Groupthink: An Emergent Property of Narcissistic Gravity

The Boil-Down: If you've ever found yourself in a group of people, suddenly amazed or astounded at how in the world you all arrived at a decision to do something you never would have chosen to do if left to your own devices (for instance, toilet-papering the high school principal's house, bullying the quiet intellectually disabled kid, driving in a drunk caravan at three in the morning, or skinny-dipping in the student union fountain), then it can be said that your experience was influenced by a phenomenon called groupthink. A conformity-driven dynamic which makes all manner of regrettable decisions and human rights violations possible, groupthink is viewed within the logic of this project as connected to two previously described concepts: narcissistic gravity and the PVR triangle.

The Details: A core concept in social psychology, the term groupthink was coined by research psychologist Irving Janis in 1972 as part of a study of systematic errors in governmental foreign policy decisions. When decision-making groups function on high cohesion, remain insulated from experts on the subject, limit their evaluation of information, and operate under directive leadership with high stress and low self-esteem or low hope of a better alternative plan, the hypothesized result will be "highly defective judgments and outcomes" (IResearch.Net/Groupthink). Inside the powerful dynamic pull of groupthink conditions, members commonly set aside their personal beliefs to adopt the collectively espoused beliefs of the group.

Previously in this blog, I used the concept of nonsummativity (the idea that a system's whole is greater than the sum of its parts) to identify toxic forces emerging from unhealthy human systems. One such toxic force is narcissistic gravity, which consistently benefits the most powerful member of a dyad or group at the expense of the less powerful (by swaying decisions and resources in a way that makes the narcissist's wants and needs consistently--sometimes invariably--central). The second is the PVR triangle, which is a way of viewing how narcissistic gravity occasions members to take on the roles of perpetrators, and resultant victims and (absent) rescuers. The victim feels (and often literally is) helpless and powerless under the oppression of the perpetrator, and sees hope of salvation in the perceived rescuer, who usually turns a blind eye to the victim's plight, often enabling the perpetrator instead. My assertion is that narcissistic gravity, and therefore the PVR triangle, tend to have a core presence in groupthink phenomena. While it is possible for there to exist groupthink without a pathological degree of narcissistic gravity (for instance, when a group of naive adolescents get stranded in a snowstorm and collectively decide to leave the shelter of their vehicle in an ill-fated attempt to seek help), this article contends that narcissists and sociopaths use dyadic space and social group space as groupthink host cells--with varying degrees of awareness that they're doing so--toward pathologically self-centered ends.

There are people who have called for the abandonment of the concept of groupthink in scientific literature, particularly after the failed attempts of some to demonstrate its properties in empirical research. First of all, one reality of the relationship between science and the perceivable universe is that there are theoretical concepts and phenomena elusive to scientific study, persistently difficult to demonstrate or support empirically. Second, there are social forces in politics and academia, driven to marginalize or even eradicate certain ideas, due to ideology, and errors of logic and scholarship. Ironically, narcissistic gravity, the PVR triangle, and groupthink itself are likely partly responsible for any movement to undo the concept of groupthink.

The corporate improvement website dzone.com describes four ways that groupthink is "bad" for work groups: 1) it pressures the members to focus on agreement instead of "reality"; 2) it inhibits the group from uncovering a "better truth"; 3) it pressures members to conform, disempowering members' option to deviate or dissent; 4) it emphasizes approval over taking risks (I might add that it often leads groups to take destructive risks). The article identified quoted attitudes from work environments reflective of groupthink. The idea that some members' hesitance to speak out is "their problem," the notion that it is disrespectful to disagree with experts or powerful company members, and the unwritten rule that a case should not be made without data points are reflective of the PVR triangle, narcissistic gravity, and groupthink (Bansal, 2020).

In a clinical setting, the devastation done by groupthink is ubiquitous. One of my earliest internship therapy cases involved a couple brought together by trauma. I met them more than twenty years into their relationship. How did they meet? The man was partying with friends, and this exclusively male set of agemates, all belonging to one ethnic group, collectively decided to rape a young female of a different ethnic group. This horrific event left my female client further traumatized, and pregnant. My male client was so wracked with guilt for participating in the gang rape that he agreed to marry the victim. While most would see this man as having a greater obligation to fully account for his compliance in such an inexcusable group effort, he at the time had little understanding of his tendency to follow peer pressure. But he also had neither an Axis I mental health condition, nor a personality disorder or cognitive deficit. Specifically, he did not meet criteria for any paraphilia (any psychiatric disorder reserved for sexual deviance). Had it not been for groupthink, it is very unlikely that this man would have ever committed sexual assault.

The integrated paradigm used here also contends that, the stronger the narcissistic gravity (given the greater power and lower empathy of the dyadic perp or group leaders), the less possible and effective it will be for lesser members to voice dissent. Fear-based conformity and cohesion is common. Indeed, close examination of the human universe reveals that groupthink has had a pervasive impact on decisions made in families, governments, peer groups, and all other institutions in the world since time began.

Fear is not the only force at work. In an undergrad textbook of mine simply titled Social Psychology (that's right Dr. Osgood, I still have it), authors Michener, DeLamater, and Schwartz refer to the concept of deviant subculture, in which groups develop norms encouraging deviance and show positive regard for conforming members. Sociopathic leaders of such groups probably display a mix of authentic praise and acceptance, and surreptitious manipulation of lesser group members; the presentations of both likely come across similarly.

Is groupthink different from deviant subculture? Is one a subset of the other? The aforementioned thirty-five year-old textbook shares Irving Janis' 1982 definition of groupthink, which includes the criteria of "poor decisions" leading to "inferior outcomes" (p. 422). The classic illustration given was of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion debacle, in which power brokers touted as our nation's brightest minds underestimated the Cuban military, essentially sending 1400 Cuban exiles to their doom. Michener, DeLamater and Schwartz include Janis' symptoms outlined to help people detect groupthink: an illusion of invulnerability; an unquestioned sense of inherent morality; collective rationalization against warnings of risk; a view of adversaries (victims of the plan?) as too evil to negotiate with or too weak or stupid to fight back (or so lacking of worth that they don't deserve human rights?); censorship of deviation from consensus; a shared illusion of unanimity; direct pressure against dissent (this is a serious understatement); and self-appointed "mind-guards" who keep the group away from "adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions" (p. 423). An authoritarian leadership style (which in research results in the highest production and therefore can be very attractive to those with a stake in group outcomes) also puts the group at risk for the above symptoms.

Neither Irving Janis nor the authors citing him were quite explicit enough for me. What constitutes "poor decisions" or "inferior outcomes"? Can a group process be labeled a groupthink only when the group's outcomes fall short of their stated objectives? Does a group escape the label of groupthink when the only inferior outcomes are experienced by opponents of or outsiders to the group? What if less powerful members of the group experience inferior outcomes but the powerful leaders benefit greatly from the process? What did groupthink or deviant subculture have to do with the Jonestown Massacre? The Holocaust? MK Ultra? The unsustainable sprawl of animal agriculture? The systemic theft of land belonging to African-American farmers? The power structure of present-day Malaysia? How should we differently regard deviant subculture when it disguises itself as good? What about when culture is neither "deviant" nor a "subculture"--it's just a fear-based, hate-based majority or plurality?

In 1960, Cloward and Ohlin suggested three types of deviant subculture:

As the blog continues, we will be able to identify the heavily destructive impact of criminal subculture upon our social institutions and whom they ultimately serve, as well as the exploitation of retreatist subculture and conflict subculture by criminal subculture. Deviant subculture is present wherever people gather and organize: schools and street corners, corporations and frat parties, churches and government offices. Some of the most powerful actions of deviant subculture occur undetected in secret. Public image can be managed in ways so that the populace can be swayed to view a high-profile event or program as a success even when obscured or obvious data suggest the event was not a success. Groupthink, a term that is increasingly usurped and adulterated by politically abetted media organizations, is also a label which a group can say it escaped if it met its articulated goals. According to such a definition, the group process was only a "groupthink" if it failed to do what its powerful shareholders wanted it to do. In that case, a group that met its goals while violating the human rights of lower members or non-members would have to be called something else, especially if they made sure to use high-powered lawyers to make their actions legal (they couldn't be called "criminal"--could they be called "deviant"? It depends on what they're deviating from, I guess; how well do schemes of elite leaders fit with the aspirations and desperate needs of the masses?). When group members organize to exert their power in secret to elude the awareness of other members who would disapprove and thwart them--particularly when they also recruit lower members given fewer rights and then pressure them to maintain secrecy--narcissistic gravity has just produced the collective emergent phenomenon of deviant subculture. For purposes of this blog, because deviant subculture consistently produces inferior outcomes for victims of its narcissistic gravity, and because it sufficiently possesses the features of a groupthink, deviant subculture will be considered a type of groupthink.

Through this blog, I am attempting to help readers build a common scaffolding from which they will be able to see the powerful forces that jeopardize their health, wellness, and free-thinking independence. So going forward, I will be using the term groupthink to refer to any group process with enough narcissistic gravity to engage in decision-making harmful enough to fail any members or non-members through human rights violations, unfair distribution of resources or any other influential abuses of power. I care to do this because self-centered, corrupt leaders of families, communities, corporations, activist organizations, other societal institutions make decisions that traumatize people, and my profession is committed to reversing the effects of trauma.

What works against groupthink? Irving Janis appropriately points to group leaders, emphasizing impartial leadership that encourages dissent (which instantly disqualifies authoritarian leadership styles as well as politically abetted leaders). What else? The practice of ethical non-conformity. Establishment of an individual's own principles. The habits of free thought and free speech. Identifying narcissism and refusing to be governed by it. Vocal, informed involvement. Keep in mind that acting against a powerful narcissistic groupthink can come at a cost, such as needing to leave an unhealthy relationship, being socially discredited, or getting fired from your job. If you feel that non-conformity would jeopardize your physical safety, please take care to make a plan with a safe, trusted person or persons before you act.

Try to think of a few events in world history, or in your own personal life, that demonstrate groupthink at work. How did groupthink act upon you or other figures in the group? What was anyone's role in resisting the narcissistic gravity and ill-advised decisions resulting from groupthink? What were the outcomes?

*The concept of groupthink and other concepts to follow will be used in the Eyes Wide Open project to help the reader to identify the impact of previously "invisible" forces such as social tactics and other phenomena upon individuals and groups, see past those tactics, and gain a more effective understanding of events in the family, the government and other institutions, in the media and in politics.