“The Process-Outcome Connection in Foreign Policy Decision Making:

A Quantitative Study Building on Groupthink”

 

Mark Shafer and Scott Crichlow

 

International Studies Quarterly

Volume 46, Issue 1

March 2002

 

 

Table D

 

Operational Definitions of Information Processing Variables

 

1. Poor Information Search: The group fails to obtain available information necessary for critically evaluating the policy options considered by the decision-making group. This may include a failure to contact experts whose knowledge could be particularly useful. Coded 1 if the group performs a poor information search, 0 otherwise (George, 1980; Herek et al., 1987; Janis, 1989; Haney, 1997; Vertzberger,1990).

 

2. Biased Information Processing: The group shows a definite tendency to accept new information from experts, the mass media, and outside critics only when it supports preferred alternatives. Members generally ignore or refute other information to which they are exposed. Coded 1 if information is processed in a biased manner, 0 otherwise (Jervis, 1976; Herek et al., 1987; Janis, 1989; Hart, 1990; Haney, 1997; Burnstein and Vinokur, 1977; Burnstein and Vinokur, 1977; Sanders and Baron 1977; Baron et al. 1996).

 

3. Survey of Objectives: The group discusses its objectives and the nature of its goals and values in a particular situation before deciding on a course of action. Coded 1 if such a survey is conducted, 0 otherwise  (George, 1980; Herek et al.,1987; Janis, 1989; Haney, 1997; Vertzberger,1990).

 

4. Survey of Alternatives: The group thoroughly considers a variety of alternative policies, including their risks and their prospects for success, before adopting a course of action. Coded 1 if such thorough consideration is conducted, 0 otherwise (George, 1980; Herek et al., 1987; Janis, 1989; Haney, 1997; Burnstein and Vinokur, 1977; Sanders and Baron 1977; Baron et al. 1996; Vertzberger, 1990).

 

5. Stereotype of Situation: The group stereotypes the situation in which it finds itself. Coded 1 if the group, or a significant section of it, stereotypes the situation, 0 otherwise (Jervis, 1976; Janis, 1989; Khong, 1992; Hybel, 1993; Thomson, 1994; Vertzberger,1990; Vertzberger, 1998).

 

6. Stereotype of Out-group: The group stereotypes the out-group upon which its behavior is focused. Coded 1 if the group, or a significant section of it, stereotypes the out-group, 0 otherwise (Jervis, 1976; Janis, 1989; Khong, 1992; Hybel, 1993; Thomson, 1994; Vertzberger, 1990; Vertzberger, 1998).

 

7. Pressures Toward Uniformity: One or more of the following exist that curtail the free exchange of perspectives on the situation at hand: self-censorship, an illusion of unanimity, direct pressure on dissenters, self-appointed mind guards. Coded 1 if such pressures exist, 0 otherwise (Janis, 1989; Hart, 1990; Schafer and Crichlow, 1996; Burnstein and Vinokur, 1977; Sanders and Baron 1977; Baron et al. 1996; Vertzberger,1990).

 

8. Unusual Process Factors: The decision-making process is affected by specific, anomalous factors that do not fit into any of the other process variables.

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

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. Boulder, CO: Westview.

 

Haney, P. J. (1997) Organizing for Foreign Policy Crises: Presidents, Advisers, and the Management of Decision Making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

 

Hart, P. ‘t. (1990) Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure. Amsterdam: Swetz and Zeitlinger.

 

Herek, G. M., I. Janis and P. Huth (1987) Decision Making during International Crisis: Is Quality of Process Related to Outcome? Journal of Conflict Resolution 31:203-226.

 

Hybel, A. R. (1993) Power Over Rationality: The Bush Administration and the Gulf Crisis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

 

Janis, I. (1989) Crucial Decisions: Leadership in Policymaking and Crisis Management. New York: Free Press.

 

Jervis, R. (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

Khong, Y. F. (1992) Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decision of 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

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 Vietnam Happen? An Autopsy.” In The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence, ed. E. R. Wittkopf. New York: St. Martin’s.

 

Vertzberger, Y. (1990) The World in Their Minds:Information Processing, Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decisionmaking. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

 

Vertzberger, Y. (1998) Risk Taking and Decisionmaking: Foreign Military Intervention Decisions.  Stanford: Stanford University Press.

 

 

Table A

Cases Included in the Analysis

 

Table B

Operational Definitions of Situational Context Variables

 

Table C

Operational Definitions of Group Structural Variables