2020
DOI: 10.1007/s42001-020-00083-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure

Abstract: This paper’s purpose is to clarify groupthink phenomena and to assess the devil’s advocacy as a groupthink prevention measure. An agent-based model is presented to formalize group closed-mindedness and insulation in a group decision making setting. The model was validated by showing that groupthink results in the decision with low quality and the group’s inability to explore more alternatives. Besides that, the devil’s advocacy also formulated in the model. The simulation results of different conditions of the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
(99 reference statements)
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some even argue that constructive deviance and intelligent disobedience should become socially expected behavior (Ralston, 2010). Schippers et al 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1194597 Frontiers in Sociology 16 frontiersin.org This is in line with recommendations to prevent groupthink to make sure to appoint a "devil's advocate" (Janis, 1982b;Janis, 1983;MacDougall and Baum, 1997;Akhmad et al, 2020). Interestingly, group members that strongly identify with the group are more prone to speak out on collective problems (Packer, 2009).…”
Section: Civil and Intelligent Disobediencementioning
confidence: 86%
“…Some even argue that constructive deviance and intelligent disobedience should become socially expected behavior (Ralston, 2010). Schippers et al 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1194597 Frontiers in Sociology 16 frontiersin.org This is in line with recommendations to prevent groupthink to make sure to appoint a "devil's advocate" (Janis, 1982b;Janis, 1983;MacDougall and Baum, 1997;Akhmad et al, 2020). Interestingly, group members that strongly identify with the group are more prone to speak out on collective problems (Packer, 2009).…”
Section: Civil and Intelligent Disobediencementioning
confidence: 86%
“…If the network of friends consists of people who are not aware of the infodemic, then that person will become more and more involved in spreading the infodemic because no one reminds him." Literary studies reinforce this opinion that social media networks can be negative group thoughts, where group members become uncritical and only support thoughts in the group (Akhmad et al, 2021;Kanthawongs et al, 2010). A group can become a group if there is illusive unanimity, does not question the ideas proposed, always gives justification reasons and stereotypes, self-censorship appears, and members are pressured (Lunenburg, 2010).…”
Section: G Network Of Friends On Social Mediamentioning
confidence: 97%
“…As such, team members have varying degrees of training and knowledge, and each team member brings their biases to the interaction. Given that individuals may rate themselves as objective after using biased strategies (Hansen et al, 2014) and evaluators who correctly identify bias can believe ineffective strategies will mediate the effects (Zapf et al, 2018), it is important to understand how these personal biases may increase at the group level, affecting the quality of the decisions (Akhmad et al, 2020). Although clinical psychology programs are required to teach cultural responsiveness, inconsistencies are present in the depth and level of this type of training (Green et al, 2009; Gregus et al, 2020).…”
Section: Threat Assessment and Cultural Responsiveness: An Unexplored...mentioning
confidence: 99%