| Abstrakt: |
Despite the variety of theories of crisis behavior, increasing agreement exists regarding one proposition: Rational choice models do not fit the actual decision processes that take place under crisis-induced stress. This proposition is examined in the case of Israel's decision during the Entebbe crisis. Two major models of choice are introduced, and testable propositions are deduced from each model for the individual choice level and for the group level. A discriminating test among these models is established and applied to the decision processes during the Entebbe crisis. The findings support the analytic (rational) model of choice at both the individual and the group level. Two important propositions are derived from the empirical analysis: (1) SOPs may positively affect the quality of choice processes to the extent that they are comprehensive and flexible, and (2) intragroup conflict and uniform distribution of authority within groups enhances, rather than constrains, the quality of group decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
