TheTheory of Groupthink Applied to Nanking
During their occupation of the city of Nanking, Japanese forcesperpetrated inconceivable acts of violence and disrespect towards human life.Our initial response to this occurrence is to question how people can commitsuch atrocities on fellow human beings. In attempting to obtain a firmer graspof what occurred at Nanking, we must first look at the event from a sociologicalperspective. The decision-making process, when undertaken by large groups ofpeople, often produces unexpected (and illogical) results.The initial orders given to the Japanese soldiers to kill all prisonerswere barbaric in and of themselves, but the soldiers went well beyond thoseorders. Ultimately, the soldiers at Nanking chose to mutilate, torture, and rapethe inhabitants of the city. One syndrome which develops in aggregates of peoplethat often results in such unexplainable decisions is groupthink.
Groupthink is defined as “A strong concurrence-seeking tendency thatinterferes with effective group decision making” (Forsyth, 40). The events at Nanking occurred within the context of analtered mode of thinking that essentially made the Japanese soldiers incapableof making rational decisions. Fromthe outset, the Japanese soldiers living in the occupied city of Nanking formeda deeply cohesive group. Sociologicalresearch suggests that members of such unified groups lose the ability torealistically appraise a situation and devise alternative plans of action.In an effort to maintain unity within the group, the Japanese based theirdecision-making process on reaching complete agreement, which in turn resultedin tragic errors of judgment which could have otherwise been avoided. In orderto understand the concept of groupthink and how it relates to the events whichoccurred at Nanking, it is important to examine the symptoms and the causes ofthis decision-making disorder.
There are eight identifiable symptoms that occur in groups in which thereis the presence of groupthink. Thefirst of these symptoms is referred to as interpersonalpressure. In group situationsthe pressure to reach a unanimous decision is intense, and there is a directpressure to conform. Theinterpersonal pressure to reach a consensus causes agreement to become moredesirable than disagreement. Non-conformityin groupthink situations is virtually intolerable. In fact, aggressive efforts may be made in order to stiflethe opinions of any members who may dissent.The pressures to conform to the group override any criticisms members mayhave of the decisions being made by the group.
Another symptom of groupthink is self-censorship.Self-censorship causes members of a group to refrain from confiding toother members their private doubts and uncertainties concerning the actions oftheir group. When members of agroup censor their own thoughts and opinions, the final resolutions made by thegroup may appear to be unanimous when in fact many of the members disagree withthe group.
Mindguards also affectgroupthink. A mindguard is a memberof the group who, in an attempt to preserve the central group idea, omits anyinformation which may cause doubts to arise within the group.A mindguard assumes the responsibility of sheltering the other members ofthe group from any “controversial” information which may create a disruptionin the overall group dynamic. If amindguard receives any negative outside information, he does not relate it tothe group. A mindguard also appliespressure to any dissenting members, ultimately forcing them into silence.To this end, the mindguard may employ a variety of different strategiesto persuade the dissenter to change his opinion.One of these strategies would be to convince the dissenter that the groupmay disintegrate if all members are not in total agreement.The goal of a mindguard is to prevent any questions regarding thegroup’s decisions from becoming apparent to the other group members.
A fourth symptom of groupthink is the apparentunanimity of a group. Whenmembers of a group censor their own dissension, the other group members observewhat appears to be group unanimity. Evenif many members in a group disagree with the action the group is taking, theymay not make their objections known to other members, instead assuming that allother group members are in acceptance of the situation. No single group memberis willing to disrupt the clear consensus reached by the group, which in turnleads other group members to the erroneous conclusion that everyone agreeswithin the group.
The illusion of invulnerabilityis another symptom of groupthink. Membersof a group in which no one voices their disagreement may have the perceptionthat their group is performing well. Inessence, group members believe that their group as a whole could not possibleperform sweeping errors in judgment. Members are extremely self-assured andconfident in the group’s decision-making ability. Over-confidence in the group’s decision-making powers leadsmembers to form an illusion of invulnerability in which members believe they areinvulnerable to any obstacle, allowing them to push aside clear and analyticalthinking.
The sixth symptom of groupthink is the illusionof morality, in which members participating in the group decision-makingprocess tend to lose sight of their personal moral principles.Rather, belief in the overall morality of the group overrides anyindividual sense of right and wrong. Groupsthat make huge errors in judgment tend to formulate incorrect judgments aboutthe group’s true intentions.
Biased perceptions of the outgroupare another symptom of groupthink. Membersof a tightly cohesive group tend to perceive any non-group members as outsiders.The resulting close-mindedness creates stereotyped images of theoutsiders. Ultimately, outsidersmay often be perceived as dumb, evil, and/or weak.Their abilities are discredited and underestimated.More importantly, the devaluation of the outgroup results in a degree ofdehumanization which allows the ingroup to justify the violence and inhumanityof their actions.
Defective decision-makingstrategies also arise from groupthink.More often than not, the decisions reached in groupthink situations areusually incorrect ones. The poordecisions associated with groupthink situations are a result of defectivedecision-making strategies. Onecommon component of a defectivestrategy is the group’s attachment to a limited set of alternatives which omitother, more acceptable possible courses of action from the discussion. This results in a decision based on an incomplete review ofthe alternatives open to the group.
Another defective strategy employed in groupthink situations is theconscious omission of information which may reveal weaknesses in the plan.Instead, group members focus only on information which supports theiractions, creating an inaccurate appraisal of the situation and altering theperceptions of the group so that they lean more in favor of the currently-agreedupon course of action. Defectivedecision-making strategies can ultimately induce the group to lose sight of theinitial overall objectives, since the group fails to fully incorporate all ofthe relevant data.
There are several main causes of groupthink. These include groupcohesiveness, overall group isolation, group leadership, and decision-makingstress. High levels of cohesiveness decrease the amount of verbal dissension within a tightgroup, due to interpersonal pressure to conform.This high level of cohesiveness also creates self-censorship and apparentunanimity within the group. Normally,group dissension is necessary for good decision-making, because it introducedifferent perspectives to the decision-making process.In the absence of this disagreement, alternative choices for action arenever considered.
Another cause of groupthink is isolation.Often in group situations, it is important that the decisions being made or theactions being carried remain secret. Thisrequires that no outside opinions or thoughts be incorporated into thedecision-making process. Frequently,groups reach resolutions and carry them out without conferring with any outsidesources. One result of this extremeisolation is insulation from criticism. Thisabsence of criticism may lead to illusions of group invulnerability andmorality.
The leadership of a group canalso lead to groupthink, since complete control over the group by the leader cancause an environment in which no one states their own opinions.When extremely rigid leadership is implemented within a group (such asoccurs in the military) group discussions are often tightly controlled.Any dissenting opinions tend to be suppressed through intimidation or besimply not allowing the dissenter to voice his objections. If a leader in a group situation makes his opinion clear atthe outset of the discussions, group members will on many occasions refrain fromexpressing any disagreement out of respect for the leader’s authority.
Another cause of groupthink is decisionalstress. When a group is forcedto make an important decision, each individual within the group often harbors acertain amount of insecurity. Oftenwithout being aware, members of a group will attempt to reduce this decisionalstress through any possible means. Sincethis insecurity is lessened if the decision is made quickly and with littledisagreement, the group can easily rationalize a decision because there of theminimal amount of dissension within the group.The positive consequences of the group’s decision serve as the mainfocus, while there is a minimization of any negative outcomes. Concentrating on minor details of group decisions or actionsis a way in which the group can overlook larger issues that may need attention.In high pressure group decision-making, attempts by members to reduce thestress associated with decision-making often results in groupthink.
Applicationof Groupthink to the Rape of Nanking
It attempting to understand the events which culminated in the rape ofNanking, it is necessary to examine the mental decision-making which could havelead to such an unanticipated and inhumane outcome.
There were many symptoms of groupthink present in the overall environmentat Nanking. For instance, withinmilitary situations, interpersonal pressures to conform are intense.Tolerance for nonconformity is virtually non-existent, and extremetactics to bring dissenters into line are common-place.
Self-censorship was most likely another important symptom of thegroupthink that occurred at Nanking. Privately,many soldiers may have disagreed with what was occurring, but they chose to keeptheir doubts to themselves. Thisself-censorship led to the appearance of unanimity among the soldiers.
Even though many Japanese soldiers may have inwardly objected to theevents that were taking place, there was an apparent unanimity among the group.The objections to these events never surfaced from the soldiers becauseof the overall pressure to conform. Ifthe “norm” appeared to be the torture of the Chinese captives, this falsesense of unanimity discouraged each individual soldier from going against theoverall group dynamic.
Another symptom of groupthink common in military situations is anillusion of invulnerability. Sincethe Japanese soldiers had conquered the entire city, their confidence in thegroup led them to believe that major errors were not possible, leading to viewtheir decision-making process as infallible.
The Japanese soldiers may also have experienced illusions which allowedthem to warp their sense of morality. Individualmorals were lost in the overwhelming group desire to take total control ofNanking. Justification for theatrocities that occurred was imbedded in the group’s desire for completesubmission from the Chinese. TheJapanese soldiers’ illusions of morality among their own countrymen outweighedany personal moral thought.
The biased perceptions of the Chinese were shared by the Japanesesoldiers. They did not view thepeople of Nanking as whole people. Tothe Japanese soldiers, the Chinese were simply the enemy, and the enemy did notdeserve to live. A dehumanizationoccurred which resulted in the countless mutilations and rapes that occurred.
Finally, defective decision-making strategies illustrates the occurrenceof groupthink at Nanking. Clearly,the decision to bury prisoners waist-high to allow dogs to attack the top halfof their bodies was cruel and inhumane, as was the decision to allow soldiers tocompete in decapitation contests. Numerouspeople participated in arriving at these outrageous decisions.These group members lost sight of their overall goal and became wrappedup in the individual issues surrounding the disposal of the prisoners of war.
All four causal factors of groupthink were present during the Japaneseoccupation of Nanking, ultimately leading up to the numerous atrocities whichoccurred. The Japanese soldiersthat occupied Nanking were a cohesive group. With the shared experienceencompassing the horrors of war, individuals within the group had formed strongbonds of friendship, leading to an overall sense of camaraderie.This tight cohesiveness made it hard for any single group member to voicedisapproval of the events taking place. Ifany individuals did manage to verbally dissent with the actions of the othergroup members, they were likely to be ostracized.This cohesiveness among the occupying soldiers in Nanking resulted in acontinuation of the inhumane acts, since it appeared as though no one had anyobjections to the misdeeds.
The group of Japanese soldiers was also isolated from the rest ofsociety. The officials who werecontrol of the situation worked hard to ensure that the events which occurredwithin the boundaries of the city remained concealed. Few outsiders enteredNanking during the occupation, since the Japanese barred foreign diplomats andthe press. Although there werestaged visits prepared for visitors, no outsiders ever saw what was trulyhappening. This isolation createdvirtual isolation from any criticism which might have been leveled at thesoldiers’ actions. This absenceof any different perspectives of the abuses created the groupthink whichoccurred within this group of soldiers.
The Japanese leadership at Nanking also contributed to the process ofgroupthink. Due to the formalitywithin the Japanese army, no officers solicited the troops for the individualopinions and concerns. Rather, the order to the troops was simply that allprisoners of war were to be executed. Incarrying out these orders, many soldiers may have simply taken the edict toofar, while the pressure from the leadership to conform prevented any soldiersfrom dissenting. In this sense, thestrict leadership of the soldiers in Nanking resulted in the absence ofdissension among the soldiers.
The stress placed on the soldiers to make decisions involving theexecution of thousands of prisoners was overwhelming.Since the inhumane executions took place within the first eight weeks ofthe occupation, individual insecurities were minimized by group membersperforming their assigned task as quickly as possible.This haste also reduced the amount of overall dissension, which in turnhelped to reduce the stress placed on the soldiers.The soldiers also rationalized their actions by focusing their attentionon the overall outcome and goals of the war.This attempt to reduce decision- making stress was a prime factorcontributing to the presence of groupthink.
The presence of groupthink can drastically alter the decision makingcapabilities of a group, often a preventing a group from arriving at rationaldecisions. An analysis of theevents which occurred during the Japanese occupation of Nanking during World WarII shows many symptoms and causes of groupthink. While the inhumane nature ofthese events in many ways defies our understanding of human nature, theisolation and cohesiveness of the Japanese forces at Nanking can help in theexplanation of this barbarity. Likewise, the cohesiveness combined with thestrict leadership enforced the irrational decisions, effectively squelching anydissenting voices which might have sought to prevent the rape of Nanking fromoccurring. The presence of groupthink in the decision making processes of thesoldiers is one explanation as to how events, as horrible as the ones that tookplace in Nanking, could have occurred.
NEXT
