Groupthink, Bay of Pigs, and Watergate Reconsidered

Raven, Bertram H.

doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2766

Cited by 23 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some cases, he argued, a high level of morale and commitment to the group can result in a sense of moral superiority and a stronger tendency to conform to the majority within the group. He called this phenomenon groupthink, which proposes that this high cohesiveness and desire for 155 Neck 1995, 156 Esser 1998, 157 Moorhead 1991, 158 Park 1990, 159 and Wekselberg 1996. 160 unanimity can override the group's ability to appraise alternative courses of action and result in poor-quality decision-making and decision errors.…”

Section: Background and Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[155][156][157]162,163 Case-analytical research includes studies that aim to describe groupthink and identify situations in which it has occurred or may be likely to occur. These studies involve the retrospective application of groupthink hypotheses to reported decision fiascos (usually based on content analysis of archival data and press reports), and tend to consider all aspects of the model.…”

Section: Background and Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, research suggests that cohesiveness is a multifaceted construct that has both task and interpersonal dimensions. 155,165 Task-based cohesion occurs when there is a shared commitment to goals or tasks of the group. Interpersonal cohesion is based on personal relationships, the prestige associated with membership of the group itself, and regard for and dependence on the leader of the group.…”

Section: High Cohesivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…in the Nixon group associated with the Watergate fiasco). 155 A meta-analysis of nine experimental studies (17 hypothesis tests, involving 1382 participants), found a small and non-significant effect of cohesiveness on decision quality overall. 162 However, relationships were found between cohesiveness and decision quality in certain circumstances.…”

Section: High Cohesivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials

Grant

Altman²,

Babiker³

et al. 2005

Health Technol Assess

146

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per monograph and for the rest of the world £3 per monograph.You can order HTA monographs from our Despatch Agents:-fax (with credit card or official purchase order) -post (with credit card or official purchase order or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you either to pay securely by credit card or to print out your order and then post or fax it. Contact Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to Direct Mail Works Ltd and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardThe following cards are accepted by phone, fax, post or via the website ordering pages: Delta, Eurocard, Mastercard, Solo, Switch and Visa. We advise against sending credit card details in a plain email. Paying by official purchase orderYou can post or fax these, but they must be from public bodies (i.e. NHS or universities) within the UK.We cannot at present accept purchase orders from commercial companies or from outside the UK. How do I get a copy of HTA on CD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd.htm). Or contact Direct Mail Works (see contact details above) by email, post, fax or phone. HTA on CD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTA NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he research findings from the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme directly influence key decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC) who rely on HTA outputs to help raise standards of care. HTA findings also help to improve the quality of the service in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service' that is being developed to improve the evidence of clinical practice throughout the NHS.The HTA Programme was set up in 1993. Its role is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined to include all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care, rather than settings of care.The HTA programme commissions research only on topics where it has identified key gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. Suggestions for topics are actively sought from people working in the NHS, the public, consumer groups and professional bodies such as Royal Colleges and NHS Trusts.Research suggestions are carefully considered by panels of independent experts (including consumers) whose advice results in a ranked list of recommended research priorities. The HTA Programme then commissions the research team best suited to undertake the work, in ...

show abstract

Section: Background and Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background and Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: High Cohesivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: High Cohesivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials

Grant

Altman²,

Babiker³

et al. 2005

Health Technol Assess

146

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some of the cases Janis (1972) analyzed, the leader of the group made final decisions for the group, but he did so with input from his advisors. The leader took responsibility for the outcome, but his advisors shared in the decision process (Abbasi & Hollman, 1991;Raven, 1998). Similarly, on Mount Everest the head guide structures the expedition and is responsible for the outcome, but the other guides and expedition members take part in the process.…”

Section: The Group As Decision Makermentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership in extreme contexts: A groupthink analysis of the May 1996 Mount Everest disaster

Burnette

Pollack

Forsyth

2011

J of Leadership Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groupthink, as traditionally conceived, is a failure in group decision making that occurs in highly cohesive groups. In the current case study, we propose an alternative potential form of groupthink in which the group's cohesiveness results from the shared pursuit of a collective goal rather than from strong interpersonal bonds between members. Our model, recognizing the multifaceted nature of cohesion, assumes that a group whose members are united in pursuit of a valued collective goal while guided by a directive leader may experience breakdowns in the decision process. Specifically, drawing on reviews of personal accounts, media descriptions, online interviews, and past empirical papers, we propose that the May 1996 Mount Everest disaster can be understood in part from a groupthink perspective. Applications for the proposed model are discussed, along with implications for leaders seeking to improve organizational decision-making practices.

show abstract

A comprehensive empirical investigation of the relationships among variables of the groupthink model

Park

2000

J. Organiz. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although a quarter of a century has passed since Janis proposed his groupthink model in 0861\ there is very little consensus among researchers on the validity of the model[ This study conducted a comprehensive empirical investigation of Janis|s model by including all 13 variables in the research[ Data were collected from 53 four!person ad hoc groups^the group discussion sessions were videotaped and content!analysed afterwards[ Statistical analyses revealed that Janis|s predictions about the causal relationship among four groups of variables in the model are only partially correct^when the e}ects of individual independent variables on the dependent variables were tested\ Janis|s predictions were con_rmed in only two out of 12 cases[ Copyright Þ 1999

show abstract

Groupthink, Bay of Pigs, and Watergate Reconsidered

Cited by 23 publications

References 17 publications

Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials

Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials

Leadership in extreme contexts: A groupthink analysis of the May 1996 Mount Everest disaster

A comprehensive empirical investigation of the relationships among variables of the groupthink model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About