Applying Psychology to International Studies: Challenges and Opportunities in Examining Traumatic Stress

Abstract

The application of psychological perspectives to international studies (IS) is an area of growing research. This review provides a brief overview of interdisciplinary scholarship on psychology in IS, with a particular description of its application to examining traumatic stress. Psychological variables and methods can help IS to achieve greater explanatory power. Using a variety of methods such as surveys, simulations, and case studies to investigate psychological constructs in the international context can overcome the limitations of relying on any single approach. Several psychological constructs with potential applicability to understanding traumatic stress in particular are discussed to illustrate the application and limitations of psychological perspectives in IS. With so many theories and methods, psychology offers rich future possibilities for novel ways to examine IS. For many years, scholars have applied psychological perspectives to enrich our understanding of international studies (IS) (Lasswell 1930;Lasswell, Miriam, and Smith 1950;Jervis 1976;Janis 1982). Indeed, long before the formal emergence of the discipline of psychology, observers identified psychologically laden constructs that they applied to political power, war, and other issues that continue to be of interest to scholars in IS. Recently, for example, Forde (2004) examined Thucydides' use, well over two millennia ago, of the psychological underpinnings of ''ripeness'' to account for the history of the Peloponnesian War, illustrating the longevity of psychological constructs in interpreting international relations.The purpose of this review is to provide a brief assessment of the interdisciplinary study of psychology and IS, and to provide an illustration of an application in the domain of traumatic stress. Because of the enormous literature in this area across many areas of psychology and IS, no attempt will be made here to provide any kind of complete summary. Rather, this review will attempt to offer a more practical overview and evaluation of the state of the scholarship in this area, with particular attention to one area of application in trauma research. We briefly discuss the institutionalization of an interdisciplinary approach to the study of psychology and international relations, describe some important

History, International Relations, and Integrated Approaches: Thinking about Greater Interdisciplinarity

“…The first two propositions are in line with positions advocated by McDermott, Wernimont, and Koopman (2011) that we must do more in international studies to explore the impact of stress and other psychological factors. And these propositions link different levels of analysis and draw upon different disciplines to highlight possible causality.…”

“…McDermott, Wernimont, and Koopman (2011) offer a constructive way forward on the latter intellectual stalemate, in which rational choice is seen as a basic model of human behavior in need of elaboration and even modification by context. In short, derived from various flawed dichotomies, “all or nothing” views divide departments, disciplines, and scholars at least some of whom should really be asking how their disciplines can most profitably inform each other.…”

“…Drawn from psychology and tied to history, it assumes that individuals consciously or subconsciously use mental shortcuts, like analogies to historical events, to simplify reality in order to facilitate decision making (Khong 1992). As pointed out at greater length by McDermott, Wernimont, and Koopman (2011), cognitive approaches can complement or challenge rationalist explanations.…”

“…We can ask how history can contribute to IR, but that begs a broader question: how can we integrate notions and insights from various disciplines in international studies, including but beyond history and IR? Exploring the connections between history and IR naturally leads us to this larger question, because that exploration takes us across other disciplinary boundaries as well, a not uncommon journey in modern world affairs, as McDermott Wernimont, and Koopman (2011) demonstrate effectively with regard to psychology. This essay advances what it calls an ''integrated approach,'' which can help enhance interdisciplinarity.…”

Should We Leave Behind the Subfield of International Relations?

“…Relatedly, IR scholarship presumes that leaders are concerned about public opinion because increases in public disapproval can increase the odds that a leader will lose office, but this could be viewed as merely a special case within the broader study of the determinants of leader selection and reselection, topics long of interest to Americanists and comparativists (e.g., Vavreck 2009). The growing interest in neuroscience, physiology, and political behavior certainly spans traditional subfields and promises to make predictions about IR-relevant political behavior (e.g., Rosen 2005, McDermott et al 2011, Holmes 2013. In short, these elements of IR exploring political behavior could be hived off and combined with other political behavior elements from American and comparative to form a subfield of political behavior.…”