The Psychology Of Groupthink And Its Impact On Decision-Making

There can be many psychological and social factors at play when a group of people comes together to make a decision. Groupthink is an example of a phenomenon which may affect some parties that gather to make a choice about something, whether they’re a political entity, an executive team, or a community organization. Becoming familiar with what groupthink looks like and how to prevent it may help promote better decisions and outcomes. Working with an in-person or online therapist to improve communication skills may also be helpful for individuals who want to show up authentically and confidently in group settings.

What is groupthink in psychology?

The American Psychological Association defines the term groupthink as “a strong concurrence-seeking tendency that interferes with effective group decision making.” It involves all group members saying they agree with a final decision or verdict even if they don’t actually believe it’s the right choice. It’s an example of group unity transforming into group consciousness in a way that narrows thinking and increases potentially hazardous risk-taking. 

There are many proposed reasons why people may not speak up in a groupthink scenario, from leadership pressure to peer pressure to stress and others. While the groupthink phenomenon may not always be harmful, it may sometimes lead to poor decisions and negative outcomes. This topic is often discussed in the context of business or political science.

For support in improving your communication skills or managing your stress levels at work, consider connecting with an online therapist.

Understanding groupthink theory

The theory of groupthink was first proposed in 1972 by social psychologist Irving Janis, a specialist in experimental social psychology. Janis came up with the theory after conducting research and analysis of the policy decisions of several US presidents, among other areas of study.

Groupthink can be an example of group values dominating individual behavior and human decision processes, and the phenomenon has been studied in reference to corporate functioning, foreign policy, and other areas. Despite it being a widely referenced concept, the existence of groupthink as defined by Janis has yet to be strongly supported by empirical evidence. Nevertheless, the theory may be helpful to keep in mind when group decisions are being made.

8 symptoms of groupthink

It might be helpful to become familiar with common groupthink symptoms so you can recognize when it may be at risk of affecting a group you’re a part of. You can look out for the following eight symptoms:

1. The illusion of invulnerability: In some cases, people in a group may subconsciously believe that the group’s ideas are inherently correct or that they can’t be wrong. This might lead group members to agree with poor ideas without questioning them. 
2. Collective rationalization: Rather than engaging in independent critical thinking, the members may make excuses for or rationalize certain choices, especially if they’re part of a strongly cohesive group.
3. Belief in the inherent morality of the group: If members view the group as inherently moral, they may fear that going against the consensus will be considered immoral. To avoid any personal moral dilemmas, an individual may go along with the consensus. 
4. Stereotyping of out-groups: People engaging in groupthink may scapegoat or stereotype people who are not in their group, which might contribute to the idea that their group is superior and correct. 
5. Direct pressure on dissenters: People in the group who dissent or go against the collective will of the group may be pressured to conform or could be removed from the group altogether. To avoid any identity-related impacts of being “out group” members, individuals may avoid dissenting. 
6. Self-censorship: Over time, as members of the group disagree with the group’s choices, they may withhold their feelings or engage in self-censorship for any of the reasons listed here.
7. The illusion of unanimity: Members of the group may believe that all the other members agree with the group’s decision. Silence is often seen as consent or agreement. 
8. Mind guards: There may be group members who shield the group from information or data that would go against the group’s decision. They may omit facts or change information to fit the narrative put forth by the group. 

Why does groupthink happen?

There are many potential theories, related to both organizational behavior and human tendencies, for why groupthink may occur. Some possible contributing factors to groupthink may include the following. 

High group cohesion

Group cohesiveness may be one factor that could make groupthink more likely. High group cohesion—that is, when members have close working relationships and are all deeply aligned on their core goals—may reduce independent thinking. Having a cohesive in-group may not inherently be a bad thing, but it may be a sign to leadership to be on the alert for symptoms of groupthink.

Leadership structure 

It has been proposed that the leadership structure of a group may impact the likelihood of groupthink occurring. For example, directive leadership may be a risk factor. It’s a style where leaders are deeply involved in the details of a group’s activities and processes. 

While directive leaders may be able to encourage involvement from every group member, they may also be at risk of unintentionally shutting down dissent due to their hands-on approach. Instead, impartial leadership may give group members more space to express their own opinions.

Social identity and in-group protection

A 1998 paper introduced what’s known as the social identity maintenance model of groupthink. This perspective suggests that groupthink may be “a collective attempt to maintain a positive image of the group.” 

This theory is built on the idea that humans are motivated to maintain a positive image of themselves and of any groups to which they may tie their identity. As a result, individuals may take steps to preserve the standing or reputation of their group—such as by going along with decisions they don’t agree with—to protect their own identity and self-view. Otherwise, they may believe they’re taking the risk of forsaking their identity as a group member, losing a part of themselves, or becoming socially isolated as part of the out-group.

Peer pressure

Finally, it may sometimes simply be peer pressure that increases the likelihood of groupthink. Peer pressure stems from a person’s desire to fit in and not be ostracized from a particular group. When faced with pressure from their peers—which could be indirect, such as everyone else appearing to agree, or direct, such as peers directly trying to convince an individual to take their side—a person may make a decision that they believe will help them fit in or avoid criticism, even if they don’t think it’s the right one. If you’re struggling with peer pressure at work or in social situations, working with a therapist may help you improve confidence and develop the social skills to promote better outcomes.

How does groupthink impact decision-making?

Collaborative group work can be highly effective and may produce decisions that are well thought out. However, when small groups engage in groupthink, it may sometimes have negative impacts on how the group interacts with each other and the final products or ideas they produce. In addition to potentially causing poor decisions and negative outcomes, some other ways that groupthink can negatively impact decision-making as well as overall group health include the following:

• Lack of critical analysis: Groupthink may lead members to accept the first proposed option without much critical evaluation, or they may end the discussion before a better idea can be discovered.
• Not thoroughly evaluating alternatives: A team might fail to realistically appraise alternative courses if members appear to agree on one of the first ideas proposed.
• Overlooking potential risks and negative consequences: With groupthink, there may be a desire to speed through the assessment of risks or consequences to reach an agreement. 
• Reduced creativity and innovation: Ideas developed through groupthink may not be as creative or innovative, as the focus tends to be on agreement and moving forward rather than thinking about concepts in new ways. 
• Lower morale and job satisfaction: While people may go along with the group, it may come at the cost of personal autonomy, which may reduce morale and lead to lower job satisfaction.
• Increased likelihood of group failure: With groupthink, early agreement and unanimity may lead to fewer effective ideas being implemented. This can lead to overall group failure over time. 

Real-world examples of groupthink

Irving Janis proposed groupthink theory after studying foreign policy decisions of several presidents, many of which he believed were influenced by groupthink. Some of these and other examples of decisions frequently cited in groupthink research as being potentially influenced by this phenomenon include:

• The Salem witch trials
• The Bay of Pigs invasion
• The Challenger disaster
• The Watergate scandal

While groupthink might affect major political decisions, it can also show up in other places, such as corporations. In workplaces, groupthink may affect decisions related to product launches, safety issues, and other high-level topics.

Tips for preventing groupthink

Some research on preventing groupthink, revisited—which came out after Janis’s original theory was published—pointed out a key factor to be aware of when aiming to prevent groupthink. This paper, called “Recasting Janis’s Groupthink Model,” suggests that “the lack of vigilance and preference for risk that characterizes groups contaminated by groupthink are attributed in large part to perceptions of collective efficacy that unduly exceed capability.” The authors suggest that his perception may lead a group to “crystallize around a decision option that is likely to fail.” The following tips—assign a devil’s advocate, ensure diversity, and try different decision-making processes—may help prevent groupthink stemming from this cause.

Foster true open dialogue with a “devil’s advocate”

Preventing groupthink often begins with creating an environment that encourages open dialogue and dissent, which may help ensure all viewpoints are valued and expressed. In addition to potentially preventing groupthink, this approach may make each member feel a sense of ownership over the group’s solutions, which could lead to higher commitment and more critical analysis. 

One strategy in formal collaborative groups may be to assign the role of “devil’s advocate” to one member. The devil’s advocate may constantly question the status quo and challenge assumptions and decisions, forcing the group to look at their ideas from a variety of perspectives and adjust accordingly. It may help to make sure this person is not the group’s leader, who might be most helpful by remaining impartial.

Ensure diverse viewpoints

It may also be beneficial to intentionally build diverse groups that have a wide variety of thought patterns, backgrounds, and belief systems. Having diverse perspectives can be a way to avoid homogeneous opinions, which can may arise when each person in the group has a similar background. Research supports the idea that diversity may serve as a driving force for bringing new ideas to the table and helping prevent groupthink. 

Try different decision-making processes

As a group leader, it can be beneficial to have a set decision-making process or structure put in place before coming to a final decision. This could include setting aside time for brainstorming, intentionally asking people to give their opinions independently, and taking time to look at ideas with a critical eye. Once the group has narrowed it down to two or three possibilities, you might then establish multiple groups to more critically evaluate these, reforming groups after some time to switch ideas. After a thorough analysis, if a particular idea or solution still stands and does what it is intended to do, then it may be appropriate to move forward. 

Working toward the goal of reasonable collective efficacy

Reasonable collective efficacy is a term that can be used to describe healthy group functioning where the risk of groupthink is low. It refers to “the belief that a group is capable of integrating skills, efforts, and the persistence of its members to complete the demands of a task successfully,” but to a degree that does not overestimate the group’s abilities. It may involve cultivating a sense of group unity and shared group values while maintaining independent thinking and avoiding conformity, which may allow members to achieve group consensus on ideas that have been analyzed critically.

Improving communication skills and managing stress in therapy

From an individual group member’s point of view, one way to help prevent groupthink may be to improve personal communication skills and confidence. Being able to speak up about your needs and defend your ideas may be important for effective group work, and attending therapy can be one way to improve this skill set. A therapist may help you sharpen these abilities and find healthy ways to manage any stress related to work or other groups you’re involved in.

The advantages of attending therapy online

If you have a busy schedule, you may not have time to commute to and from in-person therapy appointments, especially during your working hours. Online therapy can offer an alternative in such cases, since you may be able to schedule virtual appointments at times that work for you and your therapist—including outside regular business hours. Plus, you can attend your phone, video, or live chat appointment from anywhere you have a personal device and an internet connection, which may provide additional flexibility. Online therapy also tends to be more affordable than in-person therapy without insurance.

What does the research say about online therapy?

A growing body of research suggests that online therapy may often be as effective as in-person therapy for treating common mental health concerns, from stress and anxiety to low self-esteem and depression. For example, one study indicates that online therapy may be “no less efficacious” than in-person therapy for treating several types of common mental health challenges.