Testing the groupthink model: Effects of promotional leadership and conformity predisposition

Two hypotheses derived from groupthink theory 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 whose leaders promoted their own preferred solutions would be more likely to fall victim to groupthink than groups with nonpromotional leaders received partial support. Groups with promotional leaders produced more symptoms of groupthink, discussed fewer facts, and reached a decision more quickly than groups with nonpromotional leaders. The hypothesis that groups composed of members who were pre-disposed to conform would be more likely to fall victim to groupthink than groups whose members were not predisposed to conform received no support. It is suggested that groupthink research is hampered by measurement problems.

[1]  Martin A. Johnson Concern for Appropriateness Scale and Behavioral Conformity , 1989 .

[2]  J. K. Esser,et al.  Effects of dominance on group decision making: toward a stress-reduction explanation of groupthink. , 1985, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  Esser,et al.  Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[4]  E. Fodor,et al.  The power motive as an influence on group decision making. , 1982 .

[5]  Christopher P. Neck,et al.  Jury Deliberations in the Trial of U.S. v. John DeLorean: A Case Analysis of Groupthink Avoidance and an Enhanced Framework , 1992 .

[6]  Carrie R. Leana A Partial Test of Janis' Groupthink Model: Effects of Group Cohesiveness and Leader Behavior on Defective Decision Making , 1985 .

[7]  Randall S. Peterson,et al.  Assessing political group dynamics : a test of the groupthink model , 1992 .

[8]  H. Kelman Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change , 1958 .

[9]  R. Lennox,et al.  Concern for appropriateness as a moderator variable in the statistical explanation of self-reported use of alcohol and marijuana. , 1985, Journal of personality.

[10]  Won-Woo Park,et al.  A Review of research on Groupthink , 1990 .

[11]  Matie L. Flowers A laboratory test of some implications of Janis's groupthink hypothesis. , 1977 .

[12]  J. Montanari,et al.  Development of the Groupthink Assessment Inventory , 1989 .

[13]  Clark McCauley,et al.  The nature of social influence in groupthink: Compliance and internalization. , 1989 .

[14]  John R. Montanari,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of the Groupthink Phenomenon , 1986 .

[15]  Christopher P. Neck,et al.  Groupthink Remodeled: The Importance of Leadership, Time Pressure, and Methodical Decision-Making Procedures , 1995 .

[16]  R. Lennox,et al.  Revision of the self-monitoring scale. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  Ramon J. Aldag,et al.  Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. , 1993 .

[18]  I. Janis Victims Of Groupthink , 1972 .

[19]  Paul 't Hart,et al.  Irving L. Janis' victims of groupthink , 1991 .

[20]  R. Lennox,et al.  Getting along and getting ahead: Empirical support for a theory of protective and acquisitive self-presentation. , 1986 .