“The Process-Outcome Connection
in Foreign Policy Decision Making:
A Quantitative
Mark
Shafer and Scott Crichlow
International Studies Quarterly
Volume
46, Issue 1
March
2002
Table C
Operational Definitions of Group Structural Variables
1. Group Insulation: Decision
makers isolate themselves from others not in the immediate decision-making
circle. The others here include bureaucrats, intelligence officers, diplomats,
allies, and those on location at the scene of a crisis. A decision-making
groups is isolated if it relies almost exclusively on members of its own group
for information and counsel. Coded 1 if the groups isolates
itself, 0 otherwise (Janis, 1982; Hybel, 1993;
Thomson, 1994; Schafer and Crichlow, 1996; George,
1991).
2. Biased Leadership: The
leader has a history of conducting decision-making processes in a manner that
limits the consideration of a wide range of alternatives, particularly those at
variance with his or her previously stated preferences. Such a leader typically
makes clear that he or she has a predisposition toward a particular course of
action before consulting with advisors. Coded 1 for biased
leadership, 0 for unbiased leadership (Janis, 1982; Schafer and Crichlow, 1996; Haney, 1997; Vertzberger,
1998).
3. Methodical Procedures: The
group has established a tradition of using methodical procedures in the
decision-making process in terms of information search, routine and systematic decision-making
meetings, and analysis of pros and cons. Coded 1 if methodical procedures are
used, 0 otherwise (Janis, 1982; Hart, 1990; Kerr, 1981; Schafer and Crichlow, 1996; Vertzberger, 1990; Vertzberger,
1998).
4. Group Homogeneity: A lack
of disparity exists in the social background and ideology of members of the
decision-making group. Coded 1 if the group is homogeneous, 0 otherwise (Janis,
1982; George, 1980; Schafer and Crichlow, 1996; Vertzberger, 1998).
5. Illusion of
Invulnerability: The group overestimates its ability to control events. This
may be due to an intense belief that it is pursuing the "moral"
position in a conflict. Coded 1 if the group has an illusion of vulnerability,
0 otherwise (Janis, 1982; Schafer and Crichlow, 1996;
Mackie, 1986; Vertzberger,1990).
6. Gatekeepers: The group
includes one or more members who pressure those with whom they work, or those
over whom they have authority, to silence information and arguments that
conflict with their preferred approach toward dealing with a particular
situation. Coded 1 if gatekeepers are present, 0 otherwise (Janis, 1982; Burnstein and Vinokur, 1977;
Kerr, 1981; Sanders and Baron, 1977; Baron et al., 1996; Vertzberger,1990).
7. Group Values Disagreement:
The leader and/or other prominent members of the group value disagreement as a
way of improving the policies that come out of the decision-making process.
They do not try to suppress dissenting opinions. Coded 1 if
the group values disagreement, 0 otherwise (Janis, 1982; George, 1980; Haney,
1997; Vertzberger, 1990).
8. Foreign Policy Interest:
The leader is regularly engaged in the design of foreign policy, as opposed to
simply approving decisions made by others, or leaving that sphere of issues
unaddressed. Coded 1 if the leader shows such interest in
foreign policy, 0 otherwise (Hermann, 1980; Hermann and Preston, 1994).
9 Knowledge and Experience:
The group in charge of foreign policy making is knowledgeable about the matters
that come under its domain. Coded 1 if the group is knowledgeable, 0 otherwise
(Wallace and Suedfeld, 1988; Thomson, 1994; Haney,
1997).
10. Teamwork: The group in
charge of foreign policy has established itself as a largely cohesive unit. It
is not frequently impaired by divisive disagreements. Coded 1
if the group is characterized by teamwork, 0 otherwise (Hart, 1990).
11. Unusual Structural Factors: The group has one or more specific structural anomalies that do not fall into the categories listed above.
Baron,
R.S., S.I. Hoppe, C.F. Kao, B. Brunsman, B. Linneweh, and D. Rogers (1996) Social Corroboration and
Opinion Extremity. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 32:537-560.
Burnstein, E. and A. Vinokur (1977)
Persuasive Argumentation and Social Comparison as Determinants of Attitude
Polarization. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 13:315-332.
George,
A. (1980) Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy: The Effective Use of
Information and Advice.
George, A. (ed.) (1991) Avoiding War: Problems of Crisis Management.
Haney, P. J. (1997) Organizing
for Foreign Policy Crises: Presidents, Advisers, and the Management of Decision
Making.
Hart, P. ‘t. (1990) Groupthink
in Government: A Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure.
Hermann,
C. (1969) “International Crisis as a Situational Variable.” In
International Politics and Foreign Policy,
ed. J. N. Rosenau.
Hermann,
M. G. and T. Preston (1994) Presidents, Advisers, and Foreign Policy: The
Effect of Leadership Style on Executive Arrangements. Political Psychology 15:75-96.
Hybel, A.
R. (1993) Power Over
Rationality: The Bush Administration and the Gulf Crisis.
Janis,
Kerr,
N.L. (1981) Social Transition Schemes: Charting the Group’s Road to Agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
41:684-702.
Mackie, D.M. (1986) Social Identification Effects in
Group Polarization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology
50:720-728.
Sanders,
G.S. and R.S. Baron (1977) Is Social Comparison Irrelevant for Producing Choice
Shifts? Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 13:303-314.
Schafer, M. and S. Crichlow
(1996) Antecedents of Groupthink: A Quantitative Study. Journal of
Conflict Resolution 40:415-435.
Thomson, J. C. (1994) “How Could
Vertzberger, Y. (1990) The World in Their Minds:Information Processing,
Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decisionmaking.
Stanford:
Vertzberger, Y. (1998) Risk Taking and Decisionmaking:
Foreign Military Intervention Decisions.
Stanford:
Wallace,
M. D. and P. Suedfeld (1988)
Leadership Performance in Crisis: The Longevity-Complexity Link. International Studies Quarterly
32:439-451.
Table A
Cases
Included in the Analysis
Table B
Operational
Definitions of Situational Context Variables
Table D
Operational Definitions of Information Processing
Variables