OT: Groupthink

Shūdan shikō [集団思考]

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon in which the desire for harmony or conformity in a group leads to irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. The concept was first introduced by social psychologist Irving Janis in 1972, who defined it as a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, where the members’ desire for unanimity overrides their ability to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

Key Characteristics of Groupthink

1. Illusion of invulnerability: The group members develop an overconfidence in the decisions they make, assuming they cannot be wrong.

2. Collective rationalization: Members ignore warnings or negative feedback and instead justify their decisions, discounting any external criticism.

3. Belief in inherent morality: Members assume the group’s actions are morally correct, dismissing ethical or moral concerns about their decisions.

4. Stereotyping outsiders: Groups in a state of groupthink tend to stereotype and view outside groups or dissenters as inherently wrong or inferior.

5. Pressure on dissenters: Individuals who raise opposing viewpoints are often pressured to conform, creating an environment where dissent is discouraged.

6. Self-censorship: Members may withhold their personal objections or doubts to avoid conflict, contributing to a false consensus.

7. Illusion of unanimity: Since dissent is minimal or absent, the group believes there is unanimous agreement, even though not all members may agree.

8. Mindguards: Some group members take it upon themselves to shield the group from dissenting opinions or information that could threaten the group’s cohesiveness.

Conditions that Foster Groupthink

• High group cohesion: Groups with strong bonds or high levels of loyalty are more prone to groupthink because members prioritize group harmony over critical thinking.

• Directive leadership: A dominant leader who suppresses dissent or favors a particular outcome may push the group toward a consensus without allowing for open debate.

• Lack of impartial leadership: When leaders do not encourage the exploration of alternative viewpoints, groupthink is more likely to occur.

• Homogeneity of group members: A lack of diversity in background, perspective, and experience can reduce the likelihood that different opinions will be voiced.

• Stressful environments: When groups face high pressure to make a decision quickly, they may rush into consensus without exploring alternatives properly.

Real-World Examples of Groupthink

1. Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961): This failed U.S. military invasion of Cuba is one of the most commonly cited examples of groupthink. The advisors to President Kennedy were highly cohesive and did not critically evaluate the potential risks, leading to a disastrous outcome.

2. Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster (1986): In this tragedy, NASA officials ignored engineers’ warnings about faulty O-rings, believing that the launch must go ahead as planned. Pressure to conform to group consensus and meet deadlines led to the catastrophic failure.

3. Dot-com Bubble (1990s): During this period, many investors followed each other into the technology stock market without critically evaluating the sustainability of these companies, resulting in an economic crash when the bubble burst.

Avoiding Groupthink

• Encourage open dialogue: Leaders should foster an environment where dissent and critical evaluation of ideas are encouraged.

• Appoint a “devil’s advocate”: Assigning someone to question assumptions and challenge the group’s thinking can help prevent premature consensus.

• Break the group into sub-groups: Dividing the group into smaller, independent teams can increase the likelihood of diverse viewpoints emerging.

• Seek outside opinions: Inviting outside experts or individuals with different perspectives can reduce the insularity of the group.

• Anonymous feedback: Encouraging anonymous feedback allows individuals to express their concerns without fear of judgment or retribution.

Criticisms and Limitations

Some critics argue that the concept of groupthink is difficult to test empirically and that Janis’ original formulation may have overemphasized the importance of group cohesion while underestimating other factors such as leadership style or decision-making structures. Others suggest that not all cohesive groups are prone to groupthink, and cohesion alone may not lead to poor decision-making without other contributing factors.

References

1. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.

2. Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-Five Years of Groupthink Theory and Research: Lessons from the Evaluation of a Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 105–115.

3. Baron, R. S. (2005). So Right It’s Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 219–253.

Groupthink remains an important concept for understanding how decision-making can go wrong in cohesive groups, especially in high-pressure environments or when led by an authoritative figure.