Groupthink

3.Pressures towards Uniformity

"Going along to get along"

1.Overestimation of the Group

"the erroneous belief that the group is more than it actually is" (more powerful, more effective, etc) Two symptoms associated with this are:

-Pressures on dissenters

(peer-pressure) individuals who express contrary views are "encouraged" to comply with the group. Example: Robert believed bombing north korea was wrong way to negotiate with the enemy but he was under pressure to agree

1.High cohesiveness of the decision-making group

- cohesiveness is desirable but dangerous - cohesion may lead to intense pressure to conform to group standards and often does lead to group members conforming with one another (think of a clone) -conformity is the primary route that leads to groupthink - cohesion does not automatically lead to groupthink, BUT it makes a group more vulnerable to groupthink when it is at the forefront of group decision-making

1. Conditions in groups promote high cohesiveness

- cohesiveness is the extent to which group members are willing to work together - cohesion comes from a group's attitudes, values, and patterns of behavior- people in the group have common sentiment=a group identity - cohesion is easy to recognize but hard to define What characteristics define cohesive in a group. -Cohesiveness: a cultural value that places emphasis on the group over the individual

3.Stressful internal and external characteristics placed on certain group members may increase the potential for groupthink to occur

- issues and events inside and outside the group can cause people to break down - internal/external stress: pressure exerted by the group issues and events inside and outside of the groups - the pressure to find a solution also causes group members to seek moral s support from other members

2. Group Problem Solving is primarily a unified process

- people don't like to disrupt the decision-making process - group members want to get along - affiliative restraints (members holding back their input rather than facing possible rejection) threaten the problem-solving process - because group members fear rejection, they will attach greater importance to preserving the group than to the issue at hand -It's hard to disagree when there are fewer people-there is no anonymity -When group members do participate, fearing rejection, they are likely "to attach greater importance to preservation of the group than to the issues under consideration."- If someone does decide to participate they will only to so to preserve group cohesion

Illusion of unanimity

- silence=agreement

3.Groups and group decision making are complex

- small groups need to understand the available options and be able to distinguish among these available options; if they are making a decision they need to know all the options available for that decision - understanding the task at hand and the people involved is important (understanding everyone's role in the group) - the presence of other people affects us and knowing that these other people may be judging our contributions promotes task accomplishment. (people are sunconcouslyy thinking about what other people say or do) - group demographics play an important role in the dynamics of the group (hierarchy) -cultural backgrounds- Japanese culture unacceptable to speak up -Homogeneity- group similarity -if group decisions are not thoughtfully considered by everyone=BAD

2.Specific structural characteristics of the environment surrounding the group affect the decision-making process

-Group insulation: the ability to remain unaffected from outside influences - lack of impartial leadership- when groups are led by individuals who put their personal agenda first; the person has a personal stake in the relationship -Lack of clear procedures for desicions- failure of providing norms for sovlving group issues -homogeneity of backgrounds: having similar people makes it easier to agree upon opinions

Assumptions of groupthink

1. Conditions in groups promote high cohesiveness 2. Group Problem Solving is primarily a unified process 3. Groups and decision making are complex

Antecedent conditions of Groupthink

1.High cohesiveness of the decision-making group 2.Specific structural characteristics of the environment surrounding the group affect the decision-making process 3.Stressful internal and external characteristics placed on certain group members may increase the potential for groupthink to occur

Symptoms of Groupthink

1.Overestimation of the group 2. Closed-mindedness of the group 3..Pressures towards uniformity in the group

Also applicable in

Cults, Student Organizations, Families...even Personal decisions

't Hart also offers four general recommendations for groups ....

Groups should establish standards for oversight and control Encourage members to voice concerns and act as whistleblowers when the need arises(the devil's advocate of the group) Allow and encourage individual objections, and don't make them feel bad for doing so especially if it violates their conscience Conscientious objectifiers Work to balance consensus and majority so everyone has a voice in the decision-making process

Critique of Groupthink

Heurism: Applicable to many contexts and contributes to the understanding of group behavior Scope: aimed solely at groups, so some may consider it narrowly focused Testability: issues with validity; doesn't directly address self-esteem in the theory Test of Time: it's still used today

Author of Groupthink

Janis

Ways to prevent Groupthink

Looking at the different objectives group members want to achieve Developing those objectives Exploring the entire range of objectives Analyzing each objective on its own Having a contingency plan

Groupthink

a way of deliberating that group members use when their desire for unanimity overrides their motivation to assess all plans of action

Out-group Stereotypes

groups hold adversarial stereotypes about non- members and think that group decisions cannot be overruled or sabotaged; for johnson's advisors enemy meant communist and it was this stereotype that kept the advisors from seeing the enemy as people and because the north vietnamese meant communist enemies this embodiment justified the killing of the people.

Janis proposes that

groups often fall prey to the goal of seeking consensus over the goal of using good judgment in making decisions. Harmony in the group is the primary goal

What do these examples have in common?

hasty decisions which led them to not test information before and have critical conversations. They failed to consider forewarnings and their biases and desire for harmony and desire for harmony overshadowed critical assessment of their own decisions.

Self-censorship

minimizing personal doubts or counterarguments; silencing one's own opposing views and using in group rhetoric

Classics examples of groupthink

pearl harbor bay of pigs- bad vietnam cuban misslee crisis- resolved watergate

Which groups are most susceptible?

problem-solving groups and task-oriented groups

Group think associated with

small group communication group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group's balance. The term is frequently used as a pejorative (a negative statement) -Wikipedia

Illusion of invulnerability-

the group believes it can overcome "any obstacle"

Collective Rationalization

the group ignores warnings that would cause others to reconsider decisions made. rationalization of bad news

Inherent morality-

the group members are thoughtful, "good" people, so their decisions will be good as well

2.Closed-mindedness of the Group

the willingness of the group to ignore differences in people and (outside) warnings about poor group decisions"

Self-appointed mindguards

those who protect the group from adverse (outside) info; act like they act in the groups best interest