Theories on group vs. individual decision-making?
I'm working on my MA thesis in political science and am looking for a theory on group vs. individual decision making. Since we don't get a lot of sociology / psychology in our poli sci degrees, I thought I would ask here if anyone knew of any applicable theories.
What I'm looking for specifically is a theory that says that group decision-making based on consensus tends to produce rhetoric and action that align with the decision made (the members of the group won't want to say anything that goes against the decision for fear of getting flak from the other members and possibly having problems reaching a consensus in future negotiations). An individual decision-maker, however, has the freedom to say one thing and do another because he or she doesn't have to worry about maintaining a consensus.
Any tips??
I'm actually looking for a theory to apply to a very specific situation. I'm comparing the democracy promotion rhetoric and policies of the EU and US. The EU decides on policy based on consensus with the 27 member states while the US policy is essentially made by the president alone. Hence group vs. individual decision-making. What I want to argue is that the US president can say one thing and do another with few consequences. In the EU, however, the EU Foreign Minister can't afford to say something different than what was decided on by the 27 states for fear of creating dissent. (example: If the 27 states decide on action A and then Salona (the Foreign Minister) goes out and says in a speech that action B is being considered, then Poland and Italy might get really angry and block the next vote in protest)