Current Search:  groupthink (x)

View All Items

  • CSV Spreadsheet
(1 - 3 of 3)
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO INVADE IRAQ: DID THEY FALL VICTIM TO GROUPTHINK?
Title
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO INVADE IRAQ: DID THEY FALL VICTIM TO GROUPTHINK?.
Creator
Nantais, Joel, Houghton, David, University of Central Florida
Abstract / Description
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the George W. Bush administration became victims of groupthink when they made the policy decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Groupthink is a policy-making model which was first put forward by Irving Janis which attempts to explain how experienced and elite policy-makers can make decisions which lead to disastrous outcomes due to conditions which cause defective decision-making. Research was conducted through a qualitative, within case study...
Show moreThe purpose of this study was to investigate whether the George W. Bush administration became victims of groupthink when they made the policy decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Groupthink is a policy-making model which was first put forward by Irving Janis which attempts to explain how experienced and elite policy-makers can make decisions which lead to disastrous outcomes due to conditions which cause defective decision-making. Research was conducted through a qualitative, within case study which was made possible through the inherent process tracing method of the groupthink model. Mainly secondary sources which detailed the historical case of the decision to invade Iraq via journalists, outside researchers, and even the members of the administration were utilized in this investigation. The principle conclusion was that groupthink appeared to exist in the policy-making process of the Bush administration. This was reached after finding many of the antecedent conditions as well as the symptoms of groupthink in the Bush administration. Especially prominent were the occurrence of structural faults of the administration, mindguarding, self-censorship, and collective rationalizations. However, it is important to note that these results are sensitive to the discovery or release of new or contradictory evidence.
Show less
Date Issued
2009
Identifier
CFE0002870, ucf:48037
Format
Document (PDF)
PURL
http://purl.flvc.org/ucf/fd/CFE0002870
THE BAY OF PIGS INVASIONA CASE STUDY IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING
Title
THE BAY OF PIGS INVASIONA CASE STUDY IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING.
Creator
Murgado, Amaury, Houghton, David Patrick, University of Central Florida
Abstract / Description
Policy makers have long recognized the importance of considering past experience, history, and the use of Analogical reasoning when making policy decisions. When elite political actors face foreign policy crises, they often use their past experience, refer to history, and use Analogical reasoning to help them frame their decisions. In the case of the ill-fated invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, the use of Analogical reasoning revolving around past covert successes may have created an...
Show morePolicy makers have long recognized the importance of considering past experience, history, and the use of Analogical reasoning when making policy decisions. When elite political actors face foreign policy crises, they often use their past experience, refer to history, and use Analogical reasoning to help them frame their decisions. In the case of the ill-fated invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, the use of Analogical reasoning revolving around past covert successes may have created an environment for faulty foreign policy decision-making. Former members of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) filled the ranks of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and held key positions within the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. OSS success with guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and intelligence gathering during World War II, coupled with early CIA covert successes (specifically in Guatemala), may have led President Kennedy to make the wrong policy decisions with regard to dealing with Fidel Castro and Cuba. This research explores the use of Analogical reasoning during the decision-making process by way of process-tracing. Process-tracing attempts to identify the intervening processes between an independent variable (or variables) and the outcome of the dependent variable. We look at six critical junctures and compare how Groupthink, the Bureaucratic Politics Model, and Analogical reasoning approaches help explain any causal mechanisms. The findings suggest that Analogical reasoning may have played a more significant role in President Kennedy's final decision to invade Cuba than previously thought. The findings further suggest that by using the Analogical reasoning approach, our understanding of President Kennedy's foreign policy in Cuba is enhanced when compared to the Groupthink and Bureaucratic Politics Model approaches emphasized in past research.
Show less
Date Issued
2009
Identifier
CFE0002522, ucf:47636
Format
Document (PDF)
PURL
http://purl.flvc.org/ucf/fd/CFE0002522
COGNITIVE THEORY: A QUALITATIVE COMPARISON OF THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE BARACK H.OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
Title
COGNITIVE THEORY: A QUALITATIVE COMPARISON OF THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE BARACK H.OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
Creator
Urbanovich, Shelley, David, Houghton, University of Central Florida
Abstract / Description
Although Republicans and Democrats frequently disagree ideologically, the leaders of both parties share one commonality in particular - they inevitably make flawed judgments. To adequately understand the extent to which psychological filters act as a fundamental factor in decision making, this thesis shall analyze current political events and observe how partisans within both administrations deal with information incompatible with their own values and beliefs. Specifically referencing the war...
Show moreAlthough Republicans and Democrats frequently disagree ideologically, the leaders of both parties share one commonality in particular - they inevitably make flawed judgments. To adequately understand the extent to which psychological filters act as a fundamental factor in decision making, this thesis shall analyze current political events and observe how partisans within both administrations deal with information incompatible with their own values and beliefs. Specifically referencing the war in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), civil unrest, national security, the national economic climate, and the housing market, this study examines the way leaders deal differently with conflicting information. Although all subjects in the latter shall be discussed, the primary focus is directed towards weapons of mass destruction during the Bush administration and the economic climate during the Obama administration. During their presidencies, both administrations faced different circumstances and congruently possessed different ideologies in respect of how to resolve current problems. Therefore, both President Obama and Bush shall equally be observed in order to adequately compare the extent to which each succumbs to cognitive biases when faced with dissonant information. In addition, groupthink theory, schema theory, and self-justification shall be discussed as complimentary forces which impair political members' decisions. Overall, qualitatively assessing both Republican and Democratic parties in one comprehensive examination breaks the bounds of usual political science studies because both partisans are linked more by their similarities than differences.
Show less
Date Issued
2012
Identifier
CFH0004199, ucf:44813
Format
Document (PDF)
PURL
http://purl.flvc.org/ucf/fd/CFH0004199