Whenever a dissident appears in a close-knit group who begins to object to the general opinion of the group, the group members exert powerful social pressure on him. Other phenomena resemble the common illusions observed in meeting groups and in “shaking” sects, when their members simultaneously reach the peak of “group” sensations. In addition, there are numerous signs of the formation of group norms that contribute to strengthening the morale of group members by reducing the criticality of their thinking. The term “grouping of thinking” as a simple and concise designation is a way of thinking that people use in cases where the search for consensus becomes so dominant for a cohesive group that it tends to reject realistic assessments. The symptoms of groupthink appear when members of decision-making groups are motivated to avoid excessive rigor when making judgments about the ideas of their supervisors or colleagues. They take a “soft” line of criticism, even in their own thoughts. At group meetings, all members are friendly and strive for full agreement on all important issues, so that no bickering or conflict breaks the cozy atmosphere created by “we are a feeling.”

“Soft” groups often show cruelty when dealing with outside groups or enemies. They resort to inhumane solutions with relative ease. They are not inclined to deal with the more difficult and controversial issues that arise when discussing alternatives to a harsh military solution. In the same way, they do not intend to raise ethical issues, when considering which it may turn out that their wonderful group, with its humanism and high principles, may choose a course of action that is inhumane and immoral.

As a member of the group becomes more confident that the other members have accepted him (and this is the main sign of increasing group cohesion), he is less clearly conformist towards group norms. Therefore, it can be expected that the more cohesive a group becomes, the less its members feel the need to self-censor their statements for fear of social punishment for speaking out against the opinion of the leader or any other member of the group. Conversely, the conformity of groupthink usually increases with increasing group cohesion. When thinking is grouped, as a result of the internalization of group norms, there is an unintentional suppression of critical thoughts, which is very different from the deliberate suppression of criticism under the external threat of social punishment. In a close-knit group, the danger lies not so much in the fact that each individual will not be able to express his objections to the proposal of the others, but in the fact that he will consider this proposal to be a good one, without trying to conduct a thorough critical analysis of all the arguments “for” and “against” alternative options. When groupthink becomes dominant, there is also a significant suppression of deviant thoughts, but the reason for this is that everyone considers their fears groundless and discards them, and resolves all doubts about the remaining uncertainty in favor of a group consensus.

In all close-knit groups, there may be a moderate tendency to group thinking and from time to time one or another of its symptoms may be observed, but it is not so dominant as to affect the quality of the final decisions made by the group. The problem is that the advantages of group decision-making are often lost due to the intense psychological pressure that arises when group members work closely with each other, share the same values, and are also faced with a crisis situation that creates intense stress for everyone. The main principle of groupthink. The stronger the friendly cohesion and “corporate spirit” of the members of a group making important political decisions, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by group thinking, which is more likely to lead to irrational and inhumane actions directed against external groups.

1. The illusion of invulnerability Most or all members of close-knit groups experience a common illusion of invulnerability, which somewhat reassures them in the face of obvious dangers and causes excessive optimism and willingness to take extreme risks. Because of this illusion, they do not respond to obvious signs of danger. 2. Rationalization As we can see, when grouping thinking, group members ignore warnings. In addition, they collectively rationalize in order to ignore warnings and other negative information that, if taken seriously, could force group members to reconsider their assumptions whenever they return to refining their previous decisions. 3. Belief in one’s moral infallibility In groupthink, group members blindly believe that their group is inherently morally infallible; this belief allows them to avoid thinking about ethical or moral issues related to the consequences of their decisions. Usually, this symptom can be noticed if you pay attention to what remains unsaid at group meetings. 4. Stereotypes When grouping their thinking, group members adhere to stereotypical views of the leaders of enemy groups. In their opinion, these leaders are so malicious that sincere attempts to discuss existing differences with them do not make sense, or they are so weak or stupid that they will not be able to successfully resist any attempts by this group to disrupt their plans, no matter how risky these attempts may be. 5. Pressure When grouping thinking, the group exerts direct pressure on anyone who doubts for a moment that any of the common misconceptions of the group members are true, or questions the reliability of arguments in support of a political alternative approved by the majority. This ensures that the rule is followed, which requires loyal group members to seek consensus. 6. Self-censorship When grouping their thinking, the members of the group try not to violate the appearance of consensus in the group; they do not express their concerns and even try to downplay their doubts in front of themselves. 7. The illusion of like-mindedness When thinking in a group, all members of the group experience the illusion of unanimity in almost all the judgments expressed by those who support the majority point of view. This symptom is to some extent a consequence of the previous one, which is reinforced by the incorrect assumption that anyone who remains silent during a discussion fully agrees with what others are saying. When a group of people who respect each other’s opinions come to a common point of view, each member of the group usually thinks that this point of view should be correct. In cases where there are no pronounced disagreements between the members of the group, such confidence that consensus can serve as confirmation of the correctness of the group decision usually replaces individual critical thinking and the study of real facts. If the sense of consensus is disrupted, the group members will no longer be able to feel self-confident about the correctness of the decision they are about to make. Then everyone will have to admit the unpleasant fact that there are annoying ambiguities, and they should try to get as much information as possible in order to decide for themselves how great the risk may be. This is one of the unpleasant consequences of belonging to a group of people with sober and critical thinking. 8. “Mental guards” Some victims of groupthink sometimes take on the role of “mind guards”, protecting the leader and members of the group from unwanted information that could violate their self-confident confidence in the correctness and ethics of their decisions.

First, the group is limited to discussing a small number of alternative courses of action (often only two), without conducting a preliminary review of all the options that would be worth considering. Secondly, when the group learns about the previously unaccounted-for disadvantages of the method of action initially chosen by the majority and the risk that arises from its use, it does not re-analyze this method. Third, group members devote too little or no time to discussing the reasons why rejected options were considered undesirable. It is possible that these options have previously unnoticed advantages or it is possible to find ways to reduce costs that seemed prohibitively high. Fourth, the group members do not try, or almost do not try, to obtain information from specialists from their own organizations who could provide more accurate estimates of potential “pros” and “cons”. Fifth, the members of the group are clearly interested in facts and opinions that support their chosen policy, and tend to disregard facts and opinions that do not support it. Sixth, the group members do not devote enough time to thinking about how bureaucratic delays, sabotage by political opponents, or temporary disruptions due to ordinary accidents may affect the implementation of the chosen policy. Consequently, they do not develop “contingency” plans designed to overcome predictable difficulties that could threaten the overall success of their chosen course.

1. The head of the policy-making group should allow each member of the group to express critical assessments, striving to ensure that the highest priority in the group is given to an open discussion of objections and doubts. By encouraging such discussions, the leader should accept criticism of his own judgments, so as not to allow group members to smooth over existing differences between them and so that their desire for agreement does not hinder critical thinking. 2. When key members of the hierarchy assign a policy planning mission to any other group within the same organization, they should take an unbiased position without stating their preferences and expectations in advance. This will facilitate free research and objective study of a wide variety of political alternatives. Irwin Janice “Grouping thinking” Photo: goodfon.ru