The Power of Human Cognition in the Study of World Politics

Abstract

This essay demonstrates that the study of world politics should be situated in a cognitive approach, along with the study of foreign policymaking. As I will show, the so‐called “rationality‐cognitive debate” has become a pseudo‐debate. Theories of both foreign policy and world politics must be realistically grounded in the assumptions and knowledge of cognitive actors to advance our grasp of practice as well as theory. The basic assumptions of the approach are described and the accumulated knowledge is reviewed in five critical areas: 1) the content of policymaker beliefs (from general images to specific preferences); 2) the organization and structure of policymaker beliefs (resulting in coherent versus fragmented images); 3) the common patterns of perception and misperception (such as the tendency to categorize and stereotype, simplify causal inferences, and use historical analogies); 4) the likelihood of cognitive rigidity to limit change and learning; and 5) the impact on policymaking (agenda‐setting and framing, and formulation and choice). Although sensitivity to variation in cognition across individuals and cultures is increasingly important, international relations scholars cannot ignore the insights about human cognition if their theories are to reflect international realities.

Stopping Mass Atrocities: Targeting the Dictator

“…Limits result from the human capabilities to calculate all options rationally, stem from biases and the decision making process can be distorted by emotions (Marcus, 2000;McDermott, 2004a;Mintz & DeRouen, 2010;Renshon & Renshon, 2008;Rosati, 2000). 5 Considering these limits, it has been argued it is more useful to speak of bounded rationality (Simon, 1985).…”

“…When scholars analyze the individual as a decision making unit it is often assumed that individuals act on the basis of a rational consideration, even when this is bounded by human cognition and emotions (Hanoch, 2002;McDermott, 2004b;Mercer, 2005;Mintz & DeRouen, 2010;Rosati, 2000;Simon, 1985). This perspective, however, is unable to accommodate the role ideology plays in the decision making process (D'Avray, 2010, pp.…”

Figurative language in international political discourse

“…Bergen (2003), for instance, analyses political cartoons published in the week after the 2001 attack, exploring the roles played by conceptual blending, conceptual metaphor, and cultural models. In addition, analyses have demonstrated the dominance of the familial metaphor in American politics (e.g., Lakoff 1995;Adams 2004;Iyengar 2005) and also that of sports and warfare, although these common themes are not restricted to America (Howe 1988;Cibulskiene 2002;Rosati 2000). Other studies have been conducted on the use of specific metaphors in times of war or crisis, for instance, George Bush Sr's choice of metaphor during the first Gulf War (Bates 2004), the use of the phrase "smoking guns" in the search for the existence of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq (Billig and MacMillan 2005), and Roland Paris' (2002) discussion of Kosovo.…”

Initial Crisis Reaction and Poliheuristic Theory

“…Step 1 of PH allows structure "imposed [on] uncertain situations," as discussed by Rosati (2001). In step 2, the decision maker can use a more rational approach to select from remaining alternatives.…”

“…PH, therefore, combines both elements of rational choice decision making and cognitive heuristics in explaining political decision making. Rosati (2001) also calls for a model sensitive to systemic, domestic, and cognitive variables. PH provides such an approach.…”