Cited by 212Social and Intergroup PsychologyTeam Dynamics and PerformanceDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

So Right It's Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making

Baron, Robert S.·2005·Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0065-2601(05)37004-3

Cites

129 of 129 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baron, R. S.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Baron, Robert S.
Venue
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier
Published
2005
Pages
219-253
ISSN
0065-2601 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1505402154
Cited by
212
References
129
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
FWCI
10.55
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Advances in experimental social psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
groupthink, group decision making, group polarization, consensus seeking, suppression of dissent, antecedent conditions, minimal groups, decision quality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review