Political Psychology of International Relations

• In international relations, three cognitive psychological concepts are used to understand and decode the behavioral aspects of political leadership across the world: Confirmation Bias, Fundamental attribution error and Prospect theory.
• Critical thinking and decision making approach applied to political psychology allows us to carefully deconstruct a situation, reveal its hidden issues such as bias and manipulation and make the best decision from the available choices.
• The critical thinking approach would not eradicate difficult decisions in national or international politics. But it can help the decision makers to increase the number of positive choices we make.
• Tools of psychology might not be able to resolve the complexities involved in international and national politics, but it provides models and structures that help us decode the ambiguous and chaotic issues in world politics.

Psychological tools are often used in the assessment of decision making and policy paradigm of politicians, diplomats and other key decision makers in the government. So, the political psychology in its essence studies the foundations, dynamics, and outcomes of political behavior using cognitive and social explanations. This discipline engages in the understanding of why political leaders think and behave in a certain manner and the consequences that they unleash in international affairs.

Role of Ideology and its implications on decision making

To understand the psychological role, we need to delve into the impact of ideologies and beliefs that nudge the decision making in the international affairs. Ideologies are large, sprawling and complex set of assumptions. People can believe in parts of them while rejecting their other parts. An ideology is a perceptive or theory that aims to improve society or so claims its adherents. Usually ideologies end in “isms”, such as liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, or Islamic fundamentalism. The opposite of Ideology is pragmatism – if it works, use it – but there are a few pragmatic politicians in the world. If you look closely, you will find that their pragmatism is in the world, also one would find their pragmatism is in the service of an ideological view point. Sometimes however, ideology is simply a mask for pragmatic self interest. But, can foreign policy in International affairs be ideological? Yes, provided that the cost doesn’t get too high. When it does, ideology goes on the back burner or even out of the window. A new regime can start off intensely ideological, determined to spread its doctrine around the globe, but when it encounters resistance and threats to its existence, it usually tones down its ideology. Sometimes it might become completely pragmatic and even betrays its ideology. 

It’s a stark reality that humans don’t have time or capacity to be fully rational. Many economic and political theorists assume that national decision makers are utility maximizing rational thinkers. Many leaders commit a mistake in comparing situations to the past circumstances that might not necessarily be accurate. Many political arguments involve a deep sense of belief overkill. Belief overkill involves a tendency to bring all arguments into line with a favored conclusion. Multiple non logically connected reasons for believing so deeply in something that it leads to contributing in over confidence, lack of a plan B, creating clashes between statesmen from which we can ascertain that an internalized argument is directly proportional to unrelated reasoning. This is the main contributor to the tendency of a difficulty to emphasize the opposing side. Leaders need to believe in their decisions in order to sell them to others so that they have made their choice, making it an emotional endeavor instead of a rational one. Decisions are also made because of the socio-cultural and economic background of the political leaders where the interplay of dimensions of political populism, classist elitism and power ecosystem are constantly revisited both by the leadership and the state establishment. Moreover the ability to conflict information increases with experiences and education as we see what we expect because our brain discounts almost everything else.

Cognitive Psychology and International Relations

This gives us an understanding as to what elements of perception, understanding, and decision making are hard wired into the human brain? How do these characteristics shape the way we understand the world? What are the most relevant insights to apply in International Relations? And lastly what sort of the world that these attributes produce.

We need to understand that in human cognition, which represents the Individual sense and perception of the world, the reception of information with is processing plays a primary role in the development of perceptions and viewpoints. At a later stage the processing of Information leads to engaging in action. This whole phenomenon provides a very different understanding than the way that we typically talk about individual decision making in International relations.

1. Individual level of analysis (also known as first image)
2. Deals with assumptions of dispassionate rationality.
3. Aims for Utility Maximization
4. Cognitive Psychology from a political perspective
5. Psychological perspective demonstrates an increased understanding of human cognition which categorically says that the constructs made with emotions ideological conundrum is fictional.  
6. Emotional responses such as fear and disgust are bound up with how we know and understand the world.
7. Most of the times it is observed that reason and emotion are diametrically opposite to each other, only with a rare combination of pragmatism and observed realism, leaders tend to make an appropriate decision.

In international relations the following three cognitive psychological concepts are used to understand and decode the behavioral aspects of political leadership across the world.

1. The conformation bias

• Human beings inhabit a world view and interpret the reality through that world view. We combat against ignoring or resisting the information which does not correspond to any prior experience or any exposure to the world view.
• Before we even start to interrogate the evidence, we would subconsciously be driven or determined to distrust the evidence.
• Human brain would immediately set to work in trying to destroy and discredit the information which is contrarian to our inherent beliefs and preconceived assumptions about a phenomenon.
• This doesn’t happen because of ignorance or lack of education, but due the development of identity driven structures and ideological construct.
• Ability to resist conflicting information increases with experience and education.
• We visualize what we expect because our brain discounts what we do not do.

Example: The USA’s strategic view and understanding of Russia is a classic case of conformation bias. In the American world view, both in their intellectual circles and the establishment, they visualize and perceive Russia as their adversary and their national security and foreign policy has a consistent goal orientation which is clearly Anti Russia. This view has been carried forward by the USA since the cold war era.  Even though China has emerged as a larger adversary to the American interests, their obsession with Russia is at a monumental scale.

The USA’s strategic view and understanding of Russia is a classic case of conformation bias. In the American world view, both in their intellectual circles and the establishment, they visualize and perceive Russia as their adversary.

2. Fundamental attribution error

• One’s interpretation of an ally’s actions differs from their interpretation of an adversary’s actions. For example if country X provides humanitarian aid towards country Y, our reactions towards allies and adversaries would be different.
• Towards ally: Normal for their character, genuinely driven towards their purpose.
• Towards adversary: Attempts would be made to categorize the action as one with an ulterior motive or purpose.
• We judge someone’s behavior, not in the context of their situation, but their moral character in relation to us.

Example: Currently, Sri Lanka is facing an economic crisis of an unprecedented scale. India has announced $1 Billion, line of credit as an aid to the country. Also, India has committed to supply essential food grains to Sri Lanka in order to support them in overcoming their acute shortages of food grains. There have been two different kinds of international reactions to India’s humanitarian aid, one from the Chinese, who are suspecting India’s motives. The Chinese believe that India is engaging in this gesture, purely to achieve its strategic and national security goals. The second reaction has come from UK; the foreign minister of UK appreciated India’s efforts in mitigating the crisis in Sri Lanka and lauded India’s humanitarian assistance. The above example clearly demonstrated the Ally-Adversary dichotomy.

3. Prospect theory

A tolerance for risk is based on one’s perception of a given situation. When things are going well, leaders are more averse to making risks, but when things are going badly, leaders are more likely to pursue risky strategies that have a much higher likelihood of loss. Which means that policy making and political decision making can be influenced more towards national power consolidation rather than considerations for national interests. 

Example: The best scenario that is apt for prospect theory is the all out Russian invasion on Ukraine. The eastward expansion of NATO and the continuous provocation of the USA, irked Vladimir Putin to launch an all out attack on the sovereign Ukrainian territory, which in international law, is categorically illegal. This decision of Russia comes with a whole range of risks and worst economic consequences for the Russians, but yet the war is unlikely to end soon. We must remember that Mr. Putin is justifying his actions on Ukraine as necessary measures to protect Russian Interests, but most strategic analysts believe this action is Putin’s grandeur display of hard core military power and also contains the message of nuclear deterrence.  

Perceptual Model and International Relations

The perceptual model revolves in three human dimensions such as: 1) Perception 2) Identity and 3) communication. This model provides for a basis of the psychological construct of nationalism nation state and national identity. The questions that perceptual model tries to address are, how does a man form his perceptions of the external world and how do his perceptions affect his behavior? The model by which these questions are based on the following set of premises. Some of the premises are quite generally accepted; some are at this stage, merely hypothesis; and some are definitional. Generally the countries view each other on the lines of this perceptual model.

1. Individual patterns of behavior are based on Individual perceptions of the external world, which are largely learned.
2. Because of the biological and experimental differences, no two individuals can perceive the external world identically.
3. The greater the biological and experiential differences between the individuals, the more disparate their perceptions are likely to be. Conversely, the more similar the biological and experiential background, the more similar their perceptions are likely to be.
4. A perceptual group may be defined as a number of individuals, who perceive some aspect of the external world more or less similarly, but who do not communicate this similarity of the perception among themselves.
5. A number of people who perceive some aspect of the external world more or less similarly, and recognize and communicate this similarity of perception, may be termed as an identity group.
6. Other things being equal, the higher the degree of similarity of perception that exists among a number of individuals;
   • The easier communication among them is likely to be;
   • The more communication among them is likely to occur;
   • The more likely it is that their similarity of perception will be recognized – that an identity group will form.
7. Ease of communication allows for a constant increase in the degree of similarity of perception through feedback mechanism. This in turn allows for still further ease of communication. Thus, there tends to be a constant reinforcement of group identity. Conversely, where there is little or no communication among individuals there tends to be a decrease in similarity of perception, which in turn tends to make further communication more difficult.
8. The greater the number and intensity of perceptual groups individuals share – the more overlapping of important perceptual groups that exists among a number of a high degree of group identity.
9. A pattern of perceptions and behavior that is accepted and expected by an identity group is called a culture. Since, by definition, each identity group has its own pattern of behavior norms, and its own language or code (understood most clearly by members of that group) each group is said to be have its own culture.
10. Since communication tends to be easiest among individuals who identify most closely with each other and among most difficult individuals who perceive more or less dissimilarly, this tends to reinforce and exacerbate awareness of group differences. Any “we” ( identity group) comes into much sharper focus when juxtaposed against any “they” ( a different  identity group)
11.  To the degree that the people who inhabit a particular territory share some similarity of perception as subjects of that specific legal entity, they can be considered members of the perceptual group called the “state”.
12. In those cases where there is a high degree of similarity of perception among the members of the state, and that similarity of perception is communicated among themselves, the state (perceptual group) is also a “Nation” (identity group).
13. A nation may be defined as a number of people ( usually large ) who share and communicate a high degree of similarity of perceptions with regard to the symbols of either an existing state, or of a state they feel should exist.
14. An individual must invariably be a member of a myriad of different perceptual and identity groups simultaneously. However, he shares a higher degree of similarity of perception and a higher degree of group identity, with some than with others. Consciously or otherwise, he gives his various group identities a rank ordering. That ranking is what commonly referred to as a “value system”. Each individual’s rank order is unique and varies, within narrow limits, from situation to situation.
15. Some Identities are clearly more important to behavior than others. Because of this, it is useful to differentiate among primary, secondary, and tertiary identities. Although the ranking of these identities can and does change with time and circumstances, to understand individual behavior at any given moment, it is important to know which identities primary and which are only secondary or tertiary.
16. It often happens that Individual and group have internalized elements of several different elements, even conflicting, value systems simultaneously. They are able to survive and function under this condition primarily because:
    • They are able to identify in different degrees – and at different levels of consciousness – with each of the value systems and;
    • Most simultaneously held group identities only rarely come into direct conscious conflict.
17.  When two equally valued identities do come into direct conflict, a high degree of anxiety (conscious or otherwise) may result.
18. In order to alleviate that anxiety, the individual or group often seeks some third identity which can accommodate, neutralize, rationalize, and or synthesize these conflicting value systems.
19. Because environmental and biological factors are ever changing, perceptions, attitudes, values and identities are ever changing. Consequently, new perceptual and existing groups are constantly in a state of flux.

Critical thinking and decision making approach applied to political psychology

This is a method of approaching a question that allows us to carefully deconstruct a situation, reveal its hidden issues such as bias and manipulation and make the best decision from the available choices. A political leader who uses critical thinking, subjects all available options to scrutiny and skepticism, using the tools at their disposal, they will eliminate everything but the most useful and reliable information.

There are many different ways of approaching critical thinking, but the analysis of political psychology, the following five step process can help us solve a number of problems:

1. Formulating the question (in other words knowing what we are looking for): the reasons and factors involved in the situation, promises, hopes, results and goal orientated success; de constructed with rationality to delve into the integrities and intricacies of the subject matter. Having clarity in the political objectives is very important in this state.
2. Gathering the Information: Information gathering through expert advice and testimony of scholars and politicians becomes important at this stage. This would lead to the decision makers to consider and weigh different options, moving the top policy makers closer to the decision that would help them in meeting their prospective goal.
3. Application of Information: in the situation of making a decision, the policy makers should introspect, what concepts are at work? What are the existing assumptions in front of us? Is our interpretation of the existing information logically sound? And finally is the available evidence logical enough for us to consider making a decision. 
4. Considerations of Implications: Before making the decision, a clear cut assessment of tactical and strategic consequences must be made. The assessment of cost-benefit analysis of the implication of decisions must be taken into consideration. In cases of national security war gaming the situations becomes important and the security establishment must always critically think about the worst case scenario. Most crucially the unintended consequences must be kept in back of the mind.
5. Exploring other’s point of view: exploring the full spectrum of viewpoints might explain why some policies that don’t seem valid oneself might appeal to others. This will allow the political leaders to explore the alternatives, evaluate their own choices and ultimately helps you to make more informed decisions.

Example: India’s foreign and strategic policy has been formulated over several years through critical thinking approach which is not just pragmatic but also rooted in an issue based approach guided by political realism. This is one the reason why India is reluctant to join any global superpower camp and strives to sustain its strategic autonomy.

India’s foreign and strategic policy has been formulated over several years through critical thinking approach which is not just pragmatic but also rooted in an issue based approach guided by political realism. 

The critical thinking approach would not eradicate difficult decisions in national or international politics. But it can help the decision makers to increase the number of positive choices we make. The critical thinking can give us tools to sift through a sea of information and find what we are looking for.

Finally, it’s imperative to mention the fact that tools of psychology might not be able to resolve the complexities involved in international and national politics, but it provides models and structures that help us decode the ambiguous and chaotic issues in world politics. The pathways provided by psychological approaches enable us in dissecting through the human behavioral patterns which reflects in political action and results in policy making paradigms.

(The author has a MA in International Relations. Views expressed are author’s own)

Viswapramod C

Viswapramod is a PhD Scholar at the Department of International Studies and Political Science, Christ University, Bangalore. He has an MA in International Relations. Views expressed are the author’s own.