A groupthink trap: Consensual decision-making in community forestry usersgroup- case study of Nepal

- Swati Negi

1

Source: http://leaderslab.co.uk2

I have chosen theleader to decideso why should I

waste my time in decision activities

We followconsensus-

orienteddecision making

There is noproblem in our

forest users group

Secret ballotelection create

conflicts

Social heterogeneity

Power disparity

Cultural and social norms

+

3

Consensual decision makingThe Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Proposalof idea

Brainstorming

Knowledgeexchange

Deliberation

Critical evaluation

Consensus-

oriented

decision

4

Low probability of

successfuloutcome

Defects in decisionoutcome

Antecedentconditions

GroupthinkSymptoms

GROUPTHINK FRAMEWORK

5

LEADERSHIP

STRESS

COHESIVENESS

MOTIVATION

CONCURRENCE SEEKING

Antecedentconditions

MORALITY

INVULNERABILITY

UNANIMITY

SELF CENSORSHIP

CONFORMITY

GroupthinkSymptoms

Low qualitydecisionoutcome

6

Study Area

7

Research Questions

• Is there presence of antecedent conditions and symptoms of groupthink in the context of community forestry management ?

• If yes, which variables are the strongest predictors of the groupthink phenomenon among community forestry users’ groups in Nepal?

8

ExperimentPost-

experimentalquestionnaire

Discussion1

Group Discussions

Each participant in eachgroup of each experiment

filled this questionnaireN= 150

WomenBAU Majority caste

Discussion2

Expert Ratings on :1. Decision process

2. Decision outcome

Data Collection

9

LEADERSHIP*

STRESS

COHESIVENESS

MOTIVATION**

CONCURRENCE SEEKING

Antecedentconditions

MORALITY

INVULNERABILITY

UNANIMITY

SELF CENSORSHIP

CONFORMITY

GrouthinkSymptoms

R2 =0.05F for change in R2=2.709*

Multiple linear regression: 1

10

LEADERSHIP

STRESS

COHESIVENESS

MOTIVATION**

CONCURRENCE SEEKING

Antecedentconditions

MORALITY

INVULNERABILITY

UNANIMITY

SELF CENSORSHIP

R2 =0.08F for change in R2=3.644** CONFORMITY

GrouthinkSymptoms

Multiple linear regression: 2

11

LEADERSHIP

STRESS

COHESIVENESS

MOTIVATION***

CONCURRENCE SEEKING

Antecedentconditions

MORALITY

INVULNERABILITY

UNANIMITY

SELF CENSORSHIP

CONFORMITY

GrouthinkSymptoms

R2 =0.13F for change in R2=5.596***

Multiple linear regression: 3

12

ANOVA: group comparison

MORALITY

INVULNERABILITY

UNANIMITY

SELF CENSORSHIP

CONFORMITY

GrouthinkSymptoms

F(1, 148) = 7.07, p = 0.008**

F(1, 148) = 10.807, p = 0.001**

LEADERSHIP

STRESS

COHESIVENESS

MOTIVATION

CONCURRENCE SEEKING

Antecedentconditions

F(1, 148) = 6.1586, p = 0.0142 *

13

R2 =0.12F for change in R2=6.359***

LEADERSHIP**

STRESS

COHESIVENESS

MOTIVATION

CONCURRENCE SEEKING

Antecedentconditions

MORALITY*

INVULNERABILITY**

UNANIMITY

SELF CENSORSHIP

CONFORMITY

GrouthinkSymptoms

Low qualitydecisionmakingprocess

Decision-making process quality

14

R2 =0.12F for change in R2=5.134***

R2 =0.14F for change in R2=5.876***

LEADERSHIP

STRESS

COHESIVENESS

MOTIVATION

CONCURRENCE SEEKING

Antecedentconditions

MORALITY

INVULNERABILITY

UNANIMITY

SELF CENSORSHIP

CONFORMITY

GrouthinkSymptoms

Low qualitydecisionoutcome

Decision Outcome Quality

15

Why to care about Groupthink in CFM?

Decisions that are biased and not truly optimisingthe interests of all distinct and heterogeneous sub-groups within the community of forest users may

lead to a failure of the project or policy in practice…

16

Thankyou

Questions ??

17

References and image sources

• Cartoon 1: " those in favour say Yes " : http://leaderslab.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/groupthink-400x280.jpg

• Cartoon 2: " we need more dissenting views " :https://sites.google.com/site/hookappsychology/group-influence-and-behaviors--carlos-odreman/groupthink• Cartoon 3: " when no one is thinking… : https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/files/2016/10/c9ae7936dbacaa06b34420c26ed1ef2f-pr81dx.jpg• Cartoon 4: " So do we agree? :https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/files/2016/10/608292-22122-23-1vu9rsd.jpg• Cartoon 5: http://www.prnewsonline.com/avoid-groupthink

18