Evaluating Janis ‘Groupthink’ model of faulty decision making in groups
PS2030 Social Psychology
Word count: 2,100
Two heads are better than one is a common misconception people have that group discussions and
decisions are better than working individually. Unfortunately group decision making may not be
Comment [KW1]: About group
discussions leading to better decisions
than ..
Be sure to check your sentences for
coherence
more beneficial than working on one’s own. Historically speaking terrible decisions have been made
as a result of group discussions such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco under Eisenhower and Kennedy and the
Challenger disaster (Hogg & Vaughan, 2013). Janis (1972) created the Groupthink model to explain
faulty decision making in groups. He proposed the Groupthink model as a medical condition that
infected groups; and has antecedents, symptoms and treatments. Groupthink is defined as a state of
Comment [KW2]: Unclear whether
you mean this metaphorically or not
thinking in groups that places large emphasis on unanimity, which leads to accepting unrealistic final
Comment [KW3]: Pay attention to
correct punctuation
decision as a result of having a poor decision making process (Janis, 1972).
Comment [KW4]: It’s important to
start with an introductory paragraph
in which you provide an overview of
the topic and in which you concisely
present the essay’s aim and scope.
Janis (1972) established eight symptoms that diagnose groupthink, by analysing the decision making
process of historical case studies such as Bay of Pigs, pearl harbour and North Korea fiasco (Hogg &
Vaughan, 2013). The first category consists of symptoms that emphasises conformity. 1) Personal
pressure for members to conform to the group idea or leaders’ ideas, this leads to discouraging of
voicing objections. This results in 2) self-censorship of members that disagree with the decision or
have doubt but refrain from stating their opinion. 3) The self-emerging mind-guards that restrict and
Comment [KW5]: Here and for the
following symptoms: provide
complete sentences
control the information the group has access to. 4) The illusion of unanimity within in the group due
to self-censorship. Second category is illusions of overestimation of group. 5) The group have an
Comment [KW6]: Incomplete
sentence and statement not clear
illusion of invulnerability in which the group overestimates their power and ability to handle the
Comment [KW7]: Grammar:
singular or plural
decision. 6) Illusion of morality of the group at which group regards decision as moral regardless of
Comment [KW8]: Grammar:
singular or plural
the ethical and moral implications of the decision. Last category is the ideology of the group. 7) The
Comment [KW9]: the
stereotyped view of the out-group or rivals as being negative evil or weaker than the in-group. 8)
This encourages the group effort to rationalise behaviour and ignore warning sign that will lead to
Comment [KW10]: unclear
re-evaluation of their decision (Janis, 1983).
Comment [KW11]: spelling
Janis (1983) concluded that for groupthink to emerge three antecedent conditions had to be present.
Comment [KW12]: punctuation
I will stop commenting on grammar,
punctuation or sentence structure but
be sure to correct such errors in future
coursework
The three causes of groupthink where; high cohesiveness of the group. The more cohesive the group
Comment [KW13]: this is only one
cause – be precise in your writing
is the more likely members would conform to the norms of the group, as members will not want to
challenge or loss the comfort of being in the cohesive group. Second structural aspects; the influence
Comment [KW14]: spelling: loose
of the leader, groups that have powerful leaders are more likely to exhibit groupthink as members
will be less inclined to challenge the leader. Further if the opinion of the leader is stated during the
discussion, member had higher probability of compliance. The isolation of the group from outside
Comment [KW15]: unclear
opinions and information, leading to limited information being used to make a judgement is also
proposed as a cause of groupthink. The third antecedent is the context of the meeting such as
decisional stress, the more difficult and controversial the problem, the more stressful the decision
process is for the members. Stress had also been linked with a decline in cognitive processes. Janis
(1983) claimed that all antecedent conditions are required for the emergence of groupthink
however presence alone did not ensure groupthink will occur. Moreover he highlighted that
cohesiveness is the most influential antecedent applicable to all poor decision making processes,
after that is leadership (Janis, 1983).
Comment [KW16]: fair description
of antecedent conditions
Overall the groupthink model has been supported by context analysis and case studies for example
Comment [KW17]: unclear what
this is – do you mean content analysis
the Challenger shuttle disaster. Moormead (1991) applied the groupthink model on the decision
Comment [KW18]: co-authors are
missing
making process and found that symptoms and antecedents of Groupthink were replicated in this
fiasco. The challenger disaster happened after a decision was made to launch the shuttle, which
result in an explosion caused by a known problem of the O-ring seal not functioning in cold weather.
Some key antecedents shown was the isolation and the cohesiveness of the group. The group
consisted of high ranked members that had been working together for years in their careers. Further
the higher level managers did not meet with the experts (engineers) to discuss their concerns about
the O-ring. This lead to the mangers ignoring the potential danger of launching in such cold weather.
Additionally symptoms of groupthink was also present, direct pressure was placed on engineers that
voiced out their doubt by managers asking for validation of why they could not launch. More
pressure was placed on members of management that had doubt, to conform to the group and
overrule their concern by self-censorship (Moorhead, Ference, & Neck, 1991). In addition groupthink
has been applied to the Watergate cover up by Raven (1974). He also found the causes and
symptoms of groupthink present in the cover up. Although suggested that groupthink was not
enough to fully explain the causes of poor decision making as some critical aspects highlighted in
groupthink such as high cohesiveness was not seen (Raven, as cited in Hart, 1991)
This suggest that the theory has high realism and external validity as groupthink is seen in real life
decision making processes. However unless tested empirically there is no control of other factors
that could also influence decision making. Further without this evidence the antecedent and
symptoms of groupthink cannot be justified (Park, 2000). Research analysing the reliability of
Comment [KW19]: cite either as “in”
or direct, but not both
Try not to rely on ‘cited in’ sources.
It’s important for you to read the
actual research papers to gain a full
understanding of the work that has
been done previously.
Comment [KW20]: be precise in
your writing
Comment [KW21]: unclear what
the argument here is – be precise
groupthink model have found varying results that provide partial support for the model. Testing the
groupthink model, case studies and context analyses of groupthink provide support, however
empirical studies have only found partial or no support for groupthink (Park, 2000). Moreover even
when testing the whole groupthink model, only weak support has been shown (Henningsen,
Henningsen, Eden, & Cruz, 2006).
The methodology of Janis’s groupthink model has been largely criticised. The model was created
looking at historical case studies of presumably poor decision making processes, resulting in
Comment [KW22]: When you are
using research studies to support your
points it can be beneficial to include a
concise summary of the study
methodology and results, in addition
to the implications.
disasters. Janis (1983) then investigated if the groupthink model could apply to the decision making
process in the fiascos, if groupthink did affect the decision process it could be determined as the
cause of the policy failure (Janis, 1983). This method has been criticised as it heavily relies on Janis to
have been objective and non-bias in analysing the case studies, and not to extract information that
supported his idea of groupthink (Hart, 1991). It may be that groupthink is a good explanation of
faulty decision making in these historical cases because he created the model based on these fiascos
however cannot be applied all faulty group decisions.
Comment [KW23]: This is a valid
and good argument that deserves
being explored in more detail
Janis concluded that the presence of groupthink would always cause poor decision making in groups,
inevitable leading to a bad outcome. Other researchers suggest that the presence of groupthink may
increase the likelihood of a bad decision making process however does not imply cause and effect
(Hart, 1991). Groups can be infected with groupthink thus resulting in a bad decision making
Comment [KW24]: Unclear what
the argument here is
processes, however end up agreeing on a good decision with an amazing outcome. Conversely
groups that have not been subjected to groupthink and so supposedly have a good decision making
process may still end in a failure due unforeseen circumstances (Hart, 1991). Therefore the
groupthink model cannot always predict that groups with groupthink and so a poor decision making
processes will result in a fiasco. Although, Herek et al (1987) study examining 19 policy making
decisions in US presidency supports Janis conclusion. They found a significant relationship between
Comment [KW25]: Et al.
The first time you cite a study with
five or less authors, include all
surnames
higher quality decision making processes resulted in better outcome decision. Although correlation
does not mean causation (Herek, Janis, & Huth, 1987).
Research looking into the symptoms of groupthink show a lack of support for model. Longley et al
Comment [KW26]: See comment
before
(1980) stated that the groupthink symptoms Janis proposes is inevitable and will eventually emerge
in all group decision making procedures. If self-censorship, limiting of outside information by mind
guards and collective rationalising was not present in group decision, a group would not come to a
final decision. Moreover having no pressure of a time limit a decision would not be made because of
Comment [KW27]: This argument is
not clear
unnecessary re-evaluation of information (Longley and Pruitt 1980). Longley et al (1980) suggest that
Comment [KW28]: There is no
causal relationship here
the most critical symptoms of groupthink is time pressure. Having insufficient time to come to a
Comment [KW29]: for 2 authors
always list both surnames
decision would lead to stress and result in poor decision procedures. However a time pressure could
also be beneficial as it would discourage prolonging decision making by overanalysing alternative
strategies. In addition the type of problem was also critical; groupthink would be more influential if
the problem is a controversial dilemma. This placed a higher demand on group as there is more
information and limited solutions to the problem. Groupthink would have little influence on simple
less demanding problems. Therefore groupthink should only be applied to group decision that deal
with complex dilemma problems at top level group discussions (Longley & Pruitt, 1980).
Research on the presence of antecedents, group cohesiveness and leadership as predictors of the
emergence of groupthink. Janis placed emphasis on cohesion that even on its own high cohesiveness
could cause groupthink. However this idea is based largely on the group norm. As if the group
Comment [KW30]: incomplete
sentence with no clear argument or
statement
prioritised encouraging alternative ideas and voicing doubts, then groupthink is less likely to appear
(Hart, 1991). De Rivera (1968) looking at Truman’s Korea invasion decision making process showed
support for high cohesiveness leading to groupthink (De Rivera, as cited in Hart, 1991). Although
most experimental studies have provided little support for cohesiveness. A study by Courtright (1978)
focusing on cohesiveness and participative leadership, found that high cohesiveness and directive
leadership was a significant factor in low quality decision making (Courtright, 1978). This provides
support for Janis Groupthink model as a good explanation of how faulty decision making occurs in
groups.
Leana (1985) studied the effect of cohesiveness and leaders behaviour on decision making in four
Comment [KW31]: contradicting
arguments – you cite a study showing
cohesiveness has an impact after
stating that cohesiveness has received
little support.
person groups. This study only looked at antecedents that applied to groups and not individual
decision making; the other antecedents were controlled for within all groups. In regard to the
decision making processes there was no significant difference in the self-censorship depending on
the type of leader. However cohesiveness was significant, the cohesive groups showed less selfcensorship compared to the non-cohesive groups. This however does not support Janis idea as this
study showed that strong group cohesiveness was beneficial to group decision making as they
showed less self-censorship (Leana, 1985). This may have been because the cohesive group felt
comfortable in sharing their opinions and challenging each other to come to the best solution.
However the non-cohesive group may be influenced by groupthink as they try and create a
fabricated sense of cohesiveness (Longley & Pruitt, 1980).
Concerning the outcome of the decision there was a significant difference in final decision reached
by the groups in the participant leader group compared to the direct leader. However no significant
difference was found for cohesiveness and of both leadership and cohesiveness. Questionnaire
Comment [KW32]: Unclear what is
meant here
analysis also provides support for self-censorship, as there was a significant difference is response
Comment [KW33]: In what
direction and based on what factor?
based on the type of leader behaviour. There was a lower mean for agreement with the final
decision in direct leadership compared to participative leaders (Leana, 1985). This provides support
for the role of leadership in the emergence of groupthink.
Comment [KW34]: Spell out in
what direction
Flower et al (1977) examined the influence of cohesiveness and open and close leadership types in
Comment [KW35]: This is only one
person – not sure who “et al.” are
supposed to be
the decision making process. He concluded that groups with open leaders had significantly more
alternative solutions compared to the close leadership style. Cohesiveness was found to be nonsignificant in the number of solutions brought up. Overall leadership style had more of an impact
compared to cohesiveness. This refutes Janis beliefs that cohesiveness is very critical in groupthink
and may need to be re-assessed in terms of its importance in the groupthink model. Implication of
this is that the role of leadership maybe more important that previously stated in regard to
groupthink, which in real life decision making will have a larger influence as leader hold more power
Comment [KW36]: This is a good
example of drawing conclusions for
the evaluation of the model based on
empirical findings. More of this above
would have largely strengthened your
essay.
in businesses and political settings (Flowers, 1977).
Overall Janis groupthink model is a good model in explaining how faulty decision-making occurs in
groups. The model is largely supported by case studies and content analysis. Unfortunately not a lot
of empirical evidence has been show to support the model, only partial support at most has been
found. More empirical studies are needed to look more in depth at the importance of individual
antecedents and symptoms on poor decision making. This would lead to reassessing of groupthink
and lead better predications of faulty decision making in groups. Groupthink however provide a
good template for other researchers to use to expand knowledge about how poor decision making
processes can occur.
Comment [KW37]: You have
summarised the main points and
made a concluding statement.
References
Courtright, J. A. (1978). A laboratory investigation of groupthink . Communication Monogrphs , 229246.
Flowers, M. L. (1977). A Laboratory Test of Some Implications of Janis's Groupthink Hypothesis.
Personality and Social Psychology , 888-896.
Hart, P. (1991). Irving L Janis' Vivtims of Groupthink. Political Psychology , 247-278.
Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L., Eden, J., & Cruz, M. G. (2006). Examining the Symptoms of
Groupthink and Retrospective Sensemaking . Small Group Research , 36-64.
Herek, G. M., Janis, I. L., & Huth, P. (1987). Decision making during international crisis: Is quality of
process related to outcome? Journal of Conflicted Resolution, 203-226.
Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2013). Social Psychology. Harlow: Pearson.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin .
Janis, I. L. (1983). Groupthink. Small Groups and Interactions , 39-46.
Leana, C. R. (1985). A Partical Test of Janis' Gorupthink Model: Effects of Group Cohesiveness and
Leader Behaviour on Defective Decision Making . Journal of Management , 5-17.
Longley, J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1980). Groupthink: A critique of Janis theory. Review of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74-93.
Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. (1991). Group Decision Fiascoes Continue: Space Shuttle
Challenger and a Revised Groupthink Framework. Human Relations, 539-550.
Park, W. W. (2000). A comprehensive empirical investigation of the relationships aming variables of
the groupthink model. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 873-887.
Comment [KW38]: I cannot
comment on references individually
but you need to include volume
numbers in all journal citations