DOCSLIB.ORG

Groupthink: What’S So Great About Teamwork?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Groupthink: What’S So Great About Teamwork? COMMENTARY Groupthink: What’s So Great About Teamwork? KAITLYN MCLEOD, BS, MD’20; EDWARD FELLER, MD, FACP, FACG 8 9 EN Introduction new or lower-status members may “She’s a great team player,” a focus on inclusion, friendship, ac- common accolade, may not al- ceptance and self-esteem conferred ways be a good thing. Working by group affiliation. Thus, non-con- in groups is neither inherently forming individuals may modify good nor successful. When effec- or censor their opinions to avoid tive and efficient, group pro- group rejection, stigma and feelings cesses facilitate problem-solving of inadequacy. In a simple example, and decision-making and are Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman vital to achieve success.1 Work- reported studies demonstrating that ing alone deprives an individual when a line of individuals incor- of collaboration, input, vali- rectly answers an easy problem, dation, and varied knowledge. such as medical students measuring This commentary explores how interactive, small-group blood pressure, the next student is more likely to mimic processes in Medicine, as in other disciplines, can also their mistake rather than respond correctly, termed a herding have negative effects leading to impaired learning and sub- or bandwagon effect.6 optimal decisions. Applied to educational and clinical set- tings, poor group dynamics can increase medical error and ‘Wisdom of the crowd’ versus individual judgment poor patient outcomes. Our discussion will focus on small In 1906, Francis Galton collected individual responses for teams, work or study groups, committees or panels that a ‘guess the weight of the ox’ competition, an example of approach a specific problem.2 “Wisdom of the Crowd,’’ a belief that the aggregate of solu- tions from a group of individuals is a superior problem-solv- Why can small groups or teams lead to poor decisions? ing strategy than the majority of individual solutions. The Successful groups typically use collaboration, open commu- median guess, 1,207 pounds, was less than 1% off of the nication and shared decision-making; ideally, each member actual weight of 1,198 pounds.7 But, wisdom of the crowd is has a voice. However, group interactions tend to favor clear, most accurate when applied to numerical estimates with a harmonious choices. At times, teamwork may deteriorate correct response such as the number of jelly beans in a jar. into an artificial homogeneity. Groupthink is a group con- The cognitive process in such estimates or specific fact-based formity bias where pressure from oneself, peers, or leaders to questions is not analogous to typical medical decision-mak- produce consensus may limit discussion because potential ing. Aggregate wisdom can be inappropriately applied to dissenters self-censor, change or suppress a contrary opin- complex group decisions which lack a precise answer. We ion or evidence despite actual underlying disagreement.3 must also note that collective wisdom strategies can work. The result can limit group performance by generating fewer For example, in Medicine, selecting the diagnosis of a major- and less creative ideas.4 Perhaps surprisingly, the factors that ity of individual dermatologists or radiologists typically out- affect idea generation, such as trust in teammates, group performs individual diagnoses in mammographic screening stability, cohesion and shared brainstorming can accentuate and skin-cancer detection.8 groupthink.5 Groupthink is often resistant to logical reasoning or spe- cific de-biasing training. These predispositions, which can What aspects of collaboration facilitate groupthink? distort communications, are frequently unconscious and Group membership can be a powerful trigger to go along automatic contributors to sub-optimal judgment.9 (Table 1). with the crowd. Peer pressure to achieve a consensus in Groupthink is not static or immutable. Its expression may homogeneous groups may influence a team member to be magnified by contextual influences during the work day endorse ill-formed opinions of other members. Insecure, which may be ignored, undetected or downplayed (Table 2). RIMJ ARCHIVES | SEPTEMBER ISSUE WEBPAGE | RIMS SEPTEMBER 2019 RHODE ISLAND MEDICAL JOURNAL 8 COMMENTARY Table 1. Cognitive influences facilitating Groupthink 1,3,9,10 Conclusion Cognitive Bias Description Medical education and clinical medicine occur frequently in small groups or teams. Collaborative decision-making Conforming Low status, new or insecure members may stifle bias opinions to avoid stigma, group rejection. most frequently leads to better choices. Familiarity with Herd effect Group behaviors relying too easily on opinions negative consequences of potential group conformity biases of teammates speaking early or assertively. can facilitate better group dynamics and improve group deci- Halo or Uncritical acceptance of opinion of senior sions. We must be wary that groupthink exists. Sometimes, authority bias or experienced member. teamwork can and does fail. Social loafing Less effort if individual accountability is absent or goal viewed as unimportant. References Bystander effect If responsibility is unclear or group too large, individuals decide someone else will act. 1. Kaba A, Wishart I, Fraser K, Coderre S, McLaughlin K. Are we at risk of groupthink in our approach to teamwork interventions in Sunk cost fallacy Unwillingness or inability to modify course when health care? Med Ed. 2016;50:400-408. too much has been invested. 2. Bang D, Frith CD. 2017. Making better decisions in groups. R. Decision inertia Successful groups tend to repeat past decisions. Soc. Open sci. 4:170193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170193 Motivational Judgment impaired by self-serving individual, 3. Beran TN, Kaba A, Caird J, McLaughlin K. The good and bad blindness group or institutional conflicts. of group conformity: a call for a new programme of research in medical education. Med Ed. 2014;48:851–859. doi: 10.1111/ Longevity bias Homogeneous, long-standing or unchanged teams medu.12510 risk becoming echo chambers of like-minded members. 4. DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR. The Cognitive Underpin- nings of Effective Teamwork: A Meta-Analysis. J Appl Psychol. Inbreeding Groups trained at the same institution risk 2010;95:33-55. homogeneity of opinions. 5. Larson JR, Foster-Fishman PG, Keys CB. Discussion of shared and Organizational Potential dissenters self-censor. unshared information in decision-making groups. J. Pers. Soc. silence Silence interpreted as consent. Psychol. 1994;67:446–461. (doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.446) Team-based Emotional contagion. Individual’s burnout 6. Beran TN, McLaughlin K, Al Ansari A, Kassam A. Conformity burnout contaminates other members. of behaviours among medical students: impact on performance of knee arthrocentesis in simulation. Adv Health Sci Educ The- ory Pract. 2012;18(4):589–96. Table 2. Contexts facilitating Groupthink 7. Yi SKM, Steyvers M, Lee MD, Dry MJ. The wisdom of the crowd Fatigue, sleepiness (impairs mood, cognition, performance) in combinatorial problems. Cognitive Science. 2012;36:452–470. 8. Kurvers R, Herzog SM, Hertwig R, Krause J, Carney PA, Bogart Physical and cognitive overload (commitment and focus lag) A, Argenziano G, Zalaudek I, Wolf M. Boosting medical diag- Overlong session, time pressure (interest and attention decrease) nostics by pooling independent judgments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:8777–8782. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1601827113) Poor leadership – unskilled, bad agenda-setting, unclear aims, 9. Seshia SS, Makhinson M, Young GB. Cognitive biases plus’: authoritarian covert subverters of healthcare. Evidence Evid Based Med. Decision fatigue (cognitive exhaustion after tough, stressful day) 2016;21:41-45. 10. Aramovich NP. The Effect of Stereotype Threat on Group Ver- Unclear or unshared mental models sus Individual Performance. Small Group Res. 2014;45:176-197. Distractions, interruptions (force attention to shift from discussion) 11. Eichbaum Q. Collaboration and teamwork in the health pro- Burnout – individual or team-based fessions: Rethinking the role of conflict. Acad Med. 2017; 93: 574-580. Sub-optimal meeting space (noisy, wrong size or shape, lack of 12. Eisenhardt KM, Kahwajy JL, Bourgeois LJ 3rd. How manage- inclusive seating) ment teams can have a good fight.Harv Bus Rev. 1997;75:77–85. Inability to embrace creative aspects of uncertainty or conflict Authors Kaitlyn McLeod, BS, MD’20, Warren Alpert Medical School of Embracing dissent in teams Brown University. Group conflict or uncertainty may disrupt, distract or poison Edward Feller, MD, FACP, FACG, Clinical Professor of Medical individual and collective success.11 But, striving for consen- Science at Brown University; Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Rhode sus or unanimity can undermine healthy skepticism by Island Medical Journal. undervaluing the benefits of inter-member disagreement. By Correspondence avoiding conflict, groups may never ask “what are we miss- Edward Feller, MD ing?” Conflict may foster creative ideas by expanding the Box G- M 264, 222 Richmond Street range of options. Comfort expressing non-conforming ideas Brown University, Providence, RI thrives when individuals feel safe despite heated debate. 401-863-6149 Conflict can destroy groups or be a productive, energizing [email protected] source of learning, leading to superior outcomes.12 RIMJ ARCHIVES | SEPTEMBER ISSUE WEBPAGE | RIMS SEPTEMBER 2019 RHODE ISLAND MEDICAL JOURNAL 9 Life is motion. Keep moving toward your goals with HUB. When you partner with us, you’re at the center
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Hierarchical Bayesian Model for Improving Wisdom of the Crowd
    A hierarchical Bayesian model for improving wisdom of the crowd aggregation of quantities with large between-informant variability Saiwing Yeung ([email protected]) Institute of Education, Beijing Institute of Technology, China Abstract ties can be described by distributions without a natural maxi- The wisdom of the crowd technique has been shown to be very mum and are severely right skewed. For example, Gibrat’s effective in producing judgments more accurate than those of law suggested that the distribution of populations of cities individuals. However, its performance in situations in which follows a log-normal distribution (Eeckhout, 2004). Other the intended estimates would involve responses of greatly dif- fering magnitudes is less well understood. We first carried out distributions with similar characteristics include power-law, an experiment to elicit people’s estimates in one such domain, Pareto, and exponential distributions. They naturally occur in populations of U.S. metropolitan areas. Results indicated that many different contexts, including income and wealth, num- there were indeed vast between-subjects differences in magni- tudes of responses. We then proposed a hierarchical Bayesian ber of friends, waiting time, time till failure, etc. (Barabási, model that incorporates different respondents’ biases in terms 2005). How to best aggregate these quantities in a WoC con- of the overall magnitudes of their answers and the amount of text is not very well understood. In the present research we individual uncertainties. We implemented three variations of this model with different ways of instantiating the individual demonstrate a hierarchical Bayesian approach to the problem. differences in overall magnitude. Estimates produced by the Hierarchical Bayesian models formally express the rela- variation that accounts for the stochasticities in response mag- tionships between psychological constructs, stimuli, and ob- nitude outperformed those based on standard wisdom of the crowd aggregation methods and other variations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Statistical Model for Aggregating Judgments by Incorporating Peer Predictions
    A statistical model for aggregating judgments by incorporating peer predictions John McCoy3 and Drazen Prelec1;2;3 1Sloan School of Management Departments of 2Economics, and 3Brain & Cognitive Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA 02139 [email protected], [email protected] March 16, 2017 Abstract We propose a probabilistic model to aggregate the answers of respondents answering multiple- choice questions. The model does not assume that everyone has access to the same information, and so does not assume that the consensus answer is correct. Instead, it infers the most prob- able world state, even if only a minority vote for it. Each respondent is modeled as receiving a signal contingent on the actual world state, and as using this signal to both determine their own answer and predict the answers given by others. By incorporating respondent’s predictions of others’ answers, the model infers latent parameters corresponding to the prior over world states and the probability of different signals being received in all possible world states, includ- ing counterfactual ones. Unlike other probabilistic models for aggregation, our model applies to both single and multiple questions, in which case it estimates each respondent’s expertise. The model shows good performance, compared to a number of other probabilistic models, on data from seven studies covering different types of expertise. Introduction It is a truism that the knowledge of groups of people, particularly experts, outperforms that of arXiv:1703.04778v1 [stat.ML] 14 Mar 2017 individuals [43] and there is increasing call to use the dispersed judgments of the crowd in policy making [42].
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Perception of Nationalism in the United States and Saudi Arabia Reem Mohammed Alhethail Eastern Washington University
    Eastern Washington University EWU Digital Commons EWU Masters Thesis Collection Student Research and Creative Works 2015 Exploring the perception of nationalism in the United States and Saudi Arabia Reem Mohammed Alhethail Eastern Washington University Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.ewu.edu/theses Part of the Islamic World and Near East History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Alhethail, Reem Mohammed, "Exploring the perception of nationalism in the United States and Saudi Arabia" (2015). EWU Masters Thesis Collection. 330. http://dc.ewu.edu/theses/330 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research and Creative Works at EWU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in EWU Masters Thesis Collection by an authorized administrator of EWU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXPLORING THE PERCEPTION OF NATIONALISM IN THE UNITED STATES AND SAUDI ARABIA A Thesis Presented To Eastern Washington University Cheney, WA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Master of Arts in History By Reem Mohammed Alhethail Fall 2015 ii THESIS OF REEM MOHAMMED ALHETHAIL APPROVED BY DATE ROBERT SAUDERS, GRADUATE STUDY COMMITTEE DATE MICHAEL CONLIN, GRADUATE STUDY COMMITTEE DATE CHADRON HAZELBAKER, GRADUATE STUDY COMMITTEE iii MASTER’S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Eastern Washington University, I agree that (your library) shall make copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that copying of this project in whole or in part is allowable only for scholarly purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Learning, Strategic Incentives and Collective Wisdom: an Analysis of the Blue Chip Forecasting Group
    Social Learning, Strategic Incentives and Collective Wisdom: An Analysis of the Blue Chip Forecasting Group J. Peter Ferderer Department of Economics Macalester College St. Paul, MN 55105 [email protected] Adam Freedman Chicago, IL 60601 [email protected] July 22, 2015 ABSTRACT: Using GDP growth forecasts from the Blue Chip survey between 1977 and 2011, we measure absolute consensus errors and forecast dispersion for each of the 24 monthly forecast horizons and provide three main findings. First, the size of consensus errors and forecast dispersion are negatively correlated over longer-term forecast horizons (from 24 to 13 months). This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that the Lawrence Klein forecasting award, which is based on performance of 12-month-head forecasts, increased the group’s collective wisdom by raising the incentive to anti-herd. Second, absolute consensus errors and forecast dispersion display significant negative temporal variation for the longest horizons (24 to 20 months). Third, after the early 1990s (i) there was a dramatic decline in forecast dispersion associated with a significant increase in the size of longer-term consensus errors, and (ii) forecasts bracket realized GDP growth much less frequently. The final two results suggest that increased herding or reduced model diversity caused collective wisdom to diminish in the second part of the sample. JEL Classifications: E37 Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications D70 Analysis of Collective Decision-Making, General D83 Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief Keywords: social learning, herding, strategic incentives, reputation, consensus forecasts, collective wisdom, forecast errors, forecast dispersion, Great Moderation 0 The key lesson I would draw from our experience is the danger of relying on a single tool, methodology or paradigm.
    [Show full text]
  • Debiasing the Crowd: How to Select Social
    1 Debiasing the crowd: how to select social 2 information to improve judgment accuracy? 3 Short title: How to select social information to improve judgment accuracy? 1;∗ 2 1 4 Bertrand Jayles , Cl´ement Sire , Ralf H.J.M Kurvers 1 5 Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 6 14195 Berlin, Germany 2 7 Laboratoire de Physique Th´eorique,Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), 8 Universit´ede Toulouse { Paul Sabatier (UPS), Toulouse, France 9 Abstract 10 Cognitive biases are widespread in humans and animals alike, and can sometimes 11 be reinforced by social interactions. One prime bias in judgment and decision making 12 is the human tendency to underestimate large quantities. Former research on social 13 influence in estimation tasks has generally focused on the impact of single estimates on 14 individual and collective accuracy, showing that randomly sharing estimates does not 15 reduce the underestimation bias. Here, we test a method of social information sharing 16 that exploits the known relationship between the true value and the level of under- 17 estimation, and study if it can counteract the underestimation bias. We performed 18 estimation experiments in which participants had to estimate a series of quantities 19 twice, before and after receiving estimates from one or several group members. Our 20 purpose was threefold: to study (i) whether restructuring the sharing of social infor- 21 mation can reduce the underestimation bias, (ii) how the number of estimates received 22 affects sensitivity to social influence and estimation accuracy, and (iii) the mechanisms 23 underlying the integration of multiple estimates.
    [Show full text]
  • Bandwagon Effect: Lesson Plan
    Bandwagon Effect: Hop On! Bandwagon Effect: Lesson Plan Topic The bandwagon effect is the psychological phenomenon in which an individual does something because others, particularly a large group of others, are doing it. This action or behavior is done regardless of whether it aligns with the individual’s personal belief or even factual evidence. Possible subjects/classes Time needed ● Psychology ● English 30-45 minutes ● Economics/Marketing ● Politics Video link: https://academy4sc.org/topic/bandwagon-effect-hop-on/ Objective: What will students know/be able to do at the end of class? By the end of this lesson, students will be able to ● Define the bandwagon effect. ● Explain how and why the bandwagon effect functions in every social field. ● Combat the bandwagon effect in their daily lives. Key Concepts & Vocabulary Conformity, bandwagaon Materials Needed A popular song and device to play music for the introductory activity Before you watch If you can get student confidants in on your plan, play popular, well-known music in your classroom. Encourage students to sing along. You’ll need student confidants because students are highly unlikely to actually sing in your classroom without outside motivation. Your confidants should be able to attract students not in on the plan to join in. Bandwagon Effect: Hop On! If you fail to get students to sing, whether your confidants did not attract students or you decided against using confidants, this can also be learning experience. Regardless of the results, question students about what just happened. Why did no one or few people sing at the beginning? Encourage students to think beyond simple answers like “I didn’t want to” or “I didn’t know the lyrics” to deeper responses.
    [Show full text]
  • Studying the ``Wisdom of Crowds'' at Scale
    Studying the “Wisdom of Crowds” at Scale Camelia Simoiu,1 Chiraag Sumanth,1 Alok Mysore,2 Sharad Goel1 1 Stanford University, 2University of California San Diego Abstract a county fair. He famously observed that the median of the guesses—1,207 pounds—was, remarkably, within 1% of the In a variety of problem domains, it has been observed that the true weight (Galton 1907). aggregate opinions of groups are often more accurate than those of the constituent individuals, a phenomenon that has Over the past century, there have been dozens of studies been dubbed the “wisdom of the crowd”. However, due to that document this “wisdom of crowds” effect (Surowiecki the varying contexts, sample sizes, methodologies, and scope 2005). Simple aggregation—as in the case of Galton’s ox of previous studies, it has been difficult to gauge the extent competition—has been successfully applied to aid predic- to which conclusions generalize. To investigate this ques- tion, inference, and decision making in a diverse range tion, we carried out a large online experiment to systemati- of contexts. For example, crowd judgments have been cally evaluate crowd performance on 1,000 questions across 50 topical domains. We further tested the effect of different used to successfully answer general knowledge ques- types of social influence on crowd performance. For exam- tions (Surowiecki 2005), identify phishing websites and ple, in one condition, participants could see the cumulative web spam (Moore and Clayton 2008; Liu et al. 2012), crowd answer before providing their own. In total, we col- forecast current political and economic events (Budescu lected more than 500,000 responses from nearly 2,000 par- and Chen 2014; Griffiths and Tenenbaum 2006; Hill and ticipants.
    [Show full text]
  • 11 Social Influence
    9781405124003_4_011.qxd 10/31/07 3:09 PM Page 216 Social Influence 11 Miles Hewstone and Robin Martin KEY CONCEPTS autokinetic effect compliance consistency conversion deindividuation door-in-the-face technique evaluation apprehension foot-in-the-door technique group polarization groupthink informational influence lowballing technique majority influence (conformity) minority influence (innovation) norms normative influence obedience to authority referent informational influence self-categorization theory social comparison social facilitation social influence whistleblowing 9781405124003_4_011.qxd 10/31/07 3:09 PM Page 217 CHAPTER OUTLINE This chapter considers two main types of social influence, both of which can be understood in terms of fundamental motives. First, we discuss ‘incidental’ social influence, where people are influenced by the presence or implied presence of others, although there has been no explicit attempt to influence them. We consider the impact of the mere presence of other people on task performance, and the impact of social norms. In the second part of the chapter, we ask why people succumb to social influence, highlighting types of social influence and motives underlying influence on the part of the target of influence. In the third part of the chapter, we turn to ‘deliberate’ social influence. We introduce theory and research on compliance, the influence of numerical majorities and minorities, group decision-making and obedience. Throughout we will see that social influence is an ambivalent concept. On the one hand, it is the glue of society: it makes things work, and society would be utterly chaotic without it. But on the other hand it can be a dark force, underlying some of the most extreme, even immoral, forms of human social behaviour.
    [Show full text]
  • Conformity and the Groupthink Mentality
    Conformity and the Groupthink Mentality What is “groupthink?” Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. (emphasis added) Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Question 1: How do the underlined portions of the text above contribute to oppression, discrimination or the mistreatment of others? Explain in the space below. Groupthink is one of the most troublesome downfalls of organized society. Today, it manifests itself on a sliding scale of severity, ranging from genocide to bullying to superstition to fashion fads to the “Digg mentality” of news reporting. Still, most of us refuse to believe that our opinions, perception and worldview are being in any way shaped by those of others. And yet they are. Even subcultures, the very essence of which is to stand out, are founded on group conformity — or, as James Thurber famously puts it, “why do you have to be a nonconformist like everyone else?” What’s perhaps most interesting about conformity is how our own relationship to it changes throughout the course of our lives. We spend our teenage years trying, desperately, to fit in, only to mature into trying, just as desperately, to stand out — a point eloquently echoed by one Etsy employee in his recent contribution to the tremendously important It Gets Better Project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Neurobiology of Groupthink: a Qeeg Approach to the Study of Followership
    Pepperdine University Pepperdine Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations 2016 The neurobiology of groupthink: a qEEG approach to the study of followership Angela A. Deulen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd Recommended Citation Deulen, Angela A., "The neurobiology of groupthink: a qEEG approach to the study of followership" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 628. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd/628 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Pepperdine University Graduate School of Education and Psychology THE NEUROBIOLOGY OF GROUPTHINK: A qEEG APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF FOLLOWERSHIP A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership by Angela A. Deulen April, 2016 Kent Rhodes, Ed.D. – Dissertation Chairperson This dissertation, written by Angela A Deulen under the guidance of a Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been submitted to and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Doctoral Committee: Kent Rhodes, Ed.D., Chairperson John Tobin, J.D. Joseph Pelletier, Ph.D. © Copyright by Angela A. Deulen (2016) All Rights Reserved
    [Show full text]
  • Irving L. Janis' Victims of Groupthink Author(S): Paul't Hart Reviewed Work(S): Source: Political Psychology, Vol
    Irving L. Janis' Victims of Groupthink Author(s): Paul't Hart Reviewed work(s): Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Jun., 1991), pp. 247-278 Published by: International Society of Political Psychology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791464 . Accessed: 17/02/2012 11:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Psychology. http://www.jstor.org Political Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1991 Classics in Political Psychology Irving L. Janis' Victims of Groupthink Paul 't Hart1 INTRODUCTION Victims of Groupthink:A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes by Irving L. Janis was published for the first time in 1972. In an unprecedentedway, Janisapplied ideas from small-groupanalysis to the explana- tion of policy fiascoes. He made plausible the hypothesis that each of these events can, to a considerable extent, be attributedto the occurrence of a very specific and obviously detrimentalphenomenon within the groups of decision- makers involved in their making. He called this phenomenon "Groupthink," cleverly picking this highly suggestive Orwellian mode of expression ("dou- blethink" in Orwell's novel 1984).
    [Show full text]
  • Group Perception and Social Norms
    Running header: GROUP PERCEPTION AND SOCIAL NORMS GROUP PERCEPTION AND SOCIAL NORMS Sarah Gavac University of Wisconsin-Madison Sohad Murrar University of Wisconsin-Madison Markus Brauer University of Wisconsin-Madison 11 July 2014 Word count: 14,061 Corresponding author: Sarah Gavac, Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1202 W. Johnson St., Madison, Wisconsin, 53706. E-mail: [email protected] GROUP PERCEPTION AND SOCIAL NORMS 2 SUMMARY Groups create the very basis of our society. We are, as humans, social animals. We are born into groups, learn in groups, live in groups, and work in groups. Groups can range anywhere from three people to a nation. Think of the groups you belong to. How similar are you to other members of your groups? In most cases, we tend to be similar to other members of our groups because there are standards within the group that define behavioral expectations. These standards are called social norms. Throughout this chapter, we hope to provide basic answers to some of the fundamental questions about social norms and group dynamics: What are social norms? How do social norms influence our behavior? How have social norms been studied? What are the classic experiments on social norms? What is conformity and how does it relate to social norms? When do individuals conform and why do they conform? What makes a group? How do social norms and group dynamics overlap? WHAT ARE SOCIAL NORMS? Imagine you get on an elevator. There’s no one on it, so you stand in the middle and listen to the soft music while the doors close.
    [Show full text]