C H A P T E R 8

GROUP INF L U E N CE
: RHEA JU LLI AN S. VALL O
PRESENTED BY
“NEVER DOUBT THAT A SMALL GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL, COMMITTED CITIZENS CAN CHANGE THE WORLD.”
—ANTHROPOLOGIST MARGARET MEAD
 TOPICS
COLLECTIVE INFLUENCE (CAN OCCUR IN INFLUENCE OCCURRING WITH
MINIMAL GROUP SITUATIONS): INTERACTING GROUPS:

• SOCIAL FACILITATION • POLARIZATION

• SOCIAL LOAFING • GROUPTHINK
• DEINDIVIDUATION • MINORITY INFLUENCE
 WHAT IS A GROUP?
• TWO OR PEOPLE WHO, FOR LONGER THAN A FEW MOMENTS, INTERACT WITH AND INFLUENCE ONE ANOTHER AND PERCEIVE ONE
ANOTHER AS “US” (M, SHAW,’81)

• FOR
- AFFILIATION
-TO ACHIEVE
-SOCIAL IDENTITY

WHAT ARE SOME GROUPS YOU BELONG?

 SOCIAL FACILITATION: HOW WE ARE AFFECTED BY THE
PRESENCE OF OTHERS?
SOCIAL FACILITATION
(1) ORIGINAL MEANING: THE TENDENCY OF PEOPLE
TO PERFORM SIMPLE OR WELL-LEARNED TASK
BETTER WHEN OTHERS ARE PRESENT.
(2) CURRENT MEANING: THE STRENGTHENING OF
DOMINANT (PREVALENT, LIKELY) RESPONSES IN THE
PRESENCE OF OTHERS.
 SOCIAL FACILITATION: HOW WE ARE
AFFECTED BY THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS?
CONTINUED
CROWDING: THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS
• EFFECT OF OTHER’S PRESENCE INCREASES WITH THEIR NUMBER
• BEING IN A CROWD INTENSIFIES POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE REACTIONS
• ENHANCES AROUSAL
 SOCIAL FACILITATION: HOW WE ARE AFFECTED BY THE PRESENCE OF
OTHERS?
(BIKING WITH OTHERS- N TRIPLETT, ‘90)

WHY WE AROUSED IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS?

 EVALUATION APPREHENSION- CONCERN FOR HOW OTHER’S ARE EVALUATING US
 DRIVEN BY DISTRACTION- WHEN WE WONDER HOW CO-ACTORS ARE DOING OR HOW AN
AUDIENCE IS REACTING, WE BECOME DISTRACTED

 MERE PRESENCE- CAN BE AROUSING EVEN WHEN WE ARE NOT EVALUATED OR DISTRACTED
 SOCIAL FACILITATION (& HINDRANCE)
- EVALUATION APPREHENSION CAUSES AROUSAL IF THE DOMINANT RESPONSE IS CORRECT AND
WELL LEARNED
• R. ZAJONC
- PERFORMANCE INCREASES
• DOMINANT RESPONSE THEORY:
 GROUP PRESENCE  IF THE DOMINANT RESPONSE IS INCORRECT
(NOT WELL-LEARNED)
- BOOSTS PERFORMANCE ON EASY TASKS
- PERFORMANCE DECREASES
- HURTS PERFORMANCE ON DIFFICULT TASKS
 CROWDING
 EVALUATION APPREHENSION- DOMINANT THEORY IS ENHANCED
WITH INCREASE APPREHENSION

 DISTRACTION - MORE DIFFICULT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE TASK

 MERE PRESENCE- AROUSAL OCCURS JUST WITH THE MERE PRESENCE OF OTHERS
-ZAJONC (WITH ALL SORTS OF SPECIES)
 SOCIAL LOAFING: DO INDIVIDUALS EXERT
LESS EFFORT IN A GROUP?
SOCIAL LOAFING
SOCIAL LOAFING THE TENDENCY FOR PEOPLE TO EXERT LESS EFFORT
WHEN THEY POOL THEIR EFFORTS TOWARD A COMMON GOAL THAN
WHEN THEY ARE INDIVIDUALLY ACCOUNTABLE.
 SOCIAL LOAFING: DO INDIVIDUALS EXERT
LESS EFFORT IN A GROUP?

MANY HANDS MAKE LIGHT WORK

 EFFORT DECREASES AS GROUP SIZE INCREASES
 FREE RIDERS
- PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT FROM THE GROUP BUT GIVE LITTLE IN RETURN
 SOCIAL LOAFING: DO INDIVIDUALS EXERT LESS EFFORT
IN A GROUP?
SOCIAL LOAFING IN EVERYDAY LIFE • INVOLVING- TEAM SPIRIT
• WHEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE / EFFORT IS VISIBLE
• PEOPLE IN GROUPS LOAF LESS WHEN THE
TASK IS • INTERDEPENDENT TASKS WITH SPECIFIC ROLES
• WHEN THE REWARD (OUTPUT) IS FOR SELF/SMALL
 CHALLENGING GROUP
 APPEALING -IS THIS WHY COMMUNISM USUALLY DOESN’T
WORK?
-REWARDS ARE SIGNIFICANT
DEINDIVIDUATION: WHEN DO PEOPLE LOSE THEIR SENSE
OF SELF IN GROUPS?
DEINDIVIDUATION
LOSS OF SELF-AWARENESS AND EVALUATION APPREHENSION; OCCURS IN GROUP
SITUATIONS THAT FOSTER RESPONSIVENESS TO GROUP NORMS, GOOD OR BAD

 LOOTING IN
- IRAQ, LONDON, FERGUSON
 DEINDIVIDUATION: WHEN DO PEOPLE LOSE
THEIR SENSE OF SELF IN GROUPS?
DOING TOGETHER WHAT WE WOULD NOT DO ALONE
GROUP SIZE- LARGER THE GROUP THE MORE ITS MEMBERS LOSE SELF-AWARENESS AND BECOME WILLING
TO COMMIT ATROCITIES
- LNYCHINGS, ENCOURAGING SUICIDIAL PERSONS TO JUMP TO THEIR DEATH
• PEOPLE’S ATTENTION IS FOCUSED ON THE SITUATION, NOT ON THEMSELVES
- “EVERYONE’S DOING IT” ATTITUDE
- THEY CONTRIBUTE THEIR BEHAVIOR TO THE SITUATION RATHER THAN TO THEIR OWN CHOICES
 DEINDIVIDUATION: WHEN DO PEOPLE LOSE
THEIR SENSE OF SELF IN GROUPS?
DOING TOGETHER WHAT WE WOULD NOT DO ALONE
• ANONYMITY-BEING ANONYMOUS MAKES ONE LESS SELF-CONSCIOUS, MORE GROUP-
CONSCIOUS, AND MORE RESPONSIVE TO CUES PRESENT IN THE SITUATION, WHETHER
NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE

• DRESSED TO COVER THEIR IDENTITY DELIVERED MORE ELECTRIC SHOCKS ZIMBARDO

(‘79; ‘02)
DEINDIVIDUATION: WHEN DO PEOPLE LOSE THEIR SENSE OF SELF IN GROUPS?

DOING TOGETHER WHAT WE WOULD NOT DO ALONE

AROUSING AND DISTRACTING ACTIVITIES
• MAKES US THINK OTHERS FEEL AS
WE DO (SOCIAL COMPARISON
• WHEN WE ACT IN AN IMPULSIVE WAY AS A GROUP, WE ARE NOT THINKING ABOUT THEORY)
OUR VALUES; WE ARE REACTING TO THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION
I.E. “SITUATIONAL CUES” OVERWHELM “HELD VALUES” • - AND INDUCES FALSE CONSENSUS
• IMPULSIVE GROUP ACTION ABSORBS OUR ATTENTION BELIEFS
- STARTING, ENCOURAGING CHANTS IN DEMONSTRATIONS • - AND COMPLIANCE WITH SOCIAL
PURPOSELY DONE BY PROTEST ORGANIZERS (GROUP) NORMS
TO INDUCE DISINHIBITED BEHAVIORS
DEINDIVIDUATION: WHEN DO PEOPLE LOSE THEIR SENSE
OF SELF IN GROUPS?

SELF-AWARENESS
OPPOSITE OF DEINDIVIDUATION- TEND TO INCREASE PEOPLE’S RESPONSIVENESS TO THE
IMMEDIATE SITUATION, BE IT NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE
-TAKE A MIRROR WITH YOU EVERYWHERE YOU GO
 GROUP POLARIZATION: DO GROUPS INTENSIFY OUR
OPINIONS?

GROUP POLARIZATION- GROUP-PRODUCED ENHANCEMENT OF MEMBERS’

PREEXISTING TENDENCIES; A STRENGTHENING OF THE MEMBERS’ AVERAGE TENDENCY,
NOT A SPLIT WITHIN THE GROUP.
 GROUP POLARIZATION: DO GROUPS INTENSIFY OUR
OPINIONS? -FIRST COMES:
RISKY SHIFT” PHENOMENON (J. STONER, ’61)
 OCCURS NOT ONLY WHEN A GROUP DECIDES BY CONSENSUS; AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSION, INDIVIDUALS,
TOO, WILL ALTER THEIR DECISIONS

• JURIES
• BUSINESS COMMITTEES
• MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS
• TEEN DRIVERS
 GROUP POLARIZATION: DO GROUPS
INTENSIFY OUR OPINIONS?
DO GROUPS INTENSIFY OPINIONS?  MITITOSHI ISOZAKI (1984)
JAPANESE JUDGEMENTS OF “GUILTY” FOR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS
GROUP POLARIZATION EXPERIMENTS - WERE AWARD DAMAGES FROM GROUP LARGER OR SMALLER THAT FOR

 MOSCOVICI AND ZAVALLONI (1969) INDIVIDUAL AWARDS?

 MARKUS BRAUER, ET AL. (2001)

AFTER FRENCH STUDENTS DISCUSSION HOW DID
AFTER DISCUSSION DID FRENCH STUDENTS DISLIKE CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE
INITIAL ATTITUDES CHANGE TOWARD AMERICANS MORE OR LESS? WHY?
AND THE FRENCH PRESIDENT?
WHAT EFFECT DOES DISCUSSION OF MORAL ISSUES HAVE ON INDIVIDUALS
IN THE GROUP?
 GROUP POLARIZATION: DO GROUPS
INTENSIFY OUR OPINIONS?
DO GROUPS INTENSIFY OPINIONS? • COMMUNITIES

GROUP POLARIZATION IN EVERYDAY LIFE (ECHO SELF-SEGREGATION

CHAMBER) • INTERNET
• SCHOOLS • TERRORISTS ORGANIZATIONS
 ACCENTUATION EFFECT BOYS BECOME MORE COMPETITIVE, GIRLS MORE
HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO GENDER RELATIONALY ORIENTED
ORIENTATION?
GROUP POLARIZATION: DO GROUPS INTENSIFY OUR
OPINIONS?
EXPLAINING POLARIZATION
INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE
• ARGUMENTS
- FAVOR GIVEN TO THE INITIAL ONES

• ACTIVE PARTICIPATION
“DON’T YOU AGREE….?”
 GROUP POLARIZATION: DO GROUPS INTENSIFY OUR
OPINIONS?
EXPLAINING POLARIZATION • PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE- A FALSE IMPRESSION OF
WHAT MOST OTHER PEOPLE ARE THINKING OR FEELING,
NORMATIVE INFLUENCE (SOCIAL OR HOW THEY ARE RESPONDING
INFLUENCE) • WHEN WE FIND OUT WHAT OTHERS THINK, WE WANT
TO BE UNIQUE AND STAND OUT MORE BY TAKING A
SOCIAL COMPARISON -EVALUATING
STRONGER POSITION (“I’M NOT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!”)
ONE’S OPINIONS AND ABILITIES BY
COMPARING ONESELF WITH OTHERS
• EXPLAIN THE “BANDWAGON EFFECT” FOR WHY SONGS
BECOME POPULAR (SALGANIK, ‘06)
 GROUPTHINK: DO GROUPS HINDER OR ASSIST
GOOD DECISIONS? (IRVING JANIS, 71)
• MODE OF THINKING THAT PERSONS ENGAGE IN WHEN CONCURRENCE-SEEKING BECOMES SO DOMINANT IN A COHESIVE IN-
GROUP THAT IT TENDS TO OVERRIDE REALISTIC APPRAISAL OF ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION

• CAUSED BY:
1. COHESIVE GROUP
2. ISOLATION OF THE GROUP FROM DISSENTING VIEWPOINTS
3. DIRECTIVE LEADER

• PERL HARBOR
• BAY OF PIGS
• VIETNAM WAR
 GROUPTHINK: DO GROUPS HINDER OR ASSIST GOOD
DECISIONS?
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK
FOLLOWING LEAD GROUP MEMBERS TO • UNQUESTIONED BELIEF IN THE GROUP’S
MORALITY
OVERESTIMATE THEIR GROUP’S MIGHT AND
RIGHT -KENNEDY VS. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT ARTHUR
SCHLESINGER
• ILLUSION OF INVULNERABILITY
- ADMIRAL KIMMEL’S LAUGH (DIAMOND HEAD)
 GROUPTHINK: DO GROUPS HINDER OR ASSIST GOOD
DECISIONS? CONTINUED
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK
 FOLLOWING LEADS GROUP MEMBERS TO
BECOME CLOSED-MINDED • STEREOTYPED VIEW OF OPPONENT
• RATIONALIZATION - CASTRO’S MILITARY? ….MUCH TOO WEAK!
-“TUESDAY LUNCH GROUP” (EXPLAIN AND
JUSTIFY FOCUS)
 GROUPTHINK: DO GROUPS HINDER OR ASSIST GOOD
DECISIONS? CONTINUED
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK • SELF-CENSORSHIP

oFOLLOWING LEADS GROUP TO FEEL PRESSURE - WHAT SHOULD ARTHUR HAVE DONE?
TOWARD UNIFORMITY • ILLUSION OF UNANIMITY
• CONFORMITY PRESSURE -ADOLF’S TEAM / VIETNAM / BAY OF PIGS / PEARL
- HERE COMES BILL MOYERS, “MR. STOP THE HARBOR / IRAQ
BOMBING” • MIND GUARDS
-BOBBY KENNEDY / DEAN RUSK
 Defective decision making
Groupthink Symptoms 1. Objectives &
alternatives
Groupthink-breeding Seeking 1. Feeling invulnerable not completely surveyed
Situation Concurrence 2. Belief in group’s 2. Ignoring risks
1. Insulated group morality 3. Meagre information
2. Cohesive group
3. No appraisal
3. Shared rationalization search
procedures 4. Stereotyping outgroup 4. Biased information
4. High stress/low hope 5. Self-censorship processing
5. Autocratic leadership 6. Pressuring dissenters 5.Alternatives not
7. Unanimity illusion reappraised
8. Mind guards 6. No contingency
planning
 GROUPTHINK: DO GROUPS HINDER OR ASSIST GOOD
DECISIONS?
CRITIQUING GROUPTHINK • GROUPS MAKE SMART DECISIONS BY WIDELY
DISTRIBUTED CONVERSATION WITH MEMBERS WHO
• DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP IS ASSOCIATED WITH TAKE TURNS SPEAKING
POORER DECISIONS
• GROUP ACCEPTANCE, APPROVAL, AND SOCIAL IDENTITY,
• GROUPS DO PREFER SUPPORTING OVER SUPPRESS DISAGREEABLE THOUGHTS AMONG MEMBERS
CHALLENGING INFORMATION
• DIVERSE GROUPS PRODUCE MORE CREATIVITY
• GROUPS MAY NOT ALWAYS BENEFIT FROM ALL THAT
MEMBERS KNOW
 GROUPTHINK: DO GROUPS HINDER OR ASSIST GOOD
DECISIONS?
PREVENTING GROUPTHINK
• BE IMPARTIAL
• ENCOURAGE CRITICAL EVALUATION
• OCCASIONALLY SUBDIVIDE THE GROUP, THEN REUNITE TO AIR DIFFERENCES
• WELCOME CRITIQUES FROM OUTSIDE EXPERTS AND ASSOCIATES
• CALL A SECOND-CHANCE MEETING
 GROUPTHINK: DO GROUPS HINDER OR ASSIST GOOD
DECISIONS?
GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING HOW TO EVALUATE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE
DECISION?
• COMBINE GROUP AND SOLITARY
BRAINSTORMING • NOT ON THE OUTCOME/ RESULTS BUT ON THE
DECISION PROCESS ITSELF (I. JANIS)
•HAVE GROUP MEMBERS INTERACT BY WRITING

• INCORPORATE ELECTRONIC BRAINSTORMING • ANYONE CAN BE A MONDAY MORNING QUARTER BACK

• REMEMBER COUNTER-FACTUAL THINKING?
THE INFLUENCE OF THE MINORITY: HOW DO
INDIVIDUALS INFLUENCE THE GROUP?
CONSISTENCY
-MINORITY SLOWNESS EFFECT

 SELF-CONFIDENCE
- PORTRAYED BY CONSISTENCY AND PERSISTENCE

 DEFECTIONS FROM THE MAJORITY

-MINORITY PERSON WHO DEFECTS FROM THE MAJORITY IS MORE PERSUASIVE THAN A CONSISTENT
MINORITY VOICE
 THE INFLUENCE OF THE MINORITY: HOW DO
INDIVIDUALS INFLUENCE THE GROUP?
IS LEADERSHIP MINORITY INFLUENCE?
LEADERSHIP- PROCESS BY WHICH CERTAIN GROUP MEMBERS MOTIVATE AND
GUIDE THE GROUP
- FORMAL AND INFORMAL GROUP LEADERS EXERT DISPROPORTIONATE
INFLUENCE
 THE INFLUENCE OF THE MINORITY: HOW DO
INDIVIDUALS INFLUENCE THE GROUP?
IS LEADERSHIP MINORITY INFLUENCE?
TASK LEADERSHIP- ORGANIZES WORK, SETS STANDARDS, AND FOCUSES ON GOALS
SOCIAL LEADERSHIP- BUILDS TEAMWORK, MEDIATES CONFLICT, AND OFFERS SUPPORT
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP- ENABLED BY A LEADER’S VISION AND INSPIRATION,
EXERTS SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE
 SUMMARY
• A GROUP EXISTS WHEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE INTERACT FOR MORE THAN A FEW
MOMENTS AFFECTS ONE ANOTHER IN SOME WAY, AND THINK OF THEMSELVES AS “US.”
• BEING IN A CROWD, OR IN CROWDED CONDITIONS, IS
• SOCIAL FACILITATION: HOW ARE WE AFFECTED BY THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS? SOCIAL SIMILARLY AROUSING AND FACILITATES DOMINANT
PSYCHOLOGY’S MOST ELEMENTARY ISSUE CONCERNS THE MERE PRESENCE OF RESPONSES. THAT HELPS EXPLAIN THE HOME-FIELD
OTHERS. SOME EARLY EXPERIMENTS ON THIS QUESTION FOUND THAT PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE IN SPORTS BUT WHY ARE WE AROUSED
IMPROVED WITH OBSERVERS OR CO-ACTORS PRESENT. OTHERS FOUND THAT THE BY OTHERS’ PRESENCE? EXPERIMENTS SUGGEST THAT
PRESENCE OF OTHERS CAN HURT PERFORMANCE. ROBERT ZAJONC RECONCILED THOSE THE AROUSAL STEMS PARTLY FROM EVALUATION
FINDINGS BY APPLYING A WELL- KNOWN PRINCIPLE FROM EXPERIMENTAL APPREHENSION AND PARTLY FROM DISTRACTION—A
PSYCHOLOGY: AROUSAL FACILITATES DOMINANT RESPONSES. BECAUSE THE BETWEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO OTHERS AND
PRESENCE OF OTHERS IS AROUSING, THE PRESENCE OF OBSERVERS OR CO-ACTORS CONCENTRATING ON THE TASK. OTHER EXPERIMENTS,
BOOSTS PERFORMANCE ON EASY TASKS (FOR WHICH THE CORRECT RESPONSE IS INCLUDING SOME WITH ANIMALS, SUGGEST THAT THE
DOMINANT) AND HINDERS PERFORMANCE ON DIFFICULT TASKS (FOR WHICH PRESENCE OF OTHERS CAN BE AROUSING EVEN WHEN
INCORRECT RESPONSES ARE DOMINANT).
WE ARE NOT EVALUATED OR DISTRACTED.
SOCIAL LOAFING: DO INDIVIDUALS EXERT LESS EFFORT IN A GROUP?

• SOCIAL FACILITATION RESEARCHERS STUDY PEOPLE’S PERFORMANCE ON TASKS WHERE THEY CAN BE EVALUATED
INDIVIDUALLY. HOWEVER, IN MANY WORK SITUATIONS, PEOPLE POOL THEIR EFFORTS AND WORK TOWARD A
COMMON GOAL WITHOUT INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

• GROUP MEMBERS OFTEN WORK LESS HARD WHEN PERFORMING SUCH “ADDITIVE TASKS.” THIS FINDING PARALLELS
EVERYDAY SITUATIONS IN WHICH DIFFUSED RESPONSIBILITY TEMPTS INDIVIDUAL GROUP MEMBERS TO FREE-RIDE
ON THE GROUP’S EFFORT

• PEOPLE MAY, HOWEVER, PUT FORTH EVEN MORE EFFORT IN A GROUP WHEN THE GOAL IS IMPORTANT, REWARDS ARE
SIGNIFICANT, AND TEAM SPIRIT EXISTS.
DEINDIVIDUATION: WHEN DO PEOPLE LOSE THEIR SENSE OF SELF IN GROUPS?

• WHEN HIGH LEVELS OF SOCIAL AROUSAL COMBINE WITH DIFFUSED RESPONSIBILITY, PEOPLE MAY ABANDON
THEIR NORMAL RESTRAINTS AND LOSE THEIR SENSE OF INDIVIDUALITY.

• SUCH DEINDIVIDUATION IS ESPECIALLY LIKELY WHEN PEOPLE ARE IN A LARGE GROUP, ARE PHYSICALLY
ANONYMOUS, AND ARE AROUSED AND DISTRACTED.

• THE RESULTING DIMINISHED SELF-AWARENESS AND SELF-RESTRAINT TEND TO INCREASE PEOPLE’S

RESPONSIVENESS TO THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION, BE IT NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE DEINDIVIDUATION IS LESS
LIKELY WHEN SELF-AWARENESS IS HIGH.
 GROUP POLARIZATION: DO GROUPS INTENSIFY OUR OPINIONS?

• POTENTIALLY POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RESULTS ARISE FROM GROUP DISCUSSION. WHILE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
THE CURIOUS FINDING THAT DISCUSSION INCREASED RISK TAKING,INVESTIGATORS DISCOVERED THAT DISCUSSION
ACTUALLY TENDS TO STRENGTHEN WHATEVER IS THE INITIALLY DOMINANT POINT OF VIEW, WHETHER RISKY OR
CAUTIOUS.

• IN EVERYDAY SITUATIONS, TOO, GROUP INTERACTION TENDS TO INTENSIFY OPINIONS. THIS GROUP POLARIZATION
PHENOMENON PROVIDED A WINDOW THROUGH WHICH RESEARCHERS COULD OBSERVE GROUP INFLUENCE.

• EXPERIMENTS CONFIRMED TWO GROUP INFLUENCES: INFORMATIONAL AND NORMATIVE. THE INFORMATION GLEANED
FROM A DISCUSSION MOSTLY FAVORS THE INITIALLY PREFERRED ALTER- NATIVE, THUS REINFORCING SUPPORT FOR
IT.
 SUMMARY

GROUPTHINK: DO GROUPS HINDER OR ASSIST GOOD DECISIONS?

• ANALYSIS OF SEVERAL INTERNATIONAL FIASCOS INDICATES THAT GROUP COHESION CAN OVERRIDE REALISTIC APPRAISAL OF A
SITUATION. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN GROUP MEMBERS STRONGLY DESIRE UNITY, WHEN THEY ARE ISOLATED FROM OPPOSING
IDEAS, AND WHEN THE LEADER SIGNALS WHAT HE OR SHE WANTS FROM THE GROUP.

• SYMPTOMATIC OF THIS OVERRIDING CONCERN FOR HARMONY, LABELED GROUPTHINK, ARE (1) AN ILLUSION OF INVULNERABILITY, (2)
RATIONALIZATION, (3) UNQUESTIONED BELIEF IN THE GROUP’S MORALITY, (4) STEREOTYPED VIEWS OF THE OPPOSITION, (5)
PRESSURE TO CONFORM, (6) SELF-CENSORSHIP OF MISGIVINGS, (7) AN ILLUSION OF UNANIMITY, AND (8) “MINDGUARDS” WHO
PROTECT THE GROUP FROM UNPLEASANT INFORMATION. CRITICS HAVE NOTED THAT SOME ASPECTS OF JANIS’S GROUPTHINK MODEL
(SUCH AS DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP) SEEM MORE IMPLICATED IN FLAWED DECISIONS THAN OTHERS (SUCH AS COHESIVENESS).
 SUMMARY

• BOTH IN EXPERIMENTS AND IN ACTUAL HISTORY, HOWEVER, GROUPS SOMETIMES DECIDE WISELY. THESE
CASES SUGGEST WAYS TO PREVENT GROUPTHINK: UPHOLDING IMPARTIALITY, ENCOURAGING “DEVIL’S
ADVOCATE” POSITIONS, SUBDIVIDING AND THEN REUNITING TO DISCUSS A DECISION, SEEKING OUTSIDE
INPUT, AND HAVING A “SECOND-CHANCE” MEETING BEFORE IMPLEMENTING A DECISION.

• RESEARCH ON GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING SUGGESTS THAT GROUPS CAN BE MORE ACCURATE THAN
INDIVIDUALS; GROUPS ALSO GENERATE MORE AND BETTER IDEAS IF THE GROUP IS SMALL OR IF, IN A
LARGE GROUP, INDIVIDUAL BRAINSTORMING FOLLOWS THE GROUP SESSION.
 THE INFLUENCE OF THE MINORITY: HOW DO INDIVIDUALS INFLUENCE THE GROUP?
• ALTHOUGH A MAJORITY OPINION OFTEN PREVAILS, SOMETIMES A MINORITY CAN INFLUENCE AND EVEN OVERTURN A MAJORITY
POSITION. EVEN IF THE MAJORITY DOES NOT ADOPT THE MINORITY’S VIEWS, THE MINORITY’S SPEAKING UP CAN INCREASE THE
MAJORITY’S SELF-DOUBTS AND PROMPT IT TO CONSIDER OTHER ALTERNATIVES, OFTEN LEADING TO BETTER, MORE CREATIVE DECISIONS.

• IN EXPERIMENTS, A MINORITY IS MOST INFLUENTIAL WHEN IT IS CONSISTENT AND PERSISTENT IN ITS VIEWS, WHEN ITS ACTIONS
CONVEY SELF-CONFIDENCE, AND AFTER IT BEGINS TO ELICIT SOME DEFECTIONS FROM THE MAJORITY. SUCH MINORITY INFLUENCE CAN
ENABLE CREATIVE MOTIVATION.

• THROUGH THEIR TASK AND SOCIAL LEADERSHIP, FORMAL AND INFORMAL GROUP LEADERS EXERT DISPROPORTIONATE INFLUENCE.
THOSE WHO CONSISTENTLY PRESS TOWARD THEIR GOALS AND EXUDE A SELF-CONFIDENT CHARISMA OFTEN ENGENDER TRUST AND
INSPIRE OTHERS TO FOLLOW.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING
ANY QUESTIONS?