CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

SOCIAL IDENTITY MAINTENANCE PRESCRIPTIONS FOR PREVENTING GROUPTHINK: REDUCING IDENTITY PROTECTION AND ENHANCING INTELLECTUAL CONFLICT

Turner, Marlene E., Pratkanis, Anthony R.·1994·International Journal of Conflict Management
DOI 10.1108/eb022746
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although the concept of groupthink (the extreme concurrence‐seeking tendency displayed by decision making groups), has been an influential one, empirical research has provided equivocal support for the groupthink model. In this paper, we review previous case and laboratory work on groupthink and identify empirical and theoretical inconsistencies. We then describe a model of groupthink as social identity maintenance (SIM) that is capable of reconciling these inconsistencies and summarize laboratory experiments that specifically test the SIM hypothesis. We use the model to suggest possible pitfalls of previous proposals for preventing groupthink when SIM pressures are operative. Finally, we suggest intervention strategies capable of mitigating groupthink due to SIM that have two objectives: (a) the reduction of pressures toward identity protection and (b) the stimulation of intellectual conflict.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/eb022746

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The concept of tribal-bonding, experiencing group thoughts and aspirations was evident in this survey, with many respondents sharing similar equestrian activities, along with related safety beliefs.

    “The concept of tribal-bonding, experiencing group thoughts [84] and aspirations was evident in this survey, with many respondents sharing similar equestrian activities, along with related safety beliefs [85].”

    From What People Really Think About Safety around Horses: The Relationship between Risk Perception, Values and Safety Behaviours (2020) · cites this paper as [85]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. 10.2224/sbp.1984.12.2.157 · DOI
  2. 10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.949 · DOI
  3. 10.1080/03637757809375968 · DOI
  4. Deutsch M., 1972, The resolution ofconflict: Constructive and destructive processes
  5. 10.1002/bdm.3960020304 · DOI
  6. Feynman R. P., 1988, Whatdo you care what otherpeople think?
  7. 10.1037/0022-3514.35.12.888 · DOI
  8. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1415 · DOI
  9. George A. L., 1972, American Political Science Renew, 60, 761
  10. George A. L., 1991, Forceful persuasion
  11. Hart P., 1990, Groupthink in government
  12. 10.1177/0022002786030003006 · DOI
  13. Higgins R. L., 1990, R. L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, & S, 1
  14. Janis I. L., 1972, Victims ofgroupthink
  15. Janis I. L., 1982, Groupthink: Psychological studies ofpolicy decisions andfiascoes
  16. Janis I. L., 1989, Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management
  17. 10.1177/014616727800400205 · DOI
  18. 10.1108/eb022695 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/1046496492234001 · DOI
  20. Leana C. R., 1985, Journal ofManagement, 11, 5
  21. Longley J., 1980, Renew ofPersonality and Social Psychology (Vol. 1, 74
  22. 10.1037/h0022386 · DOI
  23. 10.1037/11194-000 · DOI
  24. Maier N. R. F., 1963, Problem-solving discussions and conferences
  25. 10.1037/h0040026 · DOI
  26. 10.1037/h0041372 · DOI
  27. 10.1177/001872675200500303 · DOI
  28. 10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.250 · DOI
  29. 10.1037/0022-3514.34.5.901 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1177/105960118200700406 · DOI
  31. 10.1177/001872679104400601 · DOI
  32. 10.1177/001872679204501004 · DOI
  33. Nemeth C. J., 1992, S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J
  34. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60308-1 · DOI
  35. 10.1002/bdm.3960030402 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb01765.x · DOI
  37. Schwenk C. R., 1988, The essence of strategic decision making
  38. 10.1007/978-1-4899-0861-2_4 · DOI
  39. 10.1037/0022-3514.40.1.24 · DOI
  40. Steiner I. D., 1982, H. Brandstatter, J. H. Davis, & G, 503
  41. Tajfel H., 1981, Human groups and social categories
  42. 10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1314 · DOI
  43. 10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.74 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.403 · DOI
  45. Turner J. C., 1981, J. C. Turner & H, 66
  46. Turner J. C., 1982, Social identity and intergroup relations (pp.15-40)
  47. Turner J. C, 1987, Rediscovering the human group: A self-categorization theory.New York: Blackwell
  48. Turner M. E., 1992, Journal ofSocial Behaviorand Personality, 7, 511
  49. Turner M. E., 1994, Effects of structured decision aids on decision effectiveness under groupthink Unpublished manuscript
  50. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.5.781 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Walton R. E., 1987, Managing conflict
  52. Wheeler D., 1980, A practical guide for making decisions
  53. Whyte G., 1989, Academy ofManagement Journal, 14, 40

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R.
Venue
International Journal of Conflict Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
1994-03-01
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
254-270
ISSN
1044-4068
DOI
10.1108/eb022746
Cited by
31
References
2
Language
en
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)

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