{"id":606,"date":"2023-03-03T19:13:42","date_gmt":"2023-03-03T19:13:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.one.lumenlearning.com\/introductiontopsychology\/chapter\/group-behavior\/"},"modified":"2025-12-12T15:45:51","modified_gmt":"2025-12-12T15:45:51","slug":"group-behavior","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/content.one.lumenlearning.com\/introductiontopsychology\/chapter\/group-behavior\/","title":{"raw":"Group Behavior: Learn It 3\u2014Groupthink and Polarization","rendered":"Group Behavior: Learn It 3\u2014Groupthink and Polarization"},"content":{"raw":"

Influential Groups<\/span><\/h2>\r\n

When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of people around us. Whether it is due to normative or informational social influence, groups have the power to influence individuals. Another phenomenon of group conformity is groupthink.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\r\n

groupthink<\/h3>\r\n

Groupthink<\/strong> is the modification of the opinions of members of a group to align with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In group situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of thought. This elimination of diverse opinions contributes to a faulty decision by the group.<\/p>\r\n<\/section>\r\n

\r\n

Groupthink: A Tech Startup Rushing a Faulty Product to Market<\/h3>\r\n

Imagine a young tech company preparing to launch a new fitness app. Early testing shows significant glitches, and a few engineers express concerns. However:<\/p>\r\n

    \r\n\t
  • The company culture celebrates being \u201cbold\u201d and \u201cdisruptive.\u201d<\/li>\r\n\t
  • Leadership has repeatedly talked about \u201cbeating competitors to launch.\u201d<\/li>\r\n\t
  • The team is extremely close-knit, and no one wants to be viewed as the person slowing progress.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

    Because the CEO strongly favors launching immediately, team members stop voicing doubts. Those with concerns self-censor, assuming others are more confident or better informed. The group moves ahead, and the app launches\u2014only to fail publicly due to major security and privacy issues.<\/p>\r\n

    This scenario shows how a highly cohesive group, a directive leader, and pressure to agree quickly can cause people to suppress concerns they would normally raise. No government or political context is required; the psychological process is the same.<\/p>\r\n<\/section>\r\n

    Why does groupthink occur? There are several causes of groupthink, which makes it preventable. When the group is highly cohesive or has a strong sense of connection, maintaining group harmony may become more important to the group than making sound decisions. If the group leader is directive and makes his opinions known, this may discourage group members from disagreeing with the leader. If the group is isolated from hearing alternative or new viewpoints, groupthink may be more likely. How do you know when groupthink is occurring?<\/p>\r\n

    \r\n

    symptoms of groupthink<\/h3>\r\n

    There are several symptoms of groupthink, including the following:<\/p>\r\n

      \r\n\t
    • perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible\u2014confidence in the strength of the group<\/li>\r\n\t
    • believing the group is morally correct\u2014believing it can do no wrong<\/li>\r\n\t
    • self-censorship by group members, such as withholding information to avoid disrupting the group consensus<\/li>\r\n\t
    • the quashing of dissenting group members\u2019 opinions<\/li>\r\n\t
    • the shielding of the group leader from dissenting views<\/li>\r\n\t
    • perceiving an illusion of unanimity among group members<\/li>\r\n\t
    • holding stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group or others with differing viewpoints (Janis, 1972)<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/section>\r\n

      Given the causes and symptoms of groupthink, how can it be avoided? Several strategies can improve group decision making including seeking outside opinions, voting in private, having the leader withhold position statements until all group members have voiced their views, conducting research on all viewpoints, weighing the costs and benefits of all options, and developing a contingency plan (Janis, 1972; Mitchell & Eckstein, 2009).<\/p>\r\n

      [ohm2_question height=\"450\"]4366[\/ohm2_question]<\/section>\r\n
      \r\n

      Group Polarization<\/h2>\r\n

      Another phenomenon that occurs within group settings is group polarization.<\/p>\r\n

      \r\n

      group polarization<\/h3>\r\n

      Group polarization<\/strong> (Teger & Pruitt, 1967) is the strengthening of an original group attitude after the discussion of views within a group. That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint.
      \r\n
      \r\nConversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition. Group polarization explains many actions taken by groups that would not be undertaken by individuals.<\/p>\r\n<\/section>\r\n

      Group polarization occurs because:<\/p>\r\n

        \r\n\t
      • hearing similar viewpoints repeatedly boosts confidence in one\u2019s position,<\/li>\r\n\t
      • members want to express attitudes that signal loyalty or commitment to the group, and<\/li>\r\n\t
      • individuals may compare themselves to the group and adjust their attitudes to be \u201ceven more\u201d aligned (sometimes called social comparison<\/i> processes).<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

        Group polarization can be observed at political conventions, when platforms of the party are supported by individuals who, when not in a group, would decline to support them.<\/p>\r\n

        Recently, some theorists have argued that group polarization may be partly responsible for the extreme political partisanship that seems ubiquitous in modern society. Given that people can self-select media outlets that are most consistent with their own political views, they are less likely to encounter opposing viewpoints.<\/p>\r\n

        \r\n

        Group Polarization and Social Media<\/b><\/h3>\r\n

        Because people often follow accounts similar to their own beliefs, digital platforms can intensify group polarization. Algorithms that show \u201cmore of what you engage with\u201d can create echo chambers that reinforce existing preferences\u2014making people more certain, more confident, and sometimes more extreme in their views.<\/p>\r\n

        Recent findings show:<\/p>\r\n

          \r\n\t
        • Echo chambers accelerate attitude certainty<\/span>, not just attitude direction.<\/li>\r\n\t
        • Extreme statements receive more likes\/shares, reinforcing polarization.<\/li>\r\n\t
        • Users often underestimate how much their attitudes shift in response to their online group norms.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

          These effects occur in communities centered around hobbies, fitness, fandoms, finance, workplace culture, and more\u2014not just politics.<\/p>\r\n<\/section>\r\n

          Social Traps<\/h3>\r\n

          A social trap<\/b><\/span> occurs when individuals or groups behave in ways that seem beneficial in the moment but lead to negative long-term consequences. Once a social trap is established, it can be difficult to break because each party feels pressure to continue the behavior.<\/p>\r\n

          A classic example is the post\u2013World War II nuclear arms race<\/b><\/span> between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Although maintaining and expanding nuclear arsenals was not in either nation\u2019s best interest, each feared that stopping production would put them at a disadvantage. As a result, both continued actions that increased danger for all.<\/p>\r\n

          Social traps occur in many everyday situations as well\u2014for example, when companies overuse natural resources to stay competitive, or when individuals rely on short-term rewards that ultimately harm their health or community. The defining feature is a conflict between immediate benefits and long-term costs<\/b><\/span>, combined with a sense that backing down would leave one vulnerable.<\/p>\r\n

          [ohm2_question height=\"350\"]4367[\/ohm2_question]<\/section>\r\n<\/section>","rendered":"

          Influential Groups<\/span><\/h2>\n

          When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of people around us. Whether it is due to normative or informational social influence, groups have the power to influence individuals. Another phenomenon of group conformity is groupthink.<\/span><\/p>\n

          \n

          groupthink<\/h3>\n

          Groupthink<\/strong> is the modification of the opinions of members of a group to align with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In group situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of thought. This elimination of diverse opinions contributes to a faulty decision by the group.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n

          \n

          Groupthink: A Tech Startup Rushing a Faulty Product to Market<\/h3>\n

          Imagine a young tech company preparing to launch a new fitness app. Early testing shows significant glitches, and a few engineers express concerns. However:<\/p>\n

            \n
          • The company culture celebrates being \u201cbold\u201d and \u201cdisruptive.\u201d<\/li>\n
          • Leadership has repeatedly talked about \u201cbeating competitors to launch.\u201d<\/li>\n
          • The team is extremely close-knit, and no one wants to be viewed as the person slowing progress.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

            Because the CEO strongly favors launching immediately, team members stop voicing doubts. Those with concerns self-censor, assuming others are more confident or better informed. The group moves ahead, and the app launches\u2014only to fail publicly due to major security and privacy issues.<\/p>\n

            This scenario shows how a highly cohesive group, a directive leader, and pressure to agree quickly can cause people to suppress concerns they would normally raise. No government or political context is required; the psychological process is the same.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n

            Why does groupthink occur? There are several causes of groupthink, which makes it preventable. When the group is highly cohesive or has a strong sense of connection, maintaining group harmony may become more important to the group than making sound decisions. If the group leader is directive and makes his opinions known, this may discourage group members from disagreeing with the leader. If the group is isolated from hearing alternative or new viewpoints, groupthink may be more likely. How do you know when groupthink is occurring?<\/p>\n

            \n

            symptoms of groupthink<\/h3>\n

            There are several symptoms of groupthink, including the following:<\/p>\n

              \n
            • perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible\u2014confidence in the strength of the group<\/li>\n
            • believing the group is morally correct\u2014believing it can do no wrong<\/li>\n
            • self-censorship by group members, such as withholding information to avoid disrupting the group consensus<\/li>\n
            • the quashing of dissenting group members\u2019 opinions<\/li>\n
            • the shielding of the group leader from dissenting views<\/li>\n
            • perceiving an illusion of unanimity among group members<\/li>\n
            • holding stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group or others with differing viewpoints (Janis, 1972)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n

              Given the causes and symptoms of groupthink, how can it be avoided? Several strategies can improve group decision making including seeking outside opinions, voting in private, having the leader withhold position statements until all group members have voiced their views, conducting research on all viewpoints, weighing the costs and benefits of all options, and developing a contingency plan (Janis, 1972; Mitchell & Eckstein, 2009).<\/p>\n