Again, the groupthink idea is popular and entertaining to use, but has weak
support. I do not feel it is really useful---except in an entertaining
journalistic ad hoc fashion. We can all relate to it, and fit our experiences
to it (confirmation and hindsight biases). However, how adequate is it to
describe various types of groups and group decision-making? What specific
theoretical predictions does it promote? Does it have strong empirical
support?
Likewise, The Zimbardo study. I feel it was an interesting--and yes,
popularly relevant, study. I show the video, I play it up, and I also have fun
presenting this kind of stuff. I think there are other studies of roles and
role-playing that are more scientifically sound and can be used to demonstrate
to the public the power of socio-psychological factors while also being based
on stronger theoretical footing. Milgram's study is fine here and I feel
,deserving of credit. I just think the Zimbardo work is over-played and in
both these examples; groupthink and the Zimbardo, we should be asking what
theoretical advances have they provided. Are there specific principles or
mechanisms that have been discovered and replicated? In ten years, will our
students come back to the same classes and see the same studies, lacking any
theoretical integration, with no advances in measurement, etc., but still
popular and easily used for their apparent social relevance to then current
events? I am beginning to see more critical coverage of the groupthink idea in
many social psych and group dynamics texts, but I am sure it will remain a
popular idea. Fun and useful for pop-psych discussion, but I am trying to
educate my students to appreciate a scientific perspective and to be critical
consumers of hype--whether it be found in psych or pop-culture. Gary
Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
989-964-4491
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
