Understanding Psychology (10th Ed)

GROUPTHINK: CAVING IN TO CONFORMITY 
Although we usually think of conformity in terms of our individual relations with 
others, in some instances conformity pressures in organizations can lead to disastrous 
effects with long-term consequences. For instance, consider NASA’s determination 
that the falling foam that hit the space shuttle Columbia when it took off in 2003 would 
Standard line 
1 2 
Comparison lines 
3
FIGURE 1 
Which of the three comparison 
lines is the same length as the “standard” 
line?
status 
The social rank held within 
a group.
social supporter 
A group member 
whose dissenting views make non-
conformity to the group easier.
feL82795_ch17_576-615.indd Page 591 8/5/10 3:21 PM user-f465
feL82795_ch17_576-615.indd Page 591 8/5/10 3:21 PM user-f465
/Users/user-f465/Desktop
/Users/user-f465/Desktop

---

592 Chapter 
17 
Social Psychology
pose no signifi cant danger when it was time for the Columbia to land. Despite some 
engineers’ misgivings, a consensus formed that the foam was not dangerous to the 
shuttle. Ultimately, that consensus proved wrong: The shuttle came apart as it 
attempted to land, which killed all the astronauts on board (Schwartz & Wald, 2003). 
In hindsight, NASA’s decision was clearly wrong. How could such a poor deci-
sion have been made? 
A phenomenon known as groupthink may provide an explanation.  Groupthink 
is a type of thinking in which group members share such a strong motivation to 
achieve consensus that they lose the ability to critically evaluate alternative points of 
view. Groupthink is most likely to occur when a popular or powerful leader is sur-
rounded by people of lower status—which is obviously the case with any U.S. pres-
ident and his or her advisers but is also true in a variety of other organizations (Janis, 
1997; Kowert, 2002; Baron, 2005; Henningsen, Henningsen, & Eden, 2006).
Groupthink typically leads to poor decisions. Groups limit the list of possible solu-
tions to just a few, and they spend relatively little time considering any alternatives 
once the leader seems to be leaning toward a particular solution. In addition, groups 
may fall prey to entrapment, a circumstance in which commitments to a failing point 
of view or course of action are increased to justify investments in time and energy that 
have already been made (Weiss & Weiss, 2003; Turner, Pratkanis, & Struckman, 2007). 
Ultimately, group members may completely ignore information that challenges 
a developing consensus. Because historical research suggests that many disastrous 
decisions refl ect groupthink, it is important for groups to be on guard (Kowert, 2002; 
Chapman, 2006; Packer, 2009).