Alicia Stoddard

Groupthink Outline
Comm 2050-02
Shirene McKay
11/26/2016
Groupthink Theory Analysis
Introduction
The theory I chose to analyze is Groupthink, which is a theory that can be
applied to group settings even today. The Groupthink Theory has a narrow
definition involving mostly decision-making settings, though it has
possibilities to be used in other platforms. I will be covering the theory
definition and its approaches, the current theory status and how it is used
today, an evaluation of the theory and my suggestions to improve the theory.
Theory Definition and Approaches
The theory Groupthink was created by social psychologist Irving Janis in
1972. He was a research psychologist at Yale University and earned his
bachelor of science from the University of Chicago in 1939 prior to earning a
doctorate degree from Columbia University. He studied group dynamics while
being a part of the U.S. Army during the Second World War.
Janis wrote the book Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of ForeignPolicy Decisions and Fiascoes followed by a second edition in 1982, which
defined the theory and his studies around it. His book identified detailed
case studies of nonsensical foreign-policy decisions, such as defining a
pattern of synchroneity-seeking that promotes over-optimism as well as a
lack of attention in thinking among members of cohesive executive groups
(Janis, 1982, p. 2). He included a testable hypothesis regarding the
conditions under which a cohesive-seeking tendency will impede critical
thinking and suggested recognized hypotheses for preventing the most
detrimental effects.
Our textbook defines the theory as a way of deliberating that group
members use when their desire for unanimity overrides their motivation to
assess all available plans of action (West and Turner, 2010, p. 240). Janis
described the theory as a group dynamics approach based on the working
assumption that the members of policy-making groups, no matter how
mindful they may be of their exalted national status and of their heavy
responsibilities, are subjected to the pressures widely observed in groups of
ordinary citizens (Janis, 1982, p. 3). The author of the theory also
documented eight symptoms of groupthink that are outlined in our textbook
(West & Turner, 2010, p. 248).

1. Illusion of Invulnerability The illusion creates enormous optimism

that leads to taking extreme risks.
2. Belief in Inherent Morality Members believe in the civility of their
cause and therefore overlook the ethical or moral ramification of their
decisions.
3. Out-Group Stereotypes Negative views of any opposing opinions
make effective responses to difference seem unnecessary.
4. Collective Rationalization Members neglect warnings and do not
reevaluate their assumptions.
5. Self-Censorship Doubts and deviations from the group are not
voiced.
6. Illusion of Unanimity The most popular views and judgments are
assumed to be unanimous.
7. Self-Appointed Mindguards Members safeguard the group and the
leader from information that is debatable or adverse to the groups
cohesiveness, perspective and/or decisions.
8. Pressure on Dissenters Group members are pushed not to express
arguments against any of the groups views.
The approach to the theory is empirical and scientific because it tries to
predict the reaction of the group via behaviors that the group manifests. The
approach just wants to address the communication issue in groups and
wants to avoid it from happening.
Current Theory Status
The theory is still relevant today even though Groupthink is avoidable;
Groupthink can be found in the decisions that are made in our government,
such as when the Bush administration and Congress had to decide whether
or not to invade Iraq based on a policy of preemptive use of military force
against terrorists and rogue nations (Levine, 2004). The decision to rush
into war in Iraq before a coalition of allies could be built placed the U.S. in an
undesirable military situation in Iraq that was costly in military deaths,
diplomatic standing in the world and economically. The Bush administration
was questioned by many Americans regarding the deficiency of intelligence
that lead the U.S. into war. Bushs decision to go to war based on falsehoods
of weapons of mass destruction is part of a long tradition of decision-making
at the White House (Levine, 2004).
There have been several notable publications on groupthink since Janiss
discovery. One such publication is the book Government: A study of small
groups and policy failure by Paul t Hart. He claims, a functionalist view on
rationality and decision merit in government and organization leads many
groupthink theorists to gamble on propagating a one-sided perspective of
success and failure of policy decisions (Hart, 1990, p. X). Hart is still using
an empirical approach similar to that of Janis.
2

Working in groups is something we do in many environments and settings.

Janis was able to identify that highly cohesive groups often fail to take into
account alternatives to their strategy. We can still see the symptoms of
groupthink in corporate and government meetings today. Natalie Brecher,
the author of the scholarly article Breaking Bad: Stop Deceptive Groupthink,
investigated a corporation and found that the culture knowingly rewarded
uniformity and discouraged disagreements (Brecher, 2015, p. 45).
In the scholarly journal Board Leadership, Caroline Oliver wrote the article
Guarding against Groupthink, which highlights the corporate-board member
mentality to speak with one voice (Oliver, 2013, p. 3). She identifies that
we all know boards that refer to the past to predict the future, and yet they
havent changed in decades. Groupthink is avoidable if one is willing to
share thoughts and ideas that may be different than the majority group.
Theory Evaluation
When evaluating the theory using the 7 Theory Evaluation Criteria I found
many strengths as well as some weaknesses to the Groupthink theory. The
following are the strengths:

Scope The theory can be applied to several types of groups but was
originally for decision-making settings.
Logical Consistency The concept is clear and not contradictory; it
provides us with good explanations, which shows us how the theory
works and is applied.
Parsimony Groupthink has a simplistic explanation and can be
explained in one concept of the theory.
Utility This theory is useful in understanding human behavior in
group environments.
Heurism Many social psychologists and communication scholars
have explored the theory since its creation.
Test of time The theory is still used and tested today in military and
scientific studies.

The following are the weaknesses that Ive identified in evaluating the theory

Scope Even though scope is also used as a strength, Ive identified it

as a weakness. The theory was first only applied to decision-making
groups, giving it a narrow scope.
Testability Groupthink can be tested in group environments and is
proven in decision-making settings, but can it be applied in other group
settings?

Improvements to Theory
The Groupthink theory can be applied to group settings other than
decision-making settings; I believe that the theory can be used in training
environments as well. In a learning backdrop, a group is still cohesive and
subject to avoiding conflict. The theory could be tested in training, classroom
or even sports team environments. I believe that groupthink can happen in
a training environment in the fact that the agenda or curriculum is given in a
certain way and the instructor wants the class to stay on topic and learn at
the same level, while most training settings have group participation. This
allows for one to want to answer in such a way that keeps the class moving
forward but not necessarily be their own thoughts.
We want to avoid groupthink from happening because it can lead to
negative outcomes. Preventing groupthink is possible with the tools that
have been provided to address the theory.
Conclusion
After further researching the Groupthink theory, I was able to identify that it
can happen in a number of different group settings. It is an easily identifiable
and relatable theory. I can see how it has occurred and continues to occur in
many different group settings within government, corporate, scholastic and
training environments. The theory is still applied and researched by
communication and psychology professionals. They have been able to
expand on Irvin Janiss thoughts and provide new insights. The theory
provides solid strengths in the 7 critical evaluations and just a few
weaknesses. My suggestion is to test the theory in non-decision-making
groups, such as classroom, training and sports team groups. Although there
is awareness of the negatives of groupthink, I believe some groups still take
advantage to get the result they want by purposely not avoiding the causes
of groupthink.

References
Brecher, N. D. (2015). BREAKING BAD: STOP DECEPTIVE
GROUPTHINK. Journal Of
Property Management, 80(6), 45.
Hart, P. t.(1990). Government: A study of small groups and policy failure.
Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and
fiascoes (2nd
ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Levine, D. I. (n.d.). The Wheels of Washington / Groupthink and Iraq.
Retrieved December
11, 2016, from http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/TheWheels-of-Washington-Groupthink-and-Iraq-2825247.php
Oliver, C. (2013). Guarding against groupthink. Board Leadership, 2013(129),
3.
West, R., Turner, L.H. (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis
and
application (4th ed., pp. 239-257). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.