IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v46y2002i3p394-426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Motivations for Choice

Author

Listed:
  • DAVID L. ROUSSEAU

    (Department of Political Science University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

Realists assume that individuals are obsessed with relative gains and that cooperation is the exception rather than the norm in international relations. In contrast, liberal institutionalists assume that, in many situations, individuals are motivated by absolute gains. These critical assumptions are examined. Results show that the salience of relative gains varies with the beliefs of the individual, the nature of the opponent, and the context of the situation, and that individuals often employ alternative pure strategies (e.g., equity) or mixed strategies (e.g., relative gains in the domain of gains and absolute gains in the domain of losses). Decision strategies (e.g., relative gains, absolute gains, joint gains, equality, and altruism) are linked to the growing constructivist literature in international relations.

Suggested Citation

  • David L. Rousseau, 2002. "Motivations for Choice," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(3), pages 394-426, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:46:y:2002:i:3:p:394-426
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002702046003004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002702046003004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002702046003004?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. Vasquez, John A., 1997. "The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(4), pages 899-912, December.
    2. Hopf, Ted, 1991. "Polarity, the Offense-Defense Balance, and War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(2), pages 475-493, June.
    3. Powell, Robert, 1994. "Anarchy in international relations theory: the neorealist-neoliberal debate," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 313-344, April.
    4. Christensen, Thomas J. & Snyder, Jack, 1990. "Chain gangs and passed bucks: predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 137-168, April.
    5. Wendt, Alexander, 1992. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 391-425, April.
    6. Stein, Arthur A., 1982. "Coordination and collaboration: regimes in an anarchic world," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 299-324, April.
    7. Aurélie Charles, 2012. "Introduction," Perspectives from Social Economics, in: Exchange Entitlement Mapping, pages 1-7, Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Krosnick, Jon A. & Kinder, Donald R., 1990. "Altering the Foundations of Support for the President Through Priming," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 497-512, June.
    9. Hurwitz, Jon & Peffley, Mark, 1987. "How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1099-1120, December.
    10. Keohane, Robert O. & Nye, Joseph S., 1987. "Power and Interdependence revisited," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 725-753, October.
    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. Remi Maier-Rigaud, 2008. "International Organizations as Corporate Actors: Agency and Emergence in Theories of International Relations," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    3. Miroslav Nincic & Barbara Hinckley, 1991. "Foreign Policy and the Evaluation of Presidential Candidates," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 333-355, June.
    4. Akan Malici, 2005. "Discord and Collaboration between Allies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(1), pages 90-119, February.
    5. Stephen Biddle & Stephen Long, 2004. "Democracy and Military Effectiveness," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(4), pages 525-546, August.
    6. Dr. Declan A. Amaraegbu, 2015. "Contextualising the Syrian Crisis against Realism and Security Competition in the 21st Century," Journal of Social Sciences (COES&RJ-JSS), , vol. 4(2), pages 795-811, April.
    7. Kenneth W. Abbott & Duncan Snidal, 1998. "Why States Act through Formal International Organizations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(1), pages 3-32, February.
    8. Brittnee Carter, 2022. "Revisiting the Bandwagoning Hypothesis: A Statistical Analysis of the Alliance Dynamics of Small States," International Studies, , vol. 59(1), pages 7-27, January.
    9. Jeremy Garlick, 2016. "Not So Simple," China Report, , vol. 52(4), pages 284-305, November.
    10. Steininger, Lea & Hesse, Casimir, 2024. "Buying into new ideas: The ECB’s evolving justification of unlimited liquidity," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 357, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    11. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Neil J. Mitchell & Kerry G. Herron, 2004. "Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 287-309, June.
    12. Harald Schoen, 2008. "Identity, Instrumental Self-Interest and Institutional Evaluations," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 5-29, March.
    13. Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & West, Martin R. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "How information affects support for education spending: Evidence from survey experiments in Germany and the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 138-157.
    14. Sandberg, Kristin Ingstad & Andresen, Steinar & Bjune, Gunnar, 2010. "A new approach to global health institutions? A case study of new vaccine introduction and the formation of the GAVI Alliance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1349-1356, October.
    15. Nyam Elisha Yakubu, 2022. "An Appraisal of Hard Power in Contemporary Practice of Diplomacy," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(02), pages 342-351, February.
    16. Anna YAMCHUK, 2014. "The EU-UN cooperation for maintaining international peace and security," Eastern Journal of European Studies, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 5, pages 113-129, June.
    17. Jonathan M. DiCicco & Jack S. Levy, 1999. "Power Shifts and Problem Shifts," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(6), pages 675-704, December.
    18. Lawrence J. Christiano & Roberto Motto & Massimo Rostagno, 2003. "The Great Depression and the Friedman-Schwartz hypothesis," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, pages 1119-1215.
    19. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 2001. "Ten Little Treasures of Game Theory and Ten Intuitive Contradictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1402-1422, December.
    20. Pablo Amorós & M. Puy, 2013. "Issue convergence or issue divergence in a political campaign?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 355-371, June.

    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:46:y:2002:i:3:p:394-426. 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.