausible deniability that they raised a dissenting point.
Institutional mechanisms such as an inspector general system can also play a role in preventing groupthink as all participants have the option of appealing to an individual outside the decision-making group who has the authority to stop non-constructive or harmful trends.
Another possibility is giving each participant in a group a piece of paper, this is done randomly and without anyone but the receiver being able to read it. Two of the pieces of paper have "dissent" written on them, the others are blank. People have to dissent if the paper says so (like a Devil's Advocate), no-one is able to know if the other person is expressing dissent because they received a pre-marked "dissent" piece of paper or because it's an honest dissent. Also, as with every Devil's Advocate, there exists the possibility that the person adopting this role would think about the problem in a way that they wouldn't have if not under that role, and so promoting creative and critical thought.
Another way which is of special use in very asymmetric relations (as in a classroom) is to say something which is essentially wrong or false, having given (or being obvious that the persons that may be groupthinking know about that) the needed information to realize its inconsistency previously, if at the start of the class the teacher told the students that he would do so and not tell them when he did until the end of the class, they would be stimulated to criticize and "process" information instead of merely assimilating it.
An alternative to groupthink is a formal consensus decision-making process, which works best in a group whose aims are cooperative rather than competitive, where trust is able to build up, and where participants are willing to learn and apply facilitation skills.
[edit]
Criticism
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Recent research suggests that the observed phenomena are better accounted for by other theories. An excerpt from Professor Robert S. Baron’s 2005 review:
A review of the research and debate regarding Janis's groupthink model leads to the conclusion that after some 30 years of investigation, the evidence has largely failed to support the formulation's more ambitious and controversial predictions, specifically those linking certain antecedent conditions with groupthink phenomena. Moreover, research in the years since the theory's inception indicates that most of the "groupthink" phenomena described by Janis occur in a far wider range of group settings than he originally envisioned. Collectively, these data strongly suggest that Janis erred when identifying the necessary and sufficient antecedent conditions for groupthink. A ubiquity model of groupthink is introduced that specifies a revised set of antecedent conditions to explain why groupthink-like behavior occurs in mundane, temporary, and even minimal groups and yet is not an invariant feature of group decision making.
[edit]
References
^ William Safire, NYTimes Magazine (August 8, 2004)
^ [1]
^ [2]
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. (pp. 219-253). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-14044-7
Janis, I. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment. New York: The Free Press.
Schwartz, John & Wald, Matthew L. Smart People Working Collectively can be Dumber Than the Sum of their Brains: "Groupthink" Is 30 Years Old, and Still Going Strong. New York Times March 9, 2003. Full Reprint here.
[edit]
See also
Abilene paradox
Communal reinforcement
Crowd psychology
Group-serving bias
Group polarization
Hive mind
Informational cascade
Mob mentality
Pack Journalism
Peer pressure
Social comparison theory
Spiral of silence
Haragei
[edit]
External links
Article on Groupthink from MeatballWiki
Article on Groupthink from SourceWatch
A Collaborative Game by Lot23
Victims of Groupthink Image Gallery
Introduction to Groupthink
Retrieved from "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink"
posted by:
|
California
|
-
Re: Groupthink
Mon, October 2, 2006 - 4:23 PM
Groupthink is a mode of thought whereby individuals intentionally conform to what they perceive to be the consensus of the group. Groupthink may cause the group (typically a committee or large organization) to make bad or irrational decisions which each member might individually consider to be unwise.
----------
For our purposes, groupthink consists of tribes which are run via pack psychology or herd or mob psychology, and which thus evade reasonable discourse, and which may victimize
non-conforming participants. It is also a phenomenon which may effect tribe administration or staff. Administration or staff may confuse mob groupthink for mob wisdom, which is a similar phenomenon in which many people increase the intelligence of a groups process.
(This can generally only occur under some lucid form of group moderation or mediation)
----------
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.
-----------------
Very much the same as argument from popularity, groupthink is the phenomenon of people
believing that the psychology of a pack or a herd has wisdom in it, when in fact all thats happening is a pack is forming to cover the ego needs of the alphas and betas, and thus
is actually based on emotional issues, not knowledge or wisdom of any kind. Groupthink is as stupid in some senses as the reptile base stem, it is only and just the re-iteration of
pack psychologies drive towards personal supremacy, carried out in myraids of ways in modern conversation. Groupthink is the thought pattern of the Pack or Herd, a thought pattern that attempts to preserve the status quo, and the collective identity and egotism of its participants. Groupthink is thus anti-intellectual inherantly, as it is anti-wisdom and anti-knowledge.
-------------
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. [3]
---------------
ppan>
Objectivity, sanity, reason, logic, integrity, ethics, morality, wisdom, and knowledge all go out the door. What is important in group think is the groups social identity, and each members membership in that identity. This overides all other real concerns, to the net effect
that the group becomes literally evil, even if each participant singly would never be like that.
-----------
Groupthink, and its related dysfunctional group behavior, the Abilene Paradox, wherein groups agree to pursue goals with which the individual members do not agree, continue to fascinate researchers in the field of Social sciences. The reason for this fascination is that these theories appear to explain the observed behavior of individuals and groups in many social contexts.
-----------------
ppan>
the duckspeak of wikipedia shines through again. Groupthink DOES explain social behavior, it is in fact what goes on when primal instincts and pack psychology dominates ANY groups decision making process, or what happens when any group begins to use diabolization of an outgroup to increase conformity. Republicanism, And the Bush administration are great examples of Groupthink, a system of intercorrelated diabolizations
of others creates an us Versus THEM false duality in which membership in the groupthink
is based on the sublimnal threat of being diabolized as part of the out group.
Satanic versions of Christianity hinge upon this phenomenon, through the use of "satan"
any other group is diabolized, all other religions are diabolized, and participants cannot choose or opt out of the groups party line without being themselves guilty of "thoughtcrime".
(ideas which have been criminalized by the groupthink process.)
-------------------
Many other kinds of social organizations, such as businesses, have likewise been cited as examples of "groupthink." While some of this is undoubtedly just an example of revisionist history, or a search for scapegoats to explain past failures, it has nonetheless been observed many times that individuals sometimes produce strikingly better solutions to certain problems than groups of those same individuals do, and that the dissenting lone voice (even within a "groupthinking" organization), is the one that, retrospectively speaking, probably should have been followed (a prime example of this is the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster where an engineer warned the 0-ring would fail but was shouted down by his peers, although they harboured similar concerns).
------------------
ppan>
more wikipedia duckspeak, ;
" While some of this is undoubtedly just an example of revisionist history, or a search for scapegoats to explain past failures"
Actually, groupthink is a very big problem, perhaps the defining failure of human civilization,
and here its being invalidated because to acknowledge the fact of groupthink is itself a thought crime for those participating in groupthink brainwashed groups such as republicans or Satanic Christian Groups.
----------------
It is important to observe that terms such as "groupthink" are generally intended to describe the decision process that resulted in an inferior decision, not to the inferior decision itself nor necessarily to the particular group that made a particular decision. Likewise, the phrase is never used to describe the same decision process if it resulted in glorious success. The term "groupthink" is generally used in a derogatory manner, being generally attached to poor decisions and not to collective successes, and usually post facto.
----------------
ppan>
Allthough anybody who has even an iota of lucidity about pack psychology and herd psychology can see groupthink happening right in front of them; like watching a b grade zombie movie, a lucid person can watch people participating in groupthink process, can watch "thoughtcrimes" being invented, and prosecuted, and can watch groups selecting their own lowest common denominator rather than listen to knowledge, wisdom, or reason.
------------ -
-
Re: Groupthink
Mon, October 2, 2006 - 5:14 PMIt's kind of like a more empassioned, larger scale debate. Where there are those there who think alike and those who differ in opion with the realistic objective, to come to an understandable, cohesive compromise that still adequates the original purpose.
Amethyst -
-
Re: Groupthink
Mon, October 2, 2006 - 5:45 PMright. The main thing is that real debate and real honesty fosters real progress and real group intelligence. Societies of equalls or societies of pack deltas actually add their intelligence together, and are as a group smarter than a single person. Societies that depend upon domination, intimidation, fear, coercion, etc, end up being stupidified by that. -
-
Re: Groupthink
Mon, October 2, 2006 - 7:39 PMexactly...............still drawing blue prints for my Trojan Horse!!!!LOL!!!
-
-
Re: Groupthink
Tue, October 3, 2006 - 12:06 PMokay, that sounds interesting.
i don't know if it will work on the internet... -
-
Unsu...
Re: Groupthink
Tue, October 10, 2006 - 8:10 PMgroupthink = traditional tribalism = conformtity.
LoL. I went into this tribe once where they were playing this game that I actually like to play, at home, on a regular basis. It's a game of stychomancy, to me, but to some a deeper understanding of the game runs with their personal belief systems. So anyways I came into the thread, wrote something... and set off a bout of paranoia. Weird. Anyways.... the paranoid breed paranoia - and I wasn't even apart of the group. whats up with that! LOL.
For you.
*grabs book from floor*
"Trouble? echoed my sister, 'trouble?' and then entered on a fearful catalougue of all the illnesses I had been guilty of, and all the acts of sleeplessness I had committed, and all the high places I had tumbled from, and all the low places I had tumbled into, and all the injureis I had donee myself, and all the times she had wished me in my grave, and I had contumaciously refused to go there." Great Expectations.
Now there was a ramble.... ;-)
don't ask.... heh. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Groupthink
Tue, October 10, 2006 - 8:13 PMok. to save me from looking like a total loon. it was the new guys tribe.
*hello* ((((waving))))
-
-
Re: Groupthink
Wed, October 11, 2006 - 12:58 PMgroupthink = traditional tribalism = conformtity.
----------------
that part i understand and agree with. the rest i am having trouble over.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
