Psychology and aggregation in International Relations

Abstract

Theories of decision-making grounded in political psychology have experienced a dramatic rise in the study of International Relations. There is widespread recognition of the benefits of incorporating insights from the behavioural sciences into analyses of political behaviour. However, some scholars have argued that the theoretical and empirical scope of these perspectives remains hampered by an unresolved issue: aggregation. While the fundamental unit of interest in psychology is the individual, most International Relations models concern patterns of collective decision-making in aggregate units such as states, bureaucracies, armed groups, transnational networks and institutions. This article contributes to the aggregation debate by providing a more optimistic portrait of its implications for interdisciplinary work. I argue that aggregation may be an overstated problem in International Relations and that a disciplinary preoccupation with it may hinder rather than pave the way for interdisciplinary theorizing.

How regional organizations cope with recurrent stress: the case of South America

“…Despite widespread recognition of the utility of incorporating psychological theories and variables, the issue of aggregation is considered problematic: while for psychologists the unit of analysis is the individual, most IR models concern aggregates such as states and international institutions, and it might not be straightforward to transfer individual-level psychological theories to the aggregate level. However, we share Gildea's (2020) view that the disciplinary preoccupation with aggregation in IR may hinder rather than pave the way to a fruitful combination of knowledge from different fields. Research in psychology has aided scholars in their efforts to build theories, identify scope conditions, refine concepts, and put assumptions to the test.…”

“…We analyze the impact of stressors on regional organizations in analogy with how individuals cope with stress. The application of psychological perspectives to International Relations (IR) is a growing area of research (Kertzer and Tingley 2018;Gildea 2020). Despite widespread recognition of the utility of incorporating psychological theories and variables, the issue of aggregation is considered problematic: while for psychologists the unit of analysis is the individual, most IR models concern aggregates such as states and international institutions, and it might not be straightforward to transfer individual-level psychological theories to the aggregate level.…”

Recognition through dialogue: How transatlantic relations anchor the EU’s identity

“…While the actors seeking recognition during the dialogue are individuals, their interactions at the micro-level have far-reaching consequences at the macro-level, reinforcing the institutional identity of the organisation they represent. Without theorising the transmission mechanisms from the individual to the collective, we follow the ‘quasi-behavioural approach’ devised by IR scholars to incorporate psychological insights into IR by treating aggregate actors as unitary (Gildea, 2020: 3). Adopting the ‘social conception of institutional identity’, we consider institutions as social actors, authorised to engage in social intercourse as a collective, and possessing rights and responsibilities, as if the collective were an individual (Whetten and Mackey, 2002: 395).…”

“…The dialogue therefore becomes the scene on which the actors 'perform' their institutional identity to get this identity recognised. The power of symbolism helps us make the jump from the interactions at the individual level to the macro-level, tackling the 'aggregation issue' (Gildea, 2020). By their very essence as representatives, individuals engaged in institutionalised dialogue, embody and perform the institutional identity for which recognition is being sought.…”

Making or un-making states: when does war have formative effects?

“…Instead, they have domesticized Tilly’s arguments by adapting them to established IR conversations. This import of ideas from other fields by IR scholarship is common but problematic because it prevents seeing across disciplinary borders (Daxecker et al, 2020: 7–12; Gildea, 2020: 178–179). Scholars have focused on macro factors that would obstruct the bellicist mechanisms such as the proliferation of intra-state compared with interstate wars or internationally recognized borders (Atzili, 2012; Leander, 2004; Sorensen, 2001); or they have discarded the model due to its alleged reproduction of neorealism, a narrow view resulting from a mere focus on interstate war (Hobson, 2002: 64; Hui, 2017: 271–272).…”