More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on groupthink
Discuss in a paragraph the phenomenon of Groupthink
Advantages and disadvantages of groupthink
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Every individual has faced a situation in which an opinion was required, yet no one was brave enough to speak about what is really on their mind. Due to the fear of going against what the rest of the group says they think, as well as the fear of feeling outcasted afterwards. This type of situation is called “groupthink,” theorized by Irving Janis, in which a person’s behavior is affected based off of those around him/her. One of the most controversial real world example of groupthink, would be the United States invasion into Iraq in 2003. The United States Government believed that Iraq withheld weapons that could cause major mass destruction, therefore the result to attack was decided upon, except the plan backfired in many ways. According …show more content…
Since Bush and his administration has such confidence and optimism that this plan to invade Iraq would work, they exhibited the illusion of invulnerability. After coming off of a victory in Afghanistan, and the still existent confidence that these weapons of mass destruction are in Iraq; left them high up in the clouds feeling that it was no longer of why, but rather of how they will invade (McQueen, 2005). The second symptom exhibited by Bush and his administration was the illusion of unanimity, which is when the “group appears to be unanimous” (Wagner, 2015). This was shown mainly through how the cabinet meetings went, along with who was invited. The meetings were very scripted in which it was stated that before meetings “The note instructed the cabinet secretary when he was supposed to speak, about what, and how long” (McQueen, 2005, p. 70). This scripting of the meetings is very odd because the people attending the meetings should have been allowed to speak freely about their honest opinion. Not only is the scripting wrong and strange, but also Colin Powell was excluded from these meetings since he advocated other ideas or alternatives; which many of the members disliked him for (McQueen, …show more content…
The two major negative consequences the Bush and his administration made; was the failure to look into risks with the alternative they chose, and leading bad decisions to be made. After the damage has been done, Kenneth Pollack states, “the U.S. government must admit to the world that it was wrong about Iraq’s WMD” (McQueen, 2005, p. 72-73). This now makes the U.S government look bad, as well as creating many angry, or upset, people since so many casualties resulted. This political event of actions have shown how bad and dangerous it can be to go against disagreement (McQueen, 2005). Although what has already happened cannot be changed, but it could have been avoided. The leader, Bush, could have encouraged any and all members to voice their true opinions and doubts about the plan at hand. This could have been done by assigning at least one person to play the devil’s advocate so all alternatives could be considered (McQueen, 2005). Secondly, to consider all possible threats with each alternative plan created. If they based plans on “worst-case scenarios” it would've set up necessary road blocks that will help to really dig in deeper with the alternative they want to choose, then decide upon if that is best for the nation (McQueen,
On October 3rd, 2002, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone walked unto the Senate floor to give what would be one of the most momentous speeches of his career. A day prior, the Senate leadership had introduced a resolution, backed by the George W. Bush Administration, to authorize the President to attack Iraq. Wellstone, a progressive Democrat, had long been noted for his strong anti-war views. However, he was at the time struggling to win reelection, and a vote against the popular resolution could sway the election in his opponent’s favor. Yet instead of joining the bipartisan chorus for war with Iraq and abandoning his anti-war convictions, Wellstone chose to stand as a “monument of individual courage” and raise his concerns about the direction of American foreign policy (Kennedy 223).
September 11, 2001 marked a tragic day in the history of the United States; a terrorist attack had left the country shaken. It did not take long to determine those who were behind the attack and a call for retribution swept through the nation. Citizens in a wave of patriotism signed up for military service and the United States found resounding international support for their efforts in the war on terror. Little opposition was raised at the removal of the Taliban regime and there was much support for bringing Osama Bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaeda to justice. Approval abroad diminished approximately a year and a half later when Afghanistan became a stepping stone to the administration’s larger ambition, the invasion of Iraq. The administration would invent several stories and in some cases remain silent of the truth where would prove positive for the Iraqi invasion. It seems they were willing to say anything to promote the largely unpopular and unnecessary war they were resolved on engaging in.
Christopher D. O’Sullivan, Colin Powell: American Power and Intervention from Vietnam to Iraq (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009), 62.
The topic of this paper is Irving Janis’s concept of groupthink. There has been an increase in the utilization of groups or teams of people who come together in the decision-making process. There are many benefits to group decision-making with each member brings their own perspectives, beliefs, and ideas to the table. However, there are also negative dynamics such as groupthink that can hinder this process. Groupthink can lead to members believing that their opinions don’t hold as much weight as their peers, a group becoming overconfident in their knowledge of what is right, and the minimization of threats. Lack of thorough analysis of all available options or opportunities can have costly and long reaching negative consequences. Proactive
Groupthink was coined by Janis and is defined as “a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group”(Cherry). So people will essentially forgo their beliefs to conform to the group to obtain harmony or if they don’t agree with a group idea they will simply keep quiet about it rather than challenge ideas. Janis classified eight different “symptoms” of groupthink. They are Illusions of invulnerability, which leads the members of the group to take part in risk-taking and become overly optimistic. Unquestioned beliefs, leads the members to ignore the possible aftermath that their decisions can make. Rationalizing, hinders members from recognizing warning signs and from reexamining their own beliefs. Stereotyping, leads the members of the group to criticize or write off any other group who may have differing opinions. Self-censorship, makes group members who may have differing opinions not disclose them to the group. "Mindguards",certain members of the group who are self-appointed censors that withhold information they find may disrupt group consensus. Illusions of unanimity, leads the members of the group to think that everyone believes the same things. Direct pressure, this is put on members to conform when they do end up expressing their own opinions or the rest of the group feels as if they are having differing opinions. Janis’s work was influential because it helped us examine the
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: a Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-14002-1.
In the years of the Vietnam War, we can find a good example of what groupthink can do to a force as powerful as the United States. President Johnson drug the troops to such fate and struggle thinking that the United States would determine the course of events in Vietnam. The U.S. declared war to Vietnam under the excuse of defending their ally, South Vietnam, and to prevent further aggression. The Congress agreed and voted in favor of military action against North Vietnam because “the overall effect was to demonstrate before the world the unity of the American people in resisting Communist aggression” (Bacevich, 2014).
Groupthink relates to the movie The Ghost of Abu Ghraib because Military Intelligence were a cohesive group, so what one did they all did. Even though most of the Military Police didn’t believe what they were doing to the detainees were humanely correct, they did it anyways because their higher rank told them to do it. If they were telling them to do these violent acts, then they must have been okay in doing. Intelligence wanted the information quickly and this was one of the reason why they interrogated the detainees. The military police were angry and everyone wanted answers. The higher ranked intelligence guys thought abuse was the way to get the answers they needed and quickly. The textbook, ORGB, mentions illusions of invulnerability, which is when group members feel that they are above criticism, leading to risk taking. One of the top intelligence guys, Corporal Graner, was hungry for the power. Abusing the detainees made he feel powerful, so he did it more and
... Sept. 11th, 2001, terrorist attack on theWorld Trade Center and the unreliability of U.S. intelligence onWeapons of mass Destruction in Iraq have been a focus of intense scrutiny in the U.S. in 2004 particularly in the context of the 9/11 Commision , the continuing armed resistance against U.S. occupation of Iraq, and the widely perceived need for systematic review of the respective roles of the CIA, FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency. On July 9th, 2004 the Senate report of Pre-war Intelligenceon Iraq of the Senate Intelligence Committe stated that the CIA described the danger presented by Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in an unreasonable way, largely unsupported by the available intelligence. In a briefing held Sept 15th, 2001 George Tenet presented the Worldwide Attack Matrix, a "top-secret" document describing covert CIA anti-terror operations in 80 countries in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The actions, underway or being recommended, would range from "routine propaganda to lethal covert action in preparation for military attacks". The plans, if carried out, "would give the CIA the broadest and most lethal authority in its history".
In 1972, Irving Janis presented a set of hypothesis that he extracted from observing small groups performing problem solving tasks; he collectively referred to these hypotheses as groupthink¹. He defined groupthink as “a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action²” A successful group brings varied ideas, collective knowledge, and focus on the task at hand. The importance of groups is to accomplish tasks that individuals can not do on their own. The Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and the Challenger disaster are all forms of failure within a group. Specifically, you can see the effect of groupthink of Americans before September 11, 2001. The thought of harm to the United States was unfathomable, but only after the attacks did they realize they were not invincible. When a solid, highly cohesive group is only concerned with maintaining agreement, they fail to see their alternatives and any other available options. When a group experiences groupthink, they may feel uninterested about a task, don't feel like they will be successful, and the group members do not challenge ideas. Stress is also a factor in the failure of groupthink. An effective group needs to have clear goals, trust, accountability, support, and training. Some indicators that groupthink may be happening are; making unethical decisions, they think they are never wrong, close-minded about situations, and ignore important information. Many things can be done to prevent groupthink from happening. One way is to make each person in the group a “critical evaluator”. The leader must ...
In 1974 German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann introduced the Spiral of Silence theory. The Spiral of Silence theory describes the process by which one opinion becomes dominant, as those who perceive their opinion to be in the minority, do not speak up because society threatens individuals with fear of isolation (“Spiral of Silence,” n.d.,¶ 2). Neumann (1974) introduced the Spiral of Silence as an attempt to explain in part how public opinion is formed (Griffin, 2002, p. 373). She wondered why the Germans supported wrong political positions that led to national defeat, humiliation and ruin in 1930’s-1940s (Griffin, 2002, p. 373). The theory posits that individuals remain silent for a few reasons. One reason being the fear of isolation, when the group or public realizes that the individual has a divergent opinion from the status quo (“What is the Spiral of Silence?,” n.d., ¶2). The second reason being the fear of reprisal, in the sense that voicing said opinion might lead to a negative consequence beyond that of mere isolation, for example loss of a job (“What is the Spiral of Silence?,” n.d., ¶2). For this theory to be plausible it relies on the idea that in a given situation we all possess a sort of intuitive way of knowing what the prevailing of knowing what the prevailing opinion happens to be. The spiral is created or reinforced when someone in the perceived opinion majority speaks out confidently in support of the majority opinion (Griffin, 2002, p. 375). This is why the minority begins to be more and more distanced from a place where they are comfortable to voice their opinion and begin to experience fear. The closer a person believes the opinion held is similar to the prevailing public opinion, the mo...
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
It is one of the most difficult challenges anyone can face, and one that for some cultures could result in very harsh consequences. Stating an opinion that does not relate to the majority’s opinion can be a very frightening experience, yet at the same time be a very refreshing, calming experience. The Spiral of Silence theory, created by Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann, explains why people fear to express their opinions when their opinion does not match that of the majority’s. Her research and discoveries will be discussed as well as those that did not feel that her theory was adequate to explain such phenomena as the Spiral of Silence Theory consists of.
Groupthink: - The desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome.
They never pause for just two seconds to think about the possible consequences of their actions. Back to when America found out that Iraq had weapons of mass descriptions people’s first reaction was to attack. This is a do first, think second way. Nobody ever wanted further proof. Neither did the “the French medical team [who] felt vindicated”(par 2) even after “a nurse reported that one morning she found him eating the flowers in his room”(par 1) who saw some signs of negative affects, but failed to pay attention given the better positive effects. People who don’t think things through isn’t just evidence in the average person, but in the more important government officials like the president of the United States. We were quick to start discussion on possible war as an option for this bad proof that Iraq has nukes. Martel points out instances of the government failing to look into the future when “regulatory approval came swiftly”(par 4) for the operation. This ties back to the idea that lack of judgement by people leads to bad results in our government. The idea of fads start to have effects as