Introduction: Understanding Group Decision-Making Dynamics

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when the desire for harmony and conformity within a group leads to poor decision-making outcomes. In such situations, individuals suppress their dissenting opinions, prioritize consensus over critical analysis, and ultimately compromise the quality of decisions made by the collective. This inclination to conform can stifle creativity and innovation, as members may hesitate to voice alternative perspectives or challenge prevailing ideas. The pressure to fit in with important groups often results in a lack of thorough deliberation, leaving room for potentially harmful choices that do not reflect the best interests of all members involved.

Building on the concept of groupthink is the risky shift phenomenon, which specifically highlights how groups tend to make bolder and more extreme decisions compared to those made by individuals acting alone. Research indicates that when people come together in a group setting, their collective discussions can lead them toward riskier choices than they would typically consider if making decisions independently.

This tendency arises from social dynamics where individuals seek validation from peers and adjust their viewpoints based on perceived norms within the group. As a result, what might begin as cautious deliberation can quickly escalate into bold actions fueled by shared enthusiasm or misplaced confidence. Understanding both groupthink and the risky shift phenomenon allows psychologists and organizational leaders alike to better navigate decision-making processes while fostering environments conducive to balanced assessments of risk versus reward.

Historical Background of Risky Shift Phenomenon

The history of the risky shift phenomenon began with the seemingly counterintuitive findings of a graduate student’s master’s thesis at MIT in 1961. This student, James Stoner, was studying the impact of group discussion on decision-making. Stoner’s discovery contradicted the common belief that consultation, particularly in groups or committees, would lead to more cautious decisions.

The risky shift is demonstrated through experiments using short case problems where individuals first indicate their preferred level of risk for a hypothetical person or situation. After group discussion, the group’s consensus decision, or even individuals’ decisions after discussion, shows a shift towards greater risk compared to the initial individual averages. For instance, in a typical risky problem, the average individual decision might be a probability of 0.5, while the group decides on a riskier probability of 0.3. This shift was initially found to be quite general, occurring with different populations and types of problems, and its unexpectedness spurred extensive follow-up research (Stoner, 1961).

Stoner’s initial findings were somewhat unexpected and sparked considerable interest and debate within social psychology. His master’s thesis, while influential in initiating the research, was not widely published in a major peer-reviewed journal at the time. While Stoner’s 1961 work is credited with the initial discovery, the phenomenon became more widely recognized and investigated in the years immediately following. The 1960s saw a flurry of research aimed at replicating, explaining, and specifying the conditions under which the risky shift occurs. The 1962 study by Wallach, Kogan, and Bem provided further empirical support for the phenomenon and contributed to its recognition within the field (Wallach et al., 1962).

Theoretical Explanations

Several theories have been proposed to explain the underlying mechanisms of the risky shift phenomenon. These theories encompass aspects of social psychology, group dynamics, and decision-making processes.

Groupthink

Groupthink significantly contributes to the phenomenon of group decisions shifting toward riskier choices by creating an environment where dissenting voices are silenced in favor of consensus. When individuals prioritize harmony and cohesion over critical evaluation, they often suppress their own reservations about a proposed course of action. This lack of open dialogue can lead to a false sense of unanimity within the group, making members feel more inclined to endorse bold or risky decisions that they might otherwise question. The desire to maintain interpersonal relationships and avoid conflict encourages conformity, further diminishing the likelihood that alternative viewpoints will be considered, ultimately paving the way for more extreme decision-making.

Groupthink and Rational Investigations

In the presence of a group ordinary critical thinking skills diminish. W.R. Bion’s Basic assumption groups demonstrated limited intellectual activity interfering with fear perturbing rational investigations (Bion, 2004). This phenomenon can lead to a collective mindset where members feel emboldened to take risks, as their usual critical faculties are overshadowed by the group’s dynamic. Consequently, this diminished capacity for independent thought not only exacerbates the risky shift but also perpetuates an environment that favors daring decisions over cautious deliberation.

Moreover, as groups engage in discussions characterized by groupthink dynamics, they may amplify each other’s enthusiasm for taking risks while downplaying potential negative outcomes. The collective mindset fosters an illusion of invulnerability—where members believe that their unity protects them from failure—and this can embolden individuals to embrace riskier options without adequately assessing possible consequences. As persuasive arguments emerge among group members advocating for daring choices, there is a tendency to overlook cautionary considerations or realistic assessments of danger.

Consequently, these social pressures culminate in decision-making processes that lean towards higher levels of risk and uncertainty rather than prudent evaluations grounded in individual judgment—a hallmark characteristic seen within the risky shift phenomenon.

Social Comparison Theory

Social comparison theory, developed by Leon Festinger in the 1950s, highlights the natural human tendency to evaluate one’s own opinions and abilities through comparisons with others (Murphy, 2024). Festinger explains that when objective data is not available for accurate appraisals of personal opinions and abilities, people evaluate “their opinions and abilities by comparison respectively with the opinions and abilities of others” (Festinger, 1954).

This process is particularly evident within group settings where individuals are exposed to diverse perspectives. Initially, participants may express cautious or conservative viewpoints based on their personal assessments of risk and potential outcomes. However, as they observe and interact with peers who display varying levels of confidence and risk tolerance, these individuals may experience a shift in their perceptions (Clark et al.,1971). The desire for social acceptance and conformity can drive them to adjust their opinions to align more closely with those of the group, leading to a collective normalization of riskier behaviors.

This phenomenon has significant implications for decision-making dynamics in various contexts such as team projects or brainstorming sessions. When members strive to outdo each other in demonstrating boldness or willingness to take risks, it can create an environment that encourages extreme decision-making rather than careful deliberation.

As individuals become increasingly influenced by the prevailing attitudes within the group, they might overlook potential negative consequences associated with risky choices. Ultimately, this escalation towards greater risk-taking behavior underscores the importance of understanding social comparison processes in group dynamics—especially since such shifts can lead not only to innovative solutions but also potentially detrimental outcomes if left unchecked.

Diffusion of Responsibility

One key factor leading to riskier decisions in groups compared to individuals is the diffusion or abdication of personal responsibility (Zimbardo, 2007; Staub, 1992). In a group setting, the burden of responsibility is shared among all members, which can lead to a sense of anonymity regarding one’s role in the group’s choices. As individuals contribute to discussions and decision-making processes, they may subconsciously adopt the mindset that their individual input carries less weight than it would in isolation. This perception diminishes their feelings of personal obligation to ensure prudent choices and encourages them to engage in riskier behavior without fearing direct repercussions.

Gustave Le Bon explains that in a crowd, an individual can become a “barbarian,” acting by instinct rather than consciously, losing their personal identity and becoming an “automaton” guided by suggestion rather than their own will (Le Bon, 1895). The group interferes with ordinary inhibitions as we shed individual identities, in favor of a group.

Furthermore, the diffusion of responsibility can create an environment where individuals feel liberated from the constraints typically associated with personal decision-making. When people recognize that outcomes are attributed to the collective rather than themselves alone, they may be more inclined to endorse or advocate for bold actions. This shift in mindset can result in groups making decisions that are not only riskier but also potentially reckless, as participants lean into this perceived safety net afforded by shared accountability.

Understanding how diffusion of responsibility operates within group dynamics is crucial for leaders and facilitators aiming to guide teams towards balanced decision-making; implementing strategies that reinforce individual roles and responsibilities can help counteract this tendency toward excessive risk-taking while promoting careful deliberation over impulsive action.

Persuasive Arguments Theory

Persuasive arguments theory posits that when individuals engage in group discussions, they are presented with a diverse range of viewpoints and rationales that can significantly influence their decision-making processes. In such collaborative environments, the exchange of ideas becomes a powerful catalyst for shaping opinions. Each member’s contributions introduce new information and compelling reasoning that may not have been previously considered by others.

As group members articulate their perspectives, they often emphasize the potential benefits or positive outcomes associated with risk-taking behavior, thereby creating an atmosphere where taking bold actions appears more appealing (Murphy, 2024a). This dynamic allows for a richer dialogue than what one might encounter in solitary reflection, as individuals benefit from hearing varied arguments that challenge their initial hesitations.

Moreover, this exposure to persuasive arguments can lead to a phenomenon known as “group polarization,” where discussions within the group amplify pre-existing tendencies towards riskier decisions. As participants hear multiple endorsements for daring choices, they may become increasingly convinced of the merits of these positions and feel emboldened to adopt them themselves. The collective reinforcement of risky viewpoints can create an environment where caution is overshadowed by enthusiasm for innovative but potentially perilous options (Vinokur & Burnstein, 1974).

Consequently, while persuasive arguments theory highlights the value of collaboration and shared insights in decision-making contexts, it also underscores the need for awareness regarding how groups can inadvertently normalize extreme behaviors—leading individuals to make choices far outside their original comfort zones if not carefully moderated.

Spiral of Silence

The Spiral of Silence model, proposed by Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, enhances our understanding of the risky shift phenomenon by illustrating how individuals’ perceptions of prevailing opinion within a group can influence their willingness to express dissenting views (Murphy, 2024b). According to this model, people are often reluctant to voice opinions that they believe are in the minority for fear of social isolation or backlash.

In a group setting where risk-taking is favored or perceived as the norm, individuals may suppress their cautious perspectives and conform to more daring choices advocated by others. This dynamic not only contributes to an atmosphere conducive to risky decision-making but also reinforces the consensus around those bold choices.

Furthermore, as more individuals remain silent about their reservations due to perceived social pressure, the group’s collective behavior becomes increasingly skewed toward riskier decisions. The lack of diverse viewpoints diminishes critical discourse and allows extreme positions—often framed as acceptable or desirable—to dominate discussions. Over time, this creates a feedback loop wherein those who might have initially held conservative views become even less likely to speak up in future deliberations, perpetuating a cycle of conformity and amplifying the overall tendency towards risk-taking in group contexts.

Thus, the Spiral of Silence model highlights how social dynamics play a crucial role in shaping group decisions and elucidates why groups may experience shifts towards riskier behaviors despite individual members’ personal apprehensions about such choices.

Groups Impact on Resolving Individual Emotional Distress

The interplay between individual psychological processes and group dynamics is a complex yet crucial aspect of decision-making, particularly in the context of risk-taking behavior. While groups can create an environment that fosters collective decisions, they do not override the intrinsic emotional confrontations faced by individuals. Each member within a group grapples with their own emotions, which can be significantly influenced by both the subject matter at hand and personal experiences.

In moments of distress or uncertainty, individuals often resort to strategies known as defense mechanisms to cope with these feelings.

Olaf Dahlbäck’s work (2003) contributes substantially to our understanding of this intersection between individual psychology and group dynamics through his “conflict theory of group risk taking.” This theory posits that when confronted with decisions involving risk, individuals experience internal conflicts that manifest as unpleasant emotions such as anxiety, fear, guilt, and feelings of inferiority. These emotional responses are not merely isolated occurrences; rather, they intertwine deeply with how individuals approach decision-making within a group context.

Individual Psychology and Group Dynamics

Dahlbäck argues that traditional theories surrounding risky shift phenomena have often overlooked the foundational role of individual psychology in influencing group outcomes. By extending his conflict theory into the realm of group interactions, he highlights how these internal struggles become amplified during discussions among peers. Group settings compel members to examine choices more critically while simultaneously providing cognitive material for them to utilize in managing their defense mechanisms.

Moreover, social influence plays a significant role in shaping how individuals navigate their discomfort associated with risk-taking within groups. Mechanisms like seeking support from other members or diffusing responsibility for potential negative outcomes emerge as vital tools for coping with unpleasant feelings during deliberations. For instance, when an individual expresses hesitation about making a bold choice due to fear or anxiety but finds affirmation from supportive peers within the discussion, it can lead them to modify their initial stance toward greater acceptance of risks.

Dahlbäck’s empirical research further illustrates these concepts by revealing strong correlations between shifts in risk-taking behaviors and tendencies towards unpleasant emotional reactions alongside efforts to seek support and diffuse responsibility among participants in various studies. The findings indicate that changes in collective attitudes towards risk are closely tied to interpersonal dynamics where support is sought out while accountability becomes shared across the group’s decision-making process.

Empirical Evidence

Numerous studies have provided empirical evidence supporting the existence of the risky shift phenomenon. Studies using the Choice Dilemma Questionnaire (CDQ), the instrument initially employed by Wallach and Kogan and used by Stoner have consistently shown significant shifts (Wallach et al., 1962).

Kahan (1975) conducted experiments using the CDQ and found that both group shifts and personal shifts (changes in individual opinion after group discussion) towards risk were statistically significant across six different choice dilemma situations (p < .001 for both measures). This indicates that the group interaction process reliably leads to a shift in risk preference compared to initial individual stances.

Similarly, Fraser, Gouge, and Billig (1971), using the CDQ, conducted experiments demonstrating that group discussion resulted in movements towards the extremes, a phenomenon they described as group polarization. Their empirical analysis showed that items initially rated by individuals as relatively risky produced significant shifts towards even greater risk following group consensus or discussion. Specifically, for items initially scoring in the “risky” range (mean score of 3.4 or less on a scale where lower scores indicate greater risk), the mean shift from pre-consensus to consensus was +0.71 (p<.001) and from pre-consensus to post-consensus was +0.50 (p<.001), indicating a clear movement towards risk.

Even studies designed to test alternative explanations or models inadvertently provide empirical support for the phenomenon. Castore, Peterson, and Goodrich (1971), who examined formal social choice models, conducted an experiment using the CDQ and found that the mean group decisions predicted by their models (Simple Majority Rule and Aspiration Level) were riskier than the average of the group members’ initial pre-discussion preferences. While their focus was on model prediction, their empirical data, derived from group decisions on CDQ problems known to produce shifts, inherently demonstrated the risky shift effect. The instances where their models failed to predict the group decision also highlighted how group dynamics could lead to outcomes that deviate from simple aggregation, sometimes leading to riskier decisions.

Complexity and Risky Shift Phenomenon

The complexity of group dynamics in decision-making processes, particularly within the context of the risky shift phenomenon, cannot be overstated. Individuals typically belong to multiple groups simultaneously, each with its own unique set of influences and interactions. This diversity among group members leads to varying perspectives and preferences that may significantly impact predictions about how group decisions will manifest.

Research has shown that these intricate social dynamics can complicate our understanding of collective behaviors, especially when examining formal models used to predict outcomes in group settings. For instance, Castore et al. (1971) explore whether existing statistical methods—such as utilizing the mean of individual preferences—accurately reflect what a group’s decision should ideally be within the risky-shift paradigm. Their work highlights that relying solely on such aggregation techniques may overlook critical factors influencing actual decision-making processes.

More than Chance but Still Subject to Complex Unknowns

Their empirical findings reveal an interesting trend: while these models often successfully predicted the direction of risk shifts more frequently than random chance would allow, they were not infallible; specifically, there were instances where predictions failed dramatically—eight out of thirty-two group decisions did not align with expectations derived from MR/in model assessments (Castore et al., 1971). Such discrepancies suggest that interpersonal dynamics can override simplistic aggregations based on individual opinions or preferences.

For example, situations arose where a relatively unconcerned minority managed to influence a concerned majority’s viewpoint—a phenomenon indicative of minority influence at play within the group discussion process. These insights underscore how complex social interactions during deliberation can lead groups toward outcomes divergent from those anticipated by traditional predictive methods.

Ultimately, this exploration suggests that understanding phenomena like risky shift requires acknowledging both individual identities and broader social frameworks at work in any given situation—a realization crucial for effectively navigating collective decision-making scenarios across various fields such as business and organizational management.

Implications and Applications

Understanding the risky shift phenomenon has significant implications for various fields, including business, politics, and law.

Business and Organizational Decision-Making

In the corporate world, the decisions made by executive boards, committees, or teams can significantly impact not only the organization’s success but also its reputation and sustainability. These groups often face complex challenges that require careful consideration of various factors before arriving at a conclusion. However, understanding the potential for risky shifts in group decision-making is essential for organizations aiming to avoid pitfalls associated with excessive risk-taking. By being aware of this phenomenon, companies can take proactive measures to ensure that their decision-making processes are grounded in rational analysis rather than impulsive choices driven by collective dynamics.

One effective strategy to mitigate risky shifts is encouraging a culture that values diverse viewpoints and constructive dissent among team members. When individuals from different backgrounds and experiences contribute their perspectives, it enriches discussions and helps prevent homogenized thinking that can lead to extreme outcomes.

Additionally, establishing clear decision-making protocols—such as structured frameworks for evaluating options or incorporating systematic risk assessments—can guide teams toward more deliberate choices. Fostering a culture of accountability also plays a vital role; when individuals feel personally responsible for their contributions within group settings, they are more likely to consider the implications of their decisions carefully. By implementing these strategies, organizations can cultivate an environment conducive to balanced decision-making while minimizing the likelihood of falling prey to overly bold or reckless group decisions.

Political and Policy Decisions

In the realm of politics, legislative bodies and advisory councils often make decisions that impact entire nations in profound ways. These decisions can shape economic policies, social norms, and international relations, thereby influencing the lives of millions. Policymakers must be acutely aware of the risky shift phenomenon, a psychological tendency where group discussions can lead to riskier collective decisions than individuals would undertake alone.

To mitigate the potential repercussions of this dynamic, it becomes crucial to avoid enacting policies that may be excessively risky or lacking in thorough consideration and analysis. By incorporating effective checks and balances, along with promoting transparent deliberations that involve a diverse range of perspectives, political entities can strive for more balanced decision-making. Engaging in open dialogues and fostering an environment where dissenting opinions are valued not only enhances the quality of policy decisions but also reinforces public trust in governance, ensuring that the interests of all citizens are adequately represented and safeguarded.

Legal and Judicial Proceedings

Juries and judicial panels frequently make decisions that carry substantial legal and moral weight, influencing not only the lives of the individuals involved but also shaping public perceptions of justice and accountability. Understanding the complex dynamics of group decision-making can help legal professionals design jury instructions and deliberation processes that minimize the influence of risky shifts, where the group’s decision may deviate from the more cautious views of its individual members.

To foster a fair and equitable environment, it’s essential to ensure that jurors feel individually accountable for their contributions to the deliberation. Encouraging open dialogue among jurors can lead to a more thorough exploration of the evidence and different viewpoints, ultimately contributing to fairer and more rational verdicts. By implementing strategies that promote critical thinking and respectful discussion, the judicial system can enhance the quality of its outcomes and reinforce the foundational principles of justice.

Mitigating Risky Shifts

While the risky shift phenomenon highlights the propensity for groups to take greater risks, there are strategies that can be employed to mitigate this tendency.

Emphasizing Individual Accountability

One effective approach is to emphasize individual accountability within the group. By clearly delineating each member’s role and responsibility, the diffusion of responsibility can be minimized. This approach encourages individuals to carefully consider the potential consequences of their decisions.

Encouraging Diverse Perspectives

Promoting diversity within groups can counteract the homogenization of opinions that often leads to risky shifts. When group members come from varied backgrounds and hold different viewpoints, the likelihood of extreme decisions is reduced. Organizations and decision-making bodies should prioritize inclusivity and actively seek out diverse perspectives.

Structured Decision-Making Processes

Implementing structured decision-making processes can also help mitigate risky shifts. Structured Decision Making (SDM) is a prescriptive framework that combines analytical methods from the decision sciences, utilizing insights from fields like cognitive psychology and negotiation theory. The underlying goal of SDM is to help individuals and groups successfully navigate difficult, multidimensional choices (Gregory et al., 2012). These processes may include predefined criteria for evaluating options, systematic risk assessments, and step-by-step deliberation guidelines. By adhering to a structured approach, groups can make more balanced and informed decisions.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

As we conclude our exploration of the risky shift phenomenon, it becomes evident that understanding group dynamics is not just an academic exercise; it’s a vital component for anyone navigating decision-making processes in collaborative environments. Whether you’re a business leader strategizing with your team, a policymaker shaping societal norms, or a juror weighing evidence, recognizing how group discussions can amplify risk-taking behaviors empowers you to approach decisions more judiciously. The insights gleaned from this phenomenon offer practical strategies that encourage balanced deliberation and mitigate the pitfalls of impulsive collective choices.

Ultimately, acknowledging the complexities behind the risky shift opens avenues for fostering healthier decision-making practices across various fields. By embracing diverse perspectives and cultivating individual accountability within groups, we can harness the strengths of collaboration without succumbing to its inherent risks. As we continue to unravel the intricacies of human behavior and social influence, let us commit to applying these insights thoughtfully—ensuring that our collective decisions reflect not just enthusiasm but also critical analysis and responsible judgment. In doing so, we pave the way for more effective outcomes in both personal endeavors and larger societal frameworks.

Last Update: October 24, 2025

Associated Concepts

• Asch Conformity Studies: These studies explored the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could influence a person to conform.
• Robbers Cave Experiment: This research, led by Muzafer Sherif, revealed the dark side of intergroup conflict. It demonstrated the power of group dynamics, realistic conflict theory, and the potential for conflict resolution through cooperation.
• Social Identity Theory: Proposed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner, this theory emphasizes that individuals categorize themselves and others into social groups based on shared characteristics (such as ethnicity, nationality, or interests). Moreover, people derive part of their self-esteem from their group membership.
• Structured Decision-Making Processes: This refers to a systematic and transparent process for making informed choices in complex situations. It breaks down a difficult decision into smaller, more manageable steps to help individuals or groups clarify their goals, evaluate options, and make a logical choice.
• Group Dynamics: This refers to the interactions, relationships, and processes that occur within a group of individuals.
• Milgram Experiments: these experiments involved participants being instructed to administer what they believed to be increasingly painful electric shocks to another person, who was actually an actor and not receiving any shocks. The study aimed to investigate the willingness of participants to obey authority figures, even when their actions caused harm to others.
• Stanford Prison Experiment: This study, conducted by Phillip Zimbardo in 1971, explored the psychological impact of power dynamics within a simulated prison. The study was terminated early due to abusive behavior and raised ethical concerns.

References:

Bion, W.R. (2004). Experiences in Groups. ‎Routledge; 1st edition. ISBN-10: 0415040205; DOI: 10.4324/9780203359075
(Return to Main Text)

Castore, C.; Peterson, K.; Goodrich, T. (1971). Risky shift: Social value or social choice? An alternative model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20(3), 487-494. DOI: 10.1037/h0031913
(Return to Main Text)

Clark, R.; Crockett, W.; Archer, R. (1971). Risk-as-value hypothesis: The relationship between perception of self, others, and the risky shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20(3), 425-429. DOI: 10.1037/h0031933
(Return to Main Text)

Dahlbäck, Olaf (2003). A Conflict Theory of Group Risk Taking. Small Group Research: An International Journal of Theory, Investigation, and Application, 34(3), 251-289. DOI: 10.1177/1046496403034003001
(Return to Main Text)

Festinger, Leon (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140. DOI: 10.1177/001872675400700202
(Return to Main Text)

Fraser, C.; Gouge, C.; Billig, M. (1971). Risky shifts, cautious shifts, and group polarization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(1), 7-30. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2420010103
(Return to Main Text)

Gregory, R.; Failing, L.; Harstone, M.; Long, G.; McDaniels, T.; Ohlson, D. (2012). Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management choices. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 9781444333428; DOI: 10.1002/9781444398557
(Return to Main Text)

Kahan, James P. (1975). A subjective probability interpretation of the risky shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(6), 977-982. DOI: 10.1037/h0076935
(Return to Main Text)

Le Bon, Gustave (1895/2002). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. ‎Dover Publications; Reprint edition. ISBN-10: 0486419568
(Return to Main Text)

Murphy, T. Franklin (2024). The Influence of Social Comparison Theory on Self-Perception. Psychology Fanatic. Published: 4-29-2024; Accessed: 5-7-2025. Website: https://psychologyfanatic.com/social-comparison-theory/
(Return to Main Text)

Murphy, T. Franklin (2024a). The Persuasive Arguments Theory: Understanding Group Influence on Decision-Making. Psychology Fanatic. Published: 12-14-2024; Accessed: 5-7-2025. Website: https://psychologyfanatic.com/persuasive-arguments-theory/
(Return to Main Text)

Murphy, T. Franklin (2024b). Exploring the Spiral of Silence: How Public Opinion Influences Expression. Psychology Fanatic. Published: 9-4-2024; Accessed: 5-7-2025. Website: https://psychologyfanatic.com/spiral-of-silence/
(Return to Main Text)

Staub, Ervin (1992). The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge University Press; Revised ed. edition. ISBN-10: 0521422140; DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_2
(Return to Main Text)

Key Article:

Stoner, James Arthur Finch (1961). A Comparison of Group and Individual Decisions Involving Risk. Unpublished Thesis. Website: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279834356
(Return to Main Text)

Vinokur, Amiram; Burnstein, Eugene (1974). Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 305-315. DOI: 10.1037/h0036010
(Return to Main Text)

Wallach, M. A.; Kogan, N.; Bem, D. J. (1962). Group influence on individual risk taking. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(2), 1 75–86. DOI: 10.1037/h0044376
(Return to Main Text)

Zimbardo, Philip (2008). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. ‎Random House; 1st edition. ISBN-10: 0812974441; APA Record: 2007-04177-000
(Return to Main Text)