The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Devil's Advocate: A Strategy to Avoid Groupthink and Stimulate Discussion in Focus Groups
Abstract
The focus group is an increasingly popular qualitative research method in health research to gain insight into complex problems. Concerns have been expressed about how best to stimulate free and open discussion; especially on controversial issues and/or when the group comprises people with different power and status. A potential pitfall of the focus group technique is group-think: the impact of censoring and conforming as described by such social psychologists as Irving Janis. The article describes an evaluation of a method to reduce groupthink and stimulate creativity and controversy in focus groups that analyzed consultation between an Australian federal government department and its communities. The article recommends to researchers using focus groups the selective use of devil's advocates to reflect different perspectives to groups, to ask questions in a different way, to introduce new questions, and to avoid groups arriving at premature solutions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“The experiment confirmed that the operation of the devil's advocacy opened up new alternatives but it was unclear whether the final decision quality was improved or not.”
From Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“A devil's advocate takes an opposite position against alternative solutions that presented by fellow ingroup members [28, 29].”
From Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“Some studies recommended the devil's advocacy to prevent groupthink [28, 29, 47].”
From Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“This opposition triggers the other group members to reflect on the issues from different perspectives and to avoid the premature solutions [29].”
From Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“simulation results show that adding more devil's advocates increases the number of explored solutions during the group decision making.”
From Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“the formulation of the devil's advocate behavior is formulated as the agent's opposition against ingroup members' solutions instead of adopting them. This mechanism is consistent with the devil's advocacy role in which an opposite position is formed against alternatives presented by the other ingroup members [28, 29].”
From Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“The experiment confirmed that the operation of the devil's advocacy opened up new alternatives but it was unclear whether the final decision quality was improved or not.”
From Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“Following recommendations by MacDougall and Baum [51], the first author served as the devil’s advocate to challenge assumptions made and present alternative interpretations or coding of the data.”
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Qualitative evaluation and research methods
Ellis, D. J. (1990) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/0268-4012(90)90041-p · Cited by 17,943
Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research
McQuarrie, E. F., & Krueger, R. A. (1989) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3172912 · Cited by 15,489
Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research
Billson, J. M. (1989) · Human Biology · Cited by 8,560
(1990) · Cited by 8,425
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Londoño Fernández, J. L. (1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80230-0 · Cited by 5,754
(1982) · Houghton Mifflin eBooks · Cited by 2,650
Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art
Morgan, D. (1993) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483349008 · Cited by 1,586
Lorentzon, M. (1993) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.180610057.x · Cited by 1,386
Merton, R. Κ., & Kendall, P. L. (1946) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/219886 · Cited by 1,212
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 1993, The new shorter Oxford English dictionary
- 1991, The Oxford encyclopedic dictionary
- 1975, The Random House college dictionary
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Part II. Rigour in qualitative research: complexities and solutions
Tuckett, A. G. (2005) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr2005.07.13.1.29.c5998 · Cited by 260
Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research
Drescher, M., Perera, A., Johnson, C. J., Buse, L. J., Drew, C., & Burgman, M. (2013) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es12-00415.1 · Cited by 190
Cognitive Biases in Software Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study
Mohanani, R., Salman, I., Turhan, B., Rodríguez, P., & Ralph, P. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2018.2877759 · Cited by 185
McAvoy, J., & Butler, T. (2009) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2009.22 · Cited by 136
A qualitative study of action plans for asthma
Douglass, J. A., Aroni, R., Goeman, D., Stewart, K., Sawyer, S., Thien, F. C. K., & Abramson, M. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7344.1003 · Cited by 122
Metadata
- Authors
- MacDougall, C., & Baum, F.
- Affiliations
- Flinders University (AU)
- Department of Public Health at Flinders University of South Australia, South Australian Community Health Research Unit
- Corresponding author
- MacDougall, Colin
- ORCID
- MacDougall, Colin
- Venue
- Qualitative Health Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1997-11
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 532-541
- ISSN
- 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7557
- OpenAlex
- W2132549529
- Cited by
- 141
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 3.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- devil's advocate, groupthink, focus groups, group discussion, controversial issues, conformity, creativity, health research methods
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
