Groupthink What is groupthink? There is a simple definition for it, but is it truly that simple? The term groupthink refers to the inclination of group members to have the same opinions and beliefs; it frequently leads to mistakes. It often occurs without an individual being aware of it. Conflict is considered to be a harmful element when related to groups, but conflict is good when considering groupthink because it helps to eliminate the existence of a groupthink. The explanation sounds simple enough, but it is more complex than the description given. There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ... ... middle of paper ... ... that areas of expertise can be exploited, different people are good at different things. Groups can discuss material, and that discussion can improve the quality of the decision. Groups are less likely to suffer from judgmental biases that individuals have when they make decisions. People are more likely to follow through on decisions made by groups that they are connected to. Also, more monumental decisions can be made in groups, because one member will not be singled out for blame, making the entire group responsible. Groups however, do not always make good decisions. Juries sometimes render verdicts that run against the evidence presented. Groups tend to: fail to adequately determine their objectives and alternatives, fail to assess the risks associated with the group’s decision, fail to cycle through discarded alternatives and to reexamine their worth after a majority of the group discards the alternative, fail to seek expert advice, select and use only information that supports their position and conclusions, and does not make contingency plans in case their decision and resulting actions fail. Many times people’s lives are affected and little thought or care is put into it.
Do these two ideas truly have to go together? It seems the Soylent miracle is also a challenge to the universal system of chew and swallow, where the aesthetic and taste of food are prioritized before its nutritional value. Rob Rhineheart is correct to point out a deficiency in the system, that food has acquired something of a social life to it, creating complications that increase the time, effort, and difficulty of gaining essential nutrients. In “The End of Food,” Lizzie Widdicombe shows us Soylent’s potential as a dream substance, but also presents potential despair in a future with Soylent. With its characteristics, it seems that Soylent could go either way.
Are you a self-reliant individual, or do you generate more ideas while working in a group? Groupthink has always been the dysfunctional idea that results from within a group that seeks harmony and conformity. Groupthink has been seen in Salem, MA, specifically in The Crucible, where townsfolk would go around accusing women, often innocent, of witchcraft. It has also been seen during the Red Scare, where Senator McCarthy would create a list of celebrities and other well-known people that he would accuse of being communists in the United States. At the time, Americans were against the idea of the communists and communism due to the fact that the Soviet Union, which had a communist government, was threatening to bomb the US. Thus, anyone who was
Groupthink. Defined as "reasoning or decision-making by a group, often characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view," groupthink was the predominant characteristic of Pentagon Middle East policy development. The result of groupthink is the elevation of opinion into a kind of accepted "fact," and uncritical acceptance of extremely narrow and isolated points of view.
The topic of this paper is Irving Janis’s concept of groupthink. There has been an increase in the utilization of groups or teams of people who come together in the decision-making process. There are many benefits to group decision-making with each member brings their own perspectives, beliefs, and ideas to the table. However, there are also negative dynamics such as groupthink that can hinder this process. Groupthink can lead to members believing that their opinions don’t hold as much weight as their peers, a group becoming overconfident in their knowledge of what is right, and the minimization of threats. Lack of thorough analysis of all available options or opportunities can have costly and long reaching negative consequences. Proactive
The term groupthink in this report is defined as, the social psychological phenomenon that results in groups during pressure situations. This social psychology theory is broken down into eight signs. Illusion of invulnerability, Collective rationalization, Belief in inherent morality, Stereotyped views of out-groups, Direct pressure on dissenters, Self-censorship, Illusion of unanimity, Self-appointed “mindguards”. According to research conducted by Irving Janis, there are three conditions to groupthink. The first, "high group cohesiveness" which is the direction for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal, or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. Secondly, the structural faults such as insulation of the group, lack of norms and central leadership, in addition social background of group members. The third, situational context includes the circumstances of the groups meeting, social roles and expected behavior. This notion is exemplified during the movie, "12 Angry Men". The purpose of this essay is to examine the movie content to display the groupthink symptoms in place. Groupthink consists of eight major factors that occur during the film's scenes, as the twelve men debate a premeditated murder court case. All of the factors continue to rise as the jury discusses the young man's fate. During the film, a unanimous vote must be reached, despite this one man refuses to vote guilty. In 1957 the Orson Welles directed film opens as the judge explains the case and its severity. Soon after the group forms as the 12 men enter the jury discussion room. During these scene frames, the case evidence is explained. As the men talk they give details of an old man living beneath the boy testified, that he heard a fight, stat...
In 1972, Irving Janis presented a set of hypothesis that he extracted from observing small groups performing problem solving tasks; he collectively referred to these hypotheses as groupthink¹. He defined groupthink as “a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action²” A successful group brings varied ideas, collective knowledge, and focus on the task at hand. The importance of groups is to accomplish tasks that individuals can not do on their own. The Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and the Challenger disaster are all forms of failure within a group. Specifically, you can see the effect of groupthink of Americans before September 11, 2001. The thought of harm to the United States was unfathomable, but only after the attacks did they realize they were not invincible. When a solid, highly cohesive group is only concerned with maintaining agreement, they fail to see their alternatives and any other available options. When a group experiences groupthink, they may feel uninterested about a task, don't feel like they will be successful, and the group members do not challenge ideas. Stress is also a factor in the failure of groupthink. An effective group needs to have clear goals, trust, accountability, support, and training. Some indicators that groupthink may be happening are; making unethical decisions, they think they are never wrong, close-minded about situations, and ignore important information. Many things can be done to prevent groupthink from happening. One way is to make each person in the group a “critical evaluator”. The leader must ...
Many people believe they are their own person and are free to make their own choices; however, few explore just how much a group can influence their behavior. This realm of influential group power has been analyzed by several psychologist to see how far people will bend to stay within a group mentality. Psychologists Asch, Zimbardo, McEwan, and Lessing defined a group mind as a mass of people who ignore their own morals and conscious to act as one whole entity because of obedience and pressure. As a result, this creates the potential for the group to become a destructively dangerous force.
Domestic Violence and Abuse can be defined as threatening behavior or controlling behavior and violence of those over the age of 16 whom have been or who are an intimate partner or family member. The abuse can consist of: psychological, emotional, sexual, financial and physical. (GOV.UK, 2013).
My next memory is becoming aware of my ten month old brother crying across the freeway. I wanted to go to comfort him. My mouth and arms were bleeding, and I knew I could not walk. I decided to put my head down and figure out how to help my brother. I next woke up with an older gentleman next to me watching me. He had turned me over and put a blanket on me. He told me I could go back to sleep, if I wanted. My next memory is in an ambulance hurrying towards help. I remember the siren and the trees moving past the windows. Thirteen days later I would turn six in the hospital. I nearly died, my recovery was long, but, that is not the hardest part. I remember worrying at night as I looked out the window at the far away lights, wondering about my
Twenty-four people in the United States per minute are experiencing abuse from an intimate partner. In a three year study conducted by Jeff Benedict and Todd Crosset from National Coalition Against Violent Athletes (NCAVA), it was found that 35% of domestic violence perpetrators are male athletes. Because of the increasing amount of professional athletes being involved in domestic violence, the NFL and other sports leagues should immediately penalize players accused of it.
As professional athletes remind us on a weekly basis, domestic violence is a social problem which continues to plague the nation. Through stricter law enforcement, improved hospital reporting techniques, and nationwide education and counseling, this problem can be reduced. Domestic violence has many different names such as, family violence, battering, wife beating, and domestic abuse. All these terms refer to the same thing, abuse by marital, common law, or a dating partner in an intimate relationship. Domestic violence is not limited to physical beating. It is any behavior that is intended to overpower and control another human being through the use of humiliation, fear, and physical or verbal assault. Domestic violence is a very important issue in today’s society because it has such a profound negative affect on the abused, mentally and physically. Verbal abuse can be just as damaging as physical abuse. Verbal abuse is words that attack or injure an individual’s self-image, which eventually shatters one’s self-esteem. In this paper, I will discuss the many kinds of abuses against women, the reasons why women stay in these relationships, and possible solutions to diminish or reduce the problems of domestic violence.
Working in groups is challenging at times. Other times it is very rewarding. We are so focused on life that we do not take time to reflect on things as much as we should. Being in a Groups class has opened my eyes to a whole new world. I have begun to question, explore, and even understand how things work. I even get how they work sometimes. Not only is there a process involved in making individual decisions, process is involved in group decisions as well. This paper attempts give insight into my reflection of my group decision process.
Several experiments and researches have been conducted that have focused on how people behave in groups. The findings have revealed that groups affect peoples’ attitudes, behavior and perceptions. Groups are essential for personal life, as well as in work life.
The reading “Groupthink: The desperate Drive for Consensus at Any Cost” written by Irving L. Janis analyses the problems associated with the cohesiveness in groupthink during policy decision-making. The groupthink opens the problem of conformity in which individuals start to feel pressure and stress to form part of the group’s decisions, although he or she may not completely agree with the implementation of a policy or decision. The author presents historical scenarios called “fiascos” such as “The bag of pigs” and “Pearl Harbor” could have been prevented if individuals should have committed themselves to resist to the pressures of the group. Janis argued, “The men who participated in making the Bay of Pigs decision, for instance,
The provision of public health pharmacy service is familiar today. Any person can enter a community pharmacy to demand drug information and obtain assistance in selection nonprescription medicines to care for common ailments. Any institutional health care worker can request pharmacist consultation for drug information. Some health care professionals routinely offer free services to the public as do pharmacists.