Historical Analogies in the Congressional Foreign Policy Process

Taylor, Andrew J.; Rourke, John T.

doi:10.2307/2960316

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, Dunbar (1995) has demonstrated that analogies are frequently used to educate and persuade in discourse, which suggests that analogies should be more frequent in public discourse than in private thought. Using a different methodology, Taylor and Rourke (1995) found that members of Congress frequently use analogies as post hoc justifications, again suggesting the higher frequency of analogies in public discourse. Hence, there is unlikely to be a one‐to‐one correspondence between reasoning (a mental process) and discourse or argument (a rhetorical exercise).…”

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Role of Analogies and Abstract Reasoning in Decision-Making: Evidence from the Debate over Truman's Proposal for Development Assistance

Breuning

2003

Int Studies Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analogical, or case-based reasoning has received quite a bit of attention in the literature on foreign policy decision-making. There has been little attention paid to whether analogical reasoning does indeed predominate or to what degree abstract reasoning plays a role in the decisionmaking process. If decision-makers do not primarily reason by analogy (an empirical question), then the focus on such reasoning runs the risk of ignoring important aspects of problem formulation and the scope of possible solutions considered. Hence, this article investigates the degree to which decision-makers employ analogical and abstract reasoning.The empirical data are from the Senate hearing regarding the first American program for development aid. This case permits an empirical assessment of the consensus in the foreign aid literature that the Marshall Plan was the central analogy for this aid. In addition, it has been argued that in public discourse, decision-makers should be expected to use analogies as justifications for their preferences. The study finds a preference for explanation-based reasoning and discusses some of the implications of these findings.Analogical, or case-based reasoning plays an important role in explanations of decision-making processes in foreign policy (Jervis). However, in cognitive psychology researchers are not convinced that analogical reasoning can account for the entire scope of human reasoning. They recognize that both analogical and abstract reasoning play a role (Nosofsky, Clark, and Shin, 1989;Ahn, Brewer, and Mooney, 1992; Smith, Langston, and Nisbett, 1992;Wattenmaker, McQuaid, and Schwertz, 1995). The assumption that decisionmakers reason by analogy (and to investigate only which analogies are chosen) runs the risk of ignoring important aspects of how problems are framed and how solutions emerge. Hence, this article asks to what degree decision-makers do

show abstract

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the former employed the experimental method to investigate reasoning, whereas the latter has focused primarily on discourse through the use of data from archives, memoirs, and interviews. Dunbar (1995) and Taylor and Rourke (1995) suggest that analogies should be more prevalent in discourse than in reasoning.…”

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Analogies and Abstract Reasoning in Decision-Making: Evidence from the Debate over Truman's Proposal for Development Assistance

Breuning

2003

Int Studies Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some scholars have argued that analogies are mostly used as post-hoc rationalizations. 19 Khong, by contrast, claims that leaders use analogies not only to justify policies but also to perform speciªc cognitive and information-processing tasks essential to political decision-making. Analogies, in his view, enable an actor to deªne problems, to understand the political stakes involved, to contemplate possible solutions, to gauge the odds of success, to weigh moral concerns, and to grasp potential dangers.…”

Section: Analogies In Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“Pearl Harbor in Reverse” Moral Analogies in the Cuban Missile Crisis

Tierney

2007

Journal of Cold War Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the argument that U.S. air strikes against Soviet missile sites in Cuba would be morally analogous to the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 had a major impact on policymaking. The invocation of this analogy contributed to President John F. Kennedy's decision to forgo an immediate attack on the missiles and to start instead with a naval blockade of the island. The “Pearl Harbor in reverse” argument is an example of an important phenomenon that has received little attention in foreign policy analysis—the moral analogy. Fusing together elements of moral and analogical thinking, the moral analogy can be a powerful force in shaping policy preferences, as it was in October 1962.

show abstract

“…In this latter respect, the Suez crisis arguably fulfils a similar role in the UK as does the Vietnam War in the USA (see e.g. Taylor & Rourke, 1995). The narrative of national humiliation, the 'end of empire' (Kyle, 2011) and subsequent decline can be used to serve as a warning of the perils of military misadventures.…”

Section: Insert Figure 1 Herementioning

confidence: 99%