The article was last updated by Emily (Editor) on February 12, 2024.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that can have serious consequences for decision-making and problem-solving within a group. In this article, we will explore what groupthink is, its symptoms, causes, and consequences.

We will also discuss how to prevent groupthink and break the chain to encourage open communication, diversity of opinions, critical thinking, and seeking outside perspectives. Join us as we delve into the psychology behind groupthink and how to prevent it within your team.

What Is Groupthink?

Groupthink, a term coined by psychologist Irving L. Janis, refers to a phenomenon where group members prioritize consensus and cohesion over critical decision-making and diverse ideas, often leading to flawed outcomes.

This phenomenon occurs when the desire for harmony in a group stifles individual creativity and results in irrational decision-making.

It can lead to the overlooking of alternatives and the dismissal of contradictory viewpoints, ultimately inhibiting the group’s ability to effectively evaluate and address challenges.

Historical events such as the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Challenger space shuttle disaster are often cited as examples of groupthink, showcasing its detrimental impact on decision-making processes.

What Are The Symptoms Of Groupthink?

Symptoms of groupthink manifest in various ways, including an illusion of invulnerability, rationalizing of decisions, stereotyping outsiders, pressure to conform, and self-censorship within the group dynamic.

The illusion of invulnerability often leads a group to believe that they are impervious to failure, resulting in overconfidence and the dismissal of potential risks.

In the context of decision-making, this mindset can lead to overlooking warning signs and underestimating the potential negative outcomes.

Rationalizing decisions is another symptom of groupthink, where the group members convince themselves that their choices are justified, sometimes despite contradictory evidence.

This behavior can create a dangerous tunnel vision, preventing the consideration of alternative perspectives and leading to flawed conclusions.

Stereotyping outsiders occurs when a group begins to view those outside their circle as inferior, unintelligent, or even malicious. This bias can cloud judgment and hinder open communication with external parties, leading to missed opportunities and suboptimal solutions.

Pressure to conform within a group is a powerful force that often discourages dissenting opinions. Individuals may feel compelled to suppress their reservations or objections, fearing exclusion or ridicule. This can stifle critical thinking and innovation, ultimately limiting the group’s potential.

Self-censorship, the act of withholding dissenting opinions or concerns, can arise from a desire to maintain harmony within the group. This can lead to the suppression of valuable insights and the perpetuation of flawed decisions due to the lack of diverse input.

Illusion Of Invulnerability

The illusion of invulnerability in groupthink creates a false sense of confidence and security within the group, leading to risky decisions and overlooking potential pitfalls.

This phenomenon can be observed in various settings, such as corporate boardrooms, political circles, or even social movements.

For example, during the 2008 financial crisis, the illusion of invulnerability contributed to the decision-making process of several financial institutions, leading to high-risk investments without adequate risk assessment.

In the political realm, leaders who succumb to the illusion of invulnerability may engage in aggressive foreign policies without considering the potential consequences.

These examples highlight how the illusion of invulnerability can have far-reaching effects on decision-making and behavior.


Rationalizing within the context of groupthink involves justifying decisions without critical analysis or consideration of alternative viewpoints, often leading to flawed outcomes and missed opportunities.

This phenomenon may lead individuals within a group to conform to prevailing attitudes and overlook the potential risks associated with a decision.

Group members may downplay dissenting opinions and seek consensus, which can stifle creativity and innovation.

For instance, in a corporate setting, a team focused solely on affirming the group’s ideas may overlook market trends or fail to anticipate potential challenges, ultimately impacting their strategic decisions and future success.


Stereotyping in the context of groupthink involves applying simplistic and biased categorizations to outsiders or dissenting viewpoints, inhibiting critical analysis and diverse perspectives within the group.

This phenomenon also contributes to the perpetuation of prejudices and discrimination, as individuals are often judged based on preconceived notions rather than individual merit.

Stereotyping can lead to the marginalization of certain groups and individuals, perpetuating a cycle of inequality and limited opportunities. For instance, in a business setting, if a team stereotypes new employees from different backgrounds as not being able to generate innovative ideas, it creates a barrier to their full participation and contribution.

Pressure To Conform

The pressure to conform within a group affected by groupthink stifles individual expression and dissuades dissent, leading to a homogenized decision-making process and limited exploration of alternative ideas.

Individuals in such environments often feel the need to align with the dominant perspectives, even if they harbor reservations or possess differing insights.

This phenomenon can be particularly harmful in critical decision-making scenarios, where the absence of diverse viewpoints can result in flawed choices and missed opportunities.

Research by Janis (1972) famously highlighted how groupthink can lead to disastrous outcomes, such as the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, where the failure to challenge consensus led to grave consequences.


Self-censorship in groupthink involves individuals suppressing their dissenting opinions or concerns to maintain group harmony, often leading to a lack of critical evaluation and diverse input in the decision-making process.

This phenomenon is rooted in the psychological need for social acceptance and conformity, where individuals prioritize fitting in over voicing their authentic perspectives.

Consequently, this behavioral pattern can undermine the quality of decisions and outcomes as it limits the exploration of alternative viewpoints and options.

An illustrative example of self-censorship in groupthink can be seen in corporate cultures where employees refrain from challenging prevailing ideas to avoid conflict, inhibiting innovation and growth.

What Are The Causes Of Groupthink?

Several factors contribute to the emergence of groupthink, including high cohesion within the group, isolation from external influences, and the presence of directive leadership that discourages dissent and independent thinking.

High cohesion within a group can lead to the members prioritizing harmony and conformity over critically evaluating ideas, which can suppress alternative viewpoints and creative thinking.

When individuals feel a strong sense of belonging and unity within the group, they may be less likely to challenge the prevailing consensus or express their own opinions.

The isolation from external influences further exacerbates groupthink by limiting exposure to diverse perspectives and alternative information. This insularity can lead to the group becoming entrenched in its beliefs and resistant to considering opposing viewpoints or new evidence.

The presence of directive leadership plays a pivotal role in fostering groupthink. When leaders suppress dissent and discourage individual critical thinking, group members may hesitate to voice their concerns or share alternative viewpoints for fear of retribution or disapproval.

This dynamic can stifle healthy debate and hinder the exploration of innovative solutions.

High Cohesion

High cohesion within a group fosters a sense of unanimity and close-knit relationships, which can lead to the suppression of dissenting viewpoints and critical evaluation, contributing to the phenomenon of groupthink.

When a group is highly cohesive, its members are often inclined to prioritize group harmony and agreement, sometimes at the expense of independent thinking and diverse perspectives.

This inclination creates an environment where individuals may feel reluctant to express opposing opinions or challenge prevailing ideas, leading to a lack of thorough examination of alternative options.

In decision-making processes, this can result in the acceptance of flawed or incomplete solutions, ultimately affecting the group’s overall performance and effectiveness.

Isolation From Outside Influences

Isolation from outside influences prevents the group from receiving diverse perspectives and alternative insights, leading to a narrow decision-making process and an increased susceptibility to groupthink tendencies.

When a group is isolated from external influences, it may become insulated from new ideas, feedback, or critical evaluation. This lack of diverse input can limit the group’s ability to assess potential risks and drawbacks associated with their decisions.

For example, in a corporate setting, a team that only interacts with individuals from within the same department may overlook crucial perspectives from other areas of the company.

This could lead to the adoption of strategies that appear internally coherent but lack important external considerations, ultimately impacting the organization’s overall performance.

In such a scenario, the groupthink phenomenon may manifest, promoting conformity and suppressing dissenting opinions, resulting in suboptimal outcomes.

Directive Leadership

Directive leadership discourages dissent and independent thinking, often leading to a hierarchical decision-making process and a reluctance to challenge the status quo, contributing to the prevalence of groupthink within the group.

This leadership style tends to create an environment where members are hesitant to voice alternative viewpoints or question the leader’s directives.

Over time, this can foster a culture that values conformity over critical thinking, hindering the exploration of innovative solutions.

A study conducted by Janis (1972) on the Bay of Pigs invasion highlighted how a directive leadership approach led to flawed decision-making due to the lack of diverse perspectives and critique.

How To Prevent Groupthink?

Preventing groupthink necessitates the implementation of strategies that emphasize open communication, diversity of opinions, critical thinking, and the incorporation of mechanisms designed to challenge consensus and encourage independent thought within the group.

Open communication can be fostered through regular team meetings where all members are encouraged to express their thoughts without reservation. It is also important to create a culture where diverse opinions are valued and solicited, as this can help prevent the development of a one-sided group perspective.

Engaging in exercises that promote critical thinking, such as devil’s advocacy or role-playing, can stimulate individual analysis and prevent groupthink. Challenging consensus can be achieved by assigning a specific team member to act as a “devil’s advocate,” tasked with presenting alternative viewpoints and questioning prevailing ideas.

This role can rotate within the group to prevent the establishment of a dominant leadership style that may stifle dissenting opinions. Utilizing anonymous suggestion boxes or digital platforms for idea input can also encourage independent thought without fear of judgment or retribution.

Encourage Open Communication

Encouraging open communication within the group fosters an environment where diverse ideas and viewpoints can be freely expressed, mitigating the risk of groupthink and promoting comprehensive decision-making processes.

Effective open communication prevents groupthink by ensuring that all members have the opportunity to contribute their unique insights and perspectives. This prevents the dominance of certain individuals’ opinions and encourages a more thorough examination of available alternatives.

For example, in a business setting, when teams openly discuss potential strategies without the fear of judgment, they are more likely to arrive at innovative solutions. This communication approach leads to increased team cohesion and overall productivity, ultimately benefiting the entire organization.

Embrace Diversity Of Opinions

Embracing diversity of opinions within the group encourages the consideration of alternative viewpoints and insights, promoting a more comprehensive decision-making process that mitigates the effects of groupthink tendencies.

When a group encompasses individuals with varied perspectives and experiences, it opens the door to a rich tapestry of ideas and solutions. Instead of succumbing to the pressures of conformity and unanimity, diverse opinions challenge assumptions and foster critical thinking.

For instance, research has shown that teams with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints are more adept at anticipating potential challenges and devising innovative solutions. A well-known example is the tech giant, Google, which actively promotes diversity of opinions to counteract groupthink and drive ingenuity.

By valuing input from employees with distinct cultural, educational, and professional backgrounds, Google consistently generates groundbreaking products and services.

Assign A Devil’s Advocate

Assigning a designated devil’s advocate within the group can serve as a mechanism to challenge consensus, encourage critical evaluation, and promote the consideration of alternative perspectives, thereby preventing the onset of groupthink.

This designated role acts as a safeguard against the dangers of group polarization. In this phenomenon, individuals may conform to the prevailing viewpoint, leading to a stifling of creativity and innovation.

By assuming the devil’s advocate position, individuals can confront the prevailing opinions and raise counter-arguments. They can also delve into potential shortcomings of proposed strategies, allowing the group to make more informed decisions.

For instance, in a corporate setting, when a team is debating a new business strategy, the devil’s advocate may question the assumptions behind the proposal. They may also highlight potential risks that others may have overlooked. This ultimately leads to a more thorough and comprehensive decision-making process.

Encourage Critical Thinking

Encouraging critical thinking within the group promotes the evaluation of ideas and decisions from diverse perspectives, reducing the susceptibility to groupthink tendencies and enhancing the overall quality of the decision-making process.

By fostering an environment where individuals are encouraged to question assumptions, challenge prevailing opinions, and consider alternative viewpoints, the group can benefit from a more comprehensive analysis of the available options.

This not only mitigates the risks associated with conformity and unanimity-based decisions but also encourages a deeper understanding of the underlying complexities of the issues at hand.

Research by Janis (1972) and subsequent studies have revealed the detrimental effects of groupthink on decision-making processes, particularly in high-stakes situations.

In contrast, teams that prioritize critical thinking have been shown to achieve better outcomes, incorporating a wider range of perspectives and reducing the potential for flawed reasoning or oversight.

Take Breaks And Seek Outside Opinions

Taking breaks and seeking outside opinions provides the group with opportunities to reevaluate decisions, gather diverse perspectives, and challenge entrenched viewpoints, thereby mitigating the effects of groupthink and fostering comprehensive decision-making processes.

By taking breaks, group members can step back from the intensity of collaborative work, allowing them to reflect on the group’s progress independently. These breaks offer an opportunity for individuals to refresh their thinking and return to discussions with renewed focus and clarity.

Seeking outside opinions introduces fresh insights and alternative viewpoints, helping the group to avoid becoming trapped in a homogenous thought pattern. It encourages the consideration of unconventional ideas, ultimately contributing to more well-rounded and thoughtful decisions.

What Are The Consequences Of Groupthink?

The consequences of groupthink encompass poor decision-making, lack of creativity, ineffective problem solving, missed opportunities, and a negative impact on team dynamics, leading to suboptimal outcomes and compromised performance.

Groupthink can lead to poor decision-making as the desire for consensus may override critical thinking and independent analysis. This can result in overlooking important factors or risks that could have been identified in a more diverse and open-minded discussion.

Lack of creativity is another consequence as groupthink tends to suppress individual ideas and innovative thinking, favoring conformity over originality. This can hinder the exploration of alternative solutions and limit the potential for breakthrough ideas.

Ineffective problem solving is also a significant impact. When everyone in the group is in agreement, there may be a tendency to overlook potential weaknesses in the proposed solution, which can lead to a failure in addressing the core problem effectively.

Missed opportunities are a direct result of groupthink, where unconventional or unconventional ideas that could lead to new opportunities are often dismissed or not even considered due to the group’s reluctance to deviate from the majority opinion. This ultimately hampers the group’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

The negative impact on team dynamics can be seen in decreased morale, increased conflict, and reduced trust among team members. This can lead to suboptimal outcomes and compromised performance as the synergy and effectiveness of the team is compromised.

For example, the Challenger space shuttle disaster in 1986 is often cited as a case study of groupthink, where the decision-making process was influenced by a desire for consensus and led to catastrophic consequences.

Poor Decision Making

Poor decision-making as a consequence of groupthink leads to flawed outcomes, suboptimal strategies, and an increased susceptibility to critical errors, ultimately compromising the effectiveness of the group’s choices and actions.

Groupthink occurs when the desire for harmony and conformity within a group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. This phenomenon can occur in various settings, such as corporate boardrooms, political arenas, or even social groups, and can have far-reaching implications.

When groupthink prevails, individuals may suppress their reservations or dissenting opinions in favor of maintaining group cohesion, thus leading to a collective failure to consider alternative perspectives or potential consequences. An example of groupthink is the Challenger space shuttle disaster in 1986.

The decision-making process suffered from groupthink, as engineers’ concerns about the O-rings’ vulnerability in cold weather were dismissed by NASA officials in favor of keeping the launch schedule on track. This led to the tragic explosion of the shuttle, highlighting the devastating impact of groupthink on critical decision-making.

Similarly, studies have shown that groupthink can impair the quality of financial investment decisions and organizational strategies, leading to significant negative repercussions.

Lack Of Creativity

The lack of creativity resulting from groupthink restricts the exploration of innovative solutions and novel ideas, limiting the potential for breakthroughs and inventive problem-solving within the group dynamic.

Group members may conform to the prevailing mindset, leading to a reduced diversity of thought and a diminished willingness to challenge the status quo. This conformity can stifle independent thinking and hinder the generation of fresh perspectives that are essential for creative problem-solving.

Group cohesion in the face of groupthink may discourage dissent, resulting in key issues being overlooked or dismissed. This can ultimately lead to suboptimal decisions being made due to the lack of critical evaluation and independent analysis.

For example, in the corporate world, groupthink can lead to teams adopting decisions without considering alternative viewpoints, ultimately impacting the organization’s ability to adapt and innovate.

Ineffective Problem Solving

Groupthink contributes to ineffective problem-solving approaches, inhibiting the exploration of comprehensive solutions and hindering the group’s ability to address complex challenges with innovative and diverse perspectives.

One of the key consequences of groupthink is the tendency for group members to conform to the prevailing opinions or decisions, thereby limiting the consideration of alternative viewpoints and solutions.

This restricted approach diminishes the potential for critical evaluation and creative problem-solving, as dissenting voices are often silenced or overshadowed by the consensus.

The phenomenon of group polarization can intensify this effect, leading to the adoption of more extreme positions and reinforcing the group’s narrow perspective.

An example of this can be observed in the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, where the decision-making process within the U.S. government was impacted by groupthink, resulting in a flawed and ill-fated military operation.

The reluctance to challenge the dominant strategic plan and the absence of diverse perspectives contributed to a collective mindset that overlooked critical shortcomings and risks, leading to a significant setback for the United States.

Missed Opportunities

Groupthink leads to missed opportunities as the group fails to explore alternative perspectives and innovative ideas, resulting in overlooked possibilities and the inability to capitalize on potential advantages or breakthroughs.

This phenomenon can be particularly detrimental to decision-making processes within organizations, where groupthink can inhibit the thorough examination of options or discourage dissenting views.

For example, in a corporate setting, if the leadership team succumbs to groupthink, it may overlook strategic opportunities for growth and expansion, sticking to conventional approaches that limit the organization’s potential.

Similarly, in governmental decision-making, the influence of groupthink could lead to disregarded policy alternatives and missed chances for progressive reform.

Negative Impact On Team Dynamics

The negative impact on team dynamics resulting from groupthink includes decreased morale, limited collaboration, and a stifled expression of diverse perspectives, ultimately undermining the cohesion and effectiveness of the group’s interactions and performance.

Groupthink can lead to an environment where individuals are hesitant to voice alternative viewpoints, leading to decisions based on conformity rather than critical analysis. This can result in poor-quality outcomes and missed opportunities for innovation.

It can create a sense of complacency within the team, where challenging the status quo is discouraged, hindering the potential for growth and development. Research has shown that groupthink can be particularly detrimental in high-stakes situations, such as boardroom discussions or strategic planning sessions, where the consequences of flawed decision-making can have far-reaching implications.

In these cases, the influence of groupthink can lead to suboptimal choices, as individuals may prioritize alignment with the group over rigorous evaluation of the available information.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is groupthink and how does it affect decision-making?

Groupthink is a phenomenon in which group members prioritize conformity and consensus over critical thinking and independent decision-making. It can lead to flawed decision-making processes and outcomes, as well as stifling of creativity and diversity of perspectives.

How can psychology help prevent groupthink?

Psychology offers various tools and techniques that can be used to prevent groupthink. These include promoting individual critical thinking, encouraging healthy conflict and debate, and fostering a culture of openness and diversity.

How does the fear of being ostracized contribute to groupthink?

Individuals may fear being ostracized or rejected by the group if they voice dissenting opinions or challenge the group’s consensus. This fear can lead to self-censorship and conformity, ultimately contributing to groupthink.

What are some signs that a group may be experiencing groupthink?

Some signs of groupthink include overconfidence in the group’s decisions, pressure for uniformity and conformity, and a lack of critical evaluation of alternatives. Other signs include the exclusion of dissenting voices and a belief in the group’s inherent morality and superiority.

How can leaders prevent groupthink within their teams?

Leaders can prevent groupthink by encouraging open communication and actively seeking out diverse perspectives and opinions. They can also create a culture that values critical thinking and constructive debate, while also avoiding the formation of cliques and silos within the group.

What are the potential consequences of groupthink?

Groupthink can lead to poor decision-making, missed opportunities, and decreased productivity. It can also result in a lack of innovation and creativity, as well as a toxic work environment. In extreme cases, it can even have serious consequences, such as financial losses or unethical decision-making.

Similar Posts