Groupthink Among Angry Men

It’s inevitable…we will all be a part of a group at some point in our lives. This can happen in school, work, and even in social lives seen through your predetermined and chosen peer groups. A group is formally defined as a number of people or items that are classified or categorized together. There is one theory in psychology that outlines the potential hazard of working with a group.

Groupthink theory describes the need for the group to have unanimity (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). This influences the members of the group to “go with the flow,” and not bring up their own ideas to the group. The feeling of needing to be cohesive can be seen as a driving factor of groupthink. You want your group to work together to accomplish a goal, but you may feel that your contributions may not suffice or benefit the group. In other cases, one person who is not influenced by groupthink, and contributes their own thoughts without folding to the pressure to conform, may be able to get others to change their minds.

The movie Twelve Angry Men revolves around a jury, which must reach a verdict in a murder trial. In order to deliver a verdict, every member must reach a consensus about the defendant being guilty or not guilty. This is a typical example of groupthink: having one common goal, and following what you think everyone else thinks. You do not want to be the one person to stand out. However, in the movie, juror number 8 is the only one to believe the defendant is not guilty. As the storyline unfolds, the groupthink theory, once again, takes over. As juror 8 defends his verdict of not guilty, people start questioning their own thoughts, ethics, and prejudices. Spoiler: as more people change their minds, there is an increased pressure for the others to change their minds.Screen Shot 2015-02-28 at 1.32.58 PM

Groupthink can also occur in groups that have less strain than a murder trial. For example, groupthink is common among groups that are created for group projects. Thinking about Tuckman’s 1965 developmental stages of a group, the first stage of forming, and the second stage of storming can greatly influence groupthink. Forming and storming are the beginning stages of a group, where members learn about one another, and work through conflict (The Pennsylvania State University, 2015). However, it is easy to understand that groupthink and pressure to conform is strong at the beginning of a group life cycle: you’re trying to make everything fit together, while working on the relationship with everyone involved. Usually one person emerges as a leader, and takes on the role as mediator for the rest of the members, which also promotes groupthink.

For all groups, both real and imagined, groupthink is a relevant term, and a potential problem. At one point or another, or for our whole lives, we will all be involved in groups. This opens our lives to pressures of other people to suppress our thoughts and actions to be in accordance with the majority of others’.

 

–Orlena Riner

References

IMDB. (n.d.). 12 Angry Men- Plot Summary. Retrieved Feb 2015, from International Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/plotsummary?ref_=tt_stry_pl

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA, USA: Sage.

The Pennsylvania State University. (2015). Lesson 7: Organizational Life and Teams. Retrieved Feb 2015, from Psych424: Applied Social Psychology: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp15/psych424/001/content/08_lesson/01_page.html

2 comments

  1. Brittany Mcvey

    I liked your blog post a lot. I remember reading 12 Angry Men out loud as a class in high school during English. I was Juror #8. That book, and movie, is a great reference for groupthink. It’s kind of the perfect example, but I have another one for you.

    Just last year, a podcast was released called, Serial. You may have heard of it. It’s narrated by Sarah Koenig and it follows the true story of the conviction of a young man accused of murdering his ex-girlfriend in 1999. Basically, Sarah goes episode by episode breaking this case apart. She started this journey because she questioned how this young man was ever convicted; the case seemed very fishy. Each episode brings new evidence and digs up information from the past. It keeps you so hooked! By the end of the last episode, you are basically left to your own devices to decide whether or not you actually think this young man committed this murder 15 years ago (Serial, 2014).

    Groupthink affected the way I made a decision in the sense that, I guess, I didn’t.

    I couldn’t decide whether or not this young man was guilty. Sometimes I was so sure he was innocent and other times I was happy he was already behind bars, but after all my ups and downs, I couldn’t decide.

    I feel like that’s why we have juries and, honestly, I don’t think the justice system would work without them. I know that in many cases, groupthink can lead to terrible decision making, but sometimes, you need other people to help make a decision. I still haven’t made a decision about a man guilt or innocence from a silly podcast. Keep in mind, he has already been convicted and imprisoned. The truth is, though, that I didn’t have anyone to bounce ideas off of. If I’m left to my own devices, 9 times out of 10, I just don’t make a choice; about anything. I tend to have so much doubt that making a simple decision is hard enough, but making one as important as guilty or not guilty … almost impossible to do on my own.

    I think, as individuals, we can over analyze things in order to assure that what we are doing has the least amount of negative consequences. When other people are involved in a decision, however, you have a plethora of personalities and opinions to keep you from your own doubts. In other words, it kind of forces you to make an opinion. I’m not hurting anybody by not deciding whether or not the young man from the podcast is innocent or guilty, so I can sit and stew with the idea forever if I wanted. When you have a responsibility to people, though, you have to make a choice. You have 11 other jurors you have to consider, a judge, the lawyers, the victim, the victims family, the defendant, his family … the list goes on. At the end of the day, having a group of people to talk about this stuff makes coming to a verdict a lot more possible.

    It kind of relates to all aspects of society. There’s a reason we have 100’s of politicians. If we didn’t, we’d be run by dictators. There’s a reason you go through life being taught by all different kinds of teachers, and why you learn about millions of different things. If society worked in a singular way, life would be miserable. Groups can be complicated, they can even cause problems, but sometimes groups are the only way to get things done.

    References
    Serial Podcast. (2014). Serial Season One Fall 2014. Retrieved from http://serialpodcast.org/

  2. Sarah Jeanne Teske

    I concur with your assessment on Groupthink, it is an applicable concern in almost any group setting. Whether in a board room determining financial allocations for a firm or jurors on a murder trial, as you captured in your post, Groupthink theory has the ability to detrimentally impact good decision making processes and thus prevent good decisions from being made in almost any setting. I think it is important to capture effective ways in which we can counter and/or prevent the notion of Groupthink. As outlined in our text there are several counter approaches/steps that can be taken in the decision making process to prevent Groupthink. As outlined roles should be assigned to each member of your team or group, leaders should always be impartial, independent groups should be set up to work on the same problem, subgroups should also be formed to work on the problem, group members should contemplate decisions made by the group with trusted agents, outside experts should be included into the discussion to challenge viewpoints, there should be someone within the group that can view the problem from the perspective of the devil’s advocate, evaluation of warning signals should be conducted and another recommendation is for groups to hold a second chance meeting after the initial decision is made. (Schneider, et al., 2012) I enjoyed reading your post, it was really well-written and presented excellent examples relative to Tuckman’s developmental stages of behaviors within a group and the Groupthink theory.

    Works Cited:
    Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA, USA: Sage.

Leave a Reply


Skip to toolbar