The following excerpt taken from: Psychology - The Search for Understanding
by Janet A. Simons, Donald B. Irwin and Beverly A. Drinnien
West Publishing Company, New York, 1987
Abraham Maslow developed a theory of personality that has influenced a number of
different fields, including education. This wide influence is due in part to the high level
of practicality of Maslow's theory. This theory accurately describes many realities of
personal experiences. Many people find they can understand what Maslow says. They
can recognize some features of their experience or behavior which is true and identifiable
but which they have never put into words.
Maslow is a humanistic psychologist. Humanists do not believe that human beings are
pushed and pulled by mechanical forces, either of stimuli and reinforcements
(behaviorism) or of unconscious instinctual impulses (psychoanalysis). Humanists focus
upon potentials. They believe that humans strive for an upper level of capabilities.
Humans seek the frontiers of creativity, the highest reaches of consciousness and
wisdom. This has been labeled "fully functioning person", "healthy personality", or as
Maslow calls this level, "self-actualizing person."
Maslow has set up a hierarchic theory of needs. All of his basic needs are instinctoid,
equivalent of instincts in animals. Humans start with a very weak disposition that is then
fashioned fully as the person grows. If the environment is right, people will grow straight
and beautiful, actualizing the potentials they have inherited. If the environment is not
"right" (and mostly it is not) they will not grow tall and straight and beautiful.
Maslow has set up a hierarchy of five levels of basic needs. Beyond these needs, higher
levels of needs exist. These include needs for understanding, esthetic appreciation and
purely spiritual needs. In the levels of the five basic needs, the person does not feel the
second need until the demands of the first have been satisfied, nor the third until the
second has been satisfied, and so on. Maslow's basic needs are as follows:
Physiological Needs
These are biological needs. They consist of needs for oxygen, food, water, and a
relatively constant body temperature. They are the strongest needs because if a
person were deprived of all needs, the physiological ones would come first in the
person's search for satisfaction.
Safety Needs
When all physiological needs are satisfied and are no longer controlling thoughts
and behaviors, the needs for security can become active. Adults have little
awareness of their security needs except in times of emergency or periods of
disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting). Children often
display the signs of insecurity and the need to be safe.
Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness
When the needs for safety and for physiological well-being are satisfied, the next
class of needs for love, affection and belongingness can emerge.
Maslow states that people seek to overcome feelings of loneliness and alienation.
This involves both giving and receiving love, affection and the sense of
belonging.
Needs for Esteem
When the first three classes of needs are satisfied, the needs for esteem can
become dominant. These involve needs for both self-esteem and for the esteem a
person gets from others. Humans have a need for a stable, firmly based, high level
of self-respect, and respect from others. When these needs are satisfied, the
person feels self-confident and valuable as a person in the world. When these
needs are frustrated, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.
Needs for Self-Actualization
When all of the foregoing needs are satisfied, then and only then are the needs for
self-actualization activated. Maslow describes self-actualization as a person's need
to be and do that which the person was "born to do." "A musician must make
music, an artist must paint, and a poet must write." These needs make themselves
felt in signs of restlessness. The person feels on edge, tense, lacking something, in
short, restless. If a person is hungry, unsafe, not loved or accepted, or lacking selfesteem, it is very easy to know what the person is restless about. It is not always
clear what a person wants when there is a need for self-actualization.
The hierarchic theory is often represented as a pyramid, with the larger, lower levels
representing the lower needs, and the upper point representing the need for selfactualization. Maslow believes that the only reason that people would not move well in
direction of self-actualization is because of hindrances placed in their way by society. He
states that education is one of these hindrances. He recommends ways education can
switch from its usual person-stunting tactics to person-growing approaches. Maslow
states that educators should respond to the potential an individual has for growing into a
self-actualizing person of his/her own kind. Ten points that educators should address are
listed:
1. We should teach people to be authentic, to be aware of their inner selves and to
hear their inner-feeling voices.
2. We should teach people to transcend their cultural conditioning and become
world citizens.
3. We should help people discover their vocation in life, their calling, fate or destiny.
This is especially focused on finding the right career and the right mate.
4. We should teach people that life is precious, that there is joy to be experienced in
life, and if people are open to seeing the good and joyous in all kinds of situations,
it makes life worth living.
We must accept the person as he or she is and help the person learn their
5. inner nature. From real knowledge of aptitudes and limitations we can know what
to build upon, what potentials are really there.
6. We must see that the person's basic needs are satisfied. This includes safety,
belongingness, and esteem needs.
7. We should refreshen consciousness, teaching the person to appreciate beauty and
the other good things in nature and in living.
8. We should teach people that controls are good, and complete abandon is bad. It
takes control to improve the quality of life in all areas.
9. We should teach people to transcend the trifling problems and grapple with the
serious problems in life. These include the problems of injustice, of pain,
suffering, and death.
We must teach people to be good choosers. They must be given practice in making good
choices.
McClelland's Theory of Needs [from
http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/mcclelland/ ]
In his acquired-needs theory, David McClelland proposed that an individual's specific
needs are acquired over time and are shaped by one's life experiences. Most of these
needs can be classed as either achievement, affiliation, or power. A person's motivation
and effectiveness in certain job functions are influenced by these three needs.
McClelland's theory sometimes is referred to as the three need theory or as the learned
needs theory.
Achievement
People with a high need for achievement (nAch) seek to excel and thus tend to avoid both
low-risk and high-risk situations. Achievers avoid low-risk situations because the easily
attained success is not a genuine achievement. In high-risk projects, achievers see the
outcome as one of chance rather than one's own effort. High nAch individuals prefer
work that has a moderate probability of success, ideally a 50% chance. Achievers need
regular feedback in order to monitor the progress of their acheivements. They prefer
either to work alone or with other high achievers.
Affiliation
Those with a high need for affiliation (nAff) need harmonious relationships with other
people and need to feel accepted by other people. They tend to conform to the norms of
their work group. High nAff individuals prefer work that provides significant personal
interaction. They perform well in customer service and client interaction situations.
Power
A person's need for power (nPow) can be one of two types - personal and institutional.
Those who need personal power want to direct others, and this need often is percieved as
undesirable. Persons who need institutional power (also known as social power) want to
organize the efforts of others to further the goals of the organization. Managers with a
high need for institutional power tend to be more effective than those with a high need for
personal power.
Thematic Apperception Test
McClelland used the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) as a tool to measure the
individual needs of different people. The TAT is a test of imagination that presents the
subject with a series of ambiguous pictures, and the subject is asked to develop a
spontaneous story for each picture. The assumption is that the subject will project his or
her own needs into the story.
Psychologists have developed fairly reliable scoring techniques for the Thematic
Apperception Test. The test determines the individual's score for each of the needs of
achievement, affiliation, and power. This score can be used to suggest the types of jobs
for which the person might be well suited.
Implications for Management
People with different needs are motivated differently.



High need for achievement - High achievers should be given challenging projects
with reachable goals. They should be provided frequent feedback. While money is
not an important motivator, it is an effective form of feedback.
High need for affiliation - Employees with a high affiliation need perform best in
a cooperative environment.
High need for power - Management should provide power seekers the opportunity
to manage others.
Note that McClelland's theory allows for the shaping of a person's needs; training
programs can be used to modify one's need profile.
Neck, C.P. & Moorhead, G. (1992). Jury Deliberations in the Trial of U.S. v. John DeLorean: A Case
Analysis of Groupthink
Avoidance and an Enhanced Framework. Human Relations 45(10), 1077
Abstract:
A recent study used the groupthink framework of Janis (1983) to analyze the jury deliberations in the trial
of US versus John DeLorean. Groupthink is a way of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply
involved in a cohesive in-group, such as a jury. This way of thinking causes a deterioration of mental
efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures. Analysis of the
DeLorean case based on extensive interviews with 11 of the 12 jurors reveals that while a majority of
groupthink antecedent conditions existed within the group of jury members, the symptoms and decisiondefects of groupthink did not occur. This resulted in a decision of high quality. Groupthink was avoided
because of the establishment of methodical decision-making procedures at the outset of the group meeting.
Thus, training sessions should emphasize the
establishment of procedures to depersonalize group debate, to ensure discussion of alternative solutions,
and to ensure a thorough information search.
Chris P. Neck(1,2) and Gregory Moorhead(1)
This paper utilizes the groupthink framework (Janis, 1983) to analyze the jury deliberations in the trial of
U.S. v. John DeLorean. Based on this analysis, an enhanced groupthink framework is presented that
attempts to highlight a major factor that accounts for why defective decision-making does not occur in
situations in which groupthink antecedent conditions are present--that is, the presence of methodical
decision-making procedures.
INTRODUCTION
In 1972, Irving Janis coined the term "groupthink" as "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they
are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group...members' striving for unanimity override their motivation to
realistically appraise alternative courses of action ...a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and
moral judgment that results from in-group pressures" (1972, p.
9). Support for the occurrence of this phenomenon was based on his historical case analysis of the decisionmaking activities of governmental policy-making groups that resulted in either major "fiascoes" or
outstanding successes.
Since the origination of groupthink, various case studies have appeared in the literature that involve the
retrospective
applications of actual decision-making situations to Janis's (1983) groupthink framework. More
specifically, groupthink has
been used to explain highly consequential decision-making settings such as the Iran Hostage Rescue
Mission (Smith, 1984), the Kent State Gymnasium controversy (Hensley & Griffin, 1986), and the Space
Shuttle Challenger launch (Moorhead, Ference, & Neck, 1991). Although these analyses provide support
for the occurrence of the groupthink phenomenon, this case study approach to the groupthink research still
falls short of completely addressing this decision-making process, due to one glaring omission, All of these
studies that followed Janis' work were situations where the decision-making group succumbed to the
groupthink pressures and thus the quality of the decision was poor. Consequently, the groupthink literature
is missing case
studies that depict decision successes--situations in which the group decision-making conditions were such
that groupthink
should have occurred but did not--thus resulting in high quality decisions, Surely, we can learn as much, if
not more, about
decision-making by examining decision-making successes, rather than just studying decision-making
failures, In fact, this
omission was partly committed by Janis (1983) as only two of the eight policy-making groups that he
analyzed depicted a
decision of high quality. A clearer understanding of groupthink could be facilitated by a case study that
examines situations in
which decision-making groups are susceptible to groupthink and describes the factors that seem to account
for why defective
decision making does not occur. Considering that most of the important and highly consequential decisions
affecting
organizations today are made in groups, a better understanding of the groupthink phenomenon and how to
prevent it could be
quite beneficial.
The purpose of this paper is to enhance the literature by providing a modern and business-oriented case
analysis of a highly
consequential group decision-making situation--the jury deliberations for the drug trafficking case of the
U.S. v. John Delorean
--in which the conditions for groupthink were prevalent, yet the phenomenon was avoided resulting in a
decision of high quality.
The decision confronting the jury in this case was whether or not John Delorean was entrapped into
committing the drug related conspiracy. Due to the work of Steven Brill (1989) in which he interviewed
many of the actual jurors in this trial, information concerning the jury deliberations is available for analysis
as a group decision possibly susceptible to groupthink. These interviews were quite extensive in that 11 of
the 12 jurors (and three of four alternates) were interviewed, most more than once, Furthermore, there was
also one 3-hour group interview session involving eight jurors (Brill, 1989).
Before delving into the details of this jury's decision-making processes, a brief overview of Janis's (1983)
framework is
provided. Then, the jury deliberations of the Delorean case are analyzed in terms of the groupthink
phenomena. Finally, an
enhanced groupthink framework based on the evidence obtained from our case study will be presented and
discussed,
WHAT IS GROUPTHINK?
The major thrust of Janis' (1983) model (see Fig. 1) is that the presence of a number of specific antecedent
conditions increases
the probability that the group will elicit symptoms representative of groupthink. Additionally, these
symptoms will lead to
observable defects in the group's decision-making processes that may result in poor quality decisions
(Moorhead & Montanari,
1986).
ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS
According to Janis (1983), antecedent conditions are the observable causes of groupthink. In other words,
they are the
conditions "that produce, elicit, or facilitate the occurrence of the syndrome" (p. 176). The primary
antecedent condition
necessary for groupthink is a highly cohesive group. As Janis (1983) states:
...Only when a group of policy-makers is moderately or highly cohesive can we expect the groupthink
syndrome to emerge as
the members are working collectively on one or another of their important policy decisions (p. 176).
Group cohesiveness is often defined as "the result of all the forces acting on the members to remain in the
group" (Festinger,
1954). Similarly, Janis (1983) argues that "the more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of
an in-group of
policy-makers, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink..."
(p. 245).
However, it is important to note that cohesiveness is a necessary but insufficient condition for groupthink to
pervade a
decision-making group. Janis postulated a number of secondary conditions necessary for groupthink to
occur. Some of these
secondary conditions relate to the structural or administrative faults of the organization. These include (1)
insulation of the
group, (2) leader preference for a certain decision, (3) lack of norms requiring methodical procedures, (4)
homogeneity of
members' social background and ideology, The remaining conditions are related to the decision-making
context and include: (1) high stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than the
leader's, (2) low self-esteem temporarily induced by the group's perception of recent failures, excessive
difficulties on current decision-making tasks, and moral dilemmas (i.e., apparent lack of feasible
alternatives except ones that violate ethical standards; Janis, 1983).
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK
The existence of the antecedent conditions produces the "observables" or symptoms of groupthink. Janis
(1983) argued that
eight symptoms were evident in the fiascoes studied and serve as the primary means of identifying the
occurrence of groupthink. The symptoms include: (1) an illusion of invulnerability, (2) an unquestioned
belief in the group's inherent morality, (3) collective efforts to rationalize, (4) stereotyped views of enemy
leaders as evil, weak, or stupid, (5) self-censorship of deviations from the group consensus, (6) a shared
illusion of unanimity, (7) direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the
group's stereotypes, (8) the emergence of self-appointed mindguards to protect or screen the group from
adverse information (Janis, 1983).
DECISION-MAKING DEFECTS
When a group displays the symptoms listed above, the group may exhibit specific defects in the decisionmaking process. Janis
states "whenever a policy-making group displays most of the symptoms of groupthink, we can expect to
find that the group also displays symptoms of defective decision making" (p. 175). The defects in the
decision-making process which result from
groupthink are: (1) incomplete survey of alternatives, (2) incomplete survey of objectives, (3) failure to
examine risks of
preferred choice, (4) failure to reappraise initially rejected alternatives, (5) poor information search, (6)
selective bias in
processing information at hand, (7) failure to work out contingency plans. Janis (1983) hypothesized that
the more frequently a
group exhibits these defects, the worse will be the quality of the decisions,
U.S. v. JOHN DELOREAN
The jury deliberations of the John Delorean drug trafficking case appear to be a prime example of a
decision-making situation in which many of the antecedent conditions necessary for groupthink to occur
were present; but decision-making contamination was clearly avoided. Before examining the jury
deliberations, a brief overview of the case is provided:
...What is known so far from government filings is that DeLorean, desperate to save his car company, was
put in touch with a
drug dealer by a conman-turned-informant named Hoffman. The drug dealer and Hoffman told DeLorean
that he could make
$60 million by financing a major cocaine deal. Government agent Hoffman then put DeLorean in touch
with an FBI agent
posing as a banker, who lent DeLorean the money to finance the deal. In short, DeLorean, about whom
there is no evidence of
prior involvement in drug dealing, was provided by the government with the money to finance a drug deal
and provided with a
drug dealer with whom to do business. Here is a crime clearly created by the government: how else could
the money-strapped
inexperienced (in drug dealing) John DeLorean, any more readily than you or I, become a drug dealer about
to make $60
million (Brill, 1989, p. 226).
The task of the jury for this case was to determine not whether DeLorean had committed to conspiracy, but
whether or not he
had been entrapped. As one member of the jury pointed out, "that if we agreed that, even if DeLorean had
committed the
conspiracy, he had been entrapped into doing so, then it wouldn't matter what we thought about the
conspiracy" (Brill, 1989, p.
225). Before actual deliberations the judge instructed the jury on the three conditions necessary for
entrapment: (1) the idea for
committing the acts had to have come from the "creative activity" of the government agents or informant,
(2) DeLorean had to
have been induced by the government into committing the acts, and (3) DeLorean had to have not been
"ready and willing" to
commit the acts before the government agent or informant induced him to become involved. After several
weeks of
deliberations, the jury reached a 12-0 verdict of "not guilty"--that is, they concluded that DeLorean had
indeed been entrapped
by the government.
JURY DELIBERATIONS
It has been suggested that the groupthink framework can be a useful method for studying a decisionmaking group (Manz &
Sims, 1982). Thus, the actual jury deliberations will now be analyzed in terms of the groupthink
framework. During this
analysis, various excerpts from Brill's interviews with the Delorean jury members are utilized to illustrate
various analytical
points. However, it should be noted that these excerpts are only samples of a larger body of data that
supports the arguments
proposed in this manuscript (see Brill, 1989 for a more extensive analysis of the jury deliberations).
Consequently, this analysis
is not solely based on these selected quotations, but rather on the entire text of the jury interviews.
Highly Consequential Decision. Although Janis did not directly include a "highly consequential decision"
as an antecedent
condition, it is important to include this element in the analysis because all of the decision-making
situations that Janis (1983)
examined were of a highly consequential nature. The highly consequential nature of this case was clearly
evidenced by the
behaviors of the jury, indicating the seriousness of the matter. As one jury alternate described:
...The bailiff told me that it was absolutely amazing that I hadn't been moved up to the jury....For five full
months those twelve
people drove from all over and never missed a day or were late or got sick. He said he had never seen that
happen, even on
juries where the trial lasts a week or two (Brill, 1989, p. 249).
The interviews with the jurors also indicate that many of the antecedent conditions necessary for the
occurrence of groupthink
were present.
Group Cohesion. As stated earlier, the primary condition necessary for the occurrence of groupthink is a
highly cohesive group. Cohesiveness involves members wanting to be part of the group and esprit de corps
among the members. The jury in this entrapment case was extremely cohesive. In fact, the jury became
something of "an extended family" (Brill, 1989). As Brill
(1989) remarks:
...Something else was going on among the jurors and alternates. it was a phenomenon that all would bring
up in later interviews, but that they had trouble explaining. Maybe it was the boot-camp aura created by the
seven-week selection process...(p. 239).
...They joked and gossiped with each other....Many of them would later say that they had come to like the
group so much and,
indeed, were to become in many instances so touched by the sense of friendship and shared mission they
developed ...(p. 240).
Insulation of Group. This condition refers to a situation when "the cohesive decision-making group is
insulated from the
judgment of qualified associates" (Janis, 1983, p. 249). The general nature of the jury decision-making
process creates a
situation in which the jury members are highly insulated in that they are not allowed to be exposed to any
information outside
from what was heard during the trial and discussed in jury deliberations. In terms of the Delorean trial,
intensive security
measures were enforced to ensure the insulation of the jury members. As Brill states:
...At lunch one day! the group was forced to leave the courthouse, although they had voted the first day to
eat in. The marshal
told them that for some reason the building needed to be cleared and they had to eat out. They were piled
into a marshal's van
whose windows hardly opened and whose air conditioner didn't work, it was excruciatingly hot (p. 257,
1989).
Leader Preference for a Certain Decision. Janis (1983) argues that this groupthink condition infers that "the
leader does not feel
constrained by any organizational tradition to avoid pushing for his own preferred policies." This
antecedent condition did not
seem to exist within this jury. Before deliberations, the members of the jury elected a group leader
(foreman); however, the
juror interviews indicated that he never really pushed his preference for the decision. For example, during
one deliberation
session, the foreman outwardly voiced his concern over member's pushing their own preferred positions
before listening to all
sides of the issue (Brill, 1989).
Methodical Procedures. This antecedent condition applies to lack of methodical procedures for instituting
information search
and objective appraisals of the consequences of the main alternatives (Janis, 1983). The Delorean jury
seemed to use definite
procedures to ensure that all aspects of the case were discussed. Various evidence supports this contention
including the fact
that the jury operated under Robert's Rules of Order in order to determine the sequence that jurors would
speak.
Homogeneity of Members' Backgrounds. Janis (1983) describes this antecedent condition in terms of "lack
of disparity in
social background and ideology among the members makes it easier for them to concur on whatever
proposals are put forth"
(p. 250). The members of this jury appeared to be a fairly homogeneous group. The jury consisted of six
men and six women,
a majority were college graduates, 11 of the members were self-described political moderates, and nine had
some prior
government and/or law enforcement experience. As one attorney involved in the jury selection process
stated, "We, too, were
looking for intelligent people, and got them" (Brill, 1989, p. 234). Additionally, the similarity in political
ideology among jurors was evidenced by one of Brill's (1989) observations that "the jury was 10 to 2 for
President Reagan" (p. 249).
High Stress from External Threats. It has been suggested that the symptoms of groupthink will be most
pronounced when high
stress from external threats are present (Janis, 1983). In terms of reaching a decision, jury members seemed
to perceive
external pressure from press, the judge, the lawyers, and the public in general. In terms of the former, the
jurors were being
constantly accosted in the courthouse parking garages by reporters asking them if and when they were
going to reach a verdict.
Similarly, the jurors felt pressure indirectly from the judge and lawyers. As Brill (1989) indicates:
...Someone remarked that the defense and prosecution lawyers had worked too long and hard for the group
not to come in
with a verdict. Judge Takasugi. if no one else, deserved a verdict, a second juror added (p. 250).
Finally, the jurors perceived pressure from the general public. As Brill remarks:
...The group talked about the public controversy their verdict was likely to engender and promised each
other not to reveal
what individual jurors had said in deliberations (p. 258. 1989).
Temporary Low Self-Esteem. The rationale for this antecedent condition is that a lowering of self-esteem
constitutes an internal source of stress that is induced by various factors including excessive difficulties on
current decision-making tasks (Janis, 1983). Midway through their deliberations the jury became
deadlocked in the decision process; and, thus it seemed that jurors' self-esteem was lowered due to this
difficulty in the process. As various jurors stated:
...I lay awake Friday night sorting out the evidence. but I still couldn't find the conspiracy....It was a terrible
weekend, so
stressful. I told my boyfriend that I didn't know what we were going to do. But I didn't want to see the jerk
get off free (Brill,
1989, p. 254).
To summarize the analysis thus far, the primary groupthink antecedent condition of high group cohesion
existed as well as 4 of
the 6 secondary antecedent conditions. Janis (1983) argues that the more of the antecedent conditions that
are present, the
greater number of groupthink symptoms will occur, and thus, the greater the chances of defective decisionmaking. Thus, based on the number of antecedent conditions present in the jury deliberations, it should be
expected that groupthink symptoms would emerge and decision-making defects should occur. However,
this analysis yields information that goes against this
contention--that is groupthink symptoms and decision-making defects did not occur.
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK
Most of the symptoms of groupthink relate to two broad areas: the closed mindedness of the group and
pressures within the
group towards uniformity (Janis, 1983). This atmosphere clearly did not occur within the jury as is
evidenced by various
observations by Brill (1989):
...Dowell one juror! was especially solicitous in stressing that everyone's point of view was worth
something and ought to be
heard. a point she would make so often that it became annoying pabulum to some...(p. 250).
...Everyone agreed that coming to a decision was vital. if it could be done without pressuring anyone (p.
250).
Thus, the atmosphere within this decision-making context was one of encouragement toward expressing
alternative views.
Additionally, the openmindedness of the group was supported by the groups willingness to overcome the
earlier mentioned
deadlock by adopting a suggestion that had not been initially raised.
DECISION-MAKING DEFECTS
As stated earlier, the group did not exhibit any of the decision-making defects specified in the groupthink
framework. Given that the earlier analysis of the groupthink symptoms indicated that the group seemed to
encourage all viewpoints, then it seems
logical that the "concurrence seeking tendency" did not occur among the jurors and thus the defects were
avoided.
For example, an examination of four of the primary defects postulated by Janis (1983) reveals their absence
in the jury's
decision-making.
(1) Incomplete Survey of Alternatives and (2) Incomplete Survey of Objectives. The overall tone of the
group that encouraged
total participation and divergent viewpoints seemed to ensure that most aspects of the case were discussed,
including the
discussion of objectives at the beginning of the deliberations. This participative atmosphere, as well as the
discussion of
objectives, was supported by Brill's (1989) analysis:
...Lahr the jury foreman! noted that above all their job was to come to a unanimous decision, and he recalls
saying. "that's not
going to happen if people get personally so identified with defending a point of view that they're backed
into a corner. Everyone agreed that coming to a decision was vital, if it could he done without pressuring
anyone" (p. 250).
Additionally, the comments of one juror clearly provides support for the thorough nature of the group's
analysis of the case:
...When you read about a case in the press or see it on television, you don't see the indictment, the judge's
instructions, and the
evidence all put together. We are going to put it all together (Brill. p. 251).
Finally, the exchange of divergent viewpoints within the jury was evidenced by the intense discussions that
occurred during
deliberations. Brill (1989) depicts one of these many instances:
...The group argued back and forth...the argument was heated, often blunt, and sometimes even testy; yet by
all accounts there
was never any bitterness and hardly a raised voice (p. 253).
(3) Failure to Examine Risks and Alternatives, and (4) Poor Information Search The jurors appeared to be
quite
comprehensive in their analysis and gathering of information as reinforced by Brill (1989):
... Hoover's a regular jury member! use of his notes typified the proceedings; the jurors dove into their steno
pads to find
support for an argument, unless they quoted from the tape transcripts spread out on the large conference
table (p. 253).
Similarly, the thorough nature of the jury's analysis and information search was evident in the behavior of
the members at the
beginning of deliberations. As Brill (1989) observes:
...The jurors then spent some time reading their notes. after which they took turns reading the eight-count
indictment and
instructions aloud going over their sense of definitions (p. 251).
Thus, if the jury members' accounts of what happened during their deliberations are correct, it can be
concluded that this
decision-making group met Janis' (1983) primary criteria of sound decision-making and thus avoided the
major decision-making defects of groupthink. More specifically, the jury members (1) thoroughly
canvassed a wide range of alternatives, (2) surveyed the objectives implicated, (3) carefully weighed the
costs and risks associated with various courses of action, (4) continuously searched for relevant information
for evaluating the policy alternatives.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
The major elements of the groupthink framework have been presented along with evidence from the jury
deliberations of the
Delorean drug case, as reported in Brill's (1989) report of interviews with jury members. This analysis
suggests the following
conclusions. Most of the antecedent conditions were present in the decision-making group, including the
primary condition of a
highly cohesive group. The members engaged in behaviors designed to critically appraise alternatives,
rather than to promote
the suggested solution of the leader. These behaviors were evidence that the presence of the antecedent
conditions failed to
result in the concurrence seeking groupthink symptoms that lead to a defective decision-making process.
Furthermore, the
emergence of no groupthink symptoms or defects provides support for the implied causal link between
symptoms and defects
proposed by Janis--where there are no symptoms the decision-making defects do not occur.
TOWARD AN ENHANCED GROUPTHINK FRAMEWORK
The findings of this case study suggest an alternative groupthink framework (see Fig. 2). (Fig. 2 omitted)
The enhanced model
differs from Janis's model (see Fig. 1) by the addition of a moderator variable--utilization of methodical
procedures for
information search and appraisal. In general terms, a moderator is a variable "that affects the direction
and/or strength of the
relation between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable" (Baron &
Kenny, 1986, p. 1174).
Furthermore, in explaining the use of a moderator variable Baron and Kenny (1986) state that this type of
variable is introduced
when a relation holds in one setting, but not in another. Thus, in group decision-making situations in which
many of the
antecedent conditions exist, the factor that may determine whether or not the group will exhibit groupthink
symptoms and the
corresponding decision defects, will be whether or not the group establishes and utilizes methodical
procedures for information
search and appraisal.
More specifically, the utilization of methodical decision-making procedures should ensure that the group
adheres to a highly
structured and systematic decision-making process. Thus, this should serve as a mechanism towards
avoidance of the
groupthink symptoms by promoting constructive criticism, nonconformity, and open mindedness within the
decision-making
group. It is important to note that Janis (1983) did in fact address this element by incorporating it as a
secondary antecedent
condition. However, this inclusion does not highlight the importance of methodical procedures in terms of
its impact on the
occurrence of groupthink, and it does not offer specifics into the type of procedures to utilize.
A closer look at the jury deliberations yields additional support for the inclusion of these decision-making
procedures as a
moderator value in the enhanced framework. Some of the actual comments of the jurors should highlight
the importance they
placed on these procedures to examine the facts of the case:
...we did everything calmly and methodically....He argued that they had spent five months on the trial and
owed everyone more
time to consider things methodically...(Brill, p. 251).
More specifically, before actual deliberations, the jury established decision-making procedures to ensure
the following:
Depersonalization of Debate. A specific parliamentary procedural technique, Robert's Rules of Order, was
utilized within the
group. Additionally, Brill (1989) states:
...the DeLorean jury operated under a form of Robert's Rules, with people making motions or arguments to
the chair Foreman!
(Lahr), and Lahr writing down people's names on a pad as they raised their hands in order to set the
sequence in which they
would speak (p. 250).
This decision-making procedure determines the sequence in which group members may speak, and tends to
depersonalize
debates between members because arguments must be addressed to an appointed chair. As one juror
remarked:....We figured
that if people addressed the chair instead of each other, it would help depersonalize the debate! (Brill, p.
250).
The use of this procedure seemed to facilitate a group norm that encouraged constructive criticism of
viewpoints due to the
depersonalization of arguments created by this technique. Thus, this depersonalization of debate technique
should help ensure
the group's avoidance of the type 1 and type 3 groupthink symptoms (overestimation of the group and
pressure towards
uniformity) by encouraging helpful criticism of viewpoints within the decision-making group.
Thorough Examination of Alternatives. Before deliberations, the jury discussed and determined the
procedure that they would
follow to examine all relevant alternatives. As Brill stated:
...There was then some debate as to the procedure for considering the various counts. with Gelbart arguing
for a day-by-day
review of the trial, and Hoover, followed by most of the others. pushing for a count-by-count analysis and
references back to
the trial only when needed. Hoover's plan. as he terms. carried (p. 251).
This procedure should foster an extensive examination of all possible and relevant alternatives to the
decision-making task, as
opposed to examination of only a few alternatives (e.g. those posited by the group's leader).
Thorough Information Search. Additionally, Brill's (1989) interviews indicated that the jury deliberately
established a procedure to ascertain that all relevant information pertinent of the case was considered:
...and so began a deliberative process that would put most law students to shame. in which they carefully
read. usually out loud.
the count in the indictment. the relevant instructions, the tape transcripts, and then from their own
voluminous notebooks (p.
252).
Similar to the previous procedure, this technique should promote the exploration of all information relevant
to the
decision-making task. Both of these latter two procedures (examination of alternatives/information search)
should facilitate the
group's avoidance of the type 2 groupthink symptom (closed-mindedness) by promoting discussion of
alternative viewpoints
and examination of all relevant information.
Thus, the major factor that seemed to repeat itself in terms of its appearance in the jury interviews, was the
utilization of
methodical procedures to analyze the facts of the case. Consequently, this element is included as a
moderating factor between
antecedent conditions and groupthink symptoms in the enhanced model.
IMPLICATIONS
This analysis of the jury deliberations in the DeLorean trial leads to several implications. First of all, it
should be the catalyst
towards developing better prescriptions for training managers and group members to avoid groupthink in
decision-making
situations. This training should focus on the importance of establishing methodical decision-making
procedures at the outset of
the group meeting. More specifically, the training sessions should emphasize the establishment of
procedures to depersonalize
group debate, to ensure discussion of alternative solutions, and to ensure a thorough information search.
Second, the enhanced framework should lead to modification of the empirical groupthink research. Future
studies are needed
that focus on the impact of methodical decision-making procedures on the occurrence of groupthink
symptoms and
decision-making defects. While it is important to note that one groupthink study did find that high cohesive
groups without
adequate decision procedures made poor decisions (Callaway & Esser, 1984), further empirical work in this
area is needed to
provide convincing evidence for the integral role that methodical decision-making procedures have on the
quality of decisions
made by groups.
Finally, it is important to note that these implications have been based on the study of one particular type of
decision-making
group that is, jury. Thus, differences (e.g., purpose of the group) between a jury and other types of groups
(e.g., a
norm-sharing peer group) may preclude the generalization of our findings to all groups. However, this
groupthink case study of
the jury in U.S. v. DeLorean parallels that of the decision-making situations examined by Janis (1983) (all
involved cohesive,
decision-making groups in which the decision was of a highly consequential nature). As a result, our
findings from this case
analysis should be applicable to groups of a decision-making nature, involving consequential decisions, and
that possess the
primary groupthink antecedent condition (cohesiveness).
CONCLUSION
This paper has reviewed the basic tenets of groupthink and examined the jury deliberations in the trial of
U.S. v. John
DeLorean. The analysis revealed that while a majority of groupthink antecedent conditions existed within
the group of jury
members, the symptoms and decision-defects of groupthink did not occur. Based on interviews with jury
members, it is
suggested that groupthink was avoided in this instance due to the establishment of methodical decisionmaking procedures by
the group. As a result of this finding, implications of a practical and empirical nature are discussed.
1 Department of Management, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-4006.
2 Requests for reprints should be addressed to Chris P. Neck, Department of Management, Arizona State
University, Tempe,
Arizona 85287-4006.
REFERENCES
BARON. R., & KENNY, D. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual. strategic. and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986.51, 1173-1182.
BRILL, S. Trial by jury. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1989.
CALLAWAY, M., & ESSER, J. Groupthink: Effects of cohesiveness and problem-solving procedures on group decision making. Social Behavior and
Personality 1984, 12. 157-164.
FESTINGER, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 1954,7. 117-140.
HENSLEY, T., & GRIFFIN, G. Victims of groupthink: The Kent State University board of trustees and the 1977 gymnasium controversy. The Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 1986. 3-. 497-531.
JANIS, I. L. Victims of groupthink Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
JANIS, I. L. Groupthink Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983.
MANZ, C. C., & SIMS. H. P., Jr. The potential for groupthink in autonomous work groups. Human Relations 1982, 35, 773-784.
MOORHEAD, G., & MONTANARI, J. An empirical investigation of the groupthink phenomenon. Human Relations 1986, 39, 399-410.
MOORHEAD, G.. FERENCE, R., & NECK, C. P. Group decision fiascoes continue: Space shuttle Challenger and a revised groupthink framework.
Human Relations 1991. 44, 539-550.
SMITH, S. Groupthink and the hostage rescue mission. British Journal of Political Science. 1984, 15, 117-123.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
CHRIS P. NECK. MBA, is currently in the final stages of his PhD in Management at Arizona State University. His research specialties include leadership
and group decision-making processes. He has published research in highly regarded business journals including Human Relations, Human Resource
Development Quarterly. and The Commercial Law Journal. Additionally, he has presented his research findings at various national conferences including
the national meetings of the Academy of Management. Currently. Neck (with Charles Manz) is developing a particular form of leadership. thought selfleadership. The resulting effect is improved employee and. thus, organizational performance. Neck is currently giving training seminars on thought selfleadership. Sonic of the organizations who have participated in Neck's seminars include America West Airlines, W. L. Gore & Associates, Arizona State
University, and American Humanics.
GREGORY MOORHEAD is Associate Professor of Management at Arizona State University. He attended Texas Tech University and the University of
Houston where he received a BS in Industrial Engineering and an MBA and PhD in Organizational Behavior and Management. His research interests
include group decision making and integrative analysis of
organization, group, job. and person relationships.
Solomon Asch experiment (1958)
A study of conformity
Social Pressure and Perception
Imagine yourself in the following situation: You sign up for a psychology experiment,
and on a specified date you and seven others whom you think are also subjects arrive and
are seated at a table in a small room. You don't know it at the time, but the others are
actually associates of the experimenter, and their behavior has been carefully scripted.
You're the only real subject.
The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which you are about to participate
concerns people's visual judgments. She places two cards before you. The card on the left
contains one vertical line. The card on the right displays three lines of varying length.
The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the
right card matches the length of the line on the left card. The task is repeated several
times with different cards. On some occasions the other "subjects" unanimously choose
the wrong line. It is clear to you that they are wrong, but they have all given the same
answer.
What would you do? Would you go along with the majority opinion, or would you "stick
to your guns" and trust your own eyes?
In 1951 social psychologist Solomon Asch devised this experiment to examine the extent
to which pressure from other people could affect one's perceptions. In total, about one
third of the subjects who were placed in this situation went along with the clearly
erroneous majority.
Asch showed bars like those in the Figure to college students in groups of 8 to 10. He
told them he was studying visual perception and that their task was to decide which of the
bars on the right was the same length as the one on the left. As you can see, the task is
simple, and the correct answer is obvious. Asch asked the students to give their answers
aloud. He repeated the procedure with 18 sets of bars. Only one student in each group
was a real subject. All the others were confederates who had been instructed to give
incorrect answers on 12 of the 18 trials. Asch arranged for the real subject to be the nextto-the-last person in each group to announce his answer so that he would hear most of the
confederates incorrect responses before giving his own. Would he go along with the
crowd?
To Asch's surprise, 37 of the 50 subjects conformed to the majority at least once, and 14
of them conformed on more than 6 of the 12 trials. When faced with a unanimous wrong
answer by the other group members, the mean subject conformed on 4 of the 12 trials.
Asch was disturbed by these results: "The tendency to conformity in our society is so
strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white
black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and
about the values that guide our conduct."
Why did the subjects conform so readily? When they were interviewed after the
experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers,
but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought "peculiar." A few
of them said that they really did believe the group's answers were correct.
Asch conducted a revised version of his experiment to find out whether the subjects truly
did not believe their incorrect answers. When they were permitted to write down their
answers after hearing the answers of others, their level of conformity declined to about
one third what it had been in the original experiment.
Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to be liked by the
group and because they believe the group is better informed than they are. Suppose you
go to a fancy dinner party and notice to your dismay that there are four forks beside your
plate. When the first course arrives, you are not sure which fork to use. If you are like
most people, you look around and use the fork everyone else is using. You do this
because you want to be accepted by the group and because you assume the others know
more about table etiquette than you do.
Conformity, group size, and cohesiveness
Asch found that one of the situational factors that influence conformity is the size of the
opposing majority. In a series of studies he varied the number of confederates who gave
incorrect answers from 1 to 15. He found that the subjects conformed to a group of 3 or 4
as readily as they did to a larger group. However, the subjects conformed much less if
they had an "ally" In some of his experiments, Asch instructed one of the confederates to
give correct answers. In the presence of this nonconformist, the real subjects conformed
only one fourth as much as they did in the original experiment. There were several
reasons: First, the real subject observed that the majority did not ridicule the dissenter for
his answers. Second, the dissenter's answers made the subject more certain that the
majority was wrong. Third, the real subject now experienced social pressure from the
dissenter as well as from the majority. Many of the real subjects later reported that they
wanted to be like their nonconformist partner (the similarity principle again). Apparently,
it is difficult to be a minority of one but not so difficult to be part of a minority of two.
Some of the subjects indicated afterward that they assumed the rest of the people were
correct and that their own perceptions were wrong. Others knew they were correct but
didn't want to be different from the rest of the group. Some even insisted they saw the
line lengths as the majority claimed to see them.
Asch concluded that it is difficult to maintain that you see something when no one else
does. The group pressure implied by the expressed opinion of other people can lead to
modification and distortion effectively making you see almost anything.