Groupthink During an Emergency - Assignment Example

It is highly possible that the rescue team of fire-fighters did not respond adequately to an emergency situation – when Matthew Buford was attempting to end his life by jumping off the bridge – due to factors that had nothing to do with their ability to save people. The rescue team comprised of individuals who were trained to encounter such and other dangerous situations on a regular basis; and would have the right responses to the situation. They were more likely that the average bystander to know what to do in the given situation; and had the training to do so.

Yet, neither did they respond adequately to the presenting problem – the suicide threat – nor to the behaviors of other bystanders - Garrett Couples and the videographer. The rescue team had no way of knowing that Couples was a trained lifeguard; and so should have treated him as someone who was getting into danger. The concept of ‘Groupthink’ as defined by Janis in 1971 may be responsible for the behavior of the rescue team. Firefighters face challenging and threatening situations together; and rely on each other to save people as well as themselves.

They share strong bonds, and are members of the same in-group. They are also generally viewed as the ‘good – guys’; and this knowledge may give them a sense of invulnerability and morality. Such groups are likely to believe that self-censoring and unanimity are essential for the survival of the group. This kind of belief system puts pressure on those individuals who wish to raise a dissenting voice.The rescue team was heard to have said things to the effect that the victim - Matthew Buford was a problem maker for them; and that he had tried to cause trouble before.

He was thus a source of trouble for them – an out-group member. Thus, they are less likely to experience concern and empathy for him; and the motivation to help him would have lowered as soon as this thought was activated. In order to rationalize their lack of active participation in helping him; reasons like the victim’s disinclination to live, potential illnesses and contagious diseases can be considered as adequate and valid reason by the in-group. Thus, it is likely that the dormant issues that the rescue team had with the victim were activated at this incident; and this led to an experience of groupthink targeted against the victim.

For the in-group of the rescue team; the reasons were adequate to justify a lack of action to safe the victim.The in-group that is experiencing Groupthink is also very concerned with the ‘image’ of the group to outsiders. Had they reacted differently when Couples chose to jump in after the victim; they would be viewed as showing favoritism – a negative characteristic. They would feel compelled as a group to treat the two situations in the exact same way in order to ‘save face’ of the group.

Although this may not seem logical given the circumstances; it is a possible solution. It is also likely that the rescue team was shocked into in-action when they saw someone else act as they may be expected to act. They may have been so focused on resolving the dilemma’s in regards the victim; that they may not have realized that others were viewing the situation differently; and taking actions that differed from their own. Under such circumstances; it would be difficult for them – as a group and not individuals – to reassess their surroundings and take definitive action that would have prevented couples from jumping into the river.

ReferencesBaron, R.A., Branscombe, N.R., & Bryne, D. 2008. Social Psychology, (12ed.), Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.