I'm sure we'll all agree

Groupthink

Behavioral New World

September 1, 2024

I’m sure we all agree

In my July 2022 newsletter (link here), I wrote, “I’ll have more to say about [diversity of opinion] in a future newsletter about groupthink and herd mentality.” The title of that post was, “Crowds – Wise or Insane?” The answer, perhaps unsatisfying, was, “It depends on the circumstances.”

In that post, I did not distinguish between groupthink and herd mentality. However, they are somewhat different.[1] My take on the difference: Groupthink refers to an actual, in-person group (such as a jury; see here). Herd mentality is the tendency for one’s behavior to conform to that of a group they belong to. It can exist without physical proximity. For example, if your friends smoke, you are more likely to smoke (link). You are more likely to be overweight if your friends are overweight (link).

Here, I focus on groupthink because it is a danger facing any group that needs to make a decision. Just a few examples: a city council committee, a board of directors, military strategists deciding on a strategy, a family deciding where to vacation.

The good news is that there are tangible steps to be taken that can reduce or eliminate groupthink. Research by Tatsuya Kameda and others (link) argues for the importance of “individual heterogeneity” in groups. They suggest that “…cognitive and behavioural algorithms that capitalize on individual heterogeneity are the key for collective intelligence to emerge.”

That is, in group decision-making, viewpoint diversity leads to better decisions. Perhaps this conclusion is not surprising, but viewpoint diversity is not often considered in putting together a team (a hiring committee, for example). Indeed, the wish to avoid disagreement (which can be uncomfortable) can lead to homogeneity in groups.

But even diversified groups can fall into the groupthink trap. I’ve written in the past (e.g., Chapter 5 of my book The Foolish Corner, available on Amazon) about the use of a devil’s advocate. The role of this person is to argue against the prevailing view of a group, to point out flaws in a proposed decision. This person need not believe what they are advocating; it is simply a process for taking a step back, re-checking assumptions and internal consistency before making a final decision.

Now let’s consider two common activities undertaken by groups: The generation of ideas (say, for possible business expansion) and making good collective decisions (e.g., which of the identified business expansions to undertake).

What can increase the number of ideas generated by a group? Research by Paul Paulus and others (link) suggests four steps. First, the group members write down their ideas individually. Second, the group convenes as a group and shares their ideas. Third, they go back to individual contemplation. Fourth, the group reconvenes. This procedure results in a 71% increase in the number of ideas![2] Of course, it is an open question whether the ideas are good ones or not but this approach also increases the chances of a “far out” idea emerging.

What experiences have you had with groupthink? What ideas do you have about avoiding groupthink? Use the Comment button below to share your thoughts. Maybe as a group we can come up with even better ideas for avoiding groupthink.

---

[1] Not all writers distinguish between groupthink and herd mentality. Clearly, the concepts are closely related.

[2] I am grateful to Rachel Botsman (link) for bringing this research to my attention.