Groupthink Theory Assignment

QUESTION

Step 1: Case Scenario

Read the following case first; then proceed to the next steps.

You work at a research lab and are 1 of the 6 researchers. Philip, a well-known and highly respected scientist in the lab has offered a theory that the cholesterol in eggs can have serious negative health effects on children. He cites 5 case studies done in different regions of the country over a two-year period and all studies suggest that negative health issues can be linked to egg consumption. His presentation is very compelling and the research lab has been offered significant amounts of government grant money to promote the findings of the cholesterol study.

The lab goes forward with the cholesterol research and assigns the other 5 researchers the task of furthering the study. After one year of research and much economic success for everyone at the research lab, a meeting is convened to assess the progress of the program. At this meeting, Rose, a second scientist with a long history of field research experience offers the theory that while there could be a relational effect of the cholesterol in eggs to children, she argues that there is no causal relationship and these findings should be published. The group is stunned as no one has ever challenged Philip’s work and his previous studies on other areas have all been accepted by the scientific community. Rose is excoriated by the group and is told by the research lab that Philip’s reputation speaks for itself and her study is not credible and will not be pursued. Two years later, a rival lab proves Rose’s theory and Philp’s research lab loses all government funding.

Step 2: Reflection Part

Ask yourself:

• How can it be that a group of intelligent, experienced researchers would not explore the possibility of another theory in their study?
• What is the importance of dissenting opinions?
• Do I listen to and fully understand the point of view of the person expressing a dissenting opinion, especially if that person is the sole voice in the room.
• Do I arrive at my opinion without sufficient critical analysis?
• Am I basing my position on assumptions that I presume to be true, but that perhaps are not sufficiently tested or researched?

After you have thought through your position on this scenario, apply your thinking to this week’s philosophers and complete Step 3 – the writing part of this assignment.

Step 3: Writing Part

In 2-3 pages, explain how Locke and Rousseau might respond to this case of the research lab and groupthink if they were confronted with this situation. How might they explain majority rule and the social

ANSWER

Groupthink Assignment

Introduction

Groupthink theory refers to the model developed by Irving Janis (1972) that explains why groups often make faulty decisions. According to Janis (1972), faulty decision making in groups occurs as a result of forces that work to bring the members of a group together, otherwise known as group cohesion forces. Various decision-related problems are associated with groupthink, including a group inadequately considering the available alternatives out of the need to maintain unanimity, poorly examining the objectives of decision-making, conducting biased research, conducting insufficient information searches or investigations, and failing to adequately evaluate the risks of the selected solution alternative. In groupthink, the need or desire for unanimity and group conformity usually overrides the need to arrive at an effective and the best solution alternative.

Case Scenario Analysis

In the case scenario provided, the group of researchers tasked with the confirmation of Philip’s research were influenced by the group cohesion forces and made a faulty decision. Even though a second scientist who had a long history of field research experience came up with an opposing theory about the relational effect of cholesterol in eggs to children, the group of researchers goes on to excoriate her and uphold the findings of Philip, stating that the reputation of Philip spoke for itself, a clear case of groupthink. The group dismissed Rose’s study and termed it not credible. As a result, it is not pursued. Later on, a rival lab proves that her theory was indeed credible and the previous theory is dismissed, causing Philip’s lab to lose government funding.

Locke and Rousseau

Jean-Jacques Rousseau held that in an ideal scenario, people ought to be governed by the general will. He believed that every human is born free and is naturally virtuous (Weirich, 1986). Human beings are, for instance, naturally interested in their own welfare and are naturally caring to others. However, the need to be civil brings about the notion that one is superior to others and corrupts the natural virtuous nature. One becomes selfish and proud. In order to avoid this problem, Rousseau proposed majority rule as the best and the most practical way of making decisions. He proposed that a majority rule, where decisions are arrived at by the consideration of a proportionate majority, was the best way of making the right decisions. Rousseau advocated for the proportional majority, where the number of members increases with the weight of the decision to be made (Weirich, 1986). If faced with the case scenario, Rousseau would have argued that the number of researchers tasked with reviewing the theory developed by Philip should have been larger to achieve a proportional majority. He would have argued that by increasing the number of researchers, the proposition by Rose would have been given more consideration.

John Locke believed that moral distinction characterizes social relations, which are independent of civil relations. Moral distinctions, according to Locke (1948), are natural and God-given. He proposed that acting morally is the same as acting in accord with nature and motivated by the divine reward of the threat of divine punishment. Locke believed that all humans deserve equal treatment and should only be bound by civil laws if they consent to it. The government is justified by the consent of the people (Locke, 1948). If confronted with the lab research case scenario, Locke would argue that the opinion of Rose, the second scientist, deserved equal treatment with that of Philip and that the group of researchers was wrong for dismissing her without investigation. He would have argued that the researchers’ group was mandated by the people to ensure that scientific theories hold truth before being adopted. As such, the group did not act in a moral manner by dismissing the views of Rose.

References

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes.

Locke, J. (1948). An essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government. Social contract, 1-143.

Weirich, P. (1986). Rousseau on Proportional Majority Rule. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 47(1), 111-126.