Abilene paradox attitudes towards them if they do not go along. This action-anxiety arises from what Harvey termed "negative fantasies"—unpleasant visualizations of what the group might say or do if individuals are honest about their opinions—when there is "real risk" of displeasure and negative consequences for not going along. The individual may experience "separation anxiety", fearing exclusion from the group. The theory is often used to help explain extremely poor group decisions, especially notions of the superiority of "rule by committee". For example, Harvey himself cited the Watergate scandal as a potential instance of the Abilene paradox in action. The Watergate scandal
Group attribution error vote the views of the individuals were reflective of the group decision, in the 50% vote they may or may not be, and in the leader decision there is no evidence that the individual views reflect the group outcome. Allison and Messick discovered instead, however, that the participants associated the individual views with the group outcome in all three cases. Follow-up research by Leila Worth and Scott T. Allison attempted to identify the limits of the effect. These studies have shown that the error becomes stronger in perceptions of groups that are viewed as (a) more dissimilar to one's own