↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Collaborative Irrationality, Akrasia, and Groupthink: Social Disruptions of Emotion Regulation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Szanto

Abstract

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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 22%
Philosophy 5 11%
Arts and Humanities 4 9%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 14 31%