Groupthink

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search

Groupthink is a term coined by psychologist Irving Janis in 1972 to describe one process by which a group can make bad or irrational decisions. In a groupthink situation, each member of the group or community attempts to conform his or her opinions to what they believe to be the consensus of the group. This results in a situation in which the group ultimately agrees on an action which each member might normally consider to be unwise (the risky shift).

Contents

Background

In his 1972 book, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychology Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Janis identified the Vietnam War and the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba as particularly compelling examples of how very smart people can collectively make very stupid decisions, noting that groups around the Presidents had "made a series of assumptions ... that were fundamentally deluded." [1]

Janis' original definition of the term was "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action." The word groupthink was intended to be reminiscent of George Orwell's coinages (such as doublethink and duckspeak) from the fictional language Newspeak, which he portrayed in his ideological novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The term is commonly used to describe the process where a group will come to a decision by each member agreeing with what they think the consensus will be, whatever private doubts they might have. Another description, as it applies to education and group projects, is that "Groupthink is a process of gradualism that seeks to gently merge the followers into a pack with leaders, the hope being that the leaders will pull up those who typically reside on the low end of the motivation and achievement scale."[2]

Examples of Groupthink

Groupthink tends to occur on committees, in large organizations, and within online communities. Although Janis originally studied the Pearl Harbor bombing, the Vietnam War and the Bay of Pigs Invasion, others have cited groupthink as a contributing factor in incidents such as the Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Columbia disasters, the bankruptcy of Enron, the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, and the policies of Wikipedia, for example. In the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq they wrote:

"The Intelligence Community (IC) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This "group think" dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors, and managers, to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs. This presumption was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized." I. Introduction B. Weapons of Mass Destruction Capablities 3. Overall Conclusions Weapons of Mass Destruction - Conclusion 3 [3]

Related examples of words and phrases intended to promote "groupthink" come from the numerous speeches made by the US President George W. Bush regarding the motives and motivation of terrorists and the war on terrorism allegedly connected to not only the events of September 11, 2001 but also to subsequent activities. These examples include the repetition of words and phrases, such as "Axis of evil", "cult of evil", "clear and present danger", "enemies of freedom", "evil-doers", among others.

The popularity of some online communities, such as Wikipedia, have allowed critics to now focus upon them as virtual examples of social groupthink. Wikipedia in particular displays all of the symptoms listed below describing classic groupthink situations. As the web-based encyclopedia has become more popular, through guerrilla marketing by its members, FUD generation regarding competing projects, and other self-promotions, the more powerful its groupthink effect has become. Wikipedia illustrates that the social networking forces of groupthink are not limited to those sitting together in rooms, but can operate just as powerfully across the globe by members connected only through the internet. These forces are especially strong regarding decisions over content and new members.

Symptoms of Groupthink

Irving Janis cited a number of antecedent conditions likely to encourage groupthink:

  • Insulation of the group
  • High group cohesiveness
  • Directive leadership
  • Lack of norms requiring methodical procedures
  • Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology
  • High stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than the one offered by the leader(s)

Janis listed eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:

  1. Illusion of invulnerability
  2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
  3. Collective rationalization of group's decisions
  4. Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
  5. Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
  6. Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
  7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
  8. Self-appointed "mindguards" protect the group from negative information

Janis listed seven symptoms of decisions affected by groupthink:

  1. Incomplete survey of alternatives
  2. Incomplete survey of objectives
  3. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
  4. Failure to re-appraise initially rejected alternatives
  5. Poor information search
  6. Selective bias in processing information at hand (see also confirmation bias)
  7. Failure to work out contingency plans

Preventing Groupthink

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 can turn to others for advice, and who can prevent any consensus decision-making process from being all-too-easily pushed through the risky shift toward groupthink. Others advise that a pre-selected 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.

Reference Sources

  • Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0395140447
  • 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.
  • Senate Intelligence Committee (2003), Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, PDF link
  • Wikinfo's Critical views of Wikipedia

See also

External links


References

Retrieved from "http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Groupthink"
Personal tools