groupthink research example

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Steer Clear of Groupthink

• Jennifer Mueller,
• Sarah Harvey,
• Alec Levenson

Three research-backed strategies to keep innovative ideas flowing.

Research has shown that consensus-based problem-solving groups are often where innovative ideas go to die. These groups are highly prone to groupthink — quick agreement around status quo solutions with little discussion or deliberation. So how can managers help their teams keep fresh ideas alive? Researchers studied four virtual task forces that were set up to recommend a process to make Americans’ health care records electronic. They found that the groups who avoided groupthink followed three steps: 1) They challenged the status quo; 2) They adopted a placeholder solution that allowed them to agree on broad principles even if they disagreed on the details; and 3) They celebrated progress towards a final agreement, which allowed them to maintain morale and momentum.

When organizations need to solve a problem, they often create a task force, selection panel, or steering/advisory committee. These groups are tasked with developing consensus around new ideas, such as procedures, policies, products, or services.

• Jennifer Mueller  is a professor of management at the Knauss School of Business, University of San Diego. She studies how managers, leaders and teams can overcome a bias against novel ideas to promote organizational innovation and renewal. Jennifer is the author of many articles and books including Creative Change: Why We Resist It … How We Can Embrace It . She holds a PhD in Social and Developmental Psychology from Brandeis University.
• Sarah Harvey is an associate professor at the UCL School of Management, University College London. Sarah studies creativity and the creative process, in particular the dynamic ways that members of diverse or interdisciplinary groups work together to integrate knowledge and develop new ideas. She holds a PhD in Organizational Behavior from the London Business School.
• Alec Levenson  is senior research scientist, Center for Effective Organizations, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California.  His action research and consulting work with companies applies the principles of organization design, job design, human capital analytics and strategic talent management. He helps optimize performance across jobs, teams and end-to-end business processes to improve operating model alignment and strategy execution.

Partner Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: a scoping review

Karissa dipierro.

1 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

2 Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, NY, USA

Kevin J. Pain

3 Samuel J. Wood Library & C.V. Starr Biomedical Information Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, NY, USA

Steven J. Durning

4 Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA

Justin J. Choi

Associated data.

There is emerging interest in understanding group decision making among a team of health professionals. Groupthink , a term coined by Irving Janis to depict premature consensus seeking in highly cohesive groups, is a theory that has been widely discussed in disciplines outside health care. However, it remains unclear how it has been conceptualized, studied, and mitigated in the context of health professionals conducting patient care. This scoping review aimed to examine the conceptualization of groupthink in health care, empirical research conducted in healthcare teams, and recommendations to avoid groupthink. Eight databases were systematically searched for articles focusing on groupthink among health professional teams using a scoping review methodology. A total of 22 articles were included—most were commentaries or narrative reviews with only four empirical research studies. This review found that focus on groupthink and group decision making in medicine is relatively new and growing in interest. Few empirical studies on groupthink in health professional teams have been performed and there is conceptual disagreement on how to interpret groupthink in the context of clinical practice. Future research should develop a theoretical framework that applies groupthink theory to clinical decision making and medical education, validate the groupthink framework in clinical settings, develop measures of groupthink, evaluate interventions that mitigate groupthink in clinical practice, and examine how groupthink may be situated amidst other emerging social cognitive theories of collaborative clinical decision making.

Introduction

Clinical reasoning can be described as the cognitive processes that a health professional engages in order to make clinical decisions. Our understanding of the cognitive processes that underlie diagnostic and treatment decisions has traditionally focused on individual decision making processes and potentially resulting cognitive biases ( Bowen, 2006 ; Croskerry, 2003 ; Norman & Eva, 2010 ). However, there is emerging interest in understanding group decision making among a team of health professionals, and how to improve teamwork in clinical reasoning ( Balogh, Miller, & Ball, 2015 ). Health care is increasingly becoming more collaborative, yet we still do not have a good empirical understanding of what underpins errors in decision making in a group setting. Understanding the mechanisms of errors in group decision making is critical to improve the quality and safety of patient care, and advance the training of future health professionals.

A systematic bias is a pattern of deviation from rational judgment and decision making that may affect individuals or teams ( Jones & Roelofsma, 2000 ). Current understanding of decision making performed by health professional teams, referred to as team-based clinical reasoning, has been viewed under the lens of social cognitive theories such as situated cognition and distributed cognition ( Olson et al., 2020 ). These theories suggest that clinical reasoning and decision making emerges from the interactions between people and their environment. For example, conversations between health professionals in a safe, non-hierarchical environment can lead to the co-construction of knowledge, insightful shared mental models, and better collaborative decision making. Understanding systematic biases in team-based clinical reasoning is a relatively new area of investigation.

One example of a potential systematic bias in group decision making is groupthink. Groupthink is a theory that describes when highly cohesive groups exhibit premature consensus seeking (i.e., premature closure on the group level) that leads to poor decision making ( Janis, 1982 ; McCauley, 1998 ). Groupthink could occur at all levels of the hierarchy in health organizations, from frontline clinical teams to senior managers and leaders of the organization ( Mannion & Thompson, 2014 ). For example, if a medical team member observes that the working diagnosis does not explain all of the patient’s symptoms, but does not mention this concern to the medical team due to the assumption that the group’s thought process and diagnostic decision must be correct, this group would be exhibiting groupthink.

Groupthink has been widely discussed in a variety of disciplines outside health care, including psychology, business and organization, political science, communication, and others ( Burnette et al., 2011 ; Esser, 1998 ; Hällgren, 2010 ; Mpeera Ntayi et al., 2010 ; Pautz & Forrer, 2013 ; Ricciuti, 2014 ; Turner & Pratkanis, 2014 ). In contrast, prior literature and research of groupthink in health care is limited. To explore the breadth of the literature on groupthink in health care, we performed a scoping review to examine 1) the conceptualization of groupthink in health care, 2) empirical research conducted on groupthink in health care, and 3) recommendations to avoid groupthink in health care.

Janis’s Groupthink Theoretical Framework

In the early 1970’s, psychologist Irving Janis first introduced groupthink as a group decision making theory that impedes effective decision making. In his second edition book, Janis provided a theoretical framework for groupthink with causes (i.e., antecedent conditions), symptoms of groupthink, and consequences ( Janis, 1982 ). Antecedent conditions in Janis’s framework influence the probability of groupthink and consequently the faulty decisions arising from groupthink. Janis determined that group cohesiveness was the main determining antecedent of groupthink, that group members may avoid speaking out against decisions in order to maintain group harmony.

Janis identified eight symptoms of groupthink: (1) an illusion of invulnerability; (2) moral superiority; (3) collective rationalization; (4) stereotyped views of others; (5) self-censorship of deviations from the group consensus; (6) a shared illusion of unanimity; (7) direct pressure on any member who dissents; and (8) the emergence of self-appointed mindguards who protect the group from information that might disrupt the group’s complacency about their decisions. Janis also identified consequences of groupthink that resulted from a faulty decision-making process. Finally, he provided recommendations to prevent groupthink in decision-making groups (see Table 3 ).

Recommendations to mitigate groupthink

We performed a scoping review, following the methodological framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley, in order to examine the extent, range, and nature of work and research activity of our topic arena ( Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ). Furthermore, scoping reviews (also called scoping studies) may identify gaps in the existing literature and inform future research. Scoping reviews also synthesize broad literature from multiple disciplines concerning interprofessional topics ( Levac et al., 2010 ).

Research question and search strategy

Our research question was: ‘How is groupthink theory conceptualized, studied, and mitigated in the context of health professional teams conducting patient care?’ A scoping review of the literature was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist ( Moher et al., 2010 ). A medical library information specialist (KP) performed a search through May 20, 2020 of the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Scopus (Elsevier), Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL (last four all EBSCOhost). Keywords used to retrieve articles and details of the specific database strategies are provided in the supplementary material . Search results were exported to Covidence, an online tool for screening.

Study selection

Articles on groupthink among health professional teams in the context of patient care were included in the review. Articles were included if they discussed any of the following: 1) conceptualization of groupthink in health care; 2) empirical research conducted on groupthink in health care; and 3) recommendations to avoid groupthink in health care. Articles on healthcare administration, hospital operations, health policy, or veterinary medicine were excluded as we decided to focus our review on the direct care of patients among a team of health professionals. Articles were also excluded if the groupthink framework was not applied to clinical decisions, there was only brief mention (e.g., in the introduction or discussion) and without focusing the discussion on groupthink, or if the article used a definition of groupthink significantly different from Janis (i.e., did not view groupthink as potentially harmful or a poor decision-making process). Finally, articles were excluded if the full-text could not be accessed, unless sufficient information was provided in the abstract to meet our inclusion criteria.

The initial search identified 365 articles. A total of 153 duplicates were removed. The co-first authors (KP, HL) screened all remaining studies in a two-stage process: (1) title and abstract screening; followed by (2) full text screening. The co-first authors independently decided which articles fit the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through group discussions involving the co-first authors and another investigator of the research team (JC), who made the final decision as the tiebreaker. The research team met weekly throughout the screening and data extraction process. Of 212 articles screened, 123 were excluded after the title and abstract screening and 67 were excluded after the full-text screening. Six articles were excluded during full-text screening because they were not able to be retrieved through library loan. The entire article screening and selection process yielded 22 articles that were included in this review ( Figure 1 ).

Literature search and article selection process.

Charting the data

Janis’s groupthink theory served as a sensitizing framework that informed our data extraction form. Categories outlined by Janis’s framework for groupthink were included in the data extraction sheet (see supplemental appendix ): antecedents of groupthink, symptoms of groupthink, outcomes, and recommendations. Data was extracted by the co-first authors using individual, standardized excel spreadsheets. Articles were coded according to information on article type and characteristics, the aforementioned categories of Janis’s groupthink framework (antecedents, symptoms, outcomes, recommendations), examples (i.e., conceptualization) of groupthink in health care, and empirical research on groupthink. A final extracted data table was created through frequent meetings between the data extractors. Disagreements were settled by the principal investigator after a group discussion.

Study Characteristics

Twenty-two articles were ultimately included in the scoping review ( Table 1 ). The articles were primarily from the United States (n=12), but also included the United Kingdom (n=4), the Netherlands (n=2), Australia (n=1), Canada (n=1), Sweden (n=1) and Switzerland (n=1). Over two-thirds (n=15) were published between 2010 and 2019, with seven articles published in 2019. Five were published between 2000–2009 and only two were published prior to 2000. The article types included commentaries, editorials, or reports (n=7), narrative reviews (n=6), empirical research (n=4), case reports (n=2), quality improvement reports (n=2), and a book chapter (n=1). Two articles were responses to Kaba et al. (2016) , which was also included in our review. The articles were published in a range of fields: medical education (n=4), nursing (n=4), cardiovascular medicine (n=2), clinical ethics (n=2), clinical psychology (n=2), general medicine (n=2), ergonomics (n=2), business and healthcare administration (n=1), emergency medicine (n=1), geriatrics (n=1), and patient safety (n=1). The populations studied were primarily multidisciplinary teams (n=13) and nursing (n=7), but also included physician-only teams (n=2).

Summary of Literature Characteristics

How groupthink is conceptualized in clinical practice

Fifteen articles identified precursors to groupthink existing in health care, using at least one of Janis’s antecedent conditions. Janis’s principle of group cohesiveness was identified as an antecedent to groupthink in health care by thirteen articles ( Christensen, 2019 ; Cleary et al., 2019 ; Degnin, 2009 ; Gambrill, 2005 ; Heinemann et al., 1994 ; Hollinger, 2019 ; Jones & Roelofsma, 2000 ; Kaba et al., 2016 ; Mannion & Thompson, 2014 ; McLeod & Feller, 2019 ; Rosander et al., 1998 ; Snell, 2010 ). Group cohesiveness emerged either through direct interactions of team members, or at the organizational level of health care, in which health professionals perceived themselves as part of a broader medical community.

Of the fifteen articles that identified antecedents to groupthink, nine posited that health care is particularly prone to groupthink on account of some structural fault of the organization ( Christensen, 2019 ; Cleary et al., 2019 ; Degnin, 2009 ; Gambrill, 2005 ; Harmon, 2019 ; Heinemann et al., 1994 ; Hollinger, 2019 ; Kolbe 2019 ; Snell 2009). In these articles, characteristics such as homogeneity of group members, insularity of the profession, and close-minded leadership were inherent in health care were identified as organizational structural faults that contribute to groupthink. Hierarchy of medical teams was described as a potential issue in five articles ( Allen, 2018 ; Christensen, 2019 ; Gambrill, 2005 ; Harmon et al., 2019 ; Snell, 2010 ). For example, the seniority of nurses or physicians could create an inflexible environment and influence the clinical decisions of more junior nurses or physicians. Homogeneity and insularity in health care can be rooted in the similarity of personal backgrounds ( Kolbe et al., 2019 ; Madigosky & van Schaik, 2016 ). A few articles acknowledged the gradual convergence of analytical thinking processes amongst health professionals as further evidence of homogeneity in health care ( Harmon et al., 2019 ; Mailoo, 2015 ).

Janis’s concept of a provocative situational context was another commonly identified antecedent of groupthink. Three articles described a provocative environment due to the high-stress nature of medical decision making as an antecedent to groupthink ( Heinemann et al., 1994 ; Jones & Roelofsma, 2000 ; Rosander et al., 1998 ). Jones & Roelofsma described the environment of health care as one that is “characterized by dynamically changing task conditions, time pressure, and stress compounded by high stakes.”

Seventeen articles discussed examples of groupthink in teams of health professionals, relating Janis’s “symptoms’’ of groupthink as well as its consequences to clinical decision-making ( Allen, 2018 ; Cheshire, 2017 ; Christensen, 2019 ; Degnin, 2009 ; Farr & Colvin, 2019 ; Gambrill, 2005 ; Harmon et al., 2019 ; Heinemann et al., 1994 ; Hollinger, 2019 ; Jones & Roelofsma, 2000 ; Kaba et al., 2016 ; Kolbe et al., 2019 ; Madigosky & van Schaik, 2016 ; Mailoo, 2015 ; Mannion & Thompson, 2014 ; Schols & Nagelvoort-Schuit, 2016 ; Snelgrove et al., 2011 ). These articles illustrated the various structures of health professional teams, the interpersonal dynamics that create the setting for groupthink, and the ways groupthink can impact the quality of care and patient safety. For example, groupthink was attributed to nursing students continuing the unsafe practice of using draglifts for transporting patients and nurses overlooking input from elderly patients as part of a more comprehensive pain assessment. In another example, a health professional team administered medications while ignoring the suggestion of external members such as the patient’s healthcare proxy that the patient was overmedicated ( Degnin, 2009 ). Examples of groupthink in medical decision making, particularly in diagnosis, were found during diagnostic discussions at case conferences steered by higher-status members with little opposition in their fallacies, in an emergency medicine team that developed group cohesion after spending four night shifts that led to their over-testing for a patient with “atypical chest pain,” and in another emergency medicine team that relied on a charismatic senior physician during medical decision making ( Gambrill, 2005 ; Mannion, 2014 ; Schols, 2016 ).

Three articles discussed groupthink at the organizational level in which individual decision making is shaped by group-based medical training and the broader medical community ( Cheshire, 2017 ; Farr & Colvin, 2019 ; Mailoo, 2015 ). Cheshire discussed how health professionals may exhibit groupthink when underestimating the health risks of trafficked individuals due to assumptions of characteristics of their patient population and the inherent morality of medicine. Farr and Colvin (2019) proposed the tacit judgment of a broader medical community as a proxy for groupthink—in their example, the assignment of a donor selection number by one ‘donor call team’ in the evaluation of a viable organ may be influenced by the previous donor selection number assigned by the other teams in the transplant community at large. It is important to note that groupthink in donor selection number assignments is not expressly negative since the implied donor quality could potentially serve as a method for more expeditious decisions when assessing the organ’s suitability for multiple sequential transplant recipients in large programs. Mailoo (2015) provided other examples of influence from a broader medical community: physicians following the decisions of fellow clinicians while eschewing their independent evaluation; copying previous doctors’ prescriptions; writing prescriptions based on nurses’ requests, and performing “focused exams” heavily informed by other doctors’ previous treatment plans in lieu of taking a thorough patient history.

Two articles provided counterpoints to the argument that groupthink is harmful in health care ( Kerry et al., 2017 ; Madigosky & van Schaik, 2016 ). Health professional teams may not be subject to groupthink due to their heterogeneity in perspectives, experiences, and roles. Furthermore, health care is inherently collaborative and the concern for groupthink is outweighed by the benefits of teamwork in health care. The validity of the groupthink framework was also challenged due to the limited research on groupthink in health care.

Empirical research on groupthink

We identified four empirical studies on groupthink among health professional teams in patient care—two quantitative studies and two qualitative studies ( Table 2 ) ( Allen, 2018 ; Harmon et al., 2019 ; Rosander et al., 1998 ; Snell, 2010 ). Rosander et al. observed six different working groups and conducted the study by first proposing an alternative framework to Janis’s theory, whereby groupthink should be described as a bipolar construct. According to this construct, groupthink theory has omnipotent and depressive variants. The omnipotent variant is closest to Janis’s visualization of a cohesive group, which displays feelings of optimism and superiority over other groups. The depressive variant displays passivity to a leader and delusions about its own and other groups’ features. This bipolar groupthink dynamic was tested via questionnaires, which found that the nursing staff tended toward the mean between omnipotent and depressive groupthink poles, whereas the psychiatric team showed a tendency toward the depressive groupthink pole. This suggests that different teams may have different groupthink tendencies in how they view themselves and how they react in a provocative situation.

Snell et al. surveyed nurses and nurse managers from two hospitals and found that groupthink occurred less frequently in the absence of significant stress, job conflict, and job ambiguity. Using a ‘Group Think Index’ survey created by the study team to assess how nurses evaluate the decision-making dynamic of their group, they discovered that the only symptom of groupthink in Janis’s framework that was detected at moderate levels was unanimity—all other symptoms of groupthink were at low levels of incidence.

Allen et al. used focus groups to explore patient safety and procedural training amongst nursing students. This study examined the continued use of the draglift for transporting patients, which is considered to be a dangerous practice. Groupthink emerged as a bias that contributed to continued use of the draglift—nursing students indicated that the ‘need to belong’ with the senior nurses superseded the need for safer patient-handling techniques.

Harmon et al. used focused ethnography to explore pain management and attitudes of nurses towards pain care provision for older patients in acute care units. Groupthink was observed in various aspects of the work culture: how nurses undertook and interpreted pain documentation; how they viewed and mentored the junior nurses on pain care provision; and the lack of input gathered from older inpatients on their perceptions on pain care provision.

Of note, we found two quality improvement reports in our search for empirical research, although these were not categorized as empirical studies ( Hollinger, 2019 ; Snelgrove et al., 2011 ). Snelgrove et al. reported on the benefits of a simulation-based program to improve ethical reasoning and teamwork among acute care physicians. In this program, the simulations used scripted scenario triggers to encourage teams to communicate openly and challenge decisions. After the simulation, the team participated in ‘debriefing’ sessions during which the team sought feedback and reflected on successful teamwork strategies that challenged groupthink. In the second quality improvement report, Hollinger described the effectiveness of a hospital program that encouraged the reporting of ‘near-miss occurrences’ by hospital staff. The program included a 40-minute presentation on groupthink and provided tools for filing reports in an effort to “speak up for patient safety”. The effectiveness of the program was measured by the results of an annual culture of safety survey, which showed improved scores in the three years following the program.

Recommendations to avoid groupthink

Twenty-one articles included recommendations for addressing groupthink. Seven articles adapted at least one of Janis’s recommendations of avoiding groupthink to the clinical setting ( Table 3 ) ( Christensen, 2019 ; Cleary et al., 2019 ; Degnin, 2009 ; Gambrill, 2005 ; Heinemann et al., 1994 ; Hollinger, 2019 ; Mannion & Thompson, 2014 ). The most common recommendation for preventing groupthink outside of Janis’s framework centered around refocusing attention toward patient care and safety (Allen et al., 2009; Degnin, 2009 ; Harmon et al., 2019 ; Snelgrove et al., 2011 ; Cheshire, 2017 ). These recommendations included focusing on patient communication, opening channels to discuss unwieldy and complex issues on the patient’s goals of care, and maintaining compassion for the patient when faced with difficult decisions regarding care. A focus on patient care and safety may help facilitate and encourage appropriately divergent opinions in the decision making of healthcare teams.

The next most common recommendation outside of Janis’s framework was to implement an educational program as an intervention against groupthink. Four articles suggested group exercises in feedback, such as instructing members to actively dissent in group discussions, scripting scenarios, and engaging in role play ( Degnin, 2009 ; Heinemann et al., 1994 ; Hollinger, 2019 ; Snelgrove et al., 2011 ). Implementing role play could promote the learning of team members’ personalities and personal value systems to ease tension in real practice. Two articles called for health professionals to sharpen their critical thinking skills and bolster their moral awareness ( Cheshire, 2017 ; Snell, 2010 ). They lay the burden on health professionals to take personal responsibility in constantly being wary of latent groupthink.

This scoping review aimed to understand how groupthink is conceptualized, studied, and mitigated in the context of health professional teams conducting patient care. Our results suggest that this is a topic area that is an emerging area of interest. Although it has been a half-century since the inception of groupthink theory, only two articles were published prior to 2000, over two-thirds in the past decade, and almost one-third just in the past year leading up to this scoping review. In our review process, we identified several major themes worth further discussion.

There is disagreement in the conceptualization of groupthink and whether the benefits of teamwork outweigh the potential harms of groupthink among health professional teams in clinical practice. One perspective is that health professional teams are typically homogenous in background (i.e., health professional training) and professional values, and may exhibit convergence in thinking that promotes group cohesiveness that leads to poor decision making. While most agree that group cohesiveness is an antecedent to groupthink in health care, some offer that group cohesiveness is a positive force rather than a weakness of groups (i.e., “the wisdom of the crowd”).

The disagreement on the conceptualization of groupthink may be explained by the fact that health care is delivered by multi-layered, heterogeneous teams. Teams, defined as two or more individuals who interact interdependently with a common purpose, may have members of varying levels of authority and responsibility (e.g., a supervisor and a trainee), varying expertise (e.g., general expertise versus specialty expertise), varying training and practice (e.g., by department/specialty such as cardiology versus oncology, or by healthcare profession such as medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, nutrition, pharmacy, etc.). There are also other factors to consider in the make-up of a team, such as demographic factors, cultural factors, personality, and leadership style. Team heterogeneity in these various factors may foster a power dynamic between members of a health professional team. The team leader may have a special role in this power dynamic. Janis notes that “the group’s agenda can readily be manipulated by a suave leader, often with tacit approval of the members,” a condition that fosters groupthink ( Janis, 1982 ). Janis found little evidence that the extreme of directive leadership, termed one-man rule , is an alternative to the groupthink hypothesis and instead promotes concurrence-seeking (i.e., groupthink). In health care, it may be difficult to separate directive leadership from groupthink as it appears that the former can be an antecedent condition of the latter.

We found few empirical studies on groupthink among healthcare teams in clinical practice, primarily qualitative or survey-based studies that sought the opinions of health professionals. There appears to be a significant gap in the literature on both quantitative and qualitative studies on groupthink, including those gathering validity evidence for the groupthink framework in health care, developing measures of groupthink in health care, and testing interventions that mitigate groupthink in health care. There is also a need for further investigation into how groupthink manifests in healthcare—what it is and mechanistically how it occurs.

Many of the recommendations we identified in articles to counter groupthink among healthcare teams followed Janis’s recommendations outlined in his original framework. Other recommendations were provided as well, including the need to identify and measure groupthink, discourage it in the workplace, and educate trainees on groupthink and effective teamwork strategies. Current training programs of health professionals may not be adequately teaching these skills, and there may be an increasing need for interprofessional healthcare training programs to address limitations in teamwork and group decision making.

A strength of our review is that it provides an exploration of an understudied theory and potential bias in group decision making in the context of clinical practice, a setting in which teamwork and collaboration is critical and often with high stakes. However, there are several study limitations. First, we excluded articles that made brief mention of groupthink without a substantial discussion on the topic. We mitigated potential inconsistency in this determination by performing independent reviews at each stage of screening, with extensive discussions and a tie-breaker vote for any disagreements. Second, we only included articles that specifically applied groupthink to patient care decisions and actions. By limiting our inclusion criteria to clinical decisions, a number of articles on groupthink in hospital administration and management were excluded.

This review demonstrates that there is increasing interest and awareness that health professional teams may be vulnerable to groupthink; however, there is conceptual disagreement on how to interpret groupthink in the context of clinical practice. The impact of groupthink on clinical and educational outcomes is unclear, particularly with regards to the quality of care and patient safety. There are significant gaps in ways to identify, measure, and mitigate groupthink in clinical practice. We recommend the following research priorities to advance the field of teamwork in clinical practice and interprofessional education: (1) developing a theoretical framework that applies groupthink theory to clinical decision making and medical education (2) gathering validity evidence of Janis’s groupthink framework through empirical study; (3) developing measures of groupthink, as well as positive group decision making processes; (4) elucidating the “pathophysiology” of groupthink theory and other group decision making processes in real-world situations; (5) evaluating team interventions that mitigate groupthink and faulty group-decision making processes; (6) examining how groupthink may be situated amidst other emerging social cognitive theories of collaborative clinical decision making; (7) exploring the role of patients and families in groupthink among health professionals.

Practice Points

• Improve health professionals’ understanding of groupthink through educational programs to enhance patient care quality and safety.
• Be wary of groupthink in the presence of a directive leadership style and team hierarchy—team leaders should welcome criticism of their own opinions and encourage candidness.
• Appoint and rotate the role of ‘devil’s advocate’ in the health professional team to promote critical evaluation of group decisions.
• Allow for patient input and shared decision making in health care team decisions to mitigate negative consequences of groupthink.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary appendix, acknowledgments.

Dr. Choi was supported by the NIH/NCATS under Grant #KL2-TR-002385, and has received research support and consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and Allergan for work unrelated to this manuscript.

Biographies

Karissa DiPierro is an undergraduate student at Cornell University concentrating in Microbiology. She is expected to obtain her Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences in May of 2022.

Hannah Lee , BA, MSt, MPhil, is a research associate in the Department of Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, NY. She is currently pursuing studies in a post-baccalaureate premedical program.

Kevin J. Pain , BA, is an Information and Library Research Specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, NY.

Steven J. Durning , MD, PhD, is a Professor of Medicine and Pathology at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, MD, and is the Director of Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education.

Justin J. Choi , MD, MSc, is an Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, NY.

Disclosure statement

No potential competing interest was reported by the authors.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

• Allen L (2018). Why do student nurses continue to use the draglift? In Contemporary Ergonomics 2007 (pp. 451–456). Taylor & Francis. 10.1201/9781315106595-71 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arksey H, & O’Malley L (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 ( 1 ), 19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR (Eds.). (2015). Improving Diagnosis in Health Care National Academies Press; (US: ). [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowen JL (2006). Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning. The New England Journal of Medicine , 355 ( 21 ), 2217–2225. 10.1056/NEJMra054782 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnette JL, Pollack JM, & Forsyth DR (2011). Leadership in extreme contexts: A groupthink analysis of the May 1996 Mount Everest disaster. Journal of Leadership Studies , 4 ( 4 ), 29–40. 10.1002/jls.20190 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheshire WP (2017). Groupthink: how should clinicians respond to human trafficking? AMA Journal of Ethics , 19 ( 1 ), 91–97. 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.1.msoc3-1701 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Christensen SS (2019). Escape from the diffusion of responsibility: A review and guide for nurses. Journal of Nursing Management , 27 ( 2 ), 264–270. 10.1111/jonm.12677 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cleary M, Lees D, & Sayers J (2019). Leadership, thought diversity, and the influence of groupthink. Issues in Mental Health Nursing , 40 ( 8 ), 731–733. 10.1080/01612840.2019.1604050 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Croskerry P (2003). The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic Medicine , 78 ( 8 ), 775–780. 10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Degnin FD (2009). Difficult patients, overmedication, and groupthink. The Journal of Clinical Ethics , 20 ( 1 ), 64–74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esser JK (1998). Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 73 ( 2/3 ), 116–141. 10.1006/obhd.1998.2758 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farr M, & Colvin MM (2019). What number are we? groupthink and the donor heart offer freefall. Circulation. Heart Failure , 12 ( 5 ), e005992. 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.005992 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gambrill E (2005). Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice Improving the Quality of Judgments and Decisions (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hällgren M (2010). Groupthink in temporary organizations. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , 3 ( 1 ), 94–110. 10.1108/17538371011014044 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harmon J, Summons P, & Higgins I (2019). Nurses’ culturally mediated practices influencing pain care provision for older people in acute care: Ethnographic study. Applied Nursing Research : ANR , 48 , 22–29. 10.1016/j.apnr.2019.05.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heinemann GD, Farrell MP, & Schmitt MH (1994). Groupthink theory and research: implications for decision making in geriatric health care teams. Educational Gerontology , 20 ( 1 ), 71–85. 10.1080/0360127940200106 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollinger T (2019). “Flag the Play”: Overcoming unseen barriers to speak up for safety. Nursing Management , 50 ( 7 ), 7–9. 10.1097/01.NUMA.0000557623.19814.17 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Janis IL (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones PE, & Roelofsma PH (2000). The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics , 43 ( 8 ), 1129–1152. 10.1080/00140130050084914 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaba A, Wishart I, Fraser K, Coderre S, & McLaughlin K (2016). Are we at risk of groupthink in our approach to teamwork interventions in health care? Medical Education , 50 ( 4 ), 400–408. 10.1111/medu.12943 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kerry MJ, Schmutz JB, & Eppich WJ (2017). Speaking up in defence of teamwork training towards patient safety: a response. Medical Education , 51 ( 5 ), 561–562. 10.1111/medu.13230 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolbe M, Grande B, Marty A, Manka R, Taramasso M, Nietlispach F, Pomar JL, Maisano F, & Reser D (2019). Making heart team discussions work. Structural Heart , 3 ( 2 ), 100–103. 10.1080/24748706.2019.1572254 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levac D, Colquhoun H, & O’Brien KK (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science , 5 , 69. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Madigosky W, & van Schaik S (2016). Context matters: groupthink and outcomes of health care teams. Medical Education , 50 ( 4 ), 387–389. 10.1111/medu.12989 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mailoo V (2015). Common sense or cognitive bias and groupthink: does it belong in our clinical reasoning? The British Journal of General Practice , 65 ( 630 ), 27. 10.3399/bjgp15X683173 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mannion R, & Thompson C (2014). Systematic biases in group decision-making: implications for patient safety. International Journal for Quality in Health Care , 26 ( 6 ), 606–612. 10.1093/intqhc/mzu083 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCauley C (1998). Group dynamics in janis’s theory of groupthink: backward and forward. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 73 ( 2/3 ), 142–162. 10.1006/obhd.1998.2759 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLeod K, & Feller E (2019). Groupthink: what’s so great about teamwork? Rhode Island Medical Journal (2013), 102 ( 7 ), 8–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, & PRISMA Group. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery , 8 ( 5 ), 336–341. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mpeera Ntayi J, Byabashaija W, Eyaa S, Ngoma M, & Muliira A (2010). Social cohesion, groupthink and ethical behavior of public procurement officers. Journal of Public Procurement , 10 ( 1 ), 68–92. 10.1108/JOPP-10-01-2010-B003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norman GR, & Eva KW (2010). Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning. Medical Education , 44 ( 1 ), 94–100. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03507.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson APJ, Durning SJ, Branson CF, Sick B, Lane KP, Rencic JJ (2020). Teamwork in clinical reasoning – cooperative or parallel play? Diagnosis , 7 ( 3 ), 307–312. 10.1515/dx-2020-0020 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pautz JA, & Forrer DA (2013). The dynamics of groupthink: the cape coral experience. Journal of International Energy Policy (JIEP) , 2 ( 1 ), 1. 10.19030/jiep.v2i1.7890 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ricciuti JE (2014). Groupthink: A Significant Threat to the Homeland Security of the United States [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosander M, Stiwne D, & Granström K (1998). “Bipolar groupthink”: assessing groupthink tendencies in authentic work groups. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 39 ( 2 ), 81–92. 10.1111/1467-9450.00060 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schols L-A, & Nagelvoort-Schuit SK (2016). Atypical chest pain. Diagnostic error in medicine 1st European Conference June 30–July 1, 2016. Diagnosis , 3(2), eA1–eA36. 10.1515/dx-2016-0015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snelgrove H, Gosling N, & McAnulty G (2011). The dissenting opinion: can simulation-based multi-professional training reduce “groupthink”? Postgraduate Medical Journal , 87 ( 1027 ), 323–324. 10.1136/pgmj.2010.109298 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snell MJ (2010). Factors that increase the incidence of groupthink in hospitals: The perception of nurses and managers [Doctoral dissertation] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner ME, & Pratkanis AR (2014). Preventing Groupthink Risk through Deliberative Discussion. International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management , 3 ( 1 ), 12–24. 10.4018/ijrcm.2014010102 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

The power of groupthink: Study shows why ideas spread in social networks

There’s a reason that ideas—even erroneous ones—catch fire on social media or in popular culture: groupthink.

New research co-authored by Berkeley Haas Asst. Prof. Douglas Guilbeault shows that large groups of people all tend to think alike, and also illustrates how easily people’s opinions can be swayed by social media—even by artificial users known as bots.

In a series of experiments, published in the journal Nature Communications , Guilbeault and co-authors Damon Centola of the University of Pennsylvania and Andrea Baronchelli of City University London created an online game that asked numerous people to identify what they saw in Rorschach inkblots.

Bigger groups, fewer categories

“In small groups, there was a ton of variation in how people described the shapes,” says Guilbeault, who studies collective intelligence and creativity, categorization, and social media policy. “As you increase the size of the group, however, rather than creating unpredictability, you could actually increase your ability to predict the categories.”

It’s not that there was a lack of ideas in the large groups—in fact, the larger the group, the more categories for blots were initially proposed. However, some categories just seemed to appeal to more people than others. As more people communicated with each other, the slightly more popular categories won out. The large groups consistently settled on just a handful of categories, including “crab,” “bunny,” “frog,” and “couch”—even when the blots themselves varied.

“When you’re in a small group, it’s more likely for unique perspectives to end up taking off and getting adopted,” Guilbeault explains. “Whereas in large groups, you consistently see ‘crab’ win out because multiple people are introducing it, and you get a cascade.”

When you’re in a small group, it’s more likely for unique perspectives to end up taking off and getting adopted.

The influence of bots

Interestingly, however, he and his colleagues were able to manipulate the choices people made by introducing “bots” with an agenda into the system. These automatic participants continually implanted the idea that the blots looked like a sumo wrestler, an otherwise unpopular category. Sure enough, when a critical mass of bots pushed the idea, human participants also started adopting it.

Once more than a third (37%) of participants advocated for sumo wrestler, they found, the group was likely to adopt it over other categories. What’s more, when researchers afterwards showed those participants the image that was most likely deemed a crab by other groups, they were much more likely now to call it sumo as well. “We showed people the crabbiest crab, and now people said it looked like a wrestler. No one described it as looking like a sumo wrestler, let alone like a person, in the large groups without bots,” Guilbeault says.

The same phenomenon happens on social media, says Guilbeault, who has previously researched the influence of Twitter bots, including their role in the 2016 election. By pushing an idea over and over, both real and automated users are able to sway the majority to use their terms. “In some sense, Trump’s presidency was a war over categories,” Guilbeault says. “Ten years ago, no one was talking about ‘fake news,’ and now everyone is trying to categorize whether news media is fake or not.”

In some sense, Trump’s presidency was a war over categories. Ten years ago, no one was talking about ‘fake news,’ and now everyone is trying to categorize whether news media is fake or not.

For that reason, he says, content moderation by social media platforms that relies on identifying the difference between real and fake news may be actually be doing more harm than good by subtly validating categories they are criticizing. “Just by trying to put out the fire in the moment, they are sending the message that this is the right category,” he says, “while a different category system may allow for more nuance and subtlety.”

A better approach may be to focus on getting rid of the bots spreading the categories in the first place—or to create more accurate categories that are also appealing enough to spread, he says. Take the naming of the more contagious coronavirus variants that have appeared, for example. Small groups of scientists devised highly technical names, such as 501.Y2 and B.1.1.7, to describe the virus strains. Meanwhile, the public has adopted easier-to-remember geographical names such as the South Africa and UK variants, respectively.

The problem is that those names risk stigmatizing regions and misrepresenting how widespread these variants really are. A scientific body could test new naming systems that might be both more accurate and more successful in getting adopted.

“You could do market research in a networked focus group,” says Guilbeault, discovering or creating the social media equivalent of ‘crab’ in order to spread more benign ideas. Those strategies might ultimately succeed better than using flags or warnings in changing the way people communicate, he says, leading to a more civil public discourse overall.

• Operations & IT Management
• Sustainability
• Economic Analysis & Policy
• Business & Public Policy
• Social Impact
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Innovation & Technology
• Real Estate
• Entrepreneurship
• Energy & Environment
• Faculty News
• Student News
• School News
• Perspectives
• News Releases
• Alumni News

Groupthink: Definition, Signs, Examples, and How to Avoid It

Derek Schaedig

Outreach Specialist

B.A., Psychology, Harvard University

Derek Schaedig, who holds a B.A. in Psychology from Harvard University, is a mental health advocate. His lived experience with mental illness has been showcased in various podcasts and articles. He currently serves as a part-time outreach specialist for the Mental Health Foundation of West Michigan.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Groupthink refers to the tendency for certain types of groups to reach decisions that are extreme and which tend to be unwise or unrealistic

Groupthink occurs when individuals in cohesive groups fail to consider alternative perspectives because they are motivated to reach a consensus which typically results in making less-than-desirable decisions.

For example, group members may ignore or discount information that is inconsistent with their chosen decision and express strong disapproval against any group member who might disagree.

Janis (1971, 1982) popularized the term groupthink; however, he did not originate the concept. That is generally accredited to George Orwell as he describes the psychological phenomenon as “crimethink” or “doublethink” in his famous dystopian novel titled 1984 (Orwell, 1949).

Janis described groupthink early on as “the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action” (1972, p. 9).

Groupthink typically connotes a negative effect. In fact, Janis described it originally in his book published in 1972 titled Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes as “a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures” (Janis, 1972, p. 9).

Lack of diversity in groups : Groups that have members who are very similar to one another can be a cause of groupthink. With a lack of diverse perspectives, the group fails to consider outside perspectives.

Furthermore, these group embers may engage in more negative attitudes towards outgroup members, which can exacerbate groupthink.

Lack of impartial leadership : Groups with particularly powerful leaders who fail to seriously consider perspectives other than their own are prone to groupthink as well.

These leaders can overpower group members’ opinions that oppose their own ideas.

Stress : Placing a decision-making group under stress in scenarios such as one where there are moral dilemmas can increase the chances of groupthink occurring.

These groups may try to reach a consensus irrationally.

Time constraints : Related to stress, placing time constraints on a decision being made can increase the amount of anxiety, also leading to groupthink.

Highly cohesive groups : Groups that are particularly close-knit typically display more groupthink symptoms than groups that are not.

Lack of outside perspectives : Only considering the perspectives of in-group members can lead to groupthink as well.

Motivation to maintain group members’ self-esteem : If group members are motivated to maintain each other’s self-esteem, they may not raise their voices against the group consensus.

In Janis’s first book, he cited eight symptoms of groupthink to look out for in order to avoid the phenomena from occurring (Janis, 1972).

Invulnerability : When groups begin to believe their decisions and actions are untouchable or that the group is invincible, they ignore warnings or signs of danger that run contrary to their consensus.

Rationale : Groups that engage in groupthink rationalize their decisions even in the face of obvious warning signs or negative feedback that they receive.

This is typically thought to be the case because if the group took into further consideration these pushbacks, the group members’ egos, as well as the time needed to make the decision, may be harmed.

Morality : Groups may also believe that their group is inherently morally correct, and they may therefore ignore potential moral or ethical consequences of their decision.

Stereotypes : People or groups that oppose the group engaging in groupthink may be rendered enemies as well. This results in mislabeling the enemy group as “stupid” or “weak” when they may not be.

Pressure : Groups may directly pressure members of the group who contradict the policy advocated by the group.

This forces them to not be able to push back against any arguments being made. This can leave groups prone to making irrational decisions.

Self-censorship : Members of groups can sometimes censor themselves too.

These individuals may hold off on raising an opinion contrary to the group consensus or convince themselves their opposing viewpoint is unimportant for fear of judgment from the group.

Unanimity : Sometimes, the false assumption can be made that if everyone in the group is silent, then everyone must agree with what is being put forth.

Mindguards : This term refers to when members of the group appoint themselves as protectors of the leader or other important group members.

Mindguards dismiss information that contradicts popular opinion or about past decisions to maintain group self-esteem.

Consequences

Poor decisions : Potentially, the largest overall impact groupthink can have on decision-making groups is that they are more prone to making poor decisions.

The effects of groupthink can be especially harmful in the military, medical, and political courses of action.

Self-censorship :  Individuals within the group affected by groupthink may not be as effective as possible when helping make decisions because they may hold back their potentially helpful opinions if they run contrary to the group’s popular opinion.

Inefficient problem solving : Because groups who experience the effects of groupthink fail to consider alternative perspectives, they can sometimes fail to consider ways to solve problems that deviate from their original plan of action.

This can lead to inefficiencies in the group’s problem-solving capabilities.

Harmful stereotypes can develop : Groups may begin to believe that their group is inherently morally right.

They, therefore, consider themselves the “in-group” and label others as outsiders or the “out-group,” which can become harmful to those on the outside as irrational thoughts about them begin to develop.

Lack of creativity : Because members of these groups may self-censor themselves or have pressure put on them by the group to conform, a lack of creativity may result due to the group not encouraging different ideas than the norm.

Blindness to negative outcomes : Since groups affected by groupthink can sometimes believe they are inherently correct, they may be unable to see the potentially negative outcomes of their decisions.

They, therefore, will not be able to plan accordingly if a negative outcome occurs.

Lack of preparation to manage negative outcomes : Because these groups can be overconfident in their decisions, they are more likely to be ill-prepared if their plan does not succeed.

Inability to see other solutions : Groupthink can lead to the group failing to consider other opinions or ideas. This leads to the group viewing only the group consensus as the correct solution.

Obedience to authority without question : Members of the group are more likely to follow their leaders blindly, never raising their opinion against whether the actions the group agrees on are moral or the correct course of action.

Can Groupthink Ever be a Good Thing?

Groupthink is generally considered a negative phenomenon.

Groups generally can benefit from hearing a diverse set of perspectives and information, and failing to do so can result in suboptimal decisions being made.

However, it is true that groups who engage in groupthink can make decisions quickly (although they may not be the best decision possible).

Also, anxiety can be reduced in the group because the group believes their decisions cannot be flawed. Groups who suffer from groupthink view themselves as untouchable (Janis, 1972).

Furthermore, groups rationalize the decision they made, whether it was the best option or not, and therefore convince themselves that the risks they are assuming are not as great as they truly are.

Lastly, the group may also believe that they are inherently morally right, which helps the members of the group cease to feel shame or guilt.

Overall though, groups should take precautions to avoid groupthink as much as possible.

Real-Life Scenarios

The social and political consequences of groupthink may be far-reaching, and history has many examples of major blunders that have been the result of decisions reached in this way.

Many case scenarios have been analyzed, such as the Invasion of Iraq (Badie, 2010), the attempt to rescue the American prisoners in the Vietnam War in the Son Tay raid (Amidon, 2005), and fraudulent behavior at WorldCom (Scharff, 2005) among many other flawed decisions cited for failing due to groupthink.

However, the original real-life scenarios of groupthink discussed by Janis were the escalation of the Vietnam War, the Bay of Bigs Scandal, and the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

The Vietnam War

Elected United States (U.S.) government officials during Vietnam showed signs of invulnerability (Janis, 1972).

The U.S. suffered multiple failures and setbacks, but they continued with their war efforts ignoring the danger and warning signs because they believed they would win no matter what.

Furthermore, the U.S. leaders rationalized their escalated bombing campaigns ignoring the negative feedback that they continuously received.

The U.S. also viewed their decisions as inherently morally right. President Johnson considered the same four factors every Tuesday: the military advantage of the U.S., the risk to American aircraft and pilots, the danger of forcing other countries into the fighting, and the danger of heavy civilian causalities. By engaging in this ritualization, they failed to effectively consider the morality of their decisions.

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s domino theory was an example of stereotyping as well. By viewing the enemy and its surrounding countries as too incompetent to make their own correct decisions, the U.S. administration made decisions that escalated the war.

Reportedly, Johnson once pressured former White House Press Secretary Bill Moyers to stop pushing back against the U.S. bombing campaign. Once, when Moyers entered a meeting, Johnson said of Moyers, “Well, here comes Mr. Stop-the-bombings.”

Bay of Pigs

President John F. Kennedy’s administration suffered from the illusion of invulnerability as well. Despite the plans to invade the Bay of Pigs leaking out, Kennedy’s administration proceeded with the plans ignoring the negative warning signs (Janis, 1972).

Historian Arthur J. Schlesinger expressed his strong objections against the war to both President Kennedy and Secretary of State Dean Rusk individually, but when it came to the group discussions on the decision to invade or not, Schlesinger stayed quiet.

He fell prey to believing that the ingroup was inherently moral, so Janis argued and kept his qualms quiet.

Another symptom of groupthink that Kennedy and his group experienced was stereotyping (Janis, 1972). Kennedy and his team made three assumptions about the capabilities of Fidel Castro’s administration that proved to be incorrect.

Kennedy’s administration assumed that Castro’s forces were so weak that a small group of U.S. troops could establish a beachhead at the Bay of Pigs. Secondly, the U.S. administration thought that just a fleet of B-26s could knock out Castro’s entire air force. The third assumption was that Castro was not smart enough to stop any internal uprisings.

Kennedy and his team were wrong in all three assumptions because they negatively stereotyped the enemy and made faulty assumptions.

Many members of the group self-censored as well. It seemed as if there was a unanimous decision within the ingroup to continue with the Bay of Pigs invasion, but Rusk failed to voice his contrary opinion even when three government officials outside of the group expressed their concerns.

Pearl Harbor

Despite warning signs, the U.S. government failed to prepare for the attack on Pearl Harbor because they were subject to the illusion of invulnerability (Janis, 1972). They believed they were invincible against any attacks from the Japanese.

The U.S. leaders also rationalized that the Japanese would never dare to attack the U.S. because that would be an act of war, and the U.S. believed they would win and that their opponent viewed this the same.

This stereotype and failure to view the situation from the enemy’s point of view led to the poor decision to not adequately prepare for the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Opposition to the Theory

Despite a lot of support for the theory over the years, it has received some pushback as well. Sally Fuller and Ramon Aldag argue that being in a cohesive group has been proven to be effective (Aldag & Fuller, 1993; Fuller S.R. & Aldag R.J., 1998).

They also argue that Janis’s theory is not empirically supported and can be inconsistent.  Robert Baron reflects on the many years of research conducted on groupthink and concludes that the body of evidence has largely failed to support the theory (Baron, 2005).

There has been a large body of experimental research conducted on groupthink, especially in the years directly following the introduction of the theory. Notably, one study found mixed support for the theory (Flowers, 1977).

Aligning with the groupthink theory, the groups in the study with directive leaders came up with fewer solutions, shared less information, and utilized fewer facts about the case before making a decision.

On the other hand, the more surprising finding was that the more cohesive groups did not perform worse than the less cohesive ones.

Opposing the group cohesion aspect of the groupthink theory as well, John Courtright found that group cohesion had no effect on a number of factors, including creativity, feasibility, significance, competence, and a number of possible solutions (Courtright, 1978).

Another set of researchers found similar results when it comes to group cohesion (Fodor & Smith, 1982).

Furthermore, both Callaway and Esser reported that both group cohesion and whether or not groups were told to consider all of the possible alternatives or given no instruction had no effect on task performance (Callaway & Esser, 1984).

However, despite the opposition, many researchers have advocated for the theory in their work as well, and groupthink is widely cited today (Hensley & Griffin, 1986; Tetlock, 1979).

Also, many scholars have adjusted the theory to address the opposition’s findings, including the ubiquity model (Baron, 2005), the general group problem-solving model (GGPS) (Aldag & Fuller, 1993), and the sociocognitive theory (Tsoukalas, 2007) to name a few.

How to Avoid Groupthink

To avoid groupthink, leaders and group members alike can take a variety of steps to help prevent the phenomenon from occurring. Some potential solutions are below.

Leaders or impactful group members should create a safe space for discussion. They should be open to opposition to the group consensus, accept criticism, and encourage new ideas regardless of a person’s status within the organization (Janis, 1972, 1982).

Key members of the group and leaders should hold back their opinions initially to reduce their influence over the group consensus.

Outside groups could be set up to work on the same problem to compare potential solutions.

If setting up an entire outside group is not feasible, the ingroup should discuss its ideas with experts outside of the group.

Another way to reduce groupthink is by having a “devil’s advocate” or someone who raises ideas contrary to the ones presented despite their own opinion to help produce debates, create new ideas, or help determine the strength of an existing idea.

Considering the opposing groups’ points of view is key as well.

Groups can be split up into smaller subgroups and asked to create their own possible solutions. These groups can then be reconvened to discuss the various options collectively.

After the group has reached a preliminary decision, the group could hold another meeting which gives group members one more chance to raise opposition to the consensus.

When possible, allow as much time as possible to make a decision.

Educating groups about the groupthink phenomenon can be helpful as well.

Lastly, it’s important to have a diverse set of group members in order to have different perspectives, which can help reach a more balanced, optimal conclusion.

Learning check

Which statement about groupthink is correct?

• Groupthink always occurs in small groups.
• Groupthink helps to maintain peace and avoid conflict within the group.
• Groupthink is a phenomenon where the desire for group consensus leads to the suppression of dissenting viewpoints.
• Groupthink tends to maximize the effectiveness of a team’s performance.

Answer : The correct statement is 3. Groupthink is a phenomenon where the desire for group consensus leads to the suppression of dissenting viewpoints.

Derek’s team is struggling to come to a consensus because several people are unwilling to share their thoughts. What would be the best question for the group to ask themselves to avoid groupthink?

Answer : “Are we creating an environment where everyone feels safe to express their honest opinions and concerns without fear of judgment or backlash?” This encourages open dialogue and reduces the risk of groupthink.

What is groupthink in psychology?

Groupthink in psychology is a phenomenon where the desire for group consensus and harmony leads to poor decision-making.

Members suppress dissenting viewpoints, ignore external views, and may take irrational actions that devalue independent critical thinking.

What causes groupthink?

Groupthink is often caused by group pressure, strong directive leadership, high group cohesion, and isolation from outside opinions.

It is also more likely in stressful situations where decision-making becomes rushed and critical evaluation is minimized.

What are the common results of groupthink?

Common groupthink results include poor decision-making, lack of creativity, ignored alternatives, suppressed dissent, and potentially irrational actions.

It may also lead to overlooking risks, not considering all possible outcomes, and failing to re-evaluate initially rejected options.

Further Information

Lunenburg FC. Group decision making: The potential for groupthink. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration. 2010;13(1).

Bang, D., & Frith, C. D. (2017). Making better decisions in groups. Royal Society open science, 4(8), 170193.

Rose, J. D. (2011). Diverse perspectives on the groupthink theory–a literary review. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4(1), 37-57.

Aldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. (1993). Beyond Fiasco: A Reappraisal of the Groupthink Phenomenon and a New Model of Group Decision Processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113 (3), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.533

Amidon, M. (2005). Groupthink, politics, and the decision to attempt the Son Tay rescue. Parameters (Carlisle, Pa.), 35(3), 119.

Badie, D. (2010). Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror: Explaining US Policy Shift toward Iraq: Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6 (4), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00113.x

Baron, R. S. (2005). So Right It’s Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 219–253). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37004-3

Callaway, M. R., & Esser, J. K. (1984). Groupthink: Effects of Cohesiveness and Problem-Solving Procedures on Group Decision Making. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 12 (2), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1984.12.2.157

Courtright, J. A. (1978). A laboratory investigation of groupthink. Communication Monographs, 45 (3), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757809375968

Flowers, M. L. (1977). A laboratory test of some implications of Janis’s groupthink hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(12), 888–896. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.35.12.888

Fodor, E. M., & Smith, T. (1982). The power motive as an influence on group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (1), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.178

Fuller S.R. & Aldag R.J. (1998). Organizational Tonypandy: Lessons from a Quarter Century of the Groupthink Phenomenon. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73 (23), 163–184.

Hensley, T. R., & Griffin, G. W. (1986). Victims of Groupthink: The Kent State University Board of Trustees and the 1977 Gymnasium Controversy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30 (3), 497–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002786030003006

Janis, I. (1971, November). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 84–89.

Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes (pp. viii, 277). Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:734003

Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Signet Classic.

Raven, B. H. (1998). Groupthink, Bay of Pigs, and Watergate reconsidered: Theoretical perspectives on groupthink: a twenty-fifth anniversary appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73 (2–3), 352–361.

Scharff, M. M. (2005). WorldCom: A Failure of Moral and Ethical Values. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 10(3), 35-.

Tetlock, P. E. (1979). Identifying victims of groupthink from public statements of decision makers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (8), 1314–1324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1314

Tsoukalas, I. (2007). Exploring the Microfoundations of Group Consciousness. Culture & Psychology, 13 (1), 39–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X07073650

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How Groupthink Impacts Our Behavior

Why going along with the group can lead to poor decisions

Yuri Arcurs / Getty Images

How Groupthink Works

What causes groupthink, examples of groupthink, groupthink can have serious effects, potential pitfalls of groupthink, what can you do to avoid groupthink.

Have you ever been in a situation where everyone seems to agree without giving the problem much thought? This is often an example of a psychological phenomenon known as groupthink. Groups tend to think in harmony, which can make reaching a consensus easier while also reducing critical thinking and novel ideas.

What Exactly Is Groupthink?

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group. In many cases, people will set aside their own personal beliefs or adopt the opinions of the rest of the group. The term was first used in 1972 by social psychologist Irving L. Janis.

People opposed to the group's decisions or overriding opinions frequently remain quiet, preferring to keep the peace rather than disrupt the crowd's uniformity. This phenomenon can be problematic, but even well-intentioned people are prone to making irrational decisions in the face of overwhelming pressure from the group.

Keep reading to learn more about how to spot the signs of groupthink, what causes it, and the effects it can have on decision-making and behavior.

8 Signs of Groupthink

Groupthink may not always be easy to discern, but there are some signs that it is present. There are also some situations where it may be more likely to occur. Janis identified eight different "symptoms" that indicate groupthink.

• Illusions of unanimity lead members to believe that everyone is in agreement and feels the same way. It is often much more difficult to speak out when it seems that everyone else in the group is on the same page.
• Unquestioned beliefs lead members to ignore possible moral problems and not consider the consequences of individual and group actions.
• Rationalizing prevents members from reconsidering their beliefs and causes them to ignore warning signs.
• Stereotyping leads members of the in-group to ignore or even demonize out-group members who may oppose or challenge the group's ideas. This causes members of the group to ignore important ideas or information.
• Self-censorship causes people who might have doubts to hide their fears or misgivings. Rather than sharing what they know, people remain quiet and assume that the group must know best.
• "Mindguards" act as self-appointed censors to hide problematic information from the group. Rather than sharing important information, they keep quiet or actively prevent sharing.
• Illusions of invulnerability lead group members to be overly optimistic and engage in risk-taking. When no one speaks out or voices an alternative opinion, people believe that the group must be right.
• Direct pressure to conform is often placed on members who pose questions, and those who question the group are often seen as disloyal or traitorous.

Four of the main characteristics of groupthink include pressure to conform, the illusion of invulnerability, self-censorship, and unquestioned beliefs. Other signs include rationalizing, self-censorship, mindguards, and direct pressure.

Why does groupthink occur? Think about the last time you were part of a group, perhaps during a school project. Imagine that someone proposes an idea that you think is terrible, ineffective, or just downright dumb.

However, everyone else in the group agrees with the person who suggested the idea, and the group seems set on pursuing that course of action. Do you voice your dissent or just go along with the majority opinion?

In many cases, people end up engaging in groupthink when they fear that their objections might disrupt the harmony of the group or suspect that their ideas might cause other members to reject them .

Groupthink is complex and there are many influences that can impact when and how it happens. Some causes that may play a part include:

Group Identity

It tends to occur more in situations where group members are very similar to one another. When there is strong group identity, members of the group tend to perceive their group as correct or superior while expressing disdain or disapproval toward people outside of the group, a phenomenon known as the ingroup bias.

When people have a lot in common and are very similar to one another, their beliefs and decision-making are often biased in similar ways. This means that they may come to the same conclusions and interpret the available information in the same ways.

Leader Influences

Groupthink is also more likely to occur when a powerful and charismatic leader commands the group. People may be more likely to go along with authoritarian leaders because they fear punishment. Transformational leaders can sometimes produce this same effect because group members are more willing to buy into their vision for the group.

Low Knowledge

When people lack personal knowledge of something or feel that other members of the group are more qualified, they are more likely to engage in groupthink. Since they lack the expertise and experience, they tend to let other people set the pace and make the decisions.

Situations where the group is placed under extreme stress or where moral dilemmas exist also increase the occurrence of groupthink. It's easier to maintain peace and stick to the group consensus rather than rock the boat and slow things down by introducing conflicting ideas.

Contributing Factors

Janis suggested that groupthink tends to be the most prevalent in conditions:

• When there is a high degree of cohesiveness.
• When there are situational factors that contribute to deferring to the group (such as external threats, moral problems, and difficult decisions).
• When there are structural issues (such as group isolation and a lack of impartial leadership ).

Groupthink has been attributed to many real-world political decisions that have had consequential effects. In his original descriptions of groupthink, Janis suggested that the escalation of the Vietnam War, the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the failure of the U.S. to heed warnings about a potential attack on Pearl Harbor were all influenced by groupthink.

Other examples where decision-making is believed to be heavily influenced by groupthink include:

• The Watergate scandal
• The Challenger space shuttle disaster
• The 2003 invasion of Iraq
• The 2008 economic crisis
• The Tiananmen Square disaster
• Internet cancel culture

In more everyday settings, researchers suggest that groupthink might play a part in decisions made by professionals in healthcare settings.

In each instance, factors such as pressure to conform, closed-mindedness, feelings of invulnerability, and the illusion of group unanimity contribute to poor decisions and often devastating outcomes.

Groupthink can cause people to ignore important information and can ultimately lead to poor decisions . This can be damaging even in minor situations but can have much more dire consequences in certain settings.

Medical, military, or political decisions, for example, can lead to unfortunate outcomes when they are impaired by the effects of groupthink.

The phenomenon can have high costs. These include:

• The suppression of individual opinions and creative thought can lead to inefficient problem-solving .
• It can contribute to group members engaging in self-censorship. This tendency to seek consensus above all else also means that group members may not adequately assess the potential risks and benefits of a decision. 
• Groupthink also tends to lead group members to perceive the group as inherently moral or right. Stereotyped beliefs about other groups can contribute to this biased sense of rightness.

Groupthink can be a way to preserve the harmony in the group, which may be helpful in some situations that require rapid decision-making. However, it can also lead to poor problem-solving and contribute to bad decisions .

Groupthink vs. Conformity

It is important to note that while groupthink and conformity are similar and related concepts, there are important distinctions between the two. Groupthink involves the decision-making process.

On the other hand, conformity is a process in which people change their own actions so they can fit in with a specific group. Conformity can sometimes cause groupthink, but it isn't always the motivating factor.

While groupthink can generate consensus, it is by definition a negative phenomenon that results in faulty or uninformed thinking and decision-making. Some of the problems it can cause include:

• Blindness to potentially negative outcomes
• Failure to listen to people with dissenting opinions
• Lack of creativity
• Lack of preparation to deal with negative outcomes
• Ignoring important information
• Inability to see other solutions
• Not looking for things that might not yet be known to the group
• Obedience to authority without question
• Overconfidence in decisions
• Resistance to new information or ideas

Group consensus can allow groups to make decisions, complete tasks, and finish projects quickly and efficiently—but even the most harmonious groups can benefit from some challenges.   Finding ways to reduce groupthink can improve decision-making and assure amicable relationships within the group.

There are steps that groups can take to minimize this problem. First, leaders can give group members the opportunity to express their own ideas or argue against ideas that have already been proposed.

Breaking up members into smaller independent teams can also be helpful. Here are some more ideas that might help prevent groupthink.

• Initially, the leader of the group should avoid stating their opinions or preferences when assigning tasks. Give people time to come up with their own ideas first.
• Assign at least one individual to take the role of the "devil's advocate."
• Discuss the group's ideas with an outside member in order to get impartial opinions.
• Encourage group members to remain critical. Don't discourage dissent or challenges to the prevailing opinion.
• Before big decisions, leaders should hold a "second-chance" meeting where members have the opportunity to express any remaining doubts.
• Reward creativity and give group members regular opportunities to share their ideas and thoughts.
• Assign specific roles to certain members of the group.
• Establish metrics or definitions to make sure that everyone is basing decisions or judgments on the same information.
• Consider allowing people to submit anonymous comments, suggestions, or opinions.

Diversity among group members has also been shown to enhance decision-making and reduce groupthink.  

When people in groups have diverse backgrounds and experiences, they are better able to bring different perspectives, information, and ideas to the table. This enhances decisions and makes it less likely that groups will fall into groupthink patterns.

DiPierro K, Lee H, Pain KJ, Durning SJ, Choi JJ. Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review .  Med Teach . 2022;44(3):309-318. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2021.1987404

Bang D, Frith CD. Making better decisions in groups .  R Soc Open Sci . 2017;4(8):170193. doi:10.1098/rsos.170193

Rose JD. Diverse perspectives on the groupthink theory - A literary review . Emerging Leadership Journeys . 2011;4(1):37-57.

JSTOR Daily. How to cure groupthink .

Lee TC. Groupthink, qualitative comparative analysis, and the 1989 tiananmen square disaster . Small Group Research . 2020;51(4):435-463. doi:10.1177/1046496419879759

Walker P, Lovat T. The moral authority of consensus .  J Med Philos . 2022;47(3):443-456. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhac007

Gokar H. Groupthink principles and fundamentals in organizations . Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business. 2013;5(8):225-240.

Janis IL. Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1972.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Group-think : what it is and how to avoid it

Associate Professor of Organisations and Innovation, UCL

Disclosure statement

Colin Fisher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University College London provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

• Bahasa Indonesia

Former government adviser Dominic Cummings has made waves by suggesting the UK government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis was “a classic historic example of group-think”.

You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, here .

He said the more people criticised the government’s plan, the more those on the inside said others did not understand. He added that, had the plans been open to scrutiny earlier, “we would have figured out at least six weeks earlier that there was an alternative plan”.

Although we can’t know for sure the truth of this criticism, it raises an important question about the dynamics of decision-making in groups. What actually is group-think and what does scientific research tells us about how to avoid it?

Group-think is a popular explanation for how groups of knowledgeable people can make flawed decisions. The essence of group-think is that groups create psychological pressure on individuals to conform to the views of leaders and other members.

Famous examples of group-think include the decision of the US to invade Cuba in 1961 and Coca-Cola’s decision to launch “New Coke” in 1985. In these and other famous examples, groups failed to make the right choice even when they had all the information they needed right there in the room. Members failed to share their dissenting opinions and information that could have avoided embarrassing or tragic decisions.

What causes group-think

How can smart people get together and come to seemingly inexplicable conclusions? There are three main reasons groups create pressure that leads to flawed decisions.

First, all humans want to feel a sense of belonging with others – our brains are wired to find our tribe, the people with whom we belong. In any group situation, we want to feel accepted by other members and seek approval, consciously and unconsciously. One way to gain acceptance and approval is to find common ground with others. But, when all members do this, it has the effect of biasing group discussion toward areas of similarity and agreement, crowding out potential differences and disagreement.

Read more: To what extent are we ruled by unconscious forces?

For instance, if a member of a group says they like a particular TV show, other members who also like it are most likely to speak. Those who haven’t seen it or dislike it are more likely to stay silent. That isn’t to say disagreement never happens, just that it’s less common in group discussions than agreement. When group discussions follow these dynamics over time – members expressing more agreement than disagreement – those with dissenting opinions begin to believe their views are discordant with the majority. This encourages them even more to withhold information and views that they fear (even subtly) will be met with disapproval from other members.

Second, as the old adage goes, “if you want to get along, go along”. Although disagreement about the best course of action is healthy for groups – and, indeed, is the whole point of groups making decisions – healthy disagreement often spills over into conflict that gets personal and hurts others feelings. The risk of this, however small, leads those who disagree to hold their tongues too often.

These pressures are even stronger when high-status group members – such as formal leaders or those respected by others – express their opinions. The subtle, unspoken forces that make it feel risky to speak up and disagree with other members are extremely difficult to overcome when we know we would be putting ourselves at odds with a leader.

Third, we subtly adjust our preferences to come into concordance with what we perceive as the majority view. In other words, when we don’t have a clear view of our own opinion, we simply adopt other members’ – often, without even knowing it. Once we adopt that preference, it becomes a lens for the information we receive. We remember information consistent with our own preferences, but tend to forget information that is inconsistent with them . So, a member revealing a preference invisibly creates a self-reinforcing cycle that perpetuates agreement.

How can groups avoid group-think?

The essential ingredient when trying to avoid group-think is to focus first on options and information, and to hold off preferences and advocacy for as long as possible. After determining their objectives, groups should consider as many options as possible. All members should be asked for all relevant information about all of these options – even if the information doesn’t favour options other members seem to prefer. Only after a thorough, systematic search for information should members begin to discuss their preferences or advocate for one option over another.

Leaders can play a critical role in avoiding group-think. Research has shown leaders who direct the decision-making process, but don’t share their own preferences or advocate for particular options, lead groups to avoid group-think and make better decisions. Leaders that advocate for particular choices, especially early on, tend to lead their groups astray and strengthen the forces that lead to group-think.

In avoiding group-think, leaders should play the role of a detective, asking questions and collecting all the facts. Leading by trying to win a debate or litigate a court case leaves the group far more open to group-think.

Regardless of how the government made decisions in the past, they would be well-advised to make sure all decision-making bodies follow this advice. Even the smartest, best-intentioned groups are vulnerable to the basic psychology of group-think.

• Decision making
• Dominic Cummings
• Group dynamics
• Audio narrated

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Senior Lecturer, Digital Advertising

Service Delivery Fleet Coordinator

Manager, Centre Policy and Translation

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

Click here to download our PsySR PowerPoint Presentation on Groupthink (8.8 Mb — Fast connection recommended)   Boosters now available!  If you were vaccinated against the ‘groupthink virus’ over three months ago, you will need to use this ‘booster shot’.   What is Groupthink?   Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9).  Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups.  A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.     References (also see annotated bibliography of books, articles and websites below )   Janis, Irving L.  (1972).  Victims of Groupthink.   New York: Houghton Mifflin. Janis, Irving L.  (1982).  Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.   Second Edition.  New York: Houghton Mifflin.     Symptoms of Groupthink   Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:   Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.   When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so.  Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision.  When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them.  These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity.  Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.   Examples of Groupthink: Past and Present   Examples of groupthink “fiascoes” studied by Janis include US failures to anticipate the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the escalation of Vietnam war, and the ill-fated hostage rescue in Iran.  Current examples of groupthink can be found in the decisions of the Bush administration and Congress to pursue an invasion of Iraq based on a policy of “preemptive use of military force against terrorists and rogue nations”.  The decision to rush to war in Iraq before a broad-based coalition of allies could be built has placed the US in an unenviable military situation in Iraq that is costly in terms of military deaths and casualties, diplomatic standing in the world, and economically.   Groupthink and the News Media   Knowledge is power and we as citizens and as a nation are becoming less powerful.  We face an administration that believes in operating under high levels of secrecy.  The American press, especially the television news media, has let down the American people and the American people have allowed this to happen.  US television news is geared more toward providing entertainment than information.  When one compares the news Americans received about the “war on terrorism” and “war in Iraq” with the news citizens of other countries received, it is easy to see why many Americans were eager to launch an attack on Saddam Hussein while most of the world thought this was not a good idea.  The major news networks eagerly voiced almost exclusively the Bush administration’s (questionable) justifications for the attack on Iraq and ignored the voices of millions who knew that other ways of addressing the issues were still possible.  Furthermore, the rapid pace of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News opinion programs makes it difficult for viewers to process information in any depth.  Americans need a press that serves as a devil’s advocate to alleviate the ongoing groupthink concerning the war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq.   Review the following consequences of groupthink and consider how many of them apply to the Bush administration’s handling of the ‘war on terrorism’ and the issues related to Iraq and Saddam Hussein:         a) incomplete survey of alternatives       b) incomplete survey of objectives       c) failure to examine risks of preferred choice       d) failure to reappraise initially rejected alternatives       e) poor information search       f) selective bias in processing information at hand       g) failure to work out contingency plans       h) low probability of successful outcome      Remedies for Groupthink   Decision experts have determined that groupthink may be prevented by adopting some of the following measures:         a) The leader should assign the role of critical evaluator to each member         b) The leader should avoid stating preferences and expectations at the outset         c) Each member of the group should routinely discuss the groups’ deliberations with a trusted associate and report back to the group on the associate’s reactions         d) One or more experts should be invited to each meeting on a staggered basis.  The outside experts should be encouraged to challenge views of the members.         e) At least one articulate and knowledgeable member should be given the role of devil’s advocate (to question assumptions and plans)         f) The leader should make sure that a sizeable block of time is set aside to survey warning signals from rivals; leader and group construct alternative scenarios of rivals’ intentions.     Annotated Bibliography   Books   Hart, P.  (1994). Government: A study of small groups and policy failure . Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins University Press   In the first book-length study of groupthink since Janis’s work, Paul ‘t Hart has provided a rigorous and systematic version of this influential theory which opens several new avenues for research. Groupthink in government examines the circumstances most likely to produce or counteract groupthink, and applies the theory to issues such as leadership style, risk taking, accountability, and prevention. ‘t Hart’s elaborate case study of the Iran-Contra scandal demonstrates the continuing relevance of the groupthink theory in the examination of flawed decision making.

 Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign policy

 decisions and fiascoes. Boston:  Houghton Mifflin Company.

Janis defines groupthink as the psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses disagreement and prevents the appraisal of alternatives in cohesive decision-making groups. In this, the first edition, Janis showed how this phenomenon contributed to some of the major U.S. foreign policy fiascoes of recent decades: the Korean War stalemate, the escalation of the Vietnam War, the failure to be prepared for the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Bay of Pigs blunder. He also examined cases, such as the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the formulation of the Marshall Plan, where GROUPTHINK was avoided.

Janis, I.L. (1982). Groupthink: A psychological study of policy decisions and fiascoes.

Boston:  Houghton Mifflin Company.

In this edition (2 nd ), Janis applies his hypothesis to the Watergate cover-up, portraying in detail how GROUPTHINK helped to put the participants on a disastrous course and keep them there. In addition, he presents some new ideas on how & why GROUPTHINK occurs, and offers suggestions for avoiding it.

 Kowert, P.A. (2002). Groupthink or deadlock: When do leaders learn from their

 advisors? Albany: Blackwell Publishing.

This book argues that too much advice can lead to policy deadlock depending on leadership style. The danger of groupthink is now standard fare in leadership training programs and a widely accepted explanation, among political scientists, for policy-making fiascoes. Efforts to avoid groupthink, however, can lead to an even more serious problem-deadlock. Groupthink or Deadlock explores these dual problems in the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations and demonstrates how both presidents were capable of learning and consequently changing their policies, sometimes dramatically, but at the same time doing so in characteristically different ways. Kowert points to the need for leaders to organize their staff in a way that fits their learning and leadership style and allows them to negotiate a path between groupthink and deadlock.

Journal Articles

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.

This article discusses two hypotheses that were derived from groupthink theory and were tested in a laboratory study which included measures of the full range of symptoms of groupthink, symptoms of a poor decision process, and decision quality. The hypothesis that groups composed of members who were indisposed to conform would be more likely to fall victim to groupthink than groups whose members were no predisposed to conform received no support. It is suggested that groupthink research is hampered by measurement problems.  

Esser, J.K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research.

  Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 73 (2-3), 116-141.

This article provides a summary of empirical research on groupthink theory. Groupthink research, analyses of historical cases of poor group decision making are included, and laboratory tests are reviewed. Results from these two research areas are briefly compared. Theoretical and methodological issues for future groupthink research is identified and discussed.

Fuller, S.R. & Aldag, R.J. (1998). Organizational Tonypandy: Lessons from a quarter

 century of the groupthink phenonmenon. Organizational Behavior & Human

 Decision Processes, 73 (2-3), 163-184.

In this paper, Fuller and Aldag argue that the quarter-century experience with groupthink represents an unfortunate episode in the history of group problem solving research. There has been remarkably little empirical support for the groupthink phenomenon, and that the phenomenon rests on arguable assumptions, that published critiques of groupthink have generally been ignored by groupthink researchers, and that groupthink is presented as fact in journal articles and textbooks. They see continued advocacy of groupthink as a form of organizational Tonypandy, in which knowledgeable individuals fail to “speak out” against widely accepted, but erroneous beliefs. They explore the nature and causes of the Tonypandy and encourage researchers to cast off the artificial determinism and constraints of the groupthink model, and instead, seek to inform the general group decision making literature.

Kramer, R.M. (1998). Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam decisions 25 years later:

 How well has the groupthink hyposthesis stood the test of time? Organizational

 Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 73 (2-3), 236-271.

This paper explains how in the twenty five years since the groupthink hypothesis was first formulated, new evidence, including recently declassified documents, rich oral histories, and informative memoirs by key participants in these fiasco decisions have become available to scholars. This casts a new light on the decision making process behind both the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam. Much of the new evidence does not support Janis’s original characterization of these processes. In particular, it suggests that dysfunctional group dynamics stemming from group members’ strivings to maintain group cohesiveness were not as prominent a causal factor in the deliberation process as Janis argued. Viewed in aggregate, this new evidence suggests that the groupthink hypothesis overstates the influence of small group dynamics, while understating the role political considerations played in these decisions. 

Hart, P. (1998). Preventing groupthink revisited: Evaluating and reforming groups in

 government. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 73 (2-3),

 306-326.

This article critically examines Janis’s recommendations for preventing groupthink in high-level policymaking. It puts forward three models of small group functioning in government, each of which highlights different dimensions of collegial policymaking and distinct criteria for evaluating group performance. Each model also inspires different proposals for groupthink prevention and improvement of group performance in general. The article concludes with an agenda for increasing the policy relevance and practical feasibility of research on political decision groups.

McCauley, C. (1998). Group dynamics in Janis’s Theory of groupthink: Backward and

 forward. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 73 (2-3), 142-

This paper traces groupthink to its theoretical roots in order to suggest how a broader and a more consistent use of research in group dynamics can advance understanding of decision-making problems. In particular, the paper explores and reinterprets the groupthink prediction that poor decision- making is most likely when group cohesion is based on the personal attractiveness of group members.

Moorhead, G., Neck, C.P. & West, M.S. (1998) The tendency toward defective decision

 making within self-managing teams: The relevance of groupthink for the 21 st

 century. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 73 (2-3), 327-

Groupthink theory has continued relevance to organizations because of the organizational trend toward self-managing work teams. A typology is developed linking the key differentiating characteristics of self-managing teams to groupthink antecedents of group cohesion, structural faults of the organization, and provocative situational context. Building upon this framework, we more specifically examine variables that will impact the occurrence of groupthink within self-managing teams. Implications for the prevention of groupthink in self-managing teams are discussed.

Paulus, P.B. (1998). Developing consensus about groupthink after all these years.

  Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 73 (2-3), 362-374.

In the context of these papers of this special issue, the models of groupthink are evaluated. The major focus is on the basis for its impact and its scientific status. The groupthink perspective is seen as consistent with some other contributions to the group’s literature. Interesting parallels between the groupthink and the brainstorming literature are noted. It is conclude that many of the issues raised by the groupthink model are worthy of further examination in a broad-based study of group decision processes. 

Peterson, R.S., Owens, R.D., Tetlock, P.E., Fan, E.T. & Martorana, P. (1998). Group

 dynamics in the top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative

 models of organizational failure and success. Organizational Behavior & Human

 Decision Processes, 73 (2-3), 272-305.

This study explored the heuristic value of Janis’ (1982) groupthink and vigilant decision-making models as explanations of failure and success in top management team decision making using the Organizational Group Dynamics Q-sort (GDQ). Top management teams of seven Fortune 500 companies were examined at two historical junctures—one when the team was successful (defined as satisfying strategic constituencies) and one when the team was unsuccessful. Results strongly supported the notion that a group’s decision-making process is systematically related to the outcomes experienced by the team. The results illustrate the usefulness of the GDQ for developing and empirically testing theory in organizational behavior from historical cases.

Raven, B.H. (1998). Groupthink, Bay of Pigs, and Watergate reconsidered.

  Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 73 (2-3), 352-361.

In this paper, Raven argues that group decisions have often been seen as offering the benefits of collective wisdom, but may also lead to disastrous consequences. Groupthink then focuses on the negative effects of erroneous group decisions, the two major examples being the disastrous Bay of Pigs, which then led to the Watergate scandal. While Janis seems to suggest that groupthink will ultimately lead the group to fail in its ultimate endeavors, we need to consider the frightening possibility that in the case of the Nixon group, the group actions came close to being successful.

Schwartz, J. & Wald, M. L. (2003, March 03). Smart people working collectively can be

 dumber than the sum of their brains: “Groupthink”is 30 years old, and still going

 strong. NY Times. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from Ebsco database.

This issue came into sharp focus in Houston in 2003 at the first public hearing of the board investigating the Columbia disaster last month.  Reprinted at: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Smart-People-Dumber9mar03.htm.

Street, M. D. & Anthony, W. P. (1997). A conceptual framework establishing the

             relationship between groupthink and escalating commitment.  Small Group

 Research, 28 (2), 267-294.

This article presents three propositions designed to demonstrate a theoretical relationship between the groupthink and escalation commitment models. Proposition that groups exhibiting groupthink characteristics are more likely to escalate commitment to a losing course of action than are groups not exhibiting groupthink characteristics.   

Turner, M. E. & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and

 research: Lessons from the evaluation of a theory . Organizational Behavior &

 Human Decision Processes, 73 (2-3), 105-115. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from

 Ebsco database.

This is from a special issue on theoretical perspectives of groupthink, a twenty-fifth anniversary appraisal. The article examines the historical development of the groupthink model of decision-making processes and discusses recent responses to the body of empirical evidence amassed on the model. The article concludes by articulating general lessons implied by the evolution of research on the groupthink model.   

Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis’s groupthink model: The key role of collective

 efficacy in decision fiascoes. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision

 Processes, 73 (2-3), 185-209.

This paper advances an explanation for decision fiascoes that reflects recent theoretical trends and was developed in response to a growing body of research that has failed to substantiate the groupthink model (Janis, 1982). In this new framework, the lack of vigilance and preference for risk that characterizes groups contaminated by groupthink are attributed in large part to perceptions of collective efficacy that unduly exceed capability. High collective efficacy may also contribute to the negative framing of decisions and to certain administrative and structural organizational faults. In the making of critical decisions, these factors induce a preference for risk and a powerful concurrence seeking tendency that, facilitated by group polarization, crystallize around a decision option that is likely to fail. Implications for research and some evidence in support of this approach to the groupthink phenomenon are also discussed.

Groupthink Central: http://www.groupthinkcentral.blogspot.com/

This website is for groupthink central, and has the following quote by Walter Reuther.  "There is no greater calling than to serve your fellow men. There is no greater contribution than to help the weak. There is no greater satisfaction than to have done it well." —

A First Look at Communication Theory: http://www.afirstlook.com/main.htm

This website is primarily designed as a companion to communication theory by Em Griffin and the Instructor’s Manual by Glen McClish, and Jacqueline Bacon. This site includes links to resource materials for texts, and a description of Conversations with communication theorists, a video of the interviews conducted with the authors of a number of theories featured in the book. Links to theories in the current (5 th ) edition can be found, as well as theories in the archives of past editions.

Chapter 18 by Irving Janis, in the book A First Look at Communication Theory (1997), by Em Griffin http://www.afirstlook.com/archive/groupthink.cfm?source=archther ..

In this chapter, Janis discusses the events behind the Challenger disaster, as a model of defective decision-making. He describes the mode of thinking and how people in a cohesive group have a tendency to seek concurrence with others in the group to finalize their decisions. The chapter outlines the eight symptoms of groupthink, and offers a critique on avoiding uncritical acceptance of groupthink.

Errors and Accidents: Groupthink  http://www.ess.ntu.ac.uk/miller/error/groupthink.htm#linking .

This BSc Psychology website developed by Hugh Miller and Bill Farnsworth at the Nottingham Trent University offers chapters on Groupthink by Irving Janis and others.

Argos Press GROUPTHINK Risk Management and Decision Making Glossary: http://www.risk-management.argospress.com/groupt.htm.

This website is a glossary to risk management and decision making, systems thinking, and situation awareness. This site has a comprehensive glossary of utility terms and a Peer Tool that can be ordered free online to guide the group towards making better decisions.

• Best-Selling Books
• Zimbardo Research Fields

The Stanford Prison Experiment

• Heroic Imagination Project (HIP)
• The Shyness Clinic

The Lucifer Effect

Time perspective theory.

• Psychology Definitions

Groupthink: Psychology Definition, History & Examples

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people when the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Coined by social psychologist Irving Janis in 1972, the term ‘groupthink’ has since become integral to the study of group dynamics. It encapsulates how a group’s pursuit of consensus can suppress dissenting viewpoints and lead to poor decisions.

Historical examples of groupthink include the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster, where pressures for unanimity overrode the critical evaluation of alternative courses of action.

Understanding groupthink is crucial for organizations and teams looking to avoid its pitfalls and foster environments where healthy debate and critical thinking are encouraged.

Table of Contents

Groupthink is when a group of people prioritize agreement and harmony over making rational decisions.

This can happen when the group becomes too close-knit and ignores alternative ideas or critical thinking.

Groupthink, a concept rooted in the field of social psychology, originated from the work of Irving Janis in 1972. Janis, a renowned social psychologist, thoroughly examined and named the phenomenon of groupthink. He focused on understanding the decision-making processes of groups operating under conditions of stress , where the desire for consensus overrides the objective evaluation of alternative options.

Janis’s analysis was heavily influenced by historical events such as the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Pearl Harbor attack. These incidents showcased how cohesive groups could make irrational decisions due to the stifling of dissenting viewpoints. By evaluating these events, Janis sought to shed light on the dynamics at play within groups and the detrimental effects that groupthink can have on decision-making outcomes.

Janis’s groundbreaking work in codifying and defining groupthink provided a framework that continues to shape both academic discourse and practical leadership strategies. His research emphasized the importance of promoting critical thinking and fostering an environment where dissenting opinions are encouraged and valued. By recognizing the dangers of groupthink, scholars and practitioners have been able to develop strategies to mitigate its negative impact and improve decision-making processes within group settings.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a group of people prioritize harmony and consensus over critical thinking and independent decision-making. Here are some practical examples that can help you understand how groupthink plays out in real-life situations:

• Choosing a restaurant with friends: Imagine you’re trying to decide on a restaurant to go to with a group of friends. One person suggests a popular restaurant, and everyone else quickly agrees without considering other options. In this scenario, the desire to maintain harmony within the group overrides individual preferences and critical evaluation of other restaurant choices.
• Workplace decision-making: Let’s say you’re part of a team at work tasked with developing a new product. During a brainstorming session, one team member proposes an idea that seems flawed, but everyone else goes along with it because they don’t want to rock the boat or be seen as dissenting. This lack of critical evaluation and independent thinking can result in poor decision-making.
• Peer pressure in high school: In high school, a group of friends may pressure an individual to engage in risky behavior , like skipping class or experimenting with drugs. Even if the individual has reservations, they may go along with the group to avoid being ostracized or to fit in. In this scenario, the need for social acceptance and conformity takes precedence over personal judgment.
• Political echo chambers: In today’s digital age, it’s common for people to surround themselves with like-minded individuals on social media platforms. This can create an echo chamber where people only hear and accept opinions that align with their own. As a result, critical thinking and exposure to diverse perspectives are diminished, leading to a collective bias and the inability to consider alternative viewpoints.

These examples demonstrate how groupthink can influence decision-making in various contexts, from social situations to the workplace and even online interactions. By understanding the negative consequences of groupthink, we can strive to foster independent thinking, encourage dissenting opinions, and make more informed choices.

Related Terms

Frequently, the concept of groupthink is discussed in conjunction with other psychological terms and phenomena that share similarities or interact with it in the dynamics of group decision-making. One closely related term is ‘social conformity,’ which refers to the tendency of individuals to match their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to what is perceived as the group norm. While groupthink focuses specifically on the negative consequences of conformity and the suppression of dissenting viewpoints, social conformity encompasses a wider range of behaviors where individuals change their opinions to align with the majority.

Another related term is ‘collective rationalization ,’ which is a hallmark of groupthink. Collective rationalization describes how group members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. It involves the tendency to downplay or ignore potential risks or flaws in the group’s decision-making process, leading to a false sense of confidence and a lack of critical evaluation.

Additionally, ‘polarization’ can also be relevant to the study of groupthink. It describes the tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. While polarization can occur in various contexts, it is particularly relevant to groupthink as it highlights the amplification of initial biases and the suppression of dissenting opinions within a group setting.

Understanding these related phenomena provides a more nuanced view of how group consensus can sometimes lead to suboptimal or irrational outcomes. By examining the dynamics of social conformity, collective rationalization, and polarization, researchers can gain insights into the various factors that contribute to the development and perpetuation of groupthink.

Numerous reputable sources, studies, and publications have contributed to our understanding of the groupthink phenomenon in psychology. These sources provide a solid foundation for further exploration and analysis of this concept. One pivotal work in this field is ‘Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes’ by Irving Janis, a social psychologist who first introduced the concept in 1972. This seminal book examines case studies of political decisions and corporate failures, shedding light on the cognitive mechanisms at play within groups.

Additionally, there are numerous peer-reviewed journals that have published research on groupthink, providing valuable insights into its complexities. Some notable examples include the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, and Group Dynamics: Theory , Research, and Practice. These journals feature rigorous studies that delve into various aspects of groupthink, such as its antecedents, consequences, and potential mitigating factors.

For a comprehensive understanding of groupthink, it is also beneficial to consult authoritative texts that offer a multifaceted exploration of the topic. ‘The Psychology of Group Influence’ by Paul Paulus and Bernard A. Nijstad is one such example. This book covers a wide range of research on group processes and decision-making, including an in-depth analysis of groupthink and its implications .

RECOMMENDED POSTS

• Stay Connected
• Terms Of Use

7 examples of groupthink in different settings

Last updated

23 January 2024

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead

Groupthink is one of the pitfalls of the decision-making process. It occurs when a group reaches a consensus without duly evaluating and analyzing the decision. The psychology behind groupthink is the desire for harmony or conformity.

This phenomenon occurs in various settings, including political decision-making, business operations, and education. Depending on the weight of the decision, the consequences of groupthink can have disastrous results.

Let's look at famous and hypothetical groupthink examples and discuss ways to avoid the phenomenon.

• What is groupthink?

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a group makes an unreasonable decision driven by a desire to reach a consensus.

The concept of groupthink was initially introduced in 1972 by an American psychologist, Irving Janis. He believed that groupthink hurts decision-making because the desire to reach an agreement feels more important than logic. 

Essentially, groupthink becomes a serious barrier to critical thinking, data-driven decision-making, and rationalization.

The leading causes of groupthink include:

Like-minded group members : When a group lacks diverse perspectives, it becomes much easier to ignore obvious warnings.

Autocratic leaders : Powerful leaders can make it hard for group members to demonstrate opposition.

Stressful scenarios : Time constraints or significant pressure could increase the desire to reach a consensus faster.

Since many business and political decisions rely on groups of people who are under pressure and strapped for time, groupthink could lead to serious consequences.  

• Signs of groupthink

It’s possible to identify groupthink before making a bad decision. Look for the following signs.

Illusion of invulnerability

Group members believe the group is invincible and can do no wrong. This leads to excessive optimism and unnecessary risk-taking.

Collective rationalization

Group members dismiss obvious warnings or negative feedback that may cause them to rethink their decisions and hinder the feeling of invulnerability.

Belief in inherent morality 

The group believes in the righteousness of its actions, making it difficult for every member to challenge the group's decisions.

Stereotyping

The group applies negative stereotypes to those outside the group, disregarding their perspectives and devaluing their contributions.

Self-censorship

Group members withhold their conflicting opinions or doubts to maintain group harmony and avoid conflict.

Illusion of unanimity 

This perception is that everyone in the group agrees with the decision, even if there are some opposing voices.

Direct pressure on the opposition

The group pressures members who express concerns or opposing opinions to conform to the majority's view. This causes these members to doubt themselves and maintain silence.

"Mind guards"

Some group members take on the role of protecting the group from opposing opinions or information that could challenge the majority's view. This filters out data-backed critical data.

Lack of alternative perspectives 

Group members avoid seeking external opinions. They subconsciously limit their exposure to diverse viewpoints and better solutions.

No critical evaluation 

The group fails to evaluate alternative options or consider potential risks and consequences.

• A scientific groupthink example: “The Grouping Game”

Using the innovative online game "The Grouping Game," individuals were randomly assigned to another player, 6–50 people networks, or play alone. 

The study associated larger group sizes with an increased susceptibility to groupthink, shedding light on the dynamics of collective decision-making within diverse social structures. 

That's why it's imperative to pay extra attention to how a large group makes its decisions.

• Hypothetical groupthink examples

Groupthink creeps into decision-making across many group settings. 

Business setting

Imagine a company is running a failing marketing campaign. The marketing team must immediately change the campaign's direction, so they must think and act fast.

Several group members suggest rerouting the marketing budget from SEO to paid ads to achieve fast results. 

Other group members believe that abandoning organic marketing efforts could hurt the campaign in the long run. 

However, they don't voice their opinions because of several factors:

The stress and time constraints seem to call for quick fixes

Speaking up against the boss who suggests the budget changes could affect their careers

They don't want to appear unsupportive

Eventually, the added budget brings more leads to the company's website. However, the lack of on-page SEO efforts leads to low conversion rates.

School setting

A group of students is working on a project that requires a solution to a social issue affecting their community. As the group brainstorms ideas and develops a solution, some members express concerns about its feasibility.

However, instead of critically examining these concerns, most of the group dismisses them because they believe their solution is foolproof. The opposing members begin practicing self-censorship to avoid standing out from the crowd.

• Real-world groupthink examples

Groupthink in a political setting has affected the lives of millions of people. The most well-known groupthink examples are:

The bombing of Pearl Harbor

In 1941, senior officers at Pearl Harbor didn't believe the warnings from Washington, DC, about the potential invasion. The decision-makers ignored this information, believing the United States was immune to attack.

Even though Washington shared intercepted Japanese messages, the officers were still sure that the Japanese wouldn't dare attack. They disregarded the possibility due to overconfidence and wanting to maintain conformity, even though it was a realistic threat. 2,403 Americans died as a result.

The Bay of Pigs invasion

In 1961, John F. Kennedy and his advisors planned the Bay of Pigs invasion to achieve a swift overthrow of Fidel Castro's regime. 

The decision-makers became victims of the illusion of invulnerability, hoping Cubans would rise to support them. Another driver was inherent morality, thinking this invasion was liberating Cuba from communism.

Historian Arthur J. Schlesinger strongly objected to this approach. However, he practiced self-censorship and remained silent during the decision-making process.

The result of groupthink in the Bay of Pigs invasion was a poorly planned and executed operation. The invasion force was vastly outnumbered. This led to a quick defeat and embarrassment for the United States.

An example of groupthink in a business setting is the story of Swissair, an airline so successful that it was dubbed "The Flying Bank." 

In the 1970s, it was a stable, highly reliable company, viewed by many as the national symbol of Switzerland.

When the airline business became more competitive in the 1980s, Swissair failed to react to the changes due to the illusion of invulnerability. 

Directors of the company had highly similar visions and lacked industry experience. They were sure the company couldn't fail. Swissair eventually collapsed in 2002 due to the directors’ collective rationalization.

• A pop culture example: Twelve Angry Men

Juries are highly vulnerable to groupthink. They may be willing to change their opinions or practice self-censorship because they hope to reach a consensus faster or don't want to go against the crowd.

In this movie, 11 out of 12 jurors decided to vote guilty because they believed the defendant was bad, so it was morally acceptable to punish him. 

These people were so sure they were doing the "right thing" that they were willing to ignore evidence or witness testimonies that clearly pointed to the young man's innocence. 

• Tips to prevent groupthink

While groupthink is a well-known phenomenon, some businesses can't avoid the problem and face the consequences. To prevent this from happening, you can:

Create smaller groups : Groupthink is often a large-group problem, so breaking up groups can encourage active listening.

Keep your thoughts to yourself : As a leader, keeping your thoughts to yourself at first can reduce the risk of others agreeing. 

Bring in a devil's advocate : When everyone seems to quickly agree, designate a team member to play the role of devil's advocate and challenge assumptions and ideas.

Seek external input : Ask for feedback from external experts and stakeholders .

Raise awareness : Educate your team about groupthink and discuss the possibility of its occurrence in different settings.

Besides these actionable practices, a long-term goal is to create an environment where team members feel safe to express dissenting opinions without fearing judgment.

• Keeping groupthink out of decision-making

Groupthink is a serious problem that can hinder business operations and lead to severe financial and reputational consequences. Understanding this phenomenon is key to recognizing the warning signs and taking preventive measures.

Since it's not always possible to create diverse groups and avoid pressure, it's often up to the leader to monitor the decision-making process and stop groupthink in its tracks.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 6 February 2023

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

What Is Groupthink? Definition and Examples

Why Groups Sometimes Make Bad Decisions

• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Recommended Reading
• Archaeology
• Ph.D., Psychology, University of California - Santa Barbara
• B.A., Psychology and Peace & Conflict Studies, University of California - Berkeley

Groupthink is a process through which the desire for consensus in groups can lead to poor decisions. Rather than object to them and risk losing a sense of group solidarity, members may remain silent and lend their support.

Key Takeaways

• Groupthink occurs when a group values cohesiveness and unanimity more than making the right decision.
• In situations characterized by groupthink, individuals may self-censor criticism of the group decision, or group leaders may suppress dissenting information.
• Although groupthink leads to making suboptimal decisions, group leaders can take steps to avoid groupthink and improve decision-making processes.

Groupthink was first studied by Irving Janis, who was interested in understanding why groups with intelligent, knowledgeable group members sometimes made poorly-considered decisions. We’ve all seen examples of poor decisions made by groups: think, for example, of blunders made by political candidates, inadvertently offensive advertising campaigns, or an ineffective strategic decision by the managers of a sports team. When you see an especially bad public decision, you may even wonder, “How did so many people not realize this was a bad idea?” Groupthink, essentially, explains how this happens.

Importantly, groupthink isn’t inevitable when groups of people work together, and they can sometimes make better decisions than individuals. In a well-functioning group, members can pool their knowledge and engage in constructive debate to make a better decision than individuals would on their own. However, in a groupthink situation, these benefits of group decision-making are lost because individuals may suppress questions about the group’s decision or don't share information that the group would need in order to reach an effective decision.

When Are Groups at Risk of Groupthink?

Groups may be more likely to experience groupthink when particular conditions are met. In particular, highly cohesive groups may be at higher risk. For example, if the group members are close to each other (if they’re friends in addition to having a working relationship, for instance) they may be hesitant to speak up and question their fellow group members’ ideas. Groupthink is also thought to be more likely when groups don’t seek out other perspectives (e.g. from outside experts).

The leader of a group can also create groupthink situations. For example, if a leader makes his or her preferences and opinions known, group members may be hesitant to publicly question the leader’s opinion. Another risk factor for groupthink occurs when groups are making stressful or high-stakes decisions; in these situations, going with the group may be a safer choice than voicing a potentially controversial opinion.

Characteristics of Groupthink

When groups are highly cohesive, don’t seek outside perspectives, and are working in high-stress situations, they can be at risk for experiencing characteristics of groupthink. In situations such as these, a variety of processes occurs which inhibit the free discussion of ideas and cause members to go along with the group instead of voicing dissent.

• Seeing the group as infallible. People may think that the group is better at making decisions than it actually is. In particular, group members may suffer from what Janis called the illusion of invulnerability : the assumption that the group can’t possibly make a major error. Groups can also hold the belief that whatever the group is doing is right and moral (not considering that others might question the ethics of a decision).
• Not being open-minded. Groups may make efforts to justify and rationalize their initial decision, rather than considering potential pitfalls of their plan or other alternatives. When the group does see potential signs that its decision may be misguided, members may try to rationalize why their initial decision is correct (rather than changing their actions in light of new information). In situations where there’s a conflict or competition with another group, they may also hold negative stereotypes about the other group and underestimate their capabilities.
• Valuing conformity over free discussion. In groupthink situations, there’s little room for people to voice dissenting opinions. Individual members may self-censor and avoid questioning the group’s actions. This can lead to what Janis called the illusion of unanimity : many people doubt the group’s decision, but it appears the group is unanimous because no one is willing to voice their dissent publicly. Some members (whom Janis called mindguards ) may even directly put pressure on other members to conform with the group, or they may not share information that would question the group’s decision.

When groups are unable to freely debate ideas, they can end up using flawed decision-making processes. They may not give fair consideration to alternatives and may not have a backup plan if their initial idea fails. They may avoid information that would question their decision, and instead focus on information that supports what they already believe (which is known as the confirmation bias ).

To get an idea of how groupthink might work in practice, imagine you’re part of a company that is trying to develop a new advertising campaign for a consumer product. The rest of your team seems excited about the campaign but you have some concerns. However, you’re reluctant to speak up because you like your coworkers and don’t want to publicly embarrass them by questioning their idea. You also don’t know what to suggest that your team do instead, because most of the meetings have involved talking about why this campaign is good, instead of considering other possible advertising campaigns. Briefly, you talk to your immediate supervisor and mention to her your concerns about the campaign. However, she tells you not to derail a project that everyone is so excited about and fails to relay your concerns to the team leader. At that point, you may decide that going along with the group is the strategy that makes the most sense—you don’t want to stand out for going against a popular strategy. After all, you tell yourself, if it’s such a popular idea among your coworkers—whom you like and respect—can it really be such a bad idea?

Situations such as this one show that groupthink can happen relatively easily. When there are strong pressures to conform to the group, we may not voice our true thoughts. In cases like this, we can even experience the illusion of unanimity: while many people may privately disagree, we go along with the group’s decision—which can lead the group to make a bad decision.

Historical Examples

One famous example of groupthink was the United States’ decision to launch an attack against Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in 1961. The attack was ultimately unsuccessful, and Janis found that many characteristics of groupthink were present among the key decision-makers. Other examples Janis examined included the United States not preparing for a potential attack on Pearl Harbor and its escalation of involvement in the Vietnam War . Since Janis developed his theory, numerous research projects have sought to test the elements of his theory. Psychologist Donelson Forsyth , who researches group processes, explains that, although not all research has supported Janis’ model, it has been highly influential in understanding how and why groups can sometimes make poor decisions.

Avoiding Groupthink

Although groupthink can hinder the ability of groups to make effective decisions, Janis suggested that there are several strategies that groups could use to avoid falling victim to groupthink. One involves encouraging group members to voice their opinions and to question the group’s thinking on an issue. Similarly, one person can be asked to be a “devil’s advocate” and point out potential pitfalls in the plan.

Group leaders can also try to prevent groupthink by avoiding sharing their opinion up front, so that group members don’t feel pressured to agree with the leader. Groups can also break into smaller sub-groups and then discuss each sub-group’s idea when the larger group reunites.

Another way of preventing groupthink is by seeking outside experts to offer opinions, and talking to people who are not part of the group to get their feedback on the group’s ideas.

• Forsyth, Donelson R. Group Dynamics . 4th ed., Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. https://books.google.com/books?id=jXTa7Tbkpf4C
• Janis, Irving L. “Groupthink.” Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power and Influence in Organizations , edited by Robert P. Vecchio. 2nd ed., University of Notre Dame Press, 2007, pp. 157-169. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/47900
• How Our Aligning Behavior Shapes Everyday Life
• Definition of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Sociology
• Assessing a Situation, in Terms of Sociology
• What Is a Microaggression? Everyday Insults With Harmful Effects
• Social System
• What Is Role Strain? Definition and Examples
• What Is Multiculturalism? Definition, Theories, and Examples
• What Is a Cohort Effect? Definition and Examples
• Collective Behavior
• Matrifocality
• Status Inconsistency
• Power Definitions and Examples in Sociology
• How Do Sociologists Define Race?
• What Is Secularization?
• What Is Capitalism?

Resisting health mandates: A case of groupthink?

March 10, 2021

Traditional crowd psychology suggests that their actions illustrate mob mentality, which occurs when people’s beliefs, actions, and emotions converge but also intensify, so that they seem to be responding as one. But Donelson Forsyth, in an article published in Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , suggests a second explanation for this unusual refusal to act in ways that are reasonable, healthy, and normative: groupthink. People in groups often make mistakes, not because they have been overcome by their emotions or have subpar intelligence but because group-level processes prevent members from accurately appraising information, identifying errors, and considering superior alternatives. This analysis won the 2020 Group Dynamics Most Valuable Paper award .

Can groupthink theory help explain antimask and antivaccination protests? Media accounts of the noncompliant groups suggest that the conditions that often cause groupthink—such as high levels of cohesion and isolation, stress, strong conformity pressures, and directive but misinformed leadership—were all in evidence as these groups grew in influence and intensity. Also, the groups exhibited many of the symptoms of groupthink, including the illusion of morality, inclusivity, and an overestimation of the reasonableness of their beliefs.

Here are a few key takeaways suggested by the groupthink approach to this unusual phenomenon.

• Public service announcements designed to create a sense of shared identity, such as “We’re all in this together” and “Alone together” campaigns, will be more effective if viewers can identify with the individuals who serve as spokespersons in these messages.
• Because antihealth protests are, in some respects, intergroup conflicts, blurring the boundaries between groups or dissolving distinctions between groups altogether may limit noncompliance with health initiatives.
• Rather than assume that individuals who resist health initiatives misunderstand the health threat or are too stupid to understand it, a groupthink analysis tracks their noncompliance to group-level processes rather than individual-level ones.

This article is in the Social Psychology and Social Processes topic area. View more articles in the Social Psychology and Social Processes topic area.

Forsyth, D. R. (2020). Group-level resistance to health mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic: A groupthink approach. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 24 (3), 139–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000132

About the author

Dr. Donelson Forsyth holds the Colonel Leo K. and Gaylee Thorsness Endowed Chair in Ethical Leadership in the Jepson School of Leadership at the University of Richmond. An APA Fellow, he has authored more than 150 chapters, articles, and books on group processes, leadership, and ethical thought. He has received a number of career awards recognizing his contributions from national and international associations.

APA Journals Article Spotlight ®

APA Journals Article Spotlight is a free summary of recently published articles in an APA Journal .

Browse Article Spotlight topics

• Basic/Experimental Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Core of Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology, School Psychology, and Training
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology and Medicine
• Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Management
• Neuroscience and Cognition
• Social Psychology and Social Processes

Contact APA Publications

Work Life is Atlassian’s flagship publication dedicated to unleashing the potential of every team through real-life advice, inspiring stories, and thoughtful perspectives from leaders around the world.

Contributing Writer

Work Futurist

Senior Quantitative Researcher, People Insights

Principal Writer

How to avoid groupthink on your team

Team cohesiveness is a good thing – until it sabotages creativity. Here’s how to ensure a desire for consensus doesn’t come at the price of critical thinking.

Get stories like this in your inbox

Two (or more) brains are better than one, right? That’s true – unless all of those brains end up thinking the exact same thoughts at the exact same time. 

That’s groupthink: a collective phenomenon that can hinder your team from benefiting from all of the diverse perspectives, experiences, and ideas you should be tapping into.

But what exactly is groupthink? Why is it bad? And most importantly, how can you prevent it? Here’s how to stop the mind meld and encourage independent thinking on your team. 

What is groupthink?

This is how effective teams navigate the decision-making process

Groupthink occurs when a group of people prioritize consensus over critical thinking during the decision-making process . 

Rather than poking holes in each other’s arguments, voicing doubts, analyzing potential consequences, or offering new ideas and suggestions, group members simply nod along and agree with each other.

This doesn’t only happen on teams full of weak-minded pushovers – any team, under the wrong circumstances, could fall victim. Here are a few factors we know trigger the phenomenon:

• Team members don’t feel psychologically safe to dissent or disagree
• Team members are under heavy pressure to make a decision
• Team members don’t feel they have the right knowledge to contradict the status quo
• Team culture favors harmony and cohesion over conflict and dissent

All of those can inspire people to skip the hard conversations and go along with the group – even if the decision isn’t the best way forward. 

What is an example of groupthink?

Crack open a history book and you’ll find plenty of examples of groupthink. The Bay of Pigs Invasion , the Challenger disaster , and the Vietnam War are all commonly cited examples of times when groups conformed to bad decisions. 

Fortunately, while groupthink can happen in any sort of work setting, it’s usually not quite so disastrous. Here are a couple of ways you might see groupthink show up during decision-making at work: 

• Your team is finalizing the timeline for a new product launch. The schedule is ambitious (and likely completely unrealistic), but everybody is so enthusiastic that you keep your lips zipped, join in on the anticipation and excitement, and skip voicing your concerns.
• During a team meeting, your manager asks your team to choose which project you should prioritize next. One vocal member of your team makes the case for a project. You and other team members came to the meeting with your own ideas, but this person is on a roll and it seems easier to just go with their suggestion, even if it’s not the most pressing project on the team’s list.
• Your team prepared for a major customer event that’s happening outdoors. When the venue asked a few weeks ago if you’d like to rent tents in case of inclement weather, everybody brushed it off. When it unexpectedly rains the day of, you’re all caught off guard with absolutely no backup plan.

So, not quite as catastrophic as some of those classic examples throughout history. But prioritizing allegiance and obedience over reasoning and rationale can have serious consequences for teams. 

What are the pitfalls of groupthink? 

So what do those consequences actually look like? Groupthink can lead to some not-so-great outcomes, including:

• Poor decision-making: One of the biggest drawbacks of groupthink is that it hinders quality decision-making and problem-solving. The group becomes so focused on not rocking the boat that they’re willing to go along with what is ultimately a poor decision without any protest. 
• Lack of diverse perspectives: When people resist speaking up, the group misses out on different experiences and ideas. That limited view only gets worse as group members feel like they need to continue to censor themselves. In fact, research shows that groupthink is more likely to happen on homogenous teams. When groups already share a lot of similarities, they want to preserve that sense of unity. 
• Overconfidence: There’s power in numbers, and groupthink can fuel a sense of superiority – as if the team is bulletproof and couldn’t possibly fall victim to a bad decision. The group is always right. Those overinflated egos can get the team into some precarious situations they’re completely unprepared for. 

Is groupthink always bad?

Groupthink gets a bad rap, but it’s not always detrimental. It all depends on the stakes of the decision. If your team is faced with a low-pressure choice that’s not super consequential (like what to order for lunch or where to host your next offsite), a desire for cohesion can actually reduce conflict and encourage faster, smoother decision-making.

Ask yourself this: Do you need the best decision, or just a decision? If it’s the latter, groupthink isn’t always such a bad thing.

What are the characteristics of groupthink?

Groupthink can cause some problems on teams, but it’s also tough to recognize. After all, in the heat of the moment,  it never feels bad when your whole team is agreeing, high-fiving, and getting along. 

Fortunately, Irving Janis – the research psychologist who originally coined the term “groupthink” in 1972 – outlined eight symptoms of groupthink that can help you identify it on your own team:

• Illusions of invulnerability: The group feels impenetrable and like they’ll never have to deal with any fallout from their decisions.
• Illusions of unanimity: The group assumes that all decisions are unanimous without even asking for other opinions or perspectives. 
• Mindguards: A subset of group members appoint themselves as the group’s protectors – the ones who will keep any dissenting opinions or negative views at bay. 
• Pressure on opposing views: The group subtly or directly applies pressure to people who voice concerns or doubts to shut down those opinions and encourage conformity. 
• Rationalization of the group’s decisions: The group avoids, ignores, or completely shuts down any negative feedback or contradictory opinions and justifies that by highlighting the upsides of their own decision. 
• Self-censorship: The group members keep quiet even when they have an idea or criticism, because they’ve learned that the cohesion of the group is more important than their own contribution. 
• Stereotyping of the out-group: The group shares unquestionably negative views of anybody who disagrees with their decisions. 
• Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group: The group feels that they’re unquestionably noble, principled, and always right. 

How to avoid groupthink: 3 strategies to encourage critical thinking 

Whenever you’re working as part of a team, there’s the potential for groupthink to creep in. Fortunately, there are a few strategies you can use to encourage individual thought without increasing conflict. 

As a baseline, consider focusing on consent versus consensus . Atlassian’s own Modern Work Coach Mark Cruth explains, “consent allows a team to acknowledge that not everyone will (or should) agree with an idea, but focuses on ensuring an idea won’t be detrimental to the team’s goals. It helps a team build an experimentation mindset around their work.”

1. Prioritize psychological safety

Fostering psychological safety – which is when team members feel secure in disagreeing, making mistakes, or offering bold suggestions without the fear of judgment or repercussions – is one of the best ways to combat groupthink.

People are more likely to speak up when they feel like they have the permission and encouragement to do so. Makes sense, right? 

There are plenty of ways you can breed this sense of security on your team, including:

• Using a democratic leadership style to include people in decision-making
• Actively soliciting feedback and opinions – especially ones that are different from the group’s. Mark suggests a technique called the 1-2-4-All method to generate and combine ideas until a final idea emerges.
• Modeling vulnerability by openly sharing your own mistakes and missteps
• Treating failures or problems as learning opportunities rather than threats 

You could also consider allowing people to submit contributions or suggestions anonymously, as that gives team members a built-in sense of protection. However, proceed with caution here. If people are only willing to speak up when their identity isn’t attached, that’s a solid indicator that there’s not a high degree of psychological safety on your team. 

Mark also notes that “psychological safety isn’t something you can do … it’s only achievable through consistent action.” Take care and be deliberate about creating an environment where psychological safety can thrive. “Becoming clear about how you communicate and share feedback will help psychological safety grow within your team,” Mark says.

2. Minimize stress and pressure

Research shows that groupthink is way more prevalent when groups feel stressed. They’re under the wire to make a decision and move forward, so it’s easier (not to mention faster) to go along with the consensus. That’s preferable to dragging the process out, particularly when they’re eager for a resolution. 

In contrast, when you make an effort to mitigate the amount of pressure your team is under, they have more time and space to debate and discuss. This could mean:

• Building adequate time for brainstorming, problem-solving, and decision-making into your project timelines
• Ensuring all team members have manageable and reasonable workloads
• Reducing the number of urgent or time-sensitive decisions the team needs to make
• Clarifying which decisions are high-impact and which aren’t as consequential, so the team can react accordingly 

Of course, things still happen and fires crop up. But the more you can manage the amount of stress on your team, the less likely they are to grit their teeth and default to groupthink just to get through it. 

3. Encourage independent thought

Use divergent thinking to generate fresh ideas in your next brainstorm

Kind of a no-brainer: getting everybody to think for themselves is obviously the best way to keep groupthink far away from your team. But how do you actually get people to think independently? You can try:

• Brainwriting : In brainstorming sessions, team members get a set amount of time to independently write down their ideas alone before sharing with the bigger group. Research shows that most people are actually most creative when they work alone, and one small brainwriting study proves that a little bit of quiet time generates more and better ideas. 
• Six Thinking Hats : In this exercise, team members wear different “hats,” a metaphor for thinking about a problem or decision with different perspectives. The entire team wears the same “hat” at the same time, which you’d think would encourage groupthink. Instead, it provides an opportunity to explore a decision from all sides, encouraging exploration and questions rather than shutting them down. 
• Designate a dissenter: Want to get some more controversial suggestions or opinions in the mix? Assign someone the role of the dissenter when your team is in a discussion. This person is required to ask questions, poke holes, and offer constructive criticism. Will it be a little uncomfortable at first? Sure. But it keeps people on their toes and models healthy and respectful dissent for the rest of the team. 
• Mark also suggests the Disruptive Brainstorming Play from the Atlassian Team Playbook, “to help flip traditional brainstorming on its head. The goal of the play is to add enough variety and unpredictability to the brainstorming process to prevent groupthink from setting in.”

Regardless of the type of divergent thinking exercise you use, your goal is to get your team to start thinking more independently – and the exercise gives them a framework (as well as explicit permission) to do something that might not be the norm on your team: think outside the box. 

Don’t let cohesion sabotage creativity

There’s a lot of value in having diverse perspectives, experiences, and ideas on your team. But you only benefit if people openly share their out-of-the-box (or even controversial) suggestions.

“So many people misunderstand ‘cohesion’ as ‘being nice to each other,’” Mark says. “But cohesion is really the same as that bond we feel with close friends and family members, where we inherently trust the other people on our team even if we disagree with them. And when we do disagree, we let them know! Cohesion is about kindness, and not hiding how we feel because we know our thoughts are welcomed no matter what.”

Groupthink can keep those kinds of conversations locked down, because team members find it easier to stick with the group than to voice their own thoughts, concerns, or constructive criticism. 

Think there’s absolutely no way it could happen on your team? Do a gut check and see if that’s actually true – or if you’re simply more comfortable thinking that way. 

Advice, stories, and expertise about work life today.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Groupthink Definition

Groupthink refers to decision-making groups’ extreme concurrence seeking (conformity) that is hypothesized to result in highly defective judgments and outcomes. According to Irving Janis, the inventor of the groupthink concept, decision-making groups are most likely to experience groupthink when they operate under the following conditions: maintain high cohesion, insulate themselves from experts, perform limited search and appraisal of information, operate under directive leadership, and experience conditions of high stress with low self-esteem and little hope of finding a better solution to a pressing problem than that favored by the leader or influential members.

History and Social Significance of Groupthink

Irving Janis proposed the term groupthink to describe group decision fiascos that occurred in such cases as the appeasement of Nazi Germany by Great Britain at the beginning of World War II; the failure of the U.S.

military to anticipate the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which served to bring the United States into World War II; then President of the United States Harry Truman’s decision to escalate the war in North Korea, which resulted in Communist China’s entry into the war and a subsequent military stalemate; then President of the United States John Kennedy’s decision to send Cuban exiles to overthrow Fidel Castro by invading Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, resulting in the death of 68 exiles and the capture of an additional 1,209; and then President of the United States Lyndon Johnson’s decision to escalate the war in Vietnam, counter to the warnings of intelligence experts. Janis developed his list of antecedents and consequences of groupthink by comparing the social processes that occurred in these decisions with the successful group decisions in the cases of the development of the Marshall Plan for distributing U.S. aid in Europe after World War II and the use of threats and rewards by the Kennedy administration to remove Soviet missiles from Cuba in what has become known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The concept of groupthink became a hit with the general public. Just 3 years after the term was introduced, it appeared in the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, which defined groupthink as “conformity to group values and ethics.” Thus, in the popular imagination, groupthink has come to mean any conformity within a group setting. (Of course, Janis’s original formulation involves much more than just conformity or going along with the group.) The concept of groupthink was also a hit within the academic literature, frequently appearing in textbooks in social psychology and organizational management.

There was just one problem with this popularity: Empirical research on the concept has produced overwhelmingly equivocal support for the groupthink model. Researchers have attempted to apply the groupthink framework to new case examples, such as Nazi Germany’s decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, Ford Motor Company’s decision to market the Edsel, Chemie Grunenthal’s decision to market the drug thalidomide, the tragedy at Kent State University during the Vietnam War, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and the City of Santa Cruz’s decision not to prepare for an earthquake. It is rare in these case studies to find the constellation of antecedents and consequences proposed by Janis. Researchers have also attempted to produce groupthink in the laboratory using the experimental method. These experiments, which manipulated such variables as group cohesion, directive leadership, and stress, created ad hoc groups that were required to make group decisions. With one notable exception (discussed in the next section), these experiments have not been able to produce the defective decision making associated with groupthink.

Current Evidence for a Social Identity Maintenance Model

Given the equivocal results of empirical groupthink research, some have called for the abandonment of the groupthink concept. Marlene Turner and Anthony Pratkanis took a different approach of attempting to redefine key groupthink concepts in order to first produce them experimentally in the lab and then use those concepts to clarify conflicting results in case examples. In this model of groupthink, termed the social identity maintenance (SIM) model, groupthink occurs when members attempt to maintain a shared positive image of the group (e.g., “the Kennedy White House,” “NASA,” or “progressive City of Santa Cruz”), and that positive image is subsequently questioned by a collective threat (e.g., no good solution to the Bay of Pigs, pressures to launch a space shuttle, financial pressures of retrofitting for an earthquake). In such cases, the group tends to focus on how it can maintain the shared positive image of the group and not the specific task of making a good decision in the situation.

Turner and Pratkanis experimentally tested the SIM model of groupthink by asking groups of three persons to solve a difficult problem involving the falling productivity of a group of assembly station workers. Half of the groups were given a unique social identity (e.g., a group label such as Eagles or Cougars) and then asked to list the similarities among the group members. The other groups were not given labels and asked to discuss their dissimilarities. In addition, half of the groups were informed that their group would be videotaped and, more critically, were told that their videotapes would be used for training purposes in both classes held on campus and training sessions held in local corporations. Thus, failure at the task would in fact involve direct negative consequences for the group that would threaten a positive image of the group. The results showed that the groups who were given a social identity and who were operating under threat performed poorly at decision making, consis-tent with the expectations of a SIM of groupthink.

The SIM model of groupthink has also been tested using real-world case examples. For example, in a case analysis of how the city council of Santa Cruz, California, made decisions regarding earthquake safety prior to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake disaster that devastated the city, Turner and Pratkanis found that the city council had a strong social identity as a progressive, humane governing body and that that image was threatened by a state-mandated earthquake preparedness plan. An examination of the proceedings of the city council on earthquake preparedness showed all of the classic antecedents and consequences of groupthink (as originally proposed by Janis) as well as defective decision making.

References:

• Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Pratkanis, A. R., & Turner, M. E. (1999). Groupthink and preparedness for the Loma Prieta earthquake: A social identity maintenance analysis of causes and preventions. In E. A. Mannix & M. A. Neale (Series Eds.) & R. Wageman (Vol. Ed.), Research on managing groups and teams: Vol. 2. Groups in context (pp. 115-136). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
• Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). A social identity maintenance theory of groupthink. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 210-235.
• Turner, M. E., Pratkanis, A. R., & Samuels, T. (2003). Identity metamorphosis and groupthink prevention: Examining Intel’s departure from the DRAM industry. In A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 117-136). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

What Is Groupthink? Definition, Examples And How To Avoid It

Groupthink is by definition a danger to effective decision-making but it can be challenged by encouraging dissent.

In government, in corporate boardrooms, every day across the land people gather in groups to make decisions.

More often than we would like these decisions turn out to be wrong, sometimes very badly wrong.

Governments waste billions, corporations go bankrupt and people suffer.

So, why do groups sometimes make such awful decisions?

Group decision-making can go wrong in a number of predictable ways, but one of the most common is groupthink.

Groupthink is a well-known psychological phenomenon, but less well-known are the techniques for fighting it.

Understanding how groupthink occurs and what can be done to fight it is vital for effective decision-making in groups, and consequently vital for well-run society and profitable businesses.

What is groupthink?

Groupthink emerges because groups are often very similar in background and values.

Groups also usually like—or at least have a healthy respect for—each other.

Because of this, when trying to make a decision, a consensus emerges and any evidence to the contrary is automatically rejected, ridiculed even.

Individual members of the group don’t want to rock the boat because it might damage personal relationships.

Groupthink research examples

The groupthink pioneer was psychologist Irving Janis.

He analysed the decisions made by three US presidents (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) to extend the war in Vietnam ( Janis, 1982 ).

Groupthink, he argued, explained why they had become locked in their course of action, unable to explore alternatives.

Subsequent psychological research has backed up Janis’ arguments.

Experiments show that people are quick to adopt the majority position and, crucially, they ignore all the potential alternatives and all the conflicting evidence ( Nemeth & Kwan, 1987 ).

How to avoid groupthink with dissent

Avoiding groupthink, Janis argued, is all about vigilant decision-making.

What this means in practice is trying to make the group aware of problems with the consensus and offer alternatives.

To do this someone in the group has to be critical.

Encouraging critical thinking is not easy, but it is possible:

• Devil’s advocate : someone in the group, but not usually the leader, is assigned the role of trying to spot holes in the decision-making process. This approach was tested by Hirt and Markman (1995) who encouraged experimental participants to generate multiple solutions. The results showed that these participants demonstrated lower susceptibility to group bias.
• The power of authentic dissent : unfortunately for the devil’s advocate, they can easily be ignored because people don’t take them seriously. Better, then, is someone who really believes in their criticisms. Nemeth et al. (2001) found that when compared with a devil’s advocate, authentic dissenters were more likely to provide a greater quantity and quality of effective solutions.
• Nurturing authentic dissent : group leaders play a crucial role in encouraging (or crushing) dissent. Vinokur et al. (1985) analysed the decisions made by a panel investigating new medical technologies. The best outcomes were associated with a facilitative chairperson who encouraged participation from the group rather than one who was too directive.

These techniques for eradicating group-think, then, revolve around encouraging dissent.

In the interests of making a good decision, someone has to be critical otherwise mistakes are easily made.

This may seem relatively obvious but there are all sorts of reasons why dissent is never expressed (from Nemeth & Goncalo, 2004 ):

• Organisations often recruit on the basis of who will ‘fit in’ and not ‘rock the boat’. The stereotypical yes-man often emerges, perhaps unconsciously, as perfect for the job.
• Group cohesiveness is highly valued for productivity (‘are you a team-player?’): groups who are always bickering are perceived as getting less work done.
• Disagreement and the expression of conflicting opinions makes people uncomfortable and they try to suppress it, partly because:
• Dissent is easily misinterpreted as disrespect or even a personal attack.
• Dissenters are often labelled as trouble-makers and targeted for either conversion to the consensus or outright expulsion from the group.

Dissenters are rare

As a result dissenters in groups are likely to be an endangered species.

To be effective dissenters must tread a fine line, avoiding pointless confrontation or personal attacks; instead presenting minority viewpoints in an even-handed, well-modulated and authentic fashion.

For their part the majority has to fight its instinct to crush dissenters and recognise the risk they are taking in being critical of the majority opinion.

Although the majority consensus may well be right, it can be more secure in its decision if dissent is encouraged and all the options are explored.

Author: Dr Jeremy Dean

Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. View all posts by Dr Jeremy Dean

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.

10 Groupthink Examples (Plus Definition & Critique)

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Groupthink is a type of thinking when members of a group accept the group consensus uncritically. It can lead to disastrous conclusions because moral and logical thinking is suspended.

Group members often take the group’s competence and unity for granted, thereby failing to use their own individual thought. Alternatively, they might not want to avoid punishments associated with expressing dissent.

Groupthink might lead groups to reach more extreme or wrong decisions that only some members genuinely support.

Groupthink Definition and Theoretical Origins

The term “groupthink” was coined in 1952 by William Whyte to describe the perils of “rationalized conformity”.

However, American psychologist Irving Janis introduced the comprehensive theory of groupthink in 1972.

It emerged from his effort to understand why knowledgeable political groups often made disastrous decisions (especially in foreign policy). Janis defined groupthink as:

“…the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.” (1972, p. 9)

Essentially, a lack of conflict or opposing viewpoints leads to poor decisions. The group doesn’t fully analyse possible alternatives, gather external information, or seek external advice to make an informed decision.

Groupthink then has negative effects. It marks “a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from ingroup pressures” (Janis, 1972, p. 9).

Key Characteristics of Groupthink

According to Janis, the key characteristics of groupthink are:

• The illusion that a group is invulnerable, fully competent, and coherent
• The rationalization of collective decisions
• An unquestioned belief in the group’s integrity,
• Stereotyping group adversaries or outsiders,
• The existence of “mindguards” blocking alternative information and options which leads to belief perseverance ,
• Self-censorship

10 Groupthink Examples

Real-world examples.

• American officials did not anticipate or adequately prepare for the Pearl Harbor bombing in 1941. They ignored external information that the Japanese were planning an attack, thinking they would never dare to fight the American “superpower”.
• The escalation of the Vietnam War in the 1960s resulted from the U.S. government’s feelings of invincibility, underestimating the opponent’s abilities, and ignoring opposing viewpoints.
• The Challenger disaster. In 1986, miscalculations regarding the launch of the Challenger shuttle claimed the lives of 7 people. Space shuttle engineers knew about the shuttle’s faulty parts but they did not block the launch because of public pressure.
• The Bay of Pigs invasion . Suffering from the illusion of invulnerability and based on faulty assumptions the Kennedy administration launched an unsuccessful attack against Cuba.  
• A homogenous (yet experienced) team of American decisionmakers decided to go to war in Iraq . Their illusion of invulnerability and moral righteousness led them to disregard intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction.

Fictional examples

• Employees not speaking up in a work meeting because they don’t want to seem unsupportive of their team’s efforts.
• Students not opposing to a strict professor’s views or behavior because they’re concerned about how this might affect their grades.
• A political organization has a firm ideological agenda. Their sources of information are limited to those aligned with their ideology. This group might come to distrust and even inflict violence on outgroup members with different political views.
• Members of a close-knit group might ignore or underestimate information that challenges their decisions. They might try to shut down any group member who brings a different perspective.
• Launching an offensive advertising campaign for a consumer product because employees don’t articulate their dissent. They were worried about how this could impact their career. However, their view could save the company/organization from making a mistake.

Case Studies

1. the challenger disaster.

In the 1980s, NASA earlier debuted a space shuttle program that would be accessible to the public. They have even planned for more than 50 affordable flights a year.

The first shuttle, name Challenger was planned to take off in January 1986. Space shuttle engineers knew about certain faulty parts before the take-off.

And yet, they did not block the launch because of public pressure to proceed. In its effort to avoid negative press, NASA’s Challenger mission claimed seven lives—while the nation was watching.

2. The Bay of Pigs invasion

A famous example of Groupthink is the ultimately unsuccessful attack against Cuba in 1961.

The J. F. Kennedy administration launched the attack by accepting negative stereotypes about the Cubans and Fidel Castro’s incompetence (Janis, 1972). They did not question whether the Central Intelligence Agency information was accurate.

Beyond stereotyping, Kennedy’s administration thought itself untouchable. Although the plans to invade the Bay of Pigs had leaked out, they carried on ignoring the adverse warning signs (Janis, 1972).

Also, individual members, like Secretary of State Dean Rusk, did not voice their contrary opinion in group discussions.

The Bay of Pigs Invasion showcases three characteristics of groupthink: (i) the illusion of invulnerability , (ii) stereotyping of the opponent and (iii) self-censorship .

3. The bombing of Pearl Harbour

Another real-life scenario of groupthink discussed by Janis is the bombing of Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Japanese messages had been intercepted. And yet, many senior officials at Pearl Harbor did not pay attention to the warnings from Washington DC about a potential Japanese attack.

They didn’t act or prepare because they rationalised that the Japanese wouldn’t never attempt such an invasion. They were sure that the Japanese would see the “obvious” futility of entering a war with the US.

Thus, they failed to prepare for the bombing of Pearl Harbour, which claimed many lives.

The symptoms of groupthink are: (i) stereotyping the adversary’s ineptitude, (ii) illusions of invincibility leading to excessive risk taking (Janis, 1972),.

4. The escalation of the Vietnam War

The escalation of the Vietnam War was also studied by Janis as a manifestation of dysfunctional group dynamics .

First, U.S. government officials during the war considered themselves untouchable despite having suffered multiple failures and financial/human losses. They ignored the dangers and negative feedback, blindly trusting the military advantage of the U.S.

They also stereotyped their enemies, deeming them unable to make correct decisions.

President Johnson felt that the U.S. was leading a “just war”, defending its ally, South Vietnam, from the Soviet threat. They saw the escalation of war as morally correct.

The ultimate purpose was to show to the rest of the world the unanimity of the Americans in fighting again Communist expansionism.

5. An offensive marketing campaign

A modern example of Groupthink is a politically incorrect marketing campaign, imagine a company seeking to launch a new marketing campaign for a consumer product. Other team members appear excited about and pleased with the campaign, but you have some concerns. You feel it might be offensive to some demographic groups.

You don’t speak up because you like your colleagues and want to avoid putting them in an awkward position by challenging their idea. You also want your team to succeed. Anyway no one seems to consider other possible marketing plans, while the dynamic team leader firmly pushes for this campaign.

At that point, you choose to go along with the group and start doubting that your idea is correct. This fictional example illustrates key symptoms of groupthink: (i) group cohesion , (ii) self – censorship , (ii) the “ mindguard ” (team leader) banning alternative opinions .

Causes of Groupthink

It should be clear from the above that the main causes of groupthink are:

• Highly cohesive and/or non-diverse groups
• An influential leader who feels “infallible” and suppresses dissenting information
• Decision-making under stress or time constraints
• Non-consideration of outside perspectives
• Efforts to maintain/boost group members’ self-confidence

Criticisms of Groupthink Theory

Despite the significant uptake of Janis’ Groupthink model in the social sciences, many scholars have criticized its validity (Kramer, 1998). Scholars have found that decision-making processes only sometimes define ultimate outcomes.

Not all poor group decisions result from groupthink. Similarly, not all cases of groupthink result in failures or ‘fiascoes’ to use Janis’ wording. In some cases, scholars have found that being in a cohesive group can be effective; it can boost members’ self-esteem and speed up decision-making (Fuller & Aldag, 1998).

Indeed, previous research has challenged Janis’ model. However, groupthink has been very influential in understanding group dynamics and poor decision-making processes in a much broader range of settings than initially imagined (Forsyth, 1990).

Groupthink is a process in which the motivation for consensus in a group causes poor decisions—made by knowledgeable people.

Instead of expressing dissent and risking losing a sense of group unity, members stay silent. They subscribe to views/decisions they disagree with. Therefore, groupthink prioritizes group harmony over independent judgment and might rationalize immoral actions.

Although groupthink often leads to bad (even unethical) decisions, group leaders should try avoid groupthink by creating diverse and inclusive groups, enabling members to voice their views without fear, and considering opposing views seriously.

Forsyth, D. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, Calif: Brooks/Cole.

Fuller S.R, & Aldag R.J. (1998). Organizational Tonypandy: Lessons from a Quarter Century of the Groupthink Phenomenon. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 73(23), 163-184.

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin.

Kramer, R. M. (1998). Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam Decisions 25 Years Later: How Well Has the Groupthink Hypothesis Stood the Test of Time?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 73(2-3), pp. 236-271.

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Number Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Word Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Outdoor Games for Kids
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 50 Incentives to Give to Students

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible. The problematic or premature consensus that is characteristic of groupthink may be fueled by a particular agenda—or it may be due to group members valuing harmony and coherence above critical thought.

• Why Groupthink Happens
• Avoiding Groupthink

The term “groupthink” was first introduced in the November 1971 issue of Psychology Today by psychologist Irving Janis. Janis had conducted extensive research on group decision-making under conditions of stress .

Since then, Janis and other researchers have found that in a situation that can be characterized as groupthink, individuals tend to refrain from expressing doubts and judgments or disagreeing with the consensus. In the interest of making a decision that furthers their group cause, members may also ignore ethical or moral consequences. While it is often invoked at the level of geopolitics or within business organizations, groupthink can also refer to subtler processes of social or ideological conformity , such as participating in bullying or rationalizing a poor decision being made by one's friends.

Groups that prioritize their group identity and behave coldly toward “outsiders” may be more likely to fall victim to groupthink. Organizations in which dissent is discouraged or openly punished are similarly likely to engage in groupthink when making decisions. High stress is another root cause, as is time pressure that demands a fast decision. 

Even in minor cases, groupthink triggers decisions that aren’t ideal or that ignore critical information. In highly consequential domains—like politics or the military—groupthink can have much worse consequences, leading groups to ignore ethics or morals, prioritize one specific goal while ignoring countless collateral consequences, or, at worst, instigate death and destruction.

Groupthink, by definition, results in a decision that is irrational or dangerous. It is possible, however, for teams to make decisions harmoniously and with little disagreement, in ways that are not necessarily indicative of groupthink. While well-functioning teams can (and should) have some conflict , debate (as long as it's respectful) is antithetical to groupthink.

Groupthink and conformity are related but distinct concepts. Groupthink specifically refers to a process of decision-making; it can be motivated by a desire to conform, but isn’t always. Conformity , on the other hand, pertains to individuals who (intentionally or unintentionally) shift their behaviors, appearances, or beliefs to sync up to those of the group.

Risky or disastrous military maneuvers, such as the escalation of the Vietnam War or the invasion of Iraq, are commonly cited as instances of groupthink. In Janis’ original article, he highlighted groupthink during the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion .

To recognize groupthink, it's useful to identify the situations in which it's most likely to occur. When groups feel threatened—either physically or through threats to their identity —they may develop a strong “us versus them” mentality. This can prompt members to accept group perspectives, even when those perspectives don’t necessarily align with their personal views. Groupthink may also occur in situations in which decision-making is rushed—in some cases, with destructive outcomes.

To minimize the risk, it's critical to allow enough time for issues to be fully discussed, and for as many group members as possible to share their thoughts. When dissent is encouraged, groupthink is less likely to occur. Learning about common cognitive biases, as well as how to identify them, may also reduce the likelihood of groupthink.

Individual members of the group self-censoring —especially if they fear being shunned or derided for speaking their mind—is one potential sign that the group may engage in groupthink. If those who do dissent are pressured to recant or conform to the majority view, it may similarly signal groupthink. Groups that actively deride “outsiders” may be more likely to fall prey.

Since groupthink often occurs because group members fear disagreeing with the leader , it can be beneficial for the leader to temporarily step back and allow members to debate the issue themselves. One member of the team can be appointed as “devil’s advocate,” who will argue against the consensus to highlight potential flaws.

Healthy dissent has been linked to more creative thinking and ultimately greater innovation within organizations . Asking one person to deliberately play devil’s advocate and argue with the solutions proposed by the majority is one strategy that has been shown to be effective against groupthink.

Diversity—both demographic diversity and diversity of thought— has been shown to reduce the possibility of groupthink . Group members’ different backgrounds, beliefs, or personality traits can all spawn unique ideas that can inspire innovation. It’s critical, though, that all group members—regardless of their position or demographics—be allowed to contribute to group decision-making.

Organizations that want to support critical thinking, creativity , and innovation should first foster a culture where dissent is allowed and encouraged. They should reward risk-taking , be open to ideas from all group members—regardless of their experience or position—and create regular opportunities for individuals to share their ideas , big and small.

Dishonest leadership is on the rise. Here are some tips for breaking the cycle and curbing the influence of unethical leaders.

Personal Perspective: The 2024 Olympic Games are, in a way, a demonstration of hope.

Superheroes have risen to the forefront of popular culture; their popularity lies in the fact that, with our rising global challenges, humanity is seeking an external saviour.

Here's how each of us can help NASA identify what UFOs or UAPs are.

As objective facts are increasingly subsumed by subjective beliefs, there is a need to reclaim the dignity of the individual in the face of the relentless march into conformity.

How to make sense of Narendra Modi's cultural archetypes.

What is an "influence operation kill chain”?

Be cautious if you feel you are more insightful than other people or other groups. This is a standard human cognitive bias.

Explore the social dynamics and influence of "super weak ties" at the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Herman Melville's novel "Moby Dick" illustrates the dangers of worldwide authoritarianism. However, Melville was an exceedingly perceptive observer of the the patterns of history.

• Find Counselling
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United Kingdom
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Home » Business » 25 Most Famous Groupthink Examples in History and Pop Culture

25 Most Famous Groupthink Examples in History and Pop Culture

What is groupthink? This concept was first spoken about by social psychologist Irving Janis and journalist William H. Whyte. According to them, it’s a phenomenon where members of a group begin to think erroneously.

This happens because group members want to keep a feeling of overall unity and/or harmony within the group, and this leads to dissenting voices being silenced. Unfortunately, it also leads to a situation where team members end up making poor decisions. To make this easier to understand, here is a deeper explanation and some real-world examples of groupthink.

Top Characteristics of Groupthink

• An illusion of invulnerability
• An illusion of unanimity
• Pressure to conform
• Closed mindedness
• Isolation of the group
• Pressure to self-censor

Best Known Examples of Groupthink

1. the bay of pigs invasion.

As mentioned, the theory of groupthink was first spoken about by Yale psychologist Irving Janis. He wrote about this phenomenon in the 1972 publication titled Victims of Groupthink a Psychological Study of Foreign-policy Decisions and Fiascoes. In this book, he provides the reader with several examples of poor group decision-making.

One of these examples is the Bay of Pigs Invasion. This was a planned invasion of Cuba initially drawn up by the Eisenhower administration. Once President Kennedy came into power, the plan was immediately put into action.

The government did this without questioning the basic assumptions of this plan and without undertaking any further investigation. The invasion ended up being an enormous failure, and people directly blamed the Kennedy administration. What’s also interesting to note is that this event paved the way for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

2. The Pearl Harbor Attack

This is an excellent example of groupthink theory. Weeks before the attack, hundreds of communications were intercepted from Japan. These communications confirmed that an attack was imminent. Despite this, the Pearl Harbor command didn’t actually believe that the Japanese would attack. Why would they risk war with a much stronger enemy?

The command was also more concerned with Japanese citizens living in Hawaii – who they believed were a far bigger threat to Pearl Harbor. As we now know, the United States’ decision to ignore this critical information proved was an immense disaster.

3. The Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster

Here’s another famous example of groupthink. Engineers of the space shuttle repeatedly voiced concerns about the safety of the Challenger. Despite this, group leaders within NASA choose to ignore these warnings.

This was mostly because they wanted to launch the shuttle on schedule. More specifically, it was because members of the team who designed the shuttle felt that the testing efforts were adequate.

4. Kony 2012 Viral Video

Kony 2012 was a documentary that focused on Ugandan war criminal and militia leader Joseph Kony. The purpose of this film was supposedly to start an international movement that would bring him to justice. The movie was highly successful and quickly went viral. It spread like wildfire over social media and had millions of views within days. In fact, it was actually the first video in the history of YouTube to break one million views.

In spite of this success, it was later discovered that most of the information in the film was incorrect. When this news hit the headlines, it proved to have dire consequences for the people behind the film (some were even arrested.) Not only was Kony 2012 a stunning example of the theory of groupthink in action, but it also shows how easily social networks can manipulate the public.

5. Insolvency of Swissair

The Swiss national carrier was once renowned for its financial stability. Due to high levels of liquidity, it was even known as the “flying bank.” During the 1990s, things started to change. Overconfidence and hubris led to a series of bad decisions, which eventually caused the airline to collapse.

Foremost of these was the ill-advised “hunter strategy” in which the airline attempted to expand by buying up smaller airlines. While this did give the airline easier access to the European market, things didn’t last. The airliner soon found itself overwhelmed by debt and was quickly insolvent.

What this example really teaches us is how groupthink impacts your problem-solving abilities. Even though incredibly intelligent people ran this airline, they couldn’t find a way out of the situation.

6. Kodak Cameras

At one point, Kodak was the world leader in camera technology. It seemed unbeatable, and this gave the company leaders a feeling of invulnerability. All of this changed once digital cameras arrived. Kodak succumbed to the symptoms of groupthink and flatly refused to adopt this new technology. This, along with a failure to make other important decisions, eventually led to the downfall of the company.

The strangest part of this story is that Kodak actually developed the world’s first digital camera. Instead of bringing this product to market, they dropped it to protect their lucrative film processing business. This is one of the more extreme cases of groupthink and proved disastrous. What was once the world’s No. 1 camera company now trails behind competitors like Canon, Sony, Nikon, and Samsung.

7. Escalation of the Vietnam War

One of the most significant moments of the Vietnam War was The Gulf of Tonkin incident. In case you don’t know, this was an event where North Vietnamese ships attacked the U.S.S. Maddox and U.S.S.C. Turner Joy. This was seen as an act of aggression which led to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which in turn escalated the Vietnam War. This escalation resulted in a bombing campaign known as Operation Rolling Thunder and the eventual deployment of American troops in Vietnam.

What makes this an example of groupthink and acting without enough information was the fact that North Vietnam did not actually attack the U.S. unprovoked. Later reports showed that America was the aggressor and provoked North Vietnam by supporting South Vietnamese forces, as well as supplying them with reconnaissance information.

8. Kendall Jenner Pepsi Ad

In 2017, Kendall Jenner appeared in a highly controversial ad for Pepsi. This ad shows Jenner attending a protest march and climaxes with her handing a can of Pepsi to a police officer. Upon release, this ad sparked a huge outcry, resulting in it being pulled from television within a day. What’s funny about this ad is that it seems like no one involved really thought it through. They simply went ahead and ran the ad.

This shows an incredible failure of critical thinking and decision-making. It also demonstrates that the makers paid little attention to the feelings of diverse groups. Ultimately, this advert probably happened due to ideological conformity created by political correctness.

9. The Switch to “New Coke”

By the mid-80s, Coke was in big trouble. The company was rapidly losing market share to Pepsi and other drinks. For example, the root cause of their problems was the growing popularity of fruit juices and diet sodas. To counter this, the company devised an audacious marketing plan. It would reformulate its product and release it as “New Coke.”

As far as wrong decisions go, this was a major blunder. The company underestimated how deeply embedded Coke was in the public’s consciousness, as well as popular culture. Within days of release, customers bombarded the company with angry complaints. The company hotline received more than 1,500 calls per day. In addition to this, the Coca-Cola company also received large amounts of negative press and attention. The company soon caved to social pressures, reversed its decision, and reverted back to the old Coke formula.

10. The 2003 Invasion of Iraq

In 2003, a multi-country coalition chose to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. The reason given for this war was supposedly that Hussein was stockpiling WMDs. New evidence later showed that Hussein did not actually have any WMDs.

According to experts, this happened because intelligence agents needed to please their superiors. The people in charge wanted Saddam to have these weapons, so agents only supplied information confirming their biases. Regardless of this, the public and news media went along with the lie, and this helped to create support for the invasion. Another aspect was the idea that Saddam was planning to launch attacks with these weapons. This added the feeling of time pressure to the groupthink.

11. The Salem Witch Trials

This historical event provides an excellent groupthink definition and explanation. The Salem Witch Trials are also a fantastic example of mass hysteria. From February 1692 to May 1693, the town charged more than 200 people with witchcraft. Of these people, 20 were later executed. It’s interesting to note how the community reached a consensus, based on almost no evidence.

This more than likely happened because the community wanted to keep group cohesiveness and harmony in the town. It’s also a great example of how small groups of people can have an outsized influence when it comes to groupthink. According to historical sources, a small group of teenage girls (led by a 17-year-old called Elizabeth Hubbard) instigated the trials when they began accusing others of witchcraft.

12. Enron Collapse

On December 2, 2001, energy giant Enron filed for bankruptcy. How did this happen to a company with revenues of more than $100 billion? There were dozens of reasons why (the biggest being accounting irregularities), but another answer was groupthink. This is according to a book by former Enron employee Sherron Watkins. She claims that a small group of individuals controlled Enron and had complete control over the companies decision-making processes. This group believed that it was possible to increase profits quarter after quarter.

When the company began to fail, they refused to listen to differing viewpoints or consider alternative courses of action. The negative effects of these faulty decisions eventually began to accumulate and eventually led to the collapse of the company.

13. David Letterman Joins CBS

In 1992, talk show Johnny Carson decided to retire from The Tonight Show. At this point, the board of broadcaster NBC had a critical decision to make. They could either replace the host with Jay Leno or David Letterman. Company president Bob Wright’s personal views ultimately overrode majority opinion he decided to hire comedian Jay Leno.

This was a catastrophic choice. Letterman accepted a contract from rival CBS, launched The Late Show with David Letterman, and went into direct competition with NBC – eventually winning the war for ratings and advertising money. Examples like these are why many boards now select a person who plays devil’s advocate. This is essentially a member who argues against the group’s accepted opinion. Doing this helps these types of groups make better decisions.

14. 12 Angry Men

Juries can also fall victim to groupthink. Members may alter their own opinions for the sake of group cohesion. Some members may also do this because they want to seem like a team players.

According to studies, this also happens due to the status of some members. It’s been found that members with better jobs and education have a great amount of influence over lesser members and can persuade them to change their verdict. A great example of this is the movie 12 Angry Men.

15. The American Auto Industry

Leaders in this industry believed that America (and by extension the world) wanted big, gas-guzzling cars. In reality, it was the exact opposite. Consumers wanted a new look. They preferred smaller and more fuel-efficient cars. This need was soon fulfilled by Japanese automakers.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the American auto industry stubbornly clung to this belief, only changing their views after losing significant market share to Japanese car manufacturers.

16. Doctors Recommending Smoking

Believe it or not, there was actually a time when smoking was seen as good for you or even healthy. Not only that, doctors advertised these cigarettes and recommended smoking for people with sore throats. These doctors were obviously a victim of groupthink and refused to alter their claims despite growing evidence that cigarettes caused health issues. It was only when the evidence became undeniable that these doctors reversed their claims.

What this example also shows us is how the use of experts can influence people.

17. The 2008 Financial Crises

There are dozens of reasons why the market crashed. One of these reasons was groupthink in the financial industry. The people involved in this industry refused to believe that anything could go wrong. House prices would continue to rise no matter what.

What actually happened was that an economic bubble steadily grew and eventually popped. This caused widespread devastation and financial ruin for many people.

18. The Lord of the Flies

Lord of the Flies is a 1954 novel by British author William Golding. It tells the story of a group of boys stranded on an island during a fictional World War 3. A social group in this type of group setting can quickly develop conformity for the sake of cohesion. Unsurprisingly, this quickly happens, and the boys soon descend into anarchy and chaos. An example of this is when a larger group of boys begins to victimize an overweight boy, culminating in his murder.

This book also demonstrates that the likelihood of groupthink greatly increases when you remove outside influences.

19. The Watergate Scandal

When the Washington Post broke Watergate, it caused a national scandal and led to Richard Nixon resigning. Some people have classified this event as an example of groupthink. This is because Nixon had an inner group of people who were fiercely loyal to him.

This group soon turned toxic and was no longer qualified to make good decisions. Isolated from dissenting opinions, they thought of themselves as invincible. The group also believed they were morally right and pressured other people to agree with them.

20. Nazi Germany

One symptom of groupthink is a fanatical need to carry out decisions made by the team leader, project manager, or person in charge (no matter how horrific these decisions are.) In the case of Nazi Germany, this is what clearly happened. Hitler used his understanding of group dynamics and above-average ability for public speaking to hold an entire nation in sway. This eventually led to the outbreak of World War 2, the deaths of millions of people, and different groups being oppressed.

21. Mean Girls

Mean Girls is a 2004 teenage comedy film that has since become a cult-classic. The film centers on a group of girls who come together to bully and ostracize another girl. This group of girls (known as The Plastics) routinely engage in groupthink. They follow their leader fanatically and blindly go along with anything she tells them to do.

The girls also believe that everything they do is right and discard their personal opinions. What’s more, they also believe that their actions are morally justified and are actually a good thing.

22. The Wave

The Wave is a 2008 film that explores the phenomena of groupthink and how it creates highly cohesive groups. Based on an in-class social experiment by the American teacher and author Ron Jones, this exercise helped to show students why Germans accepted the Nazi Party and fell beneath Hitler’s spell. In this experiment, Jones told students he was starting a fictional movement known as “The Third Wave.” He then took various beliefs held by the Nazi Party and passed these off as the aims of his movement.

For example, he explained to students that the eventual aim of the movement was to “eliminate democracy.” Accompanying this was a series of exercises and rules which students had to follow. One of these rules required that students stand up when answering questions and begin their answer by saying “Mr. Jones.” The experiment took place over five days, and each day added more rules and beliefs. On the fifth day, Ron told students that they were going to watch a video. This video then explained that they were part of a social experiment.

23. The Ice Bucket Challenge

What started out as a challenge to bring awareness to the motor neuron disease ALS soon spiraled into a terrifying example of groupthink. In this challenge, participants dumped a bucket of ice water over their heads and uploaded the video to social media.

This challenge quickly went viral, and millions of people took part, without really knowing what the purpose of the stunt was. And although groups like the ALS Association received millions in extra funding, most people had no idea that there were positive intentions behind this challenge. In the end, it became nothing more than a way to seek attention on social media.

24. Cancel Culture

“Cancel culture” is another blatantly obvious example of groupthink. This phenomenon embodies the worst aspects of this concept, including the total belief that the group is in the right. All it takes is one accusation, and an unthinking lynch mob will descend on you. Victims of cancel culture are convicted without trial and may have their careers, lives, and families destroyed. Worst of all, there’s almost nothing they can do about it. And yes, there are people who genuinely deserve cancellation, but many people are innocent victims.

One of the features of groupthink is that such groups often have exaggerated beliefs in their abilities. A good example of this is Mensa. Members of this group believe they are geniuses when in fact, many have only average intelligence. Their higher intelligence also makes them believe that whatever they think is right.

Some people actually believe that this organization is a scam. Considering that Mensa charges hefty membership fees, this could actually be true.

Groupthink can occur any time you involve a group of people in decision-making. This can have disastrous consequences for the group. The best way to avoid this phenomenon is to make yourself aware of it (studying the above examples will help.) It’s also important that you practice open-mindedness in your thinking and base your decisions on a variety of viewpoints. Also, avoid spending too much time with the group and seek outside advice.

Related Posts:

• Force Field Analysis Explained with Examples
• 30 Best Student Action Plan Examples
• 25 Ways to Improve Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace
• 25 Best Ways to Overcome the Fear of Failure

How to Write a Research Proposal: (with Examples & Templates)

Table of Contents

Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.  

Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.  

This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.  

What is a Research Proposal ?  

A research proposal¹ ,²  can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.   

With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.  

Purpose of Research Proposals  

A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.  

Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³  

• To describe the importance of research in the specific topic  
• Address any potential challenges you may encounter  
• Showcase knowledge in the field and your ability to conduct a study  
• Apply for a role at a research institute  
• Convince a research supervisor or university that your research can satisfy the requirements of a degree program  
• Highlight the importance of your research to organizations that may sponsor your project  
• Identify implications of your project and how it can benefit the audience  

What Goes in a Research Proposal?    

Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.  

The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.  

The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.  

The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.   

Research Proposal Example  

Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.  

Structure of a Research Proposal  

If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹  

1. Introduction  

This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.  

2. Literature review  

This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.  

3. Objectives  

Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.  

4. Research design and methodology  

Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.  

5. Ethical considerations  

This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.  

6. Budget/funding  

Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.  

7. Appendices  

This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.  

8. Citations  

Important Tips for Writing a Research Proposal  

Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5  

The Planning Stage  

• Manage your time efficiently. Plan to have the draft version ready at least two weeks before your deadline and the final version at least two to three days before the deadline.
• What is the primary objective of your research?  
• Will your research address any existing gap?  
• What is the impact of your proposed research?  
• Do people outside your field find your research applicable in other areas?  
• If your research is unsuccessful, would there still be other useful research outcomes?  

  The Writing Stage  

• Create an outline with main section headings that are typically used.  
• Focus only on writing and getting your points across without worrying about the format of the research proposal , grammar, punctuation, etc. These can be fixed during the subsequent passes. Add details to each section heading you created in the beginning.   
• Ensure your sentences are concise and use plain language. A research proposal usually contains about 2,000 to 4,000 words or four to seven pages.  
• Don’t use too many technical terms and abbreviations assuming that the readers would know them. Define the abbreviations and technical terms.  
• Ensure that the entire content is readable. Avoid using long paragraphs because they affect the continuity in reading. Break them into shorter paragraphs and introduce some white space for readability.  
• Focus on only the major research issues and cite sources accordingly. Don’t include generic information or their sources in the literature review.  
• Proofread your final document to ensure there are no grammatical errors so readers can enjoy a seamless, uninterrupted read.  
• Use academic, scholarly language because it brings formality into a document.  
• Ensure that your title is created using the keywords in the document and is neither too long and specific nor too short and general.  
• Cite all sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.  
• Make sure that you follow guidelines, if provided. This includes rules as simple as using a specific font or a hyphen or en dash between numerical ranges.  
• Ensure that you’ve answered all questions requested by the evaluating authority.  

Key Takeaways   

Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:  

• A research proposal is a document that outlines the details of a proposed study and is created by researchers to submit to evaluators who could be research institutions, universities, faculty, etc.  
• Research proposals are usually about 2,000-4,000 words long, but this depends on the evaluating authority’s guidelines.  
• A good research proposal ensures that you’ve done your background research and assessed the feasibility of the research.  
• Research proposals have the following main sections—introduction, literature review, objectives, methodology, ethical considerations, and budget.  

Frequently Asked Questions  

Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?  

A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6  

• Significance —Does the research address any important subject or issue, which may or may not be specific to the evaluator or university?  
• Content and design —Is the proposed methodology appropriate to answer the research question? Are the objectives clear and well aligned with the proposed methodology?  
• Sample size and selection —Is the target population or cohort size clearly mentioned? Is the sampling process used to select participants randomized, appropriate, and free of bias?  
• Timing —Are the proposed data collection dates mentioned clearly? Is the project feasible given the specified resources and timeline?  
• Data management and dissemination —Who will have access to the data? What is the plan for data analysis?  

Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?  

A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.  

Q3. How long should a research proposal be?  

A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.  

Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?  

A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7  

• No clear objectives: Objectives should be clear, specific, and measurable for the easy understanding among readers.  
• Incomplete or unconvincing background research: Background research usually includes a review of the current scenario of the particular industry and also a review of the previous literature on the subject. This helps readers understand your reasons for undertaking this research because you identified gaps in the existing research.  
• Overlooking project feasibility: The project scope and estimates should be realistic considering the resources and time available.   
• Neglecting the impact and significance of the study: In a research proposal , readers and evaluators look for the implications or significance of your research and how it contributes to the existing research. This information should always be included.  
• Unstructured format of a research proposal : A well-structured document gives confidence to evaluators that you have read the guidelines carefully and are well organized in your approach, consequently affirming that you will be able to undertake the research as mentioned in your proposal.  
• Ineffective writing style: The language used should be formal and grammatically correct. If required, editors could be consulted, including AI-based tools such as Paperpal , to refine the research proposal structure and language.  

Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.  

This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.  

References  

• Sudheesh K, Duggappa DR, Nethra SS. How to write a research proposal? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):631-634. Accessed July 15, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037942/  
• Writing research proposals. Harvard College Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. Harvard University. Accessed July 14, 2024. https://uraf.harvard.edu/apply-opportunities/app-components/essays/research-proposals  
• What is a research proposal? Plus how to write one. Indeed website. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/research-proposal  
• Research proposal template. University of Rochester Medical Center. Accessed July 16, 2024. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/pediatrics/research/documents/Research-proposal-Template.pdf  
• Tips for successful proposal writing. Johns Hopkins University. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://research.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Tips-for-Successful-Proposal-Writing.pdf  
• Formal review of research proposals. Cornell University. Accessed July 18, 2024. https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/surveys/survey-assessment-review-group/research-proposals  
• 7 Mistakes you must avoid in your research proposal. Aveksana (via LinkedIn). Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-mistakes-you-must-avoid-your-research-proposal-aveksana-cmtwf/  

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

How to write a phd research proposal.

• What are the Benefits of Generative AI for Academic Writing?
• How to Avoid Plagiarism When Using Generative AI Tools
• What is Hedging in Academic Writing?  

How to Write Your Research Paper in APA Format

The future of academia: how ai tools are changing the way we do research, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.

How do COVID-19 antibody tests differ from diagnostic tests?

I've heard about antibody testing for covid-19. what is antibody testing is it the same as testing to diagnose covid-19.

Antibody testing shows whether you have antibodies to the virus that causes COVID-19, also called coronavirus disease 2019.

Having antibodies suggests you've either had an infection with the virus in the past or you've had the COVID-19 vaccine. Antibody testing is not used to diagnose COVID-19.

What are antibodies and why are antibody tests done?

Antibodies are proteins. The body makes antibodies when there are things in the body that shouldn't be there, such as viruses. The antibodies help clear out the virus. Having antibodies to a virus may give some protection from the disease caused by the virus for a time.

A blood test can show whether you have antibodies to the COVID-19 virus within days to weeks of having the infection or the vaccine. But antibody testing, also called serology testing, is not done routinely.

A healthcare professional might use an antibody test to diagnose complications of COVID-19. These include multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a rare condition linked to COVID-19.

If you've gotten over COVID-19, you might be able to help others who have COVID-19. If testing shows that you have a high level of antibodies, you might donate part of your blood called plasma. This is called convalescent plasma. It may help others with severe disease who have a weakened immune system.

What tests are used to diagnose COVID-19?

Two types of tests can help diagnose COVID-19.

Molecular tests. These tests look for genetic material from the COVID-19 virus.

Polymerase chain reaction tests, shortened to PCR tests, are molecular tests. You may also hear this type of test called an NAAT test, short for nucleic acid amplification test.

PCR tests are more accurate than the other type of COVID-19 test, called an antigen test. You can do PCR tests at home. But they are more likely to be done by a healthcare professional and processed in a lab.

Antigen tests. These tests look for viral proteins called antigens.

Antigen tests also may be called rapid COVID-19 tests or at-home COVID-19 tests. These tests are useful if you need quick results.

Antigen tests are accurate. But they're less accurate than PCR tests. If you have symptoms and an antigen test is negative for COVID-19, take another antigen test after 48 hours to get the best result.

If you don't have symptoms and get a negative result, test again after 48 hours. If the result is still negative and you think you have COVID-19, you can test a third time after another 48 hours. Or you can get a molecular test or call your healthcare professional.

How do I get a COVID-19 diagnostic test?

In the United States, at-home COVID-19 tests are available from several sources. Free tests can be mailed to U.S. addresses, or you can buy tests in stores and pharmacies or online. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves the tests. On the FDA website, you can find a list of the tests that are validated and when they expire.

Daniel C. DeSimone, M.D.

• COVID-19 variant
• COVID-19 drugs: Are there any that work?
• AskMayoExpert. Serological antibody testing. Mayo Clinic; 2022.
• Interim guidelines for COVID-19 antibody testing. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/testing/antibody-tests-guidelines.html. Accessed March 5, 2024.
• Antibody (serology) testing for COVID-19: Information for patients and consumers. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-and-medical-devices/antibody-serology-testing-covid-19-information-patients-and-consumers. Accessed March 5, 2024.
• AskMayoExpert. COVID-19: Drug regimens and other treatment options. Mayo Clinic; 2022.
• COVID-19 testing: What you need to know. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/testing.html. Accessed March 5, 2024.
• At-home COVID-19 antigen tests: Take steps to reduce your risk of false negative results: FDA safety communication. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/home-covid-19-antigen-tests-take-steps-reduce-your-risk-false-negative-results-fda-safety. Accessed March 6, 2024.
• AT-home OTC COVID diagnostic tests. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-and-medical-devices/home-otc-covid-19-diagnostic-tests. Accessed March 6, 2024.
• Zhang Y et al. Molecular and antigen tests, and sample types for diagnosis of COVID-19: A review. Future Virology. 2022; doi:10.2217/fvl-2021-0256.

Products and Services

• A Book: Endemic - A Post-Pandemic Playbook
• Begin Exploring Women's Health Solutions at Mayo Clinic Store
• A Book: Future Care
• Antibiotics: Are you misusing them?
• COVID-19 and vitamin D
• Convalescent plasma therapy
• Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• COVID-19: How can I protect myself?
• Herd immunity and respiratory illness
• COVID-19 and pets
• COVID-19 and your mental health
• COVID-19 antibody testing
• COVID-19, cold, allergies and the flu
• Long-term effects of COVID-19
• COVID-19 tests
• COVID-19 in babies and children
• Coronavirus infection by race
• COVID-19 travel advice
• COVID-19 vaccine: Should I reschedule my mammogram?
• COVID-19 vaccines for kids: What you need to know
• COVID-19 vaccines
• COVID-19 vs. flu: Similarities and differences
• COVID-19: Who's at higher risk of serious symptoms?
• Debunking coronavirus myths
• Different COVID-19 vaccines
• Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)
• Fever: First aid
• Fever treatment: Quick guide to treating a fever
• Fight coronavirus (COVID-19) transmission at home
• Honey: An effective cough remedy?
• How to measure your respiratory rate
• How to take your pulse
• How to take your temperature
• How well do face masks protect against COVID-19?
• Is hydroxychloroquine a treatment for COVID-19?
• Loss of smell
• Mayo Clinic Minute: You're washing your hands all wrong
• Mayo Clinic Minute: How dirty are common surfaces?
• Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C)
• Nausea and vomiting
• Pregnancy and COVID-19
• Safe outdoor activities during the COVID-19 pandemic
• Safety tips for attending school during COVID-19
• Sex and COVID-19
• Shortness of breath
• Thermometers: Understand the options
• Treating COVID-19 at home
• Unusual symptoms of coronavirus
• Vaccine guidance from Mayo Clinic
• Watery eyes

Related information

• COVID-19 diagnostic testing - Related information COVID-19 diagnostic testing
• COVID-19 antibody testing - Related information COVID-19 antibody testing
• How do COVID-19 antibody tests differ from diagnostic tests

Help transform healthcare

Your donation can make a difference in the future of healthcare. Give now to support Mayo Clinic's research.

Excelencia in Education recognizes IU Northwest’s strategies to address achievement gaps among Latino students

Campus among four baccalaureate finalists from across the country selected for the 2024 Examples of Excelencia

Program finalists are recognized for their intentionality in serving students through culturally relevant, evidence-based practices that address institutional achievement gaps and advance equity for Latino students.

The recognized IU Northwest program, Pedagogical Interest Groups (PIGs), was created in 2016 to improve Latino student success by addressing decreasing retention and graduation rates and increasing DFW rates (students who finish a course with a D, F or withdrew).

“At that time, many Latino students faced high DFW rates and nearly half left within the first year,” said Mark Hoyert, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. “As the most diverse campus within Indiana University, this data told us we were not effectively meeting our students’ academic needs and providing the support and resources they needed to be successful. We knew our students deserved better.”

Addressing the issue

To address the institutional achievement gaps, IU Northwest faculty and staff created PIGs to explore pedagogical and curricular literature to find techniques relevant to their student body, particularly Latino students.

By analyzing and implementing modern, evidence-based and culturally informed pedagogies, faculty were able to enhance their teaching practices, introduce summer bridge programs, offer first-year seminars, create cohort models and redesign curricula.

“These efforts focused specifically on the struggles of Latino students,” Hoyert said. “But the overarching goal was not only for Latino students but for all to master course content, earn higher grades and achieve higher retention and graduation rates.”

As interventions revealed deeper insights into student needs, they were integrated into the curricula. Consequently, IU Northwest evolved from having 17 percent Latino students in 2015 to becoming an Hispanic-Serving Institution with nearly 30 percent Latino students as their experiences and retention improved.

The practices — as shown by recent data — produced exceptional outcomes.

Professors involved in PIGs saw drastically lower DFW rates, higher grades overall and reduced achievement gaps for all students.

Retention Rates : From 2015 to 2022, the retention rate of Latino students from the first year to the second year increased from 61.6 to 75.8 percent, while the campus-wide retention rate increased from 64.6 to 68.1 percent.

Graduation Rates : The six-year graduation rate for Latino students increased from 21.2 percent in 2015 to 38.4 percent. The campus-wide six-year graduation rate increased from 21.5 to 37.9 percent during the same period.

Course Success Rates : In redesigned courses, Latino students’ DFW rates decreased from 35.5 percent in 2015 to 27.7 percent in 2023, and the mean GPA increased from 2.20 to 2.57. Campus-wide, the DFW rate decreased from 31.6 to 25.6 percent and the mean GPA increased from 2.41 to 2.65.

PIGs as a finalist for Examples of Excelencia

Examples of Excelencia is the only national, data-driven effort to identify, aggregate and promote evidence-based practices increasing Latino student success in higher education.

“As a finalist for the Examples of Excelencia , IU Northwest, and specifically the PIGs program, is a model of what works for higher education leadership seeking asset-based programming that is sustainable, replicable and data-informed,” said interim Chancellor of IU Northwest Vicki Román-Lagunas.

IU Northwest and the other finalists were selected through a review of 103 program submissions representing colleges, universities and community-based organizations across 20 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico in four categories: associate, baccalaureate, graduate and community-based organizations.

“Participating in Examples of Excelencia allows practitioners to assess and share the impact of their program on Latino participants. Excelencia applauds this year’s finalists for ensuring their programming intentionally serves Latino students in comprehensive and asset-based ways to support them to and through college,” said Adriana Rodriguez, COO and vice president for institutional programs at Excelencia in Education.

Since 2005, Excelencia has received over 2,000 program submissions, recognized over 400 programs for their impact and awarded over $2 million to programs making a positive difference for Latino students across the country.

2024 Examples of  Excelencia  finalists

About Excelencia in Education

Launched in 2004 in the nation’s capital, Excelencia in Education leads a national network of results-oriented educators and policymakers to tap the talents of the Latino community and address the U.S. economy’s needs for a highly educated workforce and engaged civic leaders. With this network, Excelencia accelerates Latino student success in higher education by promoting Latino student achievement, informing educational policies with a Latino lens, and advancing evidence-based practices. In 2024, Excelencia marks 20 years of commitment to Latino student success. For more information, visit: EdExcelencia.org

Filed under:

More stories.

Monahan-Keith named head Indiana University Northwest women’s basketball coach

IUN’s Class of 2024: Receiving a degree at 15 years old

Social media.

• Twitter for IU Northwest
• Facebook for IU Northwest
• Instagram for IU Northwest
• Youtube for IU Northwest
• LinkedIn for IU Northwest

Indiana University Northwest

Indiana university.

• 888-YOUR-IUN (888-968-7486)
• Emergency 219-980-6501
• Request IT Service
• Departmental listing
• Library Services
• Collaboratory
• People Directory
• Technology Services
• Knowledge Base
• Federal Disclosures
• Career Opportunities
• Campus Virtual Tour
• Faculty and Staff
• Non-Discrimination Notice
• Having trouble accessing the content on this page?

Decision Desk HQ and The Hill’s ultimate hub for polls, predictions, and election results.

Harris vs. Trump vs. RFK Jr. polls

Harris has a 3.8% lead based on 53 polls.

Aug 17, 2024

95% of polls fall in this range

Nov 12 2023

Latest Poll: Fri, Aug 16, 4:34 PM EDT