POL SCI 164A Chapter Notes - Chapter 1: Cuban Missile Crisis, Rational Choice Theory, Nonconformist
30 Apr 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
PS164A Reading
Groupthink
CH 1 Why so much miscalculations
Janis
- Groups can be as fallible as humans
- Prone to lack of viligence and risk taking
- Focus on this subtle form of defective decision making/ faulty leadership: during
group deliberations, leaders not deliberately try to get the group to tell him what
he wants to hear, but sincerely asks for honest opinions. Subtle constraints
reinforced by the leader prevents member from fully exercising critical powers
and openly expressing doubts when others have reached consensus
Effects of group cohesiveness
- Solidarity
- Mutual liking
- Positive feelings about meeting and carrying out tasks of the group
- Increase ability to retain members and increased participation by members in
activities
- Affected by myths and misconceptions of other members
- Greater power of conformity and acceptance of goals and assignments
- Source of security: reduce anxiety, heighten self esteem
Confomity to group norms
- Deviant: increased communications by other members, after failure
communication decreases, begins to exclude him to restore unity of the group
- More cohesive and more relevant the issue, the greater inclination to
reject a noncomformist
- Norms of group can have positive effect, but can also cause slowdown and
socializing activities that reduce productivity
Conceptions of political decision-making
- 3 conceptual frameworks applied to analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis
- (1) classical approach: rational actor model/ theory of international
relations
- Determine the ends the political actor is trying to attain by means
of the policy he has chosen
- (2) emphasizes factors that limit rationality in decision making by
individuals and organizations
- 3 factors: limits of man’s capacity to process information,
constraints on attempts to obtain the info necessary for calculating
maximal gains, tendency to find course of action that will satisfy
most minimal goals (instead of actions with best consequences)
Document Summary
Gro ps can be as fallible as h mans. Prone o lack of viligence and risk aking. Foc s on his s b le form of defec ive decision making/ fa l y leadership: d ring gro p delibera ions, leaders no delibera ely ry o ge he gro p o ell him wha he wan s o hear, b sincerely asks for hones opinions. S b le cons rain s reinforced by he leader preven s member from f lly exercising cri ical powers and openly expressing do b s when o hers have reached consens s. Posi ive feelings abo mee ing and carrying o asks of he gro p. Increase abili y o re ain members and increased par icipa ion by members in ac ivi ies. Affec ed by my hs and misconcep ions of o her members. Grea er power of conformi y and accep ance of goals and assignmen s.
