Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such as "conservatism" and "liberalism" in the U.S. political context [7] or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude). [8]
Groupthink – When the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in a dysfunctional outcome. While cohesiveness, loyalty and consensus are worthy attributes, groupthink can result when dissenting opinions are discouraged.
This phenomenon is known as groupthink. [24] Appeals to authority may especially effect norms of obedience. The compliance of normal humans to authority in the famous Milgram experiment demonstrate the power of perceived authority. Those with access to the media may use this access in an attempt to influence the public.
Groupthink, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in a group results in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making Sheeple, a derogatory term referring to groups of people who ‘mindlessly’ follow those in power; Swarm intelligence, the collective behavior of decentralized, self-organized systems, natural or artificial
In groupthink theory, a mindguard is a member of a group who serves as an informational filter, providing limited information to the group and, consciously or subconsciously, utilizing a variety of strategies to control dissent and to direct the decision-making process toward a specific, limited range of possibilities. [1]
Irving Lester Janis (May 26, 1918 – November 15, 1990) was an American research psychologist at Yale University and a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley most famous for his theory of "groupthink", which described the systematic errors made by groups when making collective decisions.
The false consensus effect considers that in predicting an outcome, people will assume that the masses agree with their opinion and think the same way they do on an issue, whereas the opposite is true of pluralistic ignorance, where the individual does not agree with a certain action but go along with it anyway, believing that their view is not ...
The Abilene paradox is a collective fallacy, in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of most or all individuals in the group, while each individual believes it to be aligned with the preferences of most of the others.