Groupthink: When People in Groups Make Irrational Decisions
“Madness is something rare in individuals – but in groups, parties, peoples and ages, it is the rule.” – Nietzsche
It’s a week before December 7, 1941.
The U.S. Pacific Fleet commander asks his war plans officer a question. What are the odds of Japan attacking Hawaii?
“I should say none, Admiral.” The purported reply of the Captain.
We now know this seemingly benign comment was destined to age poorly. The tragedy that followed saw hundreds of Japanese fighter planes arrive at the base. The attack on Pearl Harbor killed over 2,400 Americans, wounded 1,000 and damaged hundreds of warplanes and vessels.
Although many anticipated imminent war because of rising friction with Japan, America was shocked by the surprise attack. The next day, the US officially declared war.
Groupthink
The unexpected strike has since been used as an example of groupthink, in Irving L. Janis’ 1972 paper by the same name.
Groupthink occurs when social conformity in a group leads to irrational decision-making or beliefs. Janis describes it 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.”
He goes on to say, “…the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures”.
Janis argues that groupthink drove the failure to anticipate Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor despite the various warning signs. Intelligence lost contact with Japanese aircraft carriers, but Admiral H. E. Kimmel and his post didn’t even suspect that they could be the next target.
The Admiral’s ingroup believed firmly that the Japanese – to their mind, an inferior military force – would never inflict on Hawaii a surprise attack. Their rationale was that such a provocation would result in full-on conflict, and Japan’s leaders knew they couldn’t topple a giant like the US in a war. They wouldn’t dare strike.
The Symptoms of Groupthink
Some symptoms, according to Janis, include:
An illusion of invulnerability. The group cannot fail;
A rationale used to justify their decisions and defend against negative feedback;
A belief “in the inherent morality of their ingroup”. Because of this, any ethical or moral concerns are dismissed immediately;
Extreme pressure applied to anyone who challenges or shows a sliver of doubt about the group’s shared beliefs;
Individuals self-censor, careful not to challenge the group, and try to dismiss their own internal doubts; and
A presumption of unanimity that anyone who speaks reflects the majority of the group. The collective view replaces individual critical thinking.
At its mildest, groupthink can result in a catty group of teenagers who conform at all costs or risk ostracization.
Or, a corporate executive team full of ‘yes-men’ that make irrational decisions costing shareholder money or staff livelihoods.
It can result in political echo-chambers; individuals with blind faith in a political party, figure or ideology, who dismiss all challenges and outgroup members as naïve, wrong, or evil, and accept all new policies and ideas of the ingroup without question.
And, as Janis asserts, groupthink can result in something as huge as completely missing any warning signs of an attack that would go on to kill thousands.
There is no limit to the harm a self-affirming group can cause as it descends into irrationality, confirmation bias and an untouchable moral narrative. And one imagines it could happen to any group that insulates itself for so long.
In groupthink situations, the ingroup won't accept any dissenting voices or evidence that conflicts with their views.
Individuals in the group - who wouldn’t even attempt to rethink the group’s assumptions - reinforce that collective view, which leads to irrational decisions.
While ingroup members may have initially bitten their tongues instead of speaking up, eventually they're so deep in the echo chamber that they’ve invested time, energy, and other sacrifices for the group; they’ve absorbed nothing but the group’s views; they’ve seen what happens to people who question the group; they’ve engaged with the ‘other’-ing of any opposing side as an enemy or fool or infidel or heretic; they see the group as part of who they are; and they eventually, naturally, genuinely believe all the subjective rhetoric of the ingroup.
The collective view is the only view.
(On Wednesdays we wear pink.)
Independent Thought
For society, independent thought is imperative to progress.
Stoic figure Seneca warns of the dangers of blindly following the herd. He says,
“It is harmful to follow the march of those who go before us, and since every one had rather believe another than form his own opinion, we never pass a deliberate judgment upon life, but some traditional error always entangles us and brings us to ruin, and we perish because we follow other men’s examples: we should be cured of this if we were to disengage ourselves from the herd; but as it is, the mob is ready to fight against reason in defence of its own mistake.”
In life, the mind is the vehicle of freedom. If we do not have a free mind; one that inquires, questions, seeks out evidence that both supports and contradicts our stance – if we do not have that, what are we left with?
Many of our ancient philosophers were profoundly thoughtful and did not sway with the crowd. Perhaps related, many were sentenced to death.
But for those ancient philosophers, the conviction was clear: one must protect their independent thought at all costs.
Socrates wouldn’t back down about his philosophical ideas, even when he was found guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens. When he was asked, as was standard process then, to propose his own punishment at his sentencing trial, he suggested he should be invited to eat in the hall with all the elite athletes and other high-status celebrities. In other words, he proposed that his punishment should actually be a reward, because he was providing a service to Athenian minds.
(Unfortunately, the jury did not find this persuasive and still sentenced him to death. But we can appreciate his point very much today.)
Social Media and Where to Go
Some argue groupthink is amplified by social media.
The algorithms of popular platforms are beautiful because they figure out what we like, and show us those things. Simultaneously, this algorithm is more likely to filter out items we are less likely to click on. For most purposes, that's very convenient.
Internet activist Eli Pariser calls this the “filter bubble”; where a rapid increase in personalisation leads to prioritising internet content based on what the individual already likes and believes. This could leave us closed to new ideas or challenging opinions. The argument is that the worldwide web is transforming into the personal, affable web, where a Google search is more likely to bring up what we want to see.
Social media can bring important issues to light, affect change and strengthen relationships. But there will always be a dark side to any deeply powerful tool. It may take time before we know the extent to which social media influences our convictions, and potentially propagates groupthink.
So, what to do with all of this?
Resisting group pressure is easier said than done. I don’t imagine it would have been easy for one of Kimmel’s crew to zoom out and consider that perhaps they should be prepared for a potential strike from Japan. And then, once over the hurdle of managing to think beyond the ingroup’s presumptions, the next step would be to voice your opinion despite the high risk of consequences for doing so.
I don't think groupthink will ever be entirely avoided; the need to belong is an ingrained part of human nature, and groupthink is demonstrated time and time again throughout history. If anything, I'm concerned that millennials like me - with a typically higher need for external validation (I feel that in my bones) - will be more susceptible to it throughout our lives.
But this year is a good time to reflect on our presumptions and influences. Perhaps it's an invitation to be more cognizant of the people and information we choose to invite into our lives. Being open to opposing views as well as complementary ones can challenge us to continually test assumptions and keep the mind open to the possibility of being wrong. Because we're all wrong, sometimes.
Maybe we can intentionally take more moments to ourselves before making important decisions, to ensure the decision is really right for us. Or we might pick up a book that seems to take a stance we would never, ever take on a topic. Perhaps we can inspire ourselves to speak up if we're in a social or professional setting where we suspect groupthink is at play. Perhaps, as Janis advises, we can suggest someone in our next company meeting play the official role of 'devil's advocate' to spur more open discussion.
Last year, I watched a speaker talk about a culture of “respectful dissent”: Where anyone in a meeting could challenge an idea, raise a concern or suggest a change without fear of negative consequences, provided it was done respectfully. This sounds like a brilliant tenet to add to corporate culture.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on groupthink - have you experienced a situation where groupthink ruled? What do you do in your organisation or peer group to ensure you're not prioritising conformity and cohesion over everything else?
This piece originally appeared in my newsletter. If you’d like to subscribe for a weekly dose of human behaviour, psychology, and a sprinkling of philosophy, sign up here.