Group Thinking: Psychology Behind Flawed Decisions

 The Challenger Disaster

In 1986, NASA’s Challenger Space Shuttle Program turned into a catastrophic tragedy when the space shuttle disintegrated merely 73 seconds after liftoff, claiming the lives of all seven astronauts abroad. The most horrifying fact that unraveled in the investigation after is that the engineers responsible knew about certain parts being faulty before the take-off. And yet, they proceeded with the launch due to public pressure avoiding negative press. A chilling phenomenon known as “groupthink” had played a pivotal role in the decision-making process leading up to this fateful launch. This is where a well known psychological tendency has compromised the integrity of one of NASA’s most ambitious missions.

What is Group Thinking?

Group thinking occurs when in order to conform to the opinions of the rest of the group and to prevent any disagreement, members of the group prefer to remain quiet to reach a consensus. As the decision is being made without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives, it can be greatly misleading.

Symptoms of Group Thinking

Illusion of Unanimity: This is where an individual assumes that all members of the group are in agreement. As it is more difficult to speak up when it seems everyone else in the group feels the same way, they also tend to conform to the group without any questioning.

Illusions of invulnerability: This is when the group becomes so self absorbed and optimistic that it engages in dangerous risk taking believing that the group as whole is always right. For example, in The Bombing Of Pearl Harbor in 1941, Japanese messages had been intercepted. And yet, many senior officials at Pearl Harbor did not pay attention to the warnings from Washington DC about a potential Japanese attack. They didn’t act or prepare because they rationalized that the Japanese wouldn’t never attempt such an invasion. They were sure that the Japanese would see the “obvious” futility of entering a war with the US. Thus, they failed to prepare for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, which claimed many lives.

Stereotyping: This leads members of the in-group to ignore or even demonize out-group members who may oppose or challenge the group's ideas. The group believes that those who disagree are opposed to the group on purpose. They stereotype them as being incapable of taking their right decisions and as being weak or evil.

Self-censorship: This causes people who might have doubts to hide their fears or misgivings. Rather than sharing what they know, people remain quiet and assume that the group must know best.

Collective Rationalization: Here members of the group rationalize thoughts or suggestions that challenge what the majority is thinking. They try giving reasons as to why the others don’t agree and thereby go ahead with their original decisions.

Problems Due to Group Thinking

While group-thinking can generate consensus, it is by definition a negative phenomenon that results in faulty or uninformed thinking and decision-making. Some of the problems it can cause include:

• Blindness to potentially negative outcomes
• Failure to listen to people with dissenting opinions
• Lack of creativity
• Lack of preparation to deal with negative outcomes
• Ignoring important information
• Inability to see other solutions
• Not looking for things that might not yet be known to the group
• Obedience to authority without question
• Overconfidence in decisions
• Resistance to new information or ideas

Group consensus can allow groups to make decisions, complete tasks, and finish projects quickly and efficiently, but even the most harmonious groups can benefit from some challenges. Finding ways to reduce groupthink can improve decision-making and assure amicable relationships within the group.

Avoiding Group Thinking

To mitigate the occurrence of groupthink, leaders and members of a group can employ a range of strategies:

• Establishing a Safe Environment: Leaders and influential group members should foster an atmosphere where open discussion is encouraged. They must be willing to embrace dissenting opinions, accept criticism, and welcome novel ideas from all individuals, regardless of their organizational status (Janis, 1972, 1982).
• Withholding Initial Opinions: Key figures within the group should refrain from expressing their views early in the decision-making process to avoid exerting undue influence on the group's consensus.
• Utilizing External Groups: Consider the formation of external groups tasked with tackling the same problem to provide an independent perspective and potential alternative solutions.
• Engaging External Experts: If creating external groups isn't feasible, the primary group should engage with experts from outside their circle to gain fresh insights and perspectives.
• Appointing a Devil's Advocate: Designate someone to play the role of a "devil's advocate," challenging prevailing ideas, even if they personally agree with the majority, to stimulate debate, generate innovative solutions, and assess the strength of existing ones.
• Considering Opposing Views: Encourage the group to thoroughly examine viewpoints from opposing factions to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue.
• Subdividing into Smaller Groups: Divide the larger group into smaller subgroups, tasking them with generating their own potential solutions. These subgroups can then reconvene to collectively discuss various options.
• Reevaluating the Consensus: After the group reaches an initial decision, hold a subsequent meeting to provide members with another opportunity to voice opposition to the consensus.
• Time Allowance: Whenever possible, allocate ample time for decision-making to allow for thorough consideration and avoid rushing into decisions.
• Educational Initiatives: Educate group members about the phenomenon of groupthink, its pitfalls, and strategies for preventing it.
• Diversity in Membership: Ensure that the group comprises individuals with diverse backgrounds and perspectives to foster a more balanced and optimal decision-making process.

Aayushi Agrawal 

2020BB10002