Anotated Bibliography

APA Reference: 

Raven, B.H. (1998). Groupthink, Bay of Pigs, and Watergate reconsidered. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 352- 361.

Summary: 

In this paper, Raven argues that group decisions often appear to offer the benefits of collective wisdom, but may result in far reaching and dire consequences. Primarily the article focuses on the negative effects of erroneous group decisionsSpecifically the disastrous Bay of Pigs and the famous Watergate scandal. The article goes on to argue that groupthink will eventually lead a group to fail in its ultimate goal. It also considers that there exists a frightening possibility that in the case of the Nixon group at Watergate, the groups erroneous actions almost succeeded.

3 most interesting arguments/facts/quotations mentioned and 3 key findings from the article:

  • Groups who make unanimous decisions, even when incorrect, display a greater amount of satisfaction & cohesiveness.
  • High moral in groups can lea to shortsighted decision making. 
  • Even expert teams can make bad decisions ex: JFK's Cabinet and the bay of pigs scandal. 
  • In certain circumstances group cohesion can lead to critical errors in judgment but it is unclear how these critical mass situations come about. 
  • The devils advocate role in groups is essential in combating Groupthink. 
  • Groupthink often negatively effects political decision making as in the case of the Watergate scandal.

 

 

APA Reference: 

Ahlfinger, N. R. & Esser, J. K. (2001). Testing the groupthink model: Effects of promotional leadership and conformity predisposition. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 29(1), 31-42.

Summary: 

Ahlfinger's article discusses two hypotheses derived from groupthink theory and tested in a controlled study. These tests aimed to include measures to promote the study of the full range of symptoms of symptoms of poor decision making processes, and to measure the decision quality. The hypothesis itself supposed that groups composed of members more likely to conform and be more likely to fall victim to groupthink than groups whose members were not predisposed to conform, these expectations were not supported however. As a result this may suggest that groupthink research in controlled environments may be hampered by measurement/testing problems. 

3 most interesting arguments/facts/quotations mentioned and 3 key findings from the article: 

  • Promotional leadership strategies are perhaps partially responsible for the effects of groupthink. 
  • Fear based conformity may also be a leading cause of groupthink. 
  • In many political cases public conformity is expressed without private approval of the decisions that have been made by public officials. 
  • Groups should be aware of “premature consensus making” as it often leads to uninformed decision making and eventually becomes one of the leading contributors to groupthink. 
  • Groups composed of characteristically “dominant” individuals are less likely to fall prey to groupthink scenarios. 

 

 

APA Reference: 

Humphreys, J. The Irish Times, November 19, 2013 Tuesday. FEATURES; Pg. 15.

Summary: 

This news article takes a look into the possible benefits behind the teaching of philosophy in regards to its usefulness in combating the symptoms of groupthink. The article focuses on proposals made in the Irish educational system to make philosophy instruction one of the mandatory criterion for graduation at a university level. The article justifies this assessment based on both expert opinion as well as citing employer requests that universities focus on critical thinking skills. 

3 most interesting arguments/facts/quotations mentioned and 3 key findings from the article: 

  • The teaching of philosophy has been shown to produce students who form and freely express opinions contrary to that of the group. 
  • Modern education systems (primary schooling) tend to promote group conformity and create social norms rather than produce free thinkers. 
  • Opponents to the teaching of philosophy in primary education fear it will lead to “anarchy in the classroom,” however this type of nonconformity is precisely what is needed to combat an effect such as groupthink. 
  • Post primary education in philosophy must be different than primary, which promotes a circular system of reasoning free from institutional presumptions so apparent in today’s classrooms. 
  • The teaching of philosophy in classes has been shown to directly correlate to increased numerical and critical thinking scores on standardized testing. 
  • Countries, like Australia, who have adopted P4C(philosophy for children) tend to rank higher in International Education.

 

 

APA Reference: 

Wrack, Strappado. "Groupthink in Service of Government." Groupthink in Service of Government. BATR, 4 Aug. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Summary: 

Strappado’s article, “Groupthink in service of Government,” states that groupthink has been taking place inside of government decisions. He supports this claim with the fact that many politicians will agree to a single issue that suits their political party.

3 most interesting arguments/facts/quotations mentioned and 3 key findings from the article: 

  • Strappado writes "The groupthink is so extensive that several conservative publications seem to exist only to promote the work of other, indistinguishable movement outlets” (Wrack, 1). 
  • Groupthink does not escape the bastion of mainstream conservative outlets. 
  • Strappado writes "Ivory tower utopians march in the ranks of statist totalitarians by choice. Many seek to lead the charge. The "rank and file" that digs the ditches, usually lacks the skills to think independently for their self. Nonetheless, they are usually the first to rally to the cause of their sanitized Führer that preaches hope and change, with every loss of freedom. No one political theory has a monopoly on despotism. Yet the "peaches and cream" slogans of fairness and equality, that come from the ultra-extreme wing of the Democratic Party, out does the worst of the GOP civil libertarian destroyers. 
  • Government group thinkers are wholly confused or simple dishonest participants. The duty of every loyal citizen is not to the state but to the spirit of the America Revolution. 
  • Censorship in thought precedes freedom of behavior in deeds. Civil liberties are dirty words in the urbanity of cultural authoritarianism. 
  • Elegance of polite discourse has given way to the suppression of bourgeois demeanor. The mere mention of anything positive about Christianity earns you a trip to the re-education internment camp for social consciousness. 

 

 

APA Reference:

McKenzie, Chris. "The Power of Groupthink: The New Denial." Western City. Western City, Mar. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Summary: 

 McKenzie's article, “The Power of Groupthink: The New Denial” argues that groupthink has resulted in terrible consequences within the government. He supports this with evidence such as the financial crisis known as the great recession, which according to McKenzie was caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall act. he goes on to argue that many who opposed it were “voices in the wind” (McKenzie, 1).

3 most interesting arguments/facts/quotations mentioned and 3 key findings from the article: 

  • One of the most powerful examples in government of groupthink gone awry in recent years with catastrophic consequences was the rush to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act in the final days of the Clinton Administration. 
  • Dorgan accurately predicted that within 10 years the repeal of Glass-Steagall would cause a financial crisis. 
  • When Moyers asked whether he remembered what Dorgan and the handful of others said, Reed said he did not — and that they were, in effect, voices in the wilderness. 
  • If too many people think something is a good idea, it might be advisable to pay extra attention to the dissenting voices in the wilderness. 
  • The dissenters might have it right. At the very least, it’s worth considering that possibility. 
  • Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon in which the group members form individual opinions that match the group consensus rather than critically evaluating information.

 

 

APA Reference: 

Stern, Eric, and Bengt Sundelius. "The Essence of Groupthink." Wiley. The International Studies Association, 23 Mar. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Summary: 

Eric and Bengt’s article, “The Essence of Groupthink” asserts that government has been placed under the influence of groupthink. The authors support their claim with the fact that during the Carter administration there was hardly any conflict, controversy, or diversity.

3 most interesting arguments/facts/quotations mentioned and 3 key findings from the article: 

  • Small groups are a crucial locus of decision activity within modern governments. As Andrew Semmel and Dean Minix (1979) observed. 
  • In many cases, the small decision group is the principal and final decision body itself. 
  • Small decision groups operate within admin-istrative and political settings, he adds a new and necessary contextual dimension. 
  • From his analysis 't Hart concludes that "groupthink seems to have played a major part in U.S. decision making concerning the revision of its policies vis-a-vis Iran and the Lebanon hostage crisis in the period of May 1985 to November 1986. 
  • "There were very few occasions at which the group as a whole would actually meet. Rather, the members were interacting intensively on a bilateral basis" 
  • Groups fulfill an essential bridging function in the making and implementing of policy in complex organizational environments.

 

 

APA Reference: 

Feaver, P. (2013, January 24). Has Obama succumbed to groupthink? Retrieved from Foreign Policy: https://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/24/has_obama_succumbed_to_group_think

Summary: 

In Feaver's article about Obama focuses on the idea that because the president is not willing to openly recieve criticism from people who dissagree with him he may be falling prey to groupthink. According to many of his staff President Obama is willing to hear the people from the other point of view on situations he may not agree on, but the public record states the contray. The article mentions that the President should consider on taking extra steps to ensure that he is not trapped in a bubble of groupthink. A friend to the author Feaver who had worked with the president when he was a senator reported that the president would often hear and understand the other side of a situation and was skilled at finding common ground for everyone. Feaver does not doubt that the members of Obama's staff read articles or pieces drafted by the people who disagree with them, he does however question whether or not their opinions are held in high regard. 

3 most interesting arguments/facts/quotations mentioned and 3 key findings from the article: 

  • "His most loyal staff assure us that he is, but the public record keeps piling up evidence to the contrary."

  • "Perhaps it is time for the president to consider some extra steps to ensure he is not trapped inside a bubble of groupthink." 

  • The President Obama has a gift of understanding the other side of the situation and has the skilled at fiding the common ground for both sides.  

  •  "It is the President's right to pick the advisors he wants, but shouldn't the President want to have advisors that ask tough, probing questions that flag deficiencies in current policy?"

  • Feaver does not doubt that the members of Obama read articles or pieces drafted by the people who disagree with them. 

  • "They might help the administration deal more honestly with the debate they face today. And they might even prepare the way for honest conversation across the spectrum of foreign policy views." 

 

 

APA Reference: 

Project, X. (2011, November 5). Real World Examplels of Groupthink and the Consequences. Retrieved from X204 Project : https://x204project.com/2011/11/05/real-world-examples-of-groupthink-and-the-consequences/

Summary: 

This article begins by giving a brief description of how groupthink was discovered as an undesirable by-product of group cohesiveness by the psychologist named Irving Janis. The symptoms of Groupthink may create a decision-making environment in which the potential of making a poor decision is very high, some of the symptoms according to the website are: an excessive ammount of optimism, stereotyping, assumptions of inherent morality, and desperate quests for unanimity. A real example on the political side of things would be to consider Vietnam. Assesed from these criteria groupthink could be supposed to be one of the main reasons for the war. “Strategic advisors in 3 successive administrations rubber-stamped battle plans laced with false assumptions.” Some direct and measurable consequences of  this case of groupthink would be that 58220 United States servicemen lost their lives fighting in Vietnam. Some ways in which groupthink may be prevented could be to avoid groups "rubber-stamping" decisions, and taking greater time and care upon considering actions that could have far reaching and drastic consequences. 

3 most interesting arguments/facts/quotations mentioned and 3 key findings from the article:

  • The psychologist named Irving Janis further defined groupthink as 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 action.” 
  • Arcodring to the article, "According to Irving Janis, there are some things we can do to improve decision quality in cohesive groups but groupthink will always be a threat." 

  • Another example of groupthink in corporate would be "Swissair's Collapse: Thought to be so financially stable that people referred to it as the “Flying Bank.” Poor decision-making processes eventually led to its collapse. Symptoms: The belief that the group is invulnerable and the belief in the morality of the group. Lack of expertise, similar backgrounds / norms and pressure to conform were also present. Consequences: Collapse of Swissair" 

  • "Most Important: Group members must always ask, “Are we allowing ourselves to become victims of groupthink?”

  • There way to prevent groupthink one would be to assign someone the role. 

  • "Take time to consider possible consequences of action"