Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
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)
3 Answers
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Technically speaking group decision making should always be made up of individual ideas, what tends to happen in groups which are dominated by charismatic or controlling individuals is that this does not occur, rather that the group is essentially made up of clones or robots, intellectually speaking.
Also, it's funny you should bring this up, i've been thinking about it for quite some time.
- radishLv 71 decade ago
The literature on group based political decision making, and in the field of foreign policy decision making, was greatly infuenced by Janis' model of 'Group-Think' in the early 1970s. This argument was roughly that people in groups are likely to make riskier decsions than are indviduals. It was supported by small scale lab studies of decision making. The political blunders of the Bay of Pigs and of the extension of the Vietman conflict were attributed to this 'problem'.
Since the late 1990s however there has been some more critical discussion of this 'group think 'model of foreign policy making. See especially the article by Hart Stern and Sundelis which summarises the 'group think' model then discusses a more complex model of foreign policy making by groups (web site below) that seems to be more relevant to your area of interest.
Try, too, accessing material in the 'Google Scholar 'search engine by using the terms 'group think and foreign policy making'.
Incidentally, the scholarly articles on USA foreign policy decision-making usually don't posit it as the decisions of a single individual , even if that individual is the President.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It all depends on the decision and how much flexibility you have…in a work environment every opinion counts but when it comes to you the individual you shouldn’t seek too many different opinions..what you should do is listen to yourself because then you have nobody to blame…probably not the answer you were looking for
