An Empirical Investigation of the Groupthink Phenomenon
Abstract
This paper reports results of an empirical investigation of the groupthink theoreticalframework presented in Janis'second edition of Groupthink. Factor analysis was used to develop scales to measure the aspects of groupthink proposed by Janis (1982). Results supported some, but not all, of the symptoms and defects postulated by Janis. Next, a path analytic procedure was utilized to test the implied causal ordering of the Groupthink model (Janis, 1982, p. 244). This study provides limited support for the causal sequence specified in the model. However, the relationship between groupthink-induced decision defects and outcomes were not as strong as Janis suggests. These results prompt the authors to agree with Courtright (1978) that many intervening and/or moderating factors not included in the Janis framework influence decision outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Group insulation is the most predictive groupthink antecedent.
“Existing findings point out that group insulation is the most predictive groupthink antecedent [13, 30, 42].”
From Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure (2021) · cites this paper as [30]
Insulation is a consistent groupthink predictor, conforming with existing findings.
“simulation results also demonstrate insulation as a consistent groupthink predictor which conforms with existing findings [13, 30, 42].”
From Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure (2021) · cites this paper as [30]
Cites
Janis, I. L. (1972) · Cited by 2,382 · see citing works
Risk taking by individuals and groups: An assessment of research employing choice dilemmas.
Cartwright, D. (1971) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0031912 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Leana, C. R. (1985) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638501100102 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
A laboratory test of some implications of Janis's groupthink hypothesis.
Flowers, M. L. (1977) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.12.888 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
The consequences of social interaction in group problem solving
Vroom, V. H., Grant, L. D., & Cotton, T. S. (1969) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(69)90033-6 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
A laboratory investigation of groupthink
Courtright, J. A. (1978) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637757809375968 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
The Potential for "Groupthink" in Autonomous Work Groups
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1982) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872678203500906 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research
Esser, J. K. (1998) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2758 · Cited by 417 · see citing works
So Right It's Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making
Baron, R. S. (2005) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(05)37004-3 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Turner, M. E., Pratkanis, A. R., Probasco, P., & Leve, C. (1992) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.5.781 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Akhmad, M., Chang, S., & Deguchi, H. (2021) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-020-00083-8 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
GROUPTHINK THEORY AND RESEARCH: IMPLICATIONS FOR DECISION MAKING IN GERIATRIC HEALTH CARE TEAMS
Heinemann, G. D., Farrell, M. P., & Schmitt, M. H. (1994) · Educational Gerontology · doi:10.1080/0360127940200106 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Moorhead, G., & Montanari, J. R.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1986-05
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 399-410
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2160449324
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human Relations (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Keywords
- groupthink, Janis, group decision making, decision outcomes, measurement scales, moderators
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
