Dominic Packer on Groupthink - Dictionary of Arguments
Haslam I 195
Groupthink/group behavior/individuals/PackerVsJanis/Packer: identified group members are not automations, blind pursuers of group norms even unto disaster. (>Groupthink/Janis, >Groupthink/Psychological theories.)
Rather, they engage in critical evaluation of their groups’ behaviour, at least on occasion. And if they come to believe that group norms are harmful to group interests, they are frequently willing to articulate dissenting views; indeed, they are more likely to do so than weakly identified members who are less invested in group interests (Packer, 2008(1); Packer and Chasteen, 2010(2)).
Even if the group as a whole has settled on a particular goal, an individual member may, on their own assessment of the situation, choose to pursue an alternate collectively oriented goal. To the degree that this entails the expression of divergent and dissenting views, it will tend to reduce many of the symptoms of groupthink.
Haslam I 196
Situations: There are also situational effects. Perhaps most notable of these is an effect of abstraction such that identified and conscientious group members who are induced to think more abstractly (e.g., by adopting longer time perspectives) are also more likely to dissent from group norms (Packer, Fujita and Chasteen, 2013(3); Packer, Fujita and Herman, 2013(4)).
1. Packer, D.J. (2008) ‘On being both with us and against us: A normative conflict model of dissent in social groups’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12: 50–72.
2. Packer, D.J. and Chasteen, A.L. (2010) ‘Loyal deviance: Testing the normative conflict model of dissent in social groups’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36: 5–18.
3. Packer, D.J., Fujita, K. and Chasteen, A.L. (2013) ‘The motivational dynamics of dissent decision: A goal-conflict approach’, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5: 27–34.
4. Packer, D.J., Fujita, K. and Herman, S. (2013) ‘Rebels with a cause: A goal conflict approach to understanding when conscientious people dissent’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49: 927–32.
Dominic J. Packer and Nick D. Ungson, „Group Decision-Making. Revisiting Janis’ groupthink studies“, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic studies. London: Sage Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
S. Alexander Haslam
Joanne R. Smith
Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017