Groupthink and Group Conformity
Both groupthink and group conformity are important explanations to what could be going on in primal therapy, where participants invest a lot of time and money in reliving traumas, often traumas including implausible relivings such as birth trauma, often traumas that they never knew existed (and may have never existed).
Rather than insult the readers intelligence, I will merely outline what these evidence-supported theories are, and allow the reader apply it to their knowledge or experience of primal therapy. Note to the wise: if you have ever believed in primal therapy, this information is more important than it first appears:
Groupthink
As psychologist Elliot Aronson explains:
‘According to [social psychologist Irving] Janis, groupthink is the ”mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.” Groups engaging in this maladaptive decision-making strategy typically perceive themselves as invulnerable – they’re blinded by optimism. And this optimism is perpetuated when dissent is discouraged. In the face of conformity pressures, individual group members come to doubt their own reservations and refrain from voicing dissenting opinions. Consensus seeking is so important that certain members of the group sometimes become mindguards -people who censor troublesome incoming information…’ The Social Animal (2004), Elliot Aronson, page 15.
An important point here is that this groupthink is something we are all vulnerable to, it derives from a universal human trait. Even well intentioned people can succumb to it. I leave it to the reader to consider whether groupthink is going on in the primal therapy movement, or whether the theory was formed from it. Just be aware that it exists. If you ever experienced living in the primal society ask yourself whether “individual group members come to doubt their own reservations and refrain from voicing dissenting opinions”.
For those with no experience of primal society, I should add that as far as I can tell, I did indeed observe such “mindguards” at the Primal Center. I did indeed come across people who censored incoming information. I observed several times dissenting ideas or serious complaints being met with a psychological labels such “neurotic”, “repressed”, “parasympathetic”, “paranoid”, “acting out” or even “sociopathic.” To be more specific, I remember hearing in orientation that those patients who cause problems, who complain about a therapist to another therapist, and who garner support for their complaint have all the signs of being sociopathic. Wow, I thought, I am going to make sure I don’t complain about anything, I don’t want to be labeled a sociopath. I mentioned it to my close friend later, another primal participant and she agreed, she said she had thought the same thing independently. Now that I look back on that time, no longer believing in primal theory, it seems unethical, but when you believe in it, those labels are often meant sincerely. After all, when you believe Primal Therapy could well save the world, to criticize it must be in some way antisocial or sociopathic. (By the way little or no attention seemed to be paid to the necessary criteria in the DSM IV as far as I could tell, that is: there didn’t need to be an actual behavior you could observe objectively- the diagnosis could just make sense in terms of circular logic without much evidence. See ”Falsifiability in Diagnosis” subsection of the falsifiability page).
Groupthink is a social psychological phenomenon that has been widely written about, and I encourage the reader to read more about it.
Group Conformity
Factors That Increase Group Conformity
“Individuals who have generally low self-esteem are more likely to yield to group pressure than those with high-esteem… If individuals are led to believe that they have little or no aptitude for the task at hand, their tendency to conform increases” The Social Animal, Aronson, page 21.
Aronson backs up this statement, as he does almost all his ideas with experimental data. In fact his ideas come directly from such data, the results of the experiments seem to lead him, rather than what he wants to be true. This quotation immediately brings to mind how most patients were led to believe they are not primalling correctly, and how most therapists were made to feel they just are no where near as competent as Dr Janov himself. The point is, these things would often increase conformity, and decrease self esteem.
As far as can be gathered from talking to people and reading the primal books, in the 1970s, the attack on self esteem was often in the form of “you’re a loser” or other busting techniques. More recently the put down is a more gently suggested “you’re a parasympath” (primal jargon for somebody who gives up too easily due to their birth trauma). Consistently, primal has always been about breaking patient’s defenses, which may also increase conformity.
In Primal Therapy, I found that even the very concept of self esteem (which is a widely studied and real construct, with a lot of data behind it) is attacked. I heard it mockingly rejected and dismissed as typically Californian.
“A group is more effective at inducing conformity if (1) it consists of experts …” Aronson page 21.
Just be aware of this effect. The way you can protect yourself from this is to check whether they are widely accepted as experts, and secondly always check evidence and sources rather than trust the “experts.”
“When reality is unclear, other people become a major source of information” Aronson, page 27.
Aronson cites experiments that show this effect, again a universal social human effect, it is not one just restricted to certain personality types.
Primal theory and Janov’s books (and or the therapy itself) may put significant doubt into the participants mind and undermine their previous reality (by using personal history revision, attacks on mainstream knowledge, personal attacks, etc). The very nature of an initial intensive three weeks - where defenses are broken down in isolation - may contribute to this. The participants are left vulnerable to conformity and in particular look to others for reality (in this case they look to the therapists, other patients or to the author and leader of the movement, Dr Janov). This is related to one of the big problems I have found in trying to communicate the information on this website to primal people – that is: when primal therapy is challenged, they invariable turn to other primal people to check reality. When they are reassured, and when they see intelligent and charming people doing primal therapy, they become sure again that it must be true.
Weblinks on Social Psychology and Group Conformity:
YouTube Videos:
Although these videos are not directly relevant to primal therapy, they are still essential in forming a base of knowledge about social psychology that is an important consideration in critical thinking. Besides, they are entertaining videos.
Stanford Prisoner Experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmwSC5fS40w (updated Aug 2009)
Asch Experiments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRh5qy09nNw&feature=related (updated Aug 2009)
Milgram Study:
Milgram modern reenactment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w (updated Aug 2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk (updated Aug 2009)
Websites on groupthink:
Very good page explaining groupthink:
http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm
A concise page giving the basic points and ways to avoid groupthink: http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm
Books
The Social Animal,(2004), Elliot Aronson.
