Author | David Myers
has served as a professor of psychology at Hope College in the United States for more than 30 years.
As an outstanding researcher, he won the Galton Alport Award from the American Psychological Society for his research on group polarization.
Miles has published papers in more than 30 scientific journals, including the world's top academic journal "Science".
His "Psychology" and "Social Psychology" are both the best-selling textbooks in their respective fields. More than 12 million students around the world are using it to to learn psychology .
The truth arises from discussions among friends.
—Hume (1711-1776)
What In the case, will the group influence hinder the correct decision? Under what circumstances will the group promote correct decision-making and how should we guide the group to make the best decisions?
Will the social psychology phenomenon we discussed earlier also occur in complex groups such as the company's board of directors or the presidential cabinet? Do they have self-rationalization behavior? Or self-interest deviation? Will that cohesive “our feelings” cause herds or rejection of objection? Can public commitments resist change? Is there a phenomenon of group polarization? Social psychologist Janis wants to know whether these phenomena can help explain the group decisions made by the 20th century American president and his advisers. To this end, he analyzed the process of several serious failed decisions:
Pearl Harbor . The Pearl Harbor sneak attack in December 1941 also led the United States to join World War II . A few weeks before the incident, the military command in Hawaii received a reliable news: Japan planned to attack a US military stronghold in the Pacific. Military intelligence then lost radio contact with the Japanese aircraft carrier , which was heading straight towards Hawaii. The air reconnaissance team should have been able to detect the location of the aircraft carrier or at least issue an alarm for several minutes. But the self-righteous commanders were completely indifferent. The result was: the alarm was not sounded until the Japanese army began to attack this unprepared base. After the attack, the U.S. military lost: 18 ships, , 170 aircraft, and the lives of 2,400 soldiers.
invaded the Bay of Pigs . In 1961, President Kennedy and his advisers tried to attack Cuba with 1,400 Cuban exiles trained by CIA (CIA) to overthrow Cuba in order to overthrow the Castro regime. Almost all attackers were killed or captured, the United States lost all its face, and Cuba and the former Soviet Union became more united. After learning the consequences, Kennedy shouted, "How did we do such a stupid thing?"
Vietnam War . Between 1964 and 1967, the "Tuesday Lunch Group" composed of President Johnson and his political advisers decided to expand the war on Vietnam, because they predicted that the US air bombing, airborne and search and destroy missions would force the North Vietnamese government to accept peace talks, and the people of South Vietnam would also support the peace talks out of gratitude. Although government intelligence experts and all the American allies warned them, they continued to expand the war. The disaster killed more than 58,000 Americans and 1 million Vietnamese, and Americans became extremist, the president was forced to step down, and the huge fiscal deficit accelerated the inflation in the 1970s.
Yale University psychologist Irving Janis (Irving Janis, 1918-1990) believes that the reason for these big mistakes is that Because people suppress objections in group decision-making in order to maintain group harmony, he calls this phenomenon group thinking. In group work, gay friendship can improve productivity. And, teamwork helps boost morale. But when making decisions, a closely united group may be detrimental. Janis believes that friendly and cohesive groups, relative rejection of objections, and dominant leaders who make decisions based on their own preferences are all breeding grounds for cultivating group thinking.
When planning that unfortunate Bay of Pigs attack, the newly elected President Kennedy and his advisers happily formed a team of extremely team spirits. The president himself quickly agreed with the attack, as the very critical objection to the plan was suppressed or excluded.
Symptoms of group thinking
Judging from the historical records and the memories of participants and observers, Janice listed eight symptoms of group thinking. These symptoms focus on exclusion of dissent, which on the surface is that group members will strive to maintain their positive sense of group when they encounter threats.
The first two group thinking symptoms often lead to group members overestimating the power and rights of the group:
The impeccable illusion . The groups studied by Janis are so overconfident that they blinded their eyes and could not see the danger alarm. When Pearl Harbor's naval commander-in-chief Kimmel learned that they had lost contact with the radio of the Japanese aircraft carrier, he joked that perhaps the Japanese were planning to go around Honolulu. The Japanese did, in fact, but Kimmel's ridicule of the idea made people think that it could not be true.
There is no doubt about group morality . group members accept the inner morality of their group, but ignore other ethical and moral issues. Kennedy and others knew that Kissinger adviser and Fulbright MP had moral reservations about attacking a small neighbor, but the entire group never accepted or discussed these moral doubts.
Group members will also become closer and closer in their ideas:
rationalization Groups reduce challenges by rationalizing decision-making by collective voting. President Johnson’s Tuesday lunch group spent more time justifying the decisions that expanded the war (explain it and find justification for justification) than reflecting on and rethinking previous decisions. Every behavior becomes masking and rationalization.
People who are trapped in group thinking often think that their opponents are either too difficult to negotiate or too weak and stupid to resist their plans. Kennedy and others believed that Castro's military power was weak and his support was weak, so just one brigade could overthrow his regime.
Finally, the group will be subject to the pressure of pursuing consistency:
Present pressure Group members will resist those who raise questions about the group's ideas and plans, and sometimes this resistance is not achieved through discussion but by mocking individuals. Once, when President Johnson's assistant Moys arrived at the venue, the president mocked him and said, "Oh, the 'Sir who stopped the explosion' is here!" Faced with such ridicule, many people chose to follow the crowd.
Self-censoring Because objections are often uncomfortable and the entire group seems to show consistency, people tend to suppress their doubts. In the months after the Bay of Pigs attack, Schlesinger self-condemned that he kept silent in those important meetings held by the cabinet . Even if objections were not helpful, I would still be disgusted by people, and such thoughts overwhelmed my guilt.”
Unconsensual illusion Do not destroy the consistency of self-subconscious pressure will lead to the unanimous illusion of consent. Moreover, this superficial consistency strengthens the group's decision-making. Author | David Myers has served as a professor of psychology at Hope College in the United States for more than 30 years.
As an outstanding researcher, he won the Galton Alport Award from the American Psychological Society for his research on group polarization.
Miles has published papers in more than 30 scientific journals, including the world's top academic journal "Science".
His "Psychology" and "Social Psychology" are both the best-selling textbooks in their respective fields. More than 12 million students around the world are using it to to learn psychology .
The truth arises from discussions among friends.
—Hume (1711-1776)
What In the case, will the group influence hinder the correct decision? Under what circumstances will the group promote correct decision-making and how should we guide the group to make the best decisions?
Will the social psychology phenomenon we discussed earlier also occur in complex groups such as the company's board of directors or the presidential cabinet? Do they have self-rationalization behavior? Or self-interest deviation? Will that cohesive “our feelings” cause herds or rejection of objection? Can public commitments resist change? Is there a phenomenon of group polarization? Social psychologist Janis wants to know whether these phenomena can help explain the group decisions made by the 20th century American president and his advisers. To this end, he analyzed the process of several serious failed decisions:
Pearl Harbor . The Pearl Harbor sneak attack in December 1941 also led the United States to join World War II . A few weeks before the incident, the military command in Hawaii received a reliable news: Japan planned to attack a US military stronghold in the Pacific. Military intelligence then lost radio contact with the Japanese aircraft carrier , which was heading straight towards Hawaii. The air reconnaissance team should have been able to detect the location of the aircraft carrier or at least issue an alarm for several minutes. But the self-righteous commanders were completely indifferent. The result was: the alarm was not sounded until the Japanese army began to attack this unprepared base. After the attack, the U.S. military lost: 18 ships, , 170 aircraft, and the lives of 2,400 soldiers.
invaded the Bay of Pigs . In 1961, President Kennedy and his advisers tried to attack Cuba with 1,400 Cuban exiles trained by CIA (CIA) to overthrow Cuba in order to overthrow the Castro regime. Almost all attackers were killed or captured, the United States lost all its face, and Cuba and the former Soviet Union became more united. After learning the consequences, Kennedy shouted, "How did we do such a stupid thing?"
Vietnam War . Between 1964 and 1967, the "Tuesday Lunch Group" composed of President Johnson and his political advisers decided to expand the war on Vietnam, because they predicted that the US air bombing, airborne and search and destroy missions would force the North Vietnamese government to accept peace talks, and the people of South Vietnam would also support the peace talks out of gratitude. Although government intelligence experts and all the American allies warned them, they continued to expand the war. The disaster killed more than 58,000 Americans and 1 million Vietnamese, and Americans became extremist, the president was forced to step down, and the huge fiscal deficit accelerated the inflation in the 1970s.
Yale University psychologist Irving Janis (Irving Janis, 1918-1990) believes that the reason for these big mistakes is that Because people suppress objections in group decision-making in order to maintain group harmony, he calls this phenomenon group thinking. In group work, gay friendship can improve productivity. And, teamwork helps boost morale. But when making decisions, a closely united group may be detrimental. Janis believes that friendly and cohesive groups, relative rejection of objections, and dominant leaders who make decisions based on their own preferences are all breeding grounds for cultivating group thinking.
When planning that unfortunate Bay of Pigs attack, the newly elected President Kennedy and his advisers happily formed a team of extremely team spirits. The president himself quickly agreed with the attack, as the very critical objection to the plan was suppressed or excluded.
Symptoms of group thinking
Judging from the historical records and the memories of participants and observers, Janice listed eight symptoms of group thinking. These symptoms focus on exclusion of dissent, which on the surface is that group members will strive to maintain their positive sense of group when they encounter threats.
The first two group thinking symptoms often lead to group members overestimating the power and rights of the group:
The impeccable illusion . The groups studied by Janis are so overconfident that they blinded their eyes and could not see the danger alarm. When Pearl Harbor's naval commander-in-chief Kimmel learned that they had lost contact with the radio of the Japanese aircraft carrier, he joked that perhaps the Japanese were planning to go around Honolulu. The Japanese did, in fact, but Kimmel's ridicule of the idea made people think that it could not be true.
There is no doubt about group morality . group members accept the inner morality of their group, but ignore other ethical and moral issues. Kennedy and others knew that Kissinger adviser and Fulbright MP had moral reservations about attacking a small neighbor, but the entire group never accepted or discussed these moral doubts.
Group members will also become closer and closer in their ideas:
rationalization Groups reduce challenges by rationalizing decision-making by collective voting. President Johnson’s Tuesday lunch group spent more time justifying the decisions that expanded the war (explain it and find justification for justification) than reflecting on and rethinking previous decisions. Every behavior becomes masking and rationalization.
People who are trapped in group thinking often think that their opponents are either too difficult to negotiate or too weak and stupid to resist their plans. Kennedy and others believed that Castro's military power was weak and his support was weak, so just one brigade could overthrow his regime.
Finally, the group will be subject to the pressure of pursuing consistency:
Present pressure Group members will resist those who raise questions about the group's ideas and plans, and sometimes this resistance is not achieved through discussion but by mocking individuals. Once, when President Johnson's assistant Moys arrived at the venue, the president mocked him and said, "Oh, the 'Sir who stopped the explosion' is here!" Faced with such ridicule, many people chose to follow the crowd.
Self-censoring Because objections are often uncomfortable and the entire group seems to show consistency, people tend to suppress their doubts. In the months after the Bay of Pigs attack, Schlesinger self-condemned that he kept silent in those important meetings held by the cabinet . Even if objections were not helpful, I would still be disgusted by people, and such thoughts overwhelmed my guilt.”
Unconsensual illusion Do not destroy the consistency of self-subconscious pressure will lead to the unanimous illusion of consent. Moreover, this superficial consistency strengthens the group's decision-making.This apparent consistency is very obvious in the above three major mistakes, as is the same in other groups’ decision-making mistakes. Hitler's advisor Spear described the atmosphere around Hitler as the pressure of following herd suppressed all objections. The lack of objection creates the illusion of unanimous consent:
In a normal atmosphere, people who deviate from the facts will be quickly brought back to the right track because they will be mocked or criticized by people around them, so they will realize their mistakes. In the Third German Empire, there was no such correctional measure, especially for those at the top of society. On the contrary, everyone's self-deception is magnified, as if they are in a hall full of haha mirror , people are separated from the cruel outside world, and the picture like a dream world is repeatedly strengthened. In those mirrors, there is nothing but the constant copy of your own face. There is no outside factor that can interfere with the consistency of these unchanging faces, because they are all my own faces.
Psychological Defense Some members will protect the group so that information that questions the efficiency and morality of the group will not interfere with the group. Before the Bay of Pigs attack, Kennedy called Schlesinger aside and told him, "Don't get off the topic." The warning against the attack that Secretary of State Lusk, as a diplomatic and intelligence expert should have been stopped. In this way, they completely obeyed the president's "psychological defense" role, so that he would not be disturbed by disagreements, but could not protect the correctness of the decision. Various symptoms of group thinking prevent group members from exploring and discussing the possibilities of opposite information and problems (see Figure 28). When leaders advocate a certain point of view and the entire group rejects objections, group thinking may lead to wrong decisions.
British psychologists Newell and Ragnado believe that group thinking may also explain Iraq War . They pointed out that both Saddam and Bush are surrounded by a large group of advocates with the same purpose as them, which forces opponents to shut up and filter only the information that supports their assumptions - Iraq 's assumption is to resist the invaders, while the United States' assumption is that successful invasion will lead to a brief peaceful occupation and a long-term democratic rule in the future.
Criticism of group thinking
Although Janice's views and observations have attracted widespread attention, some researchers are still skeptical about it. Janis's evidence is retrospective, so he can pick out examples that support his point of view. Later research also showed that:
1. Dominant leadership style is indeed related to bad decisions. Sometimes subordinates think they are too weak or lack self-confidence, so they dare not stand up and express their opinions.
2. The group does tend to support extremely challenging information.
3. When members want to gain acceptance, praise and social recognition from the group, they will suppress their own different ideas from others.
But friendship does not breed group thinking. A safe and highly united group (for example, a couple) will provide members with a free atmosphere to challenge them. Group norms with relatively high cohesion can not only lead to unity of opinions (and thus group thinking), but also conduct critical analysis to avoid group thinking. When a well-organized academic group shares manuscripts with each other, all they want is to criticize: "Do as much as you can to find fault with me." In a free atmosphere, unity will improve the efficiency of the team's work.
Moreover, when Professor Tetlock of the Department of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and his colleagues collected samples on a wide scale in various historical periods, it was clearly discovered that even good group communication processes sometimes make wrong decisions. In 1980, when President Carter and his advisers conspired to rescue American hostages in Iran, they once welcomed everyone to make various points and took into account the dangers of the action very realistically. If it weren't for a helicopter's problems, the rescue operation might have been successful.(Cart later recalled that if he had sent one more helicopter at the time, he might have been re-elected as president.) Sometimes excellent groups would make wrong decisions.
Overview of various criticisms of group thinking, Paulus, professor of psychology at the University of Texas, quoted Festinger to remind us that only theories that cannot be verified by experiments will not change. "If a theory is completely verified by experiments, it cannot remain unchanged forever. It must change. All theories are imperfect." Festinger said, so we should not ask whether a theory is right or wrong, but "how much explanation it can make for our field of experience and how much modification must be made." Janis tested and modified his theory until his death in 1990, and he must also welcome others to continue to correct it. In the field of science, this is how we explore the truth: designs experiments based on facts, modify them, and then conducts more experiments.
Group thinking and the disaster of Challenger
In January 1986, when NASA (NASA) decided to launch the Challenger space shuttle , group thinking obviously led to the tragedy. Given that sub-zero temperatures can cause damage to the equipment, engineers who built the space shuttle rocket accelerator at Morton Thiokol, as well as engineers who built the spacecraft at Rockwell International, were opposed to the launch. Thiokol engineers feared that the low temperature would make the rubber seal between the four parts of the rocket so brittle that it would not seal the overheated gas. In the memories, senior experts of the company mentioned that in the months before this doomed mission, they had warned that regardless of whether the closure could be blocked, the spacecraft was like a "jump ball". If the flight failed, "the result would be a disaster brought by the highest class."
During a telephone discussion the night before the launch, engineers offered their views to the undecided supervisors and the officials of the SAFE. The officials of the SAFE had hoped to continue the delayed launch. A Thiokol official later confirmed: "We are all stuck in a process of thinking, trying to find some signs that they (the accelerator) do not work. But we cannot fully prove that they do not work." The result is an impeccable illusion.
The pressure of herd also played a role in it. "My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, next April?" Thiokol's CEO announced, "We need to make a management decision," and then asked his engineer and deputy general manager to "take off the engineer's hat and put on the manager's hat."
To create the illusion of unanimous agreement, the executive officer only asked management officials to vote and excluded engineers. After making the decision to continue the mission, an engineer had asked an ASA official to think about it again: "If any accident occurs in this launch," he predicted, "I am certainly unwilling to be the one who had to explain in public why the launch was to be done."
Finally, out of psychological defense, the CEO of the ASA, who made the final decision, did not care about the views of the engineers and ignored the reservations held by Rockwell officials. He confidently sent Challenger on its tragic journey with dissent.
Prevention of group thinking
Poor group motivation can help explain many wrong decisions, just as sometimes too many cooks can often mess up a pot of soup. However, in an enlightened leadership approach, cohesive team spirit does help decision-making. Sometimes three cobblers can really beat one Zhuge Liang.
In order to find the conditions for good decision-making, Janice analyzed two seemingly risky successful examples: the Marshall Plan implemented by the Truman government to restore the European economy after World War II and the Kennedy administration's handling of the former Soviet Union's intention to establish a missile base in Cuba in 1962.
Janis's suggestion to prevent group thinking integrates many effective group processes in these two major examples:
1. Fairness - You cannot be biased towards any position.
2. Encourage critical evaluations; set up a "devil spokesperson". It would be even better if there was a real opponent, which would stimulate the original idea and make the group open to opposition.
3. Sometimes the group can be divided into several groups and then reorganized together to express different opinions.
4. Experts and partners outside the bureau are welcome to criticize.
5. Before implementation, a meeting called "second opportunity" was held to let everyone speak freely.
Some practical guidelines that can improve group dynamics have now been taught to aviation personnel. The reason why astronaut resource management training programs are developed is because people realize that more than two-thirds of aircraft accidents are caused by mistakes by aviation personnel. Arrangement of two or three people in the cockpit should increase the chance of finding or solving problems - if everyone shares information. But sometimes, the pressure of group thinking can lead to herd or subconscious pressure.
Social psychologist Helmrich, who studies the behavioral performance of aviation personnel, pointed out that one day in the winter of 1982, when a Florida Airlines plane took off from Washington International Airport, its poor mass dynamics were very obvious. The ice cubes on the sensor made the speed display read too high, so that the captain could not provide enough power when the plane was rising:
Deputy Captain: Ah, there is a problem there.
Captain: No problem, it is 80 (refers to speed).
Deputy Captain: I think there is a problem. Uh, but maybe it's OK.
Captain: 120.
deputy captain: I can't figure it out either.
There is indeed a problem with the speed. The deputy captain's silence caused the plane to stall and hit a bridge on the Potomac River. All but five people were killed.
But in 1989, when three pilots of United Airlines' DC-10 flight flew from Denver to Chicago , the response of this group facing disaster was a model. These navigators trained in navigator resource management face a cracked central engine. The central engine connects the rudder and ailerons that drive the aircraft. Within just 34 minutes before the plane crashed on the runway of Sux Airport, the pilots had to develop strategies to prevent the plane from getting out of control, while also estimating losses, choosing a landing location, and preparing the pilots and passengers for the crash. Every second in the cockpit is a must-have, and everyone exchanges opinions enthusiastically - 31 exchanges per minute (once at the fastest time). During this time, the crew recruited a passenger to be the fourth pilot, each performing its duties and interoperating with public events and decisions. Junior navigators are free to make suggestions on the possibility of strategy choices, and the captain will give appropriate orders. The intense social dialogue and exchanges provided them with emotional support, which allowed the navigators to respond well to this extreme pressure and rescued 185 of the 296 people on the plane.
Group problem solving
Under certain conditions, three cobblers are better than one Zhuge Liang, and the experiment also confirmed the correctness of group thinking. Professor Laughlin and Idamopulus from the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois confirmed this with various intellectual tasks.Let's take a look at one of the analogy questions:
claims correspond to being refuted, just as the action corresponds to
a. Obstructed
b. Opposed
c. Illegal
d. Being urged
e. Being foiled
3 Many college students chose the wrong answer when answering independently, but after discussion, they chose the correct answer (choose was foiled). Moreover, Laughlin found that if only 2 of the six people in a group did the right initially, they could convince others 2/3. But if only one person is correct at first, then this "one person as a minority" cannot convince others almost three-quarters of the time.
"Two forecasters will make more accurate forecasts together than any of them work alone," said Miles, chairman of the largest private forecasting service. Professors Wognik, Sanders and Sienz of SUNY studied the accuracy of witness reports in crime videos and job interviews, and the results confirmed that multiple minds will be better than one mind. Group witnesses give more accurate descriptions than individuals. The mutual criticism of several minds can enable the group to avoid certain forms of cognitive bias and produce some whimsical ideas. None of us is as wise as we were when we were together.
brainstorming method allows creative ideas to be expressed freely. Although the public believes that face-to-face brainstorming can produce more creativity than people work alone, researchers don’t think so. People feel more fulfilled when they develop ideas in groups (partly due to people exaggerating their contribution to the collective). But again and again, researchers have found that people working alone often have more and better ideas than they do in teams (brainstorming is only effective in highly motivated and diverse groups, and those groups need to prepare possible perspectives in advance). The huge brainstorming is usually inefficient for groups, which can lead to some individuals who wantonly mocking others' efforts or feel uneasy about the weird thoughts they come up with.
Just as Watson, professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire, and Creek , studying DNA, encouraging dialogue between the two will effectively enhance creative thinking.
However, psychologists Brown and Paulus proposed three ways to promote group brainstorming:
1. Combining group and individual brainstorming. Their data show that group brainstorming first and individual brainstorming is better than doing it in reverse and using it alone. With new ideas that arise in group brainstorming, individuals can continue to think without being bound by the fact that only one person can speak at a time in the group.
2. Let the group members interact through writing. Let the group members use writing and reading instead of speaking and listening, which can also resolve the contradiction of only listening to one person's opinions at a time. Brown and Paulus called this process of passing notes and supplementing ideas “mind writing”, which allows everyone to actively participate.
3. Combined with electronic brainstorming. For larger groups, a way to prevent traffic jams from traditional brainstorming is to let individuals use networked computers to communicate their views.
Summary
Analysis of failed decisions on several major international events shows that the group's desire for harmony and consistency may overwhelm the true evaluation of the opposite view. This is especially prominent, especially when the group members are strongly eager for unity, or they are isolated from the opposite viewpoint, or if the leader suggests his or her own will.
This excessive concern for harmony and consistency is manifested in the form of group thinking. The symptoms are
(1) The impeccable illusion
(2) Rationalization
(3) Undoubted about group morality
(4) Stereotypes of the other party's position
(5) Pressure of conformity
(6) Self-subconscious pressure of objection
(7) Unanimously agree illusion
(8) "psychological defense" that protects the group from unpleasant information.
criticism of Janis' group thinking model points out that some aspects of the model (such as dominant leadership) are more connected to wrong decisions than others (such as cohesion).
However, whether in experiments or historical facts, groups sometimes make wise decisions. These cases show that the theory of group thinking still needs to be revised. By searching for information from all aspects and evaluating various possibilities, groups can benefit from the insights of their members after integration.
This article is selected from "Invisible Impact"
(Cart later recalled that if he had sent one more helicopter at the time, he might have been re-elected as president.) Sometimes excellent groups would make wrong decisions.Overview of various criticisms of group thinking, Paulus, professor of psychology at the University of Texas, quoted Festinger to remind us that only theories that cannot be verified by experiments will not change. "If a theory is completely verified by experiments, it cannot remain unchanged forever. It must change. All theories are imperfect." Festinger said, so we should not ask whether a theory is right or wrong, but "how much explanation it can make for our field of experience and how much modification must be made." Janis tested and modified his theory until his death in 1990, and he must also welcome others to continue to correct it. In the field of science, this is how we explore the truth: designs experiments based on facts, modify them, and then conducts more experiments.
Group thinking and the disaster of Challenger
In January 1986, when NASA (NASA) decided to launch the Challenger space shuttle , group thinking obviously led to the tragedy. Given that sub-zero temperatures can cause damage to the equipment, engineers who built the space shuttle rocket accelerator at Morton Thiokol, as well as engineers who built the spacecraft at Rockwell International, were opposed to the launch. Thiokol engineers feared that the low temperature would make the rubber seal between the four parts of the rocket so brittle that it would not seal the overheated gas. In the memories, senior experts of the company mentioned that in the months before this doomed mission, they had warned that regardless of whether the closure could be blocked, the spacecraft was like a "jump ball". If the flight failed, "the result would be a disaster brought by the highest class."
During a telephone discussion the night before the launch, engineers offered their views to the undecided supervisors and the officials of the SAFE. The officials of the SAFE had hoped to continue the delayed launch. A Thiokol official later confirmed: "We are all stuck in a process of thinking, trying to find some signs that they (the accelerator) do not work. But we cannot fully prove that they do not work." The result is an impeccable illusion.
The pressure of herd also played a role in it. "My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, next April?" Thiokol's CEO announced, "We need to make a management decision," and then asked his engineer and deputy general manager to "take off the engineer's hat and put on the manager's hat."
To create the illusion of unanimous agreement, the executive officer only asked management officials to vote and excluded engineers. After making the decision to continue the mission, an engineer had asked an ASA official to think about it again: "If any accident occurs in this launch," he predicted, "I am certainly unwilling to be the one who had to explain in public why the launch was to be done."
Finally, out of psychological defense, the CEO of the ASA, who made the final decision, did not care about the views of the engineers and ignored the reservations held by Rockwell officials. He confidently sent Challenger on its tragic journey with dissent.
Prevention of group thinking
Poor group motivation can help explain many wrong decisions, just as sometimes too many cooks can often mess up a pot of soup. However, in an enlightened leadership approach, cohesive team spirit does help decision-making. Sometimes three cobblers can really beat one Zhuge Liang.
In order to find the conditions for good decision-making, Janice analyzed two seemingly risky successful examples: the Marshall Plan implemented by the Truman government to restore the European economy after World War II and the Kennedy administration's handling of the former Soviet Union's intention to establish a missile base in Cuba in 1962.
Janis's suggestion to prevent group thinking integrates many effective group processes in these two major examples:
1. Fairness - You cannot be biased towards any position.
2. Encourage critical evaluations; set up a "devil spokesperson". It would be even better if there was a real opponent, which would stimulate the original idea and make the group open to opposition.
3. Sometimes the group can be divided into several groups and then reorganized together to express different opinions.
4. Experts and partners outside the bureau are welcome to criticize.
5. Before implementation, a meeting called "second opportunity" was held to let everyone speak freely.
Some practical guidelines that can improve group dynamics have now been taught to aviation personnel. The reason why astronaut resource management training programs are developed is because people realize that more than two-thirds of aircraft accidents are caused by mistakes by aviation personnel. Arrangement of two or three people in the cockpit should increase the chance of finding or solving problems - if everyone shares information. But sometimes, the pressure of group thinking can lead to herd or subconscious pressure.
Social psychologist Helmrich, who studies the behavioral performance of aviation personnel, pointed out that one day in the winter of 1982, when a Florida Airlines plane took off from Washington International Airport, its poor mass dynamics were very obvious. The ice cubes on the sensor made the speed display read too high, so that the captain could not provide enough power when the plane was rising:
Deputy Captain: Ah, there is a problem there.
Captain: No problem, it is 80 (refers to speed).
Deputy Captain: I think there is a problem. Uh, but maybe it's OK.
Captain: 120.
deputy captain: I can't figure it out either.
There is indeed a problem with the speed. The deputy captain's silence caused the plane to stall and hit a bridge on the Potomac River. All but five people were killed.
But in 1989, when three pilots of United Airlines' DC-10 flight flew from Denver to Chicago , the response of this group facing disaster was a model. These navigators trained in navigator resource management face a cracked central engine. The central engine connects the rudder and ailerons that drive the aircraft. Within just 34 minutes before the plane crashed on the runway of Sux Airport, the pilots had to develop strategies to prevent the plane from getting out of control, while also estimating losses, choosing a landing location, and preparing the pilots and passengers for the crash. Every second in the cockpit is a must-have, and everyone exchanges opinions enthusiastically - 31 exchanges per minute (once at the fastest time). During this time, the crew recruited a passenger to be the fourth pilot, each performing its duties and interoperating with public events and decisions. Junior navigators are free to make suggestions on the possibility of strategy choices, and the captain will give appropriate orders. The intense social dialogue and exchanges provided them with emotional support, which allowed the navigators to respond well to this extreme pressure and rescued 185 of the 296 people on the plane.
Group problem solving
Under certain conditions, three cobblers are better than one Zhuge Liang, and the experiment also confirmed the correctness of group thinking. Professor Laughlin and Idamopulus from the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois confirmed this with various intellectual tasks.Let's take a look at one of the analogy questions:
claims correspond to being refuted, just as the action corresponds to
a. Obstructed
b. Opposed
c. Illegal
d. Being urged
e. Being foiled
3 Many college students chose the wrong answer when answering independently, but after discussion, they chose the correct answer (choose was foiled). Moreover, Laughlin found that if only 2 of the six people in a group did the right initially, they could convince others 2/3. But if only one person is correct at first, then this "one person as a minority" cannot convince others almost three-quarters of the time.
"Two forecasters will make more accurate forecasts together than any of them work alone," said Miles, chairman of the largest private forecasting service. Professors Wognik, Sanders and Sienz of SUNY studied the accuracy of witness reports in crime videos and job interviews, and the results confirmed that multiple minds will be better than one mind. Group witnesses give more accurate descriptions than individuals. The mutual criticism of several minds can enable the group to avoid certain forms of cognitive bias and produce some whimsical ideas. None of us is as wise as we were when we were together.
brainstorming method allows creative ideas to be expressed freely. Although the public believes that face-to-face brainstorming can produce more creativity than people work alone, researchers don’t think so. People feel more fulfilled when they develop ideas in groups (partly due to people exaggerating their contribution to the collective). But again and again, researchers have found that people working alone often have more and better ideas than they do in teams (brainstorming is only effective in highly motivated and diverse groups, and those groups need to prepare possible perspectives in advance). The huge brainstorming is usually inefficient for groups, which can lead to some individuals who wantonly mocking others' efforts or feel uneasy about the weird thoughts they come up with.
Just as Watson, professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire, and Creek , studying DNA, encouraging dialogue between the two will effectively enhance creative thinking.
However, psychologists Brown and Paulus proposed three ways to promote group brainstorming:
1. Combining group and individual brainstorming. Their data show that group brainstorming first and individual brainstorming is better than doing it in reverse and using it alone. With new ideas that arise in group brainstorming, individuals can continue to think without being bound by the fact that only one person can speak at a time in the group.
2. Let the group members interact through writing. Let the group members use writing and reading instead of speaking and listening, which can also resolve the contradiction of only listening to one person's opinions at a time. Brown and Paulus called this process of passing notes and supplementing ideas “mind writing”, which allows everyone to actively participate.
3. Combined with electronic brainstorming. For larger groups, a way to prevent traffic jams from traditional brainstorming is to let individuals use networked computers to communicate their views.
Summary
Analysis of failed decisions on several major international events shows that the group's desire for harmony and consistency may overwhelm the true evaluation of the opposite view. This is especially prominent, especially when the group members are strongly eager for unity, or they are isolated from the opposite viewpoint, or if the leader suggests his or her own will.
This excessive concern for harmony and consistency is manifested in the form of group thinking. The symptoms are
(1) The impeccable illusion
(2) Rationalization
(3) Undoubted about group morality
(4) Stereotypes of the other party's position
(5) Pressure of conformity
(6) Self-subconscious pressure of objection
(7) Unanimously agree illusion
(8) "psychological defense" that protects the group from unpleasant information.
criticism of Janis' group thinking model points out that some aspects of the model (such as dominant leadership) are more connected to wrong decisions than others (such as cohesion).
However, whether in experiments or historical facts, groups sometimes make wise decisions. These cases show that the theory of group thinking still needs to be revised. By searching for information from all aspects and evaluating various possibilities, groups can benefit from the insights of their members after integration.
This article is selected from "Invisible Impact"
