IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v44y2000i4p447-471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cognitive Calculus of Foreign Policy Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Nehemia Geva
  • James Mayhar
  • J. Mark Skorick

    (Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University)

Abstract

The cognitive calculus theory of foreign policy decision making is an attempt to bridge the gap between two research orientations in the international relations literature: outcome validity and process validity. The cognitive calculus theory models the mental calculations of foreign policy decision making with the premise that an individual conducts the decision-making process and the model should therefore represent his or her capabilities. An experiment tested a few of the model's derivations concerning the effects of the quality of information on process and choice parameters. The results support major aspects of the cognitive calculus theory. Relevant items are attended to more carefully than irrelevant items and speed up the decision process. Furthermore, the valence of the relevant items disposes the choice of a corresponding option. The consequences of plugging the information set used in the experiment into the mathematical model of cognitive calculus show that human behavior parallels the model's predictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Nehemia Geva & James Mayhar & J. Mark Skorick, 2000. "The Cognitive Calculus of Foreign Policy Decision Making," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(4), pages 447-471, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:44:y:2000:i:4:p:447-471
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002700044004003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002700044004003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002700044004003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Taber, Charles S., 1992. "POLI: An Expert System Model of U.S. Foreign Policy Belief Systems," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(4), pages 888-904, December.
    2. Marcus, George E. & MacKuen, Michael B., 1993. "Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During Presidential Campaigns," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 672-685, September.
    3. Lodge, Milton & McGraw, Kathleen M. & Stroh, Patrick, 1989. "An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 399-419, June.
    4. Mintz, Alex & Geva, Nehemia & Redd, Steven B. & Carnes, Amy, 1997. "The Effect of Dynamic and Static Choice Sets on Political Decision Making: An Analysis Using the Decision Board Platform," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(3), pages 553-566, September.
    5. Mesquita, Bruce Bueno De & Lalman, David, 1990. "Domestic Opposition and Foreign War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(3), pages 747-765, September.
    6. Marcus, George E., 1988. "The Structure of Emotional Response: 1984 Presidential Candidates," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(3), pages 737-761, September.
    7. Nehemia Geva & J. Mark Skorick, 1999. "Information inconsistency and the cognitive algebra of foreign policy decision making," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 333-362, July.
    8. Gilliland, Stephen W. & Schmitt, Neal, 1993. "Information Redundancy and Decision Behavior: A Process Tracing Investigation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 157-180, March.
    9. Ostrom, Charles W. & Job, Brian L., 1986. "The President and the Political Use of Force," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(2), pages 541-566, June.
    10. Schwartz, Jeffrey P. & Norman, Kent L., 1989. "Separating cue relevance from cue importance within models of judgment and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 355-384, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steven B. Redd, 2002. "The Influence of Advisers on Foreign Policy Decision Making," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(3), pages 335-364, June.
    2. Alex Mintz, 2004. "How Do Leaders Make Decisions?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(1), pages 3-13, February.
    3. Paul K. Huth, 1998. "Major Power Intervention in International Crises, 1918-1988," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(6), pages 744-770, December.
    4. Diana Richards & T. Clifton Morgan & Rick K. Wilson & Valerie L. Schwebach & Garry D. Young, 1993. "Good Times, Bad Times, and the Diversionary Use of Force," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 504-535, September.
    5. Lian Tang & Siti Zobidah Omar & Jusang Bolong & Julia Wirza Mohd Zawawi, 2021. "Social Media Use Among Young People in China: A Systematic Literature Review," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    6. Karl DeRouen Jr. & Christopher Sprecher, 2004. "Initial Crisis Reaction and Poliheuristic Theory," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(1), pages 56-68, February.
    7. Jonathan W. Keller & Yi Edward Yang, 2008. "Leadership Style, Decision Context, and the Poliheuristic Theory of Decision Making: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(5), pages 687-712, October.
    8. Alex Mintz, 2004. "Foreign Policy Decision Making in Familiar and Unfamiliar Settings," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(1), pages 91-104, February.
    9. Alex Mintz & Steven B. Redd & Arnold Vedlitz, 2006. "Can We Generalize from Student Experiments to the Real World in Political Science, Military Affairs, and International Relations?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 757-776, October.
    10. Dukhong Kim, 2014. "Affect and Public Support for Military Action," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, December.
    11. Bruce J. Bueno De Mesquita & Robert W. Jackman & Randolph M. Siverson, 1991. "Introduction," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 181-186, June.
    12. Tiedens, Larissa Z., 2001. "Anger and Advancement versus Sadness and Subjugation: The Effect of Negative Emotion Expressions on Social Status Conferral," Research Papers 1615, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    13. Ángel Cazorla Martín & Carmen Ortega & Juan Montabes, 2023. "Direct and Indirect Effects of Emotions towards Party Leaders on Voting: Evidence from the 2018 Andalusian Regional Election," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Enriqueta Aragones, 1997. "Negativity Effect and the Emergence of Ideologies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(2), pages 189-210, April.
    15. John Patty & Roberto Weber, 2007. "Letting the good times roll: A theory of voter inference and experimental evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 293-310, March.
    16. Philip B. K. Potter, 2007. "Does Experience Matter?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(3), pages 351-378, June.
    17. Lee, Taeku & Oliver, J. Eric, 2002. "Public Opinion and the Politics of America's Obesity Epidemic," Working Paper Series rwp02-017, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    18. Oeindrila Dube & S.P. Harish, 2017. "Queens," NBER Working Papers 23337, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Kyle Haynes, 2017. "Diversionary conflict: Demonizing enemies or demonstrating competence?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(4), pages 337-358, July.
    20. David Brulé, 2006. "Congressional Opposition, the Economy, and U.S. Dispute Initiation, 1946-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 463-483, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:44:y:2000:i:4:p:447-471. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.