Interpersonal heart rate synchrony predicts effective information processing in a naturalistic group decision-making task

Groups often outperform individuals in problem-solving. Nevertheless, failure to critically evaluate ideas risks suboptimal outcomes through so-called groupthink. Prior studies have shown that people who hold shared goals, perspectives, or understanding of the environment show similar patterns of brain activity, which itself can be enhanced by consensus-building discussions. Whether shared arousal alone can predict collective decision-making outcomes, however, remains unknown. To address this gap, we computed interpersonal heart rate synchrony, a peripheral index of shared arousal associated with joint attention, empathic accuracy, and group cohesion, in 44 groups (n = 204) performing a collective decision-making task. The task required critical examination of all available information to override inferior, default options and make the right choice. Using multidimensional recurrence quantification analysis (MdRQA) and machine learning, we found that heart rate synchrony predicted the probability of groups reaching the correct consensus decision with >70% cross-validation accuracy-significantly higher than that predicted by the duration of discussions, subjective assessment of team function or baseline heart rates alone. We propose that heart rate synchrony during group discussion provides a biomarker of interpersonal engagement that facilitates adaptive learning and effective information sharing during collective decision-making.

Interpersonal heart rate synchrony predicts effective information processing in a naturalistic group decision-making task

Groups often outperform individuals in problem-solving. Nevertheless, failure to critically evaluate ideas risks sub-optimal outcomes through so-called groupthink. Prior studies have shown that people who hold shared goals, perspectives or understanding of the environment show similar patterns of brain activity, which itself can be enhanced by consensus building discussions. Whether shared arousal alone can predict collective decision-making outcomes, however, remains unknown. To address this gap, we computed interpersonal heart rate synchrony, a peripheral index of shared arousal associated with joint attention, empathic accuracy and group cohesion, in 44 groups (n=204) performing a collective decision-making task. The task required critical examination of all available information to override inferior, default options and make the right choice. Using multi-dimensional recurrence quantification analysis (MdRQA) and machine learning, we found that heart rate synchrony predicted the probability of groups reaching the correct consensus decision with greater than 70% cross-validation accuracy-significantly higher than that predicted by the duration of discussions, subjective assessment of team function or baseline heart rates alone. We propose that heart rate synchrony during group discussion provides a biomarker of interpersonal engagement that facilitates adaptive learning and effective information sharing during collective decision-making.

Weaving deceptive webs and untangling emotional truths

This paper explores how the allure of magical thinking and groupthink contrasts with intuition of emotional truth. Since truth can terrify, the author suggests that a longer learning curve is needed to apprehend what Bion (1970a) called the "evolving O" of the analytic session. Traumatized patients are described as dream weavers who spin webs of partial truths and lies around their true selves. For the analyst, untangling these webs involves what Bion (1970b) calls an "act of faith." Clinical material is presented to show how groupthink and other concretions of thought can, under favorable circumstances, be transformed on the wings of psychic truth. Alternatively, uncontained violent emotions can become calcified, creating a carapace over the chrysalis of the patient's true self. The author concludes that the analyst's desire for a particular treatment outcome can unwittingly lead to the formation of an adhesive web where healthy analytic culture becomes a cult. Paradoxically, it is only when there is equal attention to emotional truth and lies that a trajectory of growth is likely to evolve.

Bullied: Exploring the concepts of territorialism and groupthink involvement in workplace bullying

AIMS

To educate nurse managers on territorialism and groupthink as being factors within workplace bullying among nurses within the clinical and academic settings that can psychologically and physically harm affected persons.

DESIGN

Territorialism and groupthink are explored as being factors within workplace bullying used by a bully or bullies to target others for personal gain and power. Workplace bullying has become habitual practice in nursing and nursing academia. Workplace bullying is identified not only as unethical behaviour but also as a dangerous practice that can lead to depression, anxiety, stress, and posttraumatic distress syndrome. Persons affected are subjected to emotional abuse that can lead to isolation, low self-esteem, and self-doubt.

METHODS

Methods by which persons in the workplace can identify bullying that involves territorialism and groupthink are examined. Nurse managers are identified as being instrumental in the identification of workplace bullying involving territorialism and groupthink, and in working with the affected person(s) and bully or bullies to seek mediation through a human resource representative. For nursing managers, it is imperative that workplace bullying is immediately addressed. Workplace bullying creates a hostile and intimidating working environment that affects the physical and mental health of affected persons.

RESULTS

Early identification and resolution of workplace bullying could alleviate the development of physiological and psychological health problems by affected persons. After workplace bullying has been reported, the affected persons should focus on the healing of mind, spirit, and body. New circumstances (e.g., a new place of employment or a promotion) may trigger feelings of anger, intimidation or fear; therefore, it' is important for persons who have experienced bullying in the workplace to understand the abusive environment itself was not directly associated with any wrongdoing by them.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Workplace bullying is disruptive to the workplace and affects productivity, absenteeism from work and turnover intentions. Persons impacted by territorialism and groupthink within the context of workplace bullying can develop psychological and physiological health problems.

Optimizing Decision-Making Processes in Times of COVID-19: Using Reflexivity to Counteract Information-Processing Failures

The effectiveness of policymakers' decision-making in times of crisis depends largely on their ability to integrate and make sense of information. The COVID-19 crisis confronts governments with the difficult task of making decisions in the interest of public health and safety. Essentially, policymakers have to react to a threat, of which the extent is unknown, and they are making decisions under time constraints in the midst of immense uncertainty. The stakes are high, the issues involved are complex and require the careful balancing of several interests, including (mental) health, the economy, and human rights. These circumstances render policymakers' decision-making processes vulnerable to errors and biases in the processing of information, thereby increasing the chances of faulty decision-making processes with poor outcomes. Prior research has identified three main information-processing failures that can distort group decision-making processes and can lead to negative outcomes: (1) failure to search for and share information, (2) failure to elaborate on and analyze information that is not in line with earlier information and (3) failure to revise and update conclusions and policies in the light of new information. To date, it has not yet been explored how errors and biases underlying these information-processing failures impact decision-making processes in times of crisis. In this narrative review, we outline how groupthink, a narrow focus on the problem of containing the virus, and escalation of commitment may pose real risks to decision-making processes in handling the COVID-19 crisis and may result in widespread societal damages. Hence, it is vital that policymakers take steps to maximize the quality of the decision-making process and increase the chances of positive outcomes as the crisis goes forward. We propose group reflexivity-a deliberate process of discussing team goals, processes, or outcomes-as an antidote to these biases and errors in decision-making. Specifically, we recommend several evidence-based reflexivity tools that could easily be implemented to counter these information-processing errors and improve decision-making processes in uncertain times.

COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic in 2020. In response, most countries in the world implemented lockdowns, restricting their population's movements, work, education, gatherings, and general activities in attempt to "flatten the curve" of COVID-19 cases. The public health goal of lockdowns was to save the population from COVID-19 cases and deaths, and to prevent overwhelming health care systems with COVID-19 patients. In this narrative review I explain why I changed my mind about supporting lockdowns. The initial modeling predictions induced fear and crowd-effects (i.e., groupthink). Over time, important information emerged relevant to the modeling, including the lower infection fatality rate (median 0.23%), clarification of high-risk groups (specifically, those 70 years of age and older), lower herd immunity thresholds (likely 20-40% population immunity), and the difficult exit strategies. In addition, information emerged on significant collateral damage due to the response to the pandemic, adversely affecting many millions of people with poverty, food insecurity, loneliness, unemployment, school closures, and interrupted healthcare. Raw numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths were difficult to interpret, and may be tempered by information placing the number of COVID-19 deaths in proper context and perspective relative to background rates. Considering this information, a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 finds that lockdowns are far more harmful to public health (at least 5-10 times so in terms of wellbeing years) than COVID-19 can be. Controversies and objections about the main points made are considered and addressed. Progress in the response to COVID-19 depends on considering the trade-offs discussed here that determine the wellbeing of populations. I close with some suggestions for moving forward, including focused protection of those truly at high risk, opening of schools, and building back better with a economy.

COVID-19 and the Political Economy of Mass Hysteria

In this article, we aim to develop a political economy of mass hysteria. Using the background of COVID-19, we study past mass hysteria. Negative information which is spread through mass media repetitively can affect public health negatively in the form of nocebo effects and mass hysteria. We argue that mass and digital media in connection with the state may have had adverse consequences during the COVID-19 crisis. The resulting collective hysteria may have contributed to policy errors by governments not in line with health recommendations. While mass hysteria can occur in societies with a minimal state, we show that there exist certain self-corrective mechanisms and limits to the harm inflicted, such as sacrosanct private property rights. However, mass hysteria can be exacerbated and self-reinforcing when the negative information comes from an authoritative source, when the media are politicized, and social networks make the negative information omnipresent. We conclude that the negative long-term effects of mass hysteria are exacerbated by the size of the state.

Mines in the End Zone: Are there Downsides to Team Performance?

Research on teams in organizations tends to focus on understanding the causes of team performance with a focus on how to enjoy the benefits of team success and avoid the negative consequences of team failure. This paper instead asks the question, 'what are some of the negative consequences of team success?' A review of the literature on teams is augmented with research from cognitive science, sociology, occupational psychology, and psychology to explore the potential negative long-term consequences of teamwork success. The general topics of groupthink, overconfidence bias, regression to the mean, role overload, and strategy calcification are reviewed while discussing the implications for future research streams and practical team management.

From Child Protection to Paradigm Protection-The Genesis, Development, and Defense of a Scientific Paradigm

A scientific paradigm typically embraces research norms and values, such as truth-seeking, critical thinking, disinterestedness, and good scientific practice. These values should prevent a paradigm from introducing defective assumptions. But sometimes, scientists who are also physicians develop clinical norms that are in conflict with the scientific enterprise. As an example of such a conflict, we have analyzed the genesis and development of the shaken baby syndrome (SBS) paradigm. The point of departure of the analysis is a recently conducted systematic literature review, which concluded that there is very low scientific evidence for the basic assumption held by Child Protection Teams: when certain signs are present (and no other “acceptable” explanations are provided) the infant has been violently shaken. We suggest that such teams have developed more value-based than scientific-based criteria when classifying SBS cases. Further, we suggest that the teams are victims of “groupthink,” aggravating the difficulties in considering critics’ questioning the criteria established by the teams.

The Clinical Competency Committee in Adult Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology-Perspectives From Program Directors Around the United States

The clinical competency committee offers a fellowship program a structured approach to assess the clinical performance of each trainee in a comprehensive fashion This special article examines the structure and function of this important committee in detail. Furthermore, the strategies for the optimal functioning of this committee are also discussed as a way to enhance the overall quality of the fellowship program.

Escape from the diffusion of responsibility: A review and guide for nurses

AIMS

This review aims to help nurse leaders and professionals to understand, recognize, and mitigate the phenomenon known as the diffusion of responsibility, while also bridging a gap in nursing literature by highlighting Milgram's and Zimbardo's research.

BACKGROUND

Nurses are uninformed of how responsibility is diffused when obeying authority figures, fulfilling roles, and conforming in groups. It is important to recognize and address this potential for unethical practices, given the high risk for these behaviours to occur in health care settings.

EVALUATION

Sources discussing the diffusion of responsibility were identified through databases using terms such as: "Diffusion of Responsibility," "Nursing," "Ethics," "Obedience," "Groupthink," "Bully," "Milgram," and "Zimbardo."

KEY ISSUES

Social psychology examples of diffused responsibility from Milgram, Zimbardo, and Janis are explored, applied to the field of nursing, and leadership implications are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Nurses can unintentionally ascribe accountability for personal action to others. It is therefore essential for nurses to escape the cycle of diffused responsibility.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Examples in this review provide important clues for addressing the negative effects of diffused responsibility. The onus is on nurses to personally enhance the ethics of their practice by surveying, pondering, and applying these concepts.

Who Decides What Is Acceptable Speech on Campus? Why Restricting Free Speech Is Not the Answer

Recent protests on dozens of campuses have led to the cancellation of controversial talks, and violence has accompanied several of these protests. Psychological science provides an important lens through which to view, understand, and potentially reduce these conflicts. In this article, we frame opposing sides' arguments within a long-standing corpus of psychological research on selective perception, confirmation bias, myside bias, illusion of understanding, blind-spot bias, groupthink/in-group bias, motivated skepticism, and naive realism. These concepts inform dueling claims: (a) the protestors' violence was justified by a higher moral responsibility to prevent marginalized groups from being victimized by hate speech, versus (b) the students' right to hear speakers was infringed upon. Psychological science cannot, however, be the sole arbiter of these campus debates; legal and philosophical considerations are also relevant. Thus, we augment psychological science with insights from these literatures to shed light on complexities associated with positions supporting free speech and those protesting hate speech. We conclude with a set of principles, most supported by empirical research, to inform university policies and help ensure vigorous freedom of expression within the context of an inclusive, diverse community.

Collaborative Irrationality, Akrasia, and Groupthink: Social Disruptions of Emotion Regulation

The present paper proposes an integrative account of social forms of practical irrationality and corresponding disruptions of individual and group-level emotion regulation (ER). I will especially focus on disruptions in ER by means of collaborative agential and doxastic akrasia. I begin by distinguishing mutual, communal and collaborative forms of akrasia. Such a taxonomy seems all the more needed as, rather surprisingly, in the face of huge philosophical interest in analysing the possibility, structure, and mechanisms of individual practical irrationality, with very little exception, there are no comparable accounts of social and collaborative cases. However, I believe that, if it is true that individual akrasia is, in the long run, harmful for those who entertain it, this is even more so in social contexts. I will illustrate this point by drawing on various small group settings, and explore a number of socio-psychological mechanisms underlying collaborative irrationality, in particular groupthink. Specifically, I suggest that in collaborative cases there is what I call a spiraling of practical irrationality at play. I will argue that this is typically correlated and indeed partly due to biases in individual members’ affect control and eventually the group’s with whom the members identify.

Group learning capacity: the roles of open-mindedness and shared vision

Open-mindedness (OPM) is a construct that is considered a key foundational aspect of learning in individuals, groups and organizations. Also known as critical inquiry or reflection, OPM is believed to increase learning through examination of prior beliefs, decisions and mistakes, and also through openness to new ideas. Renowned theorists including Dewey and Argyris have emphasized the relationship between OPM and learning, yet little quantitative research has tested it or examined moderators of the linkage. The setting for the current study is that of endowment investment committees at U.S. universities and colleges who need to make knowledgeable and well-reasoned decisions about the composition of investment portfolios. Findings indicate that OPM has a positive, significant effect on group learning capacity (LCAP) and also that shared vision, which represents the group's collective purpose and direction, moderates that relationship. The literature review and discussion offer insights about how OPM is related to the research on group conflict, and how shared vision (SHV) differs from concepts such as interpersonal cohesiveness and conformity that have been associated with groupthink. A review of relevant research from the fields of organizational learning, group dynamics, and absorptive capacity provides context for the development of the hypotheses and the discussion of findings.