by Kyra-lin Hom

The term 'groupthink' was first coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte, Jr. to imply a type of rationalized conformity. Twenty years later, Dr. Irving Janis published the first compendium of early research on the topic. Since then, with the popularization of layman's sociology and psychology, 'groupthink' has become a social buzzword. But what exactly is it and why should any of us care? Let's explore.

Groupthink is what psychologists and other fancy-pants people call a logical or formal fallacy. In other words, it is an invalid pattern of reasoning. Usually a logical fallacy is something that seems true but isn't. For example: all girls drink tea; Nancy is a girl; therefore, Nancy never drinks coffee. This fallacy in particular is called the fallacy of the inverse. There are several, and they're pretty fun to play around with. Then again, I am a self-admitted nerd.

The groupthink fallacy in particular assumes that, to quote Whyte, “group values are not only expedient but right and good.” Behaviorally, this leads individuals to indulge in a cognitive bias (similar to a logical fallacy, I'm just nitpicking the difference) known as the bandwagon effect. Essentially, people put faith in a group and are then swept along for the ride. Blind nationalism or religious and political fanaticism (usually led by a strong leader) are common examples.

For something closer to home, have you ever come out of a meeting where everyone agreed on the final outcome only to realize later that many of you originally disagreed but were unwilling to speak up? That's groupthink at work. It's especially dangerous because the very fact that the entire group 'agreed' lends weight to the final decision. Most of us trust that a collection of people are more reliable than one dissenting voice.

One of my favorite experiments on this topic involved a small group of people and a series of simple, multiple choice questions. The trick was only one member of the group was actually a test subject. Everyone else was part of the test. So, when a pre-agreed upon question popped up on the screen, all of the plants voted on one obviously, incredibly wrong answer, leaving the test subject to flounder in confusion. More often than not, the test subject doubted his/her acuity and conformed to the group. You've probably played a similar joke on a friend of colleague at some point or another.

Entertaining though this may be on the small scale, it's a very serious problem once money, safety or national policy are on the line. So far there is no conclusive evidence supporting any one method for preventing groupthink. But we don't usually have control over the structure and strategy with which group decisions are made anyway. What we do have control over is ourselves. So the relevant question isn't how to prevent large-scale groupthink but rather how to prevent ourselves from being swept up in the hive mind. And the answer involves that lump of tissue between our ears.

The best weapon we each have against groupthink is our own individuality and capacity to think. The experts recommend seeking outside sources and actually giving the opposing argument a chance. Play devil's advocate once in a while or give your best idea a thrashing just to see what shakes out.

Groups aren't inherently bad decision makers, only when conformity is mistaken for critical thinking.