Groupthink¶
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
Cited by¶
6 citations across 6 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Abilene Paradox
- Structured go-around protocols, where each member states their own view before hearing others, defeat the first-mover problem by removing the option to read the room first. Rotating devil's-advocate roles assign dissent so that no individual bears its social cost.
This sourceAnalyzes group decision pathologies and prescribes remedies including assigning a devil's-advocate role to surface dissent.
- Structured go-around protocols, where each member states their own view before hearing others, defeat the first-mover problem by removing the option to read the room first. Rotating devil's-advocate roles assign dissent so that no individual bears its social cost.
- Conformity
- Janis (1982) traced how cohesive policy groups, under conformity pressure, manufacture an illusion of unanimity that drives defective decisions — a domain-specific intensification of the general yielding mechanism.
This sourceDocuments how cohesive policy groups under conformity pressure suppress dissent and manufacture an illusion of unanimity that drives defective decisions — supports the organizational-behavior intensification claim. Live-verified.
- Janis (1982) traced how cohesive policy groups, under conformity pressure, manufacture an illusion of unanimity that drives defective decisions — a domain-specific intensification of the general yielding mechanism.
- Groupthink
- Information Cascade
- Breaking this requires making private doubts visible (anonymous polling, pre-decision blogging, required dissent), not just exhorting people to speak up.
This sourceHoughton Mifflin. Foundational groupthink monograph: documents how group cohesion and conformity pressure suppress dissent in policy decisions, providing the psychological-failure contrast to rational-cascade structural failure.
- Breaking this requires making private doubts visible (anonymous polling, pre-decision blogging, required dissent), not just exhorting people to speak up.
Mechanisms¶
- Paradox Workshop
- Its guard against the classic risk is deliberate: dissent is invited rather than smoothed, so the session does not manufacture a false consensus.
This sourceDeliberate critical evaluation, devil's advocacy, and a second-chance meeting invite dissent and counter premature or false consensus.
- Its guard against the classic risk is deliberate: dissent is invited rather than smoothed, so the session does not manufacture a false consensus.
- Reflective Belief Dialogue
- Its strength is breaking the conformity spiral that produces confident group error: a protected, rotating challenger is the practical antidote to groupthink, in which the desire for harmony suppresses the very objections that would have caught the mistake.
This sourceDescribes groupthink as concurrence-seeking that suppresses doubts and objections and degrades critical judgment.
- Its strength is breaking the conformity spiral that produces confident group error: a protected, rotating challenger is the practical antidote to groupthink, in which the desire for harmony suppresses the very objections that would have caught the mistake.
Verification¶
This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 4 other ways.
- https://archive.org/details/groupthinkpsycho00jani/ ×1
- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XwKrAAAAIAAJ ×1
- https://books.google.com/books/about/Groupthink.html?id=XwKrAAAAIAAJ ×1
- https://www.google.com/books/edition/Groupthink/7oVEAAAAMAAJ ×1
Registry ID ref:74769fde18bd · see in the full table