Key Concepts in the Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making: A Comparative Examination Using Systemist Theory

Abstract

The poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making incorporates the conditions surrounding foreign policy decisions, as well as the cognitive processes decision makers undergo en route to a choice. It argues that high-level decision makers, who routinely face stressful decision environments, engage in a two-stage decision process wherein they first employ cognitive-based, heuristic shortcuts in an attempt to simplify the decision task. In the second stage, once the decision task is more manageable, decision makers employ more analytic strategies in order to minimize risks and maximize rewards. Poliheuristic theory also posits that politics is the essence of decision and that decision makers will avoid choosing alternatives that hurt them politically. Using systemist theory, I compare two journal articles that use poliheuristic theory to explain foreign policy behavior and choices. More specifically, I compare Özdamar and Erciyas’s 2020 Foreign Policy Analysis article, which uses case study methods to analyze Turkish decisions during the crises of 1964, 1967, and 1974, with Redd’s 2002 Journal of Conflict Resolution article that uses experimental methods to analyze decision making in an advisory group setting. Systemism uses diagrams in a visual approach to explicate the relationships among various factors in any given theory. As such, systemism enables us to precisely examine how poliheuristic theory has evolved over nearly twenty years as well as compare what the different methodologies of case studies and experimental methods have to offer in explaining the foreign policy behavior of leaders and their advisers.