Charles Within The Manson Family Cult

In any niche of human civilization, there will always be groups. In those groups, there will always be those who are characterized as leaders and those who end up being characterized as followers. Most of these groups do not end up operating on any set dynamic, although some do. In an even smaller portion of these groups, a certain phenomena called ‘Groupthink’ occurs. The term ‘Groupthink’, coined by Yale research psychologist Irving Janis, occurs when a homogenous highly cohesive group is so concerned with maintaining unanimity that they fail to evaluate all of their alternatives and options. This situation became the case of a group in 1969, a so called cult known in the media as the ‘Manson Family’, spearheaded by the now infamous Charles

One factor was the backgrounds of the members. There are not certain types of people who are more likely to join cults, but there are certain factors that increase a person’s vulnerability to them. Individual factors play a much bigger role than personality type. Factors that increase a person’s susceptibility to a cult include, but are not limited to: pressure to join in a time of personal crisis, a desire to belong, idealism, cultural disillusionment, lack of self-confidence, search for spiritual meaning, and, probably most importantly, unassertiveness, which plays a large role in Groupthink. Many of the members of the Manson family were young women with troubled pasts, like Catherine Share, whose biological and adoptive parents committed suicide. This quality of troubled pasts relates most closely with periods of adolescent (personal) crises that the young women were most likely experiencing, contributing and supporting the Groupthink

An example would be identification of his antisocial personality disorder, which could have possibly been treated with behavioral therapy and/or medication, such as mood-stabilizers and Notriptyline. In Groupthink, factors that can lead to a group making poor decisions include high group cohesiveness (deindividualization), homogeneity of group members ideologies, and insulation of the group. From the perspectives of the group members, these murders could have been prevented by having a member or members speak up, breaking the “illusion of unanimity” and “self-censorship” characteristics of Groupthink. Other people could have also been brought in from outside the group, avoiding the characteristic of “stereotyped views of out-groups” and even possibly “collective rationalization”. Groups can prevent groupthink by letting each member act as a critical evaluator, effective alternatives should be considered, members should discuss options with persons outside the group, and assigning ‘devil’s advocate’ as an essentially rotating position. If considered, these options could have been implemented in the group and possibly avoided the committed