The Psychology Of Groupthink: Understanding Its Impact On Decision-Making

In psychology, groupthink can be defined as a group decision-making process in which group members come to a consensus around a topic or idea, even if the group members don’t all agree with the final decision. In some cases, this can lead to poor decisions and negative outcomes, although groupthink can also be beneficial in some cases. In the workplace or anywhere collaborative decision-making takes place, it may be important to avoid groupthink and ensure a healthy decision-making process. 

Understanding what groupthink is and how it can impact group dynamics may be an important part of being a leader and helping other members of the group reach their full potential. Cultivating an environment where members of the group are comfortable sharing their thoughts and ideas can improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the decision-making process. Working with a licensed therapist may be helpful for cultivating the confidence and security in oneself that may be necessary to speak up in a group setting.

Having trouble sharing your opinion in group settings?

A licensed therapist can offer guidance

Understanding groupthink

The theory of groupthink was first proposed in 1972 in a psychological study conducted by social psychologist Irving Janis, a specialist in experimental social psychology. As Janis explains, groupthink is a type of decision-making that happens in small groups with a lot of group cohesion. It generally occurs when members of a group agree with one another to reach a consensus and move ideas along, even if the individual members do not believe in or agree with the final decision. Experts have sought to understand the mechanisms of groupthink as an element of foreign policy analysis.

Individuals may engage in groupthink for several reasons. For example, they may wish to maintain the group identity and avoid polarized group decision-making. The key characteristics of groupthink, according to Janis, include the following:

• The illusion of invulnerability: A group may believe their ideas are inherently correct or that they cannot be wrong. This can lead group members to agree with bad ideas without questioning them. 
• Collective rationalization: Rather than engaging in independent critical thinking, the group may make excuses for or rationalize certain choices. 
• Belief in the inherent morality of the group: The group’s ideas may be seen as morally superior or correct. Going against the group could be considered immoral. 
• Stereotyping of out-groups: A group engaging in groupthink may scapegoat or stereotype people who are not in their group, which can contribute to the idea that their group is superior and correct. 
• Direct pressure on dissenters: People in the group who dissent or go against the collective will of the group may be pressured to conform or could be removed from the group altogether. 
• Self-censorship: Over time, as members of the group disagree with the group’s choices, they may withhold their feelings or engage in self-censorship. 
• The illusion of unanimity: Members of the group may believe that all the other members agree with the group’s decision. Silence is often seen as consent or agreement. 
• Mind guards: There may be group members who shield the group from information or data that would go against the group’s decision. They may omit facts or change information to fit the narrative put forth by the group. 

Psychological mechanisms behind groupthink

A variety of psychological mechanisms may drive groupthink in small decision-making groups. One of these mechanisms is peer pressure. Peer pressure generally relates to a person’s desire to fit in and not be outcasted from the group. When faced with pressure from their peers, a person may make decisions based on fitting in or avoiding criticism, even if they do not agree with the decision. 

Another psychological mechanism that can contribute to groupthink is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance can arise when a person holds two conflicting beliefs at the same time. In groupthink, this cognitive dissonance may pressure group members to side with the group to avoid discomfort and conflict. 

How does groupthink impact decision-making?

Collaborative group work or thought sessions can be highly effective and may produce decisions that are well thought out. However, when small groups engage in groupthink, it can have several negative impacts on how the group interacts with each other and the final products or ideas they produce. Some ways that groupthink can negatively impact decision-making include the following:

• Lack of critical analysis and evaluation of alternatives: Groupthink may lead to accepting the first option or ending the discussion before a better idea is discovered. A team may not consider alternatives or other ways of thinking and instead go with whatever the group decides is the best option. 
• Overlooking potential risks and negative consequences: With groupthink, there may be a desire to speed through risks or consequences to reach an agreement. These risks and consequences could be avoided by taking the time to engage in a critical conversation rather than participating in groupthink. 
• Reduced creativity and innovation: Ideas developed through groupthink may not be as creative or innovative, as the focus tends to be on agreement and moving forward rather than thinking about concepts in new ways. 
• Lower morale and job satisfaction: While people may go along with the group, it may come at the cost of personal autonomy, which may reduce morale and lead to lower job satisfaction.
• Increased likelihood of group failure: With groupthink, early agreement and unanimity may lead to fewer effective ideas being implemented. This can lead to overall group failure over time. 

Preventing and mitigating groupthink

Although groupthink may be problematic, as it can reduce creativity and the development of good ideas, it can be possible to prevent and mitigate groupthink in daily life. Preventing groupthink may begin with always encouraging open and honest communication. This can foster an environment where all group members’ opinions and viewpoints are honored and valued. Over time, it is likely that all group members will play a role in developing new ideas, which can increase ownership of solutions and the group’s thought process as a whole.  

One strategy in formal collaborative groups may be to assign the role of devil’s advocate to one member. The devil’s advocate may constantly question the status quo and challenge assumptions and decisions. This person can be important to the process because they may force the group to look at their ideas from a variety of perspectives and adjust accordingly. 

It also may be beneficial to intentionally build diverse groups that represent a wide variety of thoughts, backgrounds, and belief systems. Having diverse perspectives can be a way to avoid homogenous opinions, which can arise when each person in the group has a similar background. Diversity also can serve as a driving force for bringing new ideas to the table. 

As a group leader, it can be beneficial to have a set decision-making process or structure put in place before coming to a final decision. This could include setting aside time for brainstorming, intentionally asking people to give their opinions independently, and taking time to look at ideas with a critical eye. After a thorough analysis, if the idea or solution still stands and does what it is intended to do, then it may be appropriate to move forward. 

How can therapy improve decision-making and reduce groupthink?

Having trouble sharing your opinion in group settings?

A licensed therapist can offer guidance

Groupthink is not a clinical mental illness or condition. However, working with a therapist can help you recognize and avoid groupthink in your own life. A therapist may help individuals think deeply and reflectively about a topic or problem and form their own opinion before engaging in collaboration. 

Online therapy can be an effective way to practice mindfulness and self-reflection, both of which can help a person be aware of their own opinions and ideas. A therapist may also help you understand how coworkers and others in your group see the world, which can help you develop a plan for collaboration.  

For busy people, making it to an in-person therapy session can be a challenge. Many in-person sessions happen during traditional office hours, which may require a person to take time off work or rush to an appointment during their lunch hour. Online therapy can happen at any time that works for both the therapist and client and from any location with an internet connection. This means you could find a therapist who offers evening or weekend appointments, allowing for more scheduling flexibility.