Robert S. Baron

Robert S. Baron

Robert S. Baron is the author of the 2005 chapter So right it's wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making, in the series Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. The chapter proposed what the secondary literature calls the ubiquity model of groupthink, on which the processes Irving Janis described are common features of group decision making, found in most groups, and not the mark of a special pathological state that strikes a few. The vault records his conclusion that the evidence had largely failed to support the theory's more ambitious and controversial predictions.

Who they are

The vault holds no biography for Baron, and this page does not supply an institution or a career it has not verified. The Crossref record gives the author as Robert S. Baron, the container as Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, the pages as 219 to 253, the year as 2005 and the DOI as 10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37004-3, which places the chapter in volume 37 of the series.

He should not be confused with the Jonathan Baron whose work on outcome bias appears elsewhere in this library. They are different researchers.

The chapter's title carries its argument. So right it's wrong suggests that the groupthink pattern, in which a group drifts towards unanimity and discounts doubt, feels right from the inside, and that this is the problem. Its subtitle ties groupthink to the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. Group polarization is the well-documented tendency of discussion to push a group towards a more extreme version of the position its members already leaned towards. By placing groupthink next to polarization in the title, Baron signals that he regards the two as expressions of the same underlying processes.

No abstract was available for this page, and the chapter is not in the vault. What follows therefore rests on the Crossref record, on a reference-works summary that names the ubiquity model as an alternative that emerged after James Esser's 1998 review, and on the vault's own earlier note, written when another book's treatment of Janis was checked.

Key papers

  • Baron, R. S. (2005). So right it's wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 219-253. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37004-3.

The chapter has not been read for this page and no abstract was available. Statements about its content are limited to the ubiquity model and to the vault's recorded conclusion.

Key ideas

The ubiquity model. Janis's theory treats groupthink as a syndrome that appears when particular conditions are present: a cohesive group, a directive leader and a few related antecedents. The ubiquity model reverses the picture. The processes that produce the symptoms, such as a preference for information that supports the emerging view and a reluctance to voice doubt, are present in most groups most of the time. On that account groupthink is the ordinary operation of group decision making seen in a case where the outcome was bad.

Why the model fits the evidence. If the specific antecedents reliably predicted the symptoms, the special-syndrome picture would be well supported. A 1994 meta-analysis led by Brian Mullen found no significant overall effect of cohesiveness on decision quality, although cohesive groups did decide worse under directive leadership. James Esser's 1998 review judged it too early to pass judgment on the theory. Roderick Kramer's 1998 reappraisal found that cohesion pressures played a smaller causal role in the Bay of Pigs than Janis argued. Against that background, a model in which the processes are common to groups in general has fewer predictions to fail.

What the model costs. A pattern found in every outcome cannot by itself explain one of them. If the processes operate in decisions that turn out well as well as in those that turn out badly, they cannot be the reason a particular decision failed. The vocabulary survives on this view and the diagnosis goes. The article this page serves puts it that way, and it is an interpretation of the ubiquity model and not a quotation from the chapter.

Where the vault lands. The vault records Baron's conclusion that the evidence had largely failed to support the formulation's more ambitious and controversial predictions, and records the ubiquity model as his proposed replacement. The symptom vocabulary is usable, the causal account is not demonstrated, and the ubiquity model explains why a vocabulary can feel accurate without being a cause.

Sources

  1. Baron, R. S. (2005). So right it's wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 219-253. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37004-3. Bibliographic details checked against the Crossref record, 2026-10-24; abstract not available.
  2. A reference-works summary of groupthink naming the ubiquity model, read 2026-10-24.
  3. Esser, J. K. (1998). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 116-141.
  4. Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Small Group Research, 25(2), 189-204.
  5. The vault's notes on Groupthink and Irving Janis.