Why do leaders, institutions, and states make the decisions they do? International Relations scholars are increasingly recognizing the importance of psychological and other decision-making approaches to understanding world affairs, particularly the crafting and implementation of foreign policy. In this course, we examine factors such as cognitive and emotional biases, leadership style, groupthink, and organizational culture that produce often surprising, suboptimal outcomes in international politics. We also focus on the effects of clashes of interests among and within various influential actors including presidential cabinets, intelligence agencies, military branches, and interest groups on foreign policy outcomes. A major purpose of the course is to think broadly about ways in which these actors and approaches can help inform work done by political scientists and policy analysts to provide more nuanced understandings of otherwise confounding cases of foreign policy decision-making. In doing so, we draw from numerous examples of crisis decision-making, foreign policy shifts, military interventions, and intelligence failure across time and space to evaluate the relative efficacy of various approaches in explaining specific cases.

The class will be held in the style of engaged lecture and discussion. Students will be asked questions throughout the class and be asked to work in groups on topics provided by the professor so as to remain as engaged as possible. Students are expected to have read all the class material and be prepared to engage by class-time. This is a challenging course with academic material from fields including cognitive and social psychology, evolutionary biology, organization theory, and behavioral economics in addition to political science. Clarifying questions are welcome at any time. Students are encouraged to familiarize themselves and regularly read blogs that engage issues of foreign policy (Foreign Policy, Good Authority, War on the Rocks) as well as keep current with issues in international politics that may present good cases for analysis in our discussions.

Office Hours: Mondays 5:00pm – 7:00pm, Tuesdays 2:15pm – 3:15pm in Room TBA

N/A

No required book purchase.

Late Work Policy

Deadlines for written work should be taken very seriously. Assignments turned in late will lose a third of a grade for each day they are late (e.g., A- > B+). Extensions will only be granted in case of medical, family, or personal emergency. Please discuss any concerns you have with Prof. Hintz AHEAD OF TIME.

Technology Policy

To reduce distractions for all students and provide the most productive learning environment possible, the use of cell phones will not be permitted during class. Unless it is a case of special circumstances, all cell phones must be switched off for the duration of class. The use of ChatGPT and other AI tools is not permitted for any assignment.

Methods of Assessment

1. Participation (30%):
2. 1,500-word Response Piece (20%): Due Sunday, September 29th by 10pm ET
3. 1000-word Monkey Cage Piece on Learning (20%): Due Sunday, October 20th by 10pm ET
4. 3,000-word Case Study Analysis (30%): Due Sunday, December 8th by 10pm ET

University Grading System

A (Outstanding)          =          4.0

A- (Excellent)             =          3.67

B+ (Very good)          =          3.33

B (Good)                     =          3.0

B- (Pass)                     =          2.67

C+ (Low pass)            =          2.33

C (Minimal pass)        =          2.0

D (Fail)                       =          0

Methods of Assessment

1. Participation (30%):

Participation is graded based on attendance as well as level and quality of participation in class discussions. To facilitate productive discussion and active learning while engaging challenging material, students are expected to attend all classes and arrive on time. Students with more than one unexcused absence will receive an automatic deduction in their participation grade. Students are expected to have completed all assigned readings and be prepared to discuss them in class. To make the most of this course, students are also expected to familiarize themselves with topical events involving issues of foreign policy, and to be able to raise and critically address these issues as engaged participants. Student participation will also involve a group project in Week 8 and an interactive case study workshop in the final week. 

2. 1,500-word Response Piece (20%): Due Sunday, September 29th by 10pm ET

Students will select one of three suggested topics drawn from material covered in the first five weeks of the term. Students will explore their selected topics in a short essay to be submitted on Canvas (under Assignments, it will automatically go through Turnitin) by the deadline. Structure of argument and quality of writing will both factor highly into the grade awarded. Written feedback will be provided for these short essays to assist students in preparing for the longer paper.

3. 1000-word Monkey Cage Piece on Learning (20%): Due Sunday, October 20th by 10pm ET

Students will collaborate in small groups to write a Monkey Cage-style piece analyzing US policy on Syria from the perspective of learning and analogies. Students must discuss in detail at least three of the class readings in their piece, turned in by one student in the group. Students will receive specific instructions in class and provide feedback on group participation. The piece must be submitted on Canvas (under Assignments, it will automatically go through Turnitin) by the deadline.

4. 3,000-word Case Study Analysis (30%): Due Sunday, December 8th by 10pm ET

The case study analysis will consist of an extended examination of one of the topics of protest and regime response covered in the course. This assignment will provide students with the opportunity to explore in depth an issue and case that are of particular interest to them, develop an argument applying course concepts, and present evidence in support of that argument. Students have two options for this assignment – paper or podcast – and are encouraged to discuss their topic and approach with Prof. Hintz. More details and written guidance will be given in class. 

Paper Option: This 3,000-word paper should demonstrate the student’s ability to engage and apply at least one of the theoretical approaches presented during the course along with the relevant course readings for that approach. Papers should actively engage course readings – through direct reference, citations, paraphrasing, application of argument, etc. Whatever the topic, the paper must be analytical, in that it presents a well-reasoned argument and includes appropriate supporting evidence that is correctly cited; an essay that only contains description will not receive a top grade. The paper should show strong research and critical thinking skills, be well written in terms of grammar and structure, and include a full bibliography.

Podcast Option: This 20-minute podcast, written and produced in teams of two, should demonstrate students’ ability to analyze a puzzling foreign policy decision by applying at least one of the theoretical approaches discussed in the course. Podcasts should present their argument explaining the FP decision chosen, rather than merely describe the case itself, and should address at least one alternative argument. Speakers should cite the relevant course materials on these concepts when presenting their analysis, and should submit a written bibliography of “works cited” in the discussion. Podcasts can, but do not have to, include interviews. Both students will, separately, submit a summary of their and their partner’s respective contributions.

Week 1, August 27

Introduction to FP Decision-Making Approaches

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979). Read Chapter 4 on “Reductionist and Systemic Theories.”

Margaret Hermann and Joe Hagan, “International Decision Making: Leadership Matters,” Foreign Policy, No. 110, 1998.

Dan Spokojvny, “What Is Expertise? Let’s Ask the Experts,” FP21.org, 20 March 2024: https://www.fp21.org/publications/what-is-expertise.

Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, Chapter 1.

Elizabeth Saunders, "Eight Questions About Donald Trump's Decision-Making in a Foreign Policy Crisis," Washington Post (Monkey Cage blog), 21 December 2016.

Thomas Leo Scherer, Lauren Van Metre, and Analise Schmidt, “Raiding the Ivory Tower: How to Seek Academic Research Like an Expert,” FP21.org, 22 February 2024: https://www.fp21.org/publications/how-to-seek-academic-research-like-an-expert.
 

Week 2, September 3

Rethinking the Unitary Actor: Bureaucratic and Domestic Politics

Graham Allison and Morton Halperin, “Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications,” World Politics, Vol. 24, 1972.

Morton Halperin, “The Decision to Deploy the ABM: Bureaucratic and Domestic Politics in the Johnson Administration,” World Politics, Vol. 25, October 1977.

Kevin Marsh, “Obama’s Surge: A Bureaucratic Politics Analysis of the Decision to Order a Troop Surge in the Afghanistan War,” Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2014.

Sibel Oktay, “Chamber of Opportunities: Legislative Politics and Coalition Security Policy,” British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018.

Lisel Hintz and David E. Banks, “Symbolic Amplification and Suboptimal Weapons Procurement: Explaining Turkey’s S-400 Program,” Security Studies, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2022.

Week 3, September 10

Rethinking the Blackboxed Actor: Organizational Culture, Ideology, Regime Type

Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Second edition, 1999), Chapter 3.

Milo Jones and Philippe Silberzahn. Constructing Cassandra: Reframing Intelligence Failure at the CIA 1947-2001 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013), Chapters 1 and 2.

Amy Zegart, “9/11and the FBI: The Organizational Roots of Failure,” Intelligence and National Security, Vol 22, No. 2, 2007.

Kimberly Marten, “The ‘KGB State’ and Russian Political and Foreign Policy Culture,” Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2017.

Daniel Wajner, “Exploring the Foreign Policies of Populist Governments: (Latin) America First,” Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2021.

Week 4, September 17

Rethinking the Rational Actor: Bounded Rationality

Herbert Simon, "Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science," American Political Science Review 79 (1985): 293-304.

Bryan Jones, “Bounded Rationality,” Annual Review of Political Science 2 (June 1999), pp. 297-321.

Gerd Gigerenzer and Daniel G. Goldstein, “Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality,” Psychological Review 103 (1996), pp. 650-69.

Rose McDermott, “Feeling of Rationality: The Meaning of Neuroscientific Advances for Political Science,” Perspective on Politics (Dec 2004): 691-706.

Filipa Figueria and Benjamin Martill, “Bounded Rationality and the Brexit Negotiations: Why Britain Failed to Understand the EU,” Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 28, No. 12, 2021.

Week 5, September 24

Perception and Misperception in Decision-Making: Heuristics and Biases

Re-skim Nudge, Ch.1 from Week 1.

Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), Chapters 1 and 4.

Jack Levy, “Political Psychology and Foreign Policy,” in D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, and R. Jervis (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Justin Kruger & David Dunning, “Unskilled and Unaware of it: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 6, 1999.

Jeanette Morehouse Mendez and Tracy Osborn, “Gender and the Perception of Knowledge in Political Discussion,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 2, 2010.

Daniel Kahneman and Jonathan Renshon, “Why Hawks Win,” Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2007.

Ellice Huang, “Can You Change Your Mind? Decision-Making and the Debate on AI Regulation,” FP21.org, 17 April 2024: https://www.fp21.org/publications/decision-making-and-ai-regulation.

Week 6, October 1

Groupthink Processes and Effects

Irving Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, 2nd ed., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982), Chapters 3, 8, 10, 11. NOTE: Read Chapter 8 first.

Steve Smith, “Groupthink and the Hostage Rescue Mission,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1985.

Steve Yetiv, “Groupthink and the Gulf Crisis,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 33, 2003.

Week 7, October 8

Prospect Theory, Framing, and Loss Aversion

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, “Choices, Values, and Frames,” American Psychologist, Vol. 39, No. 4, 1984.                       

Daniel Kahneman, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler, “The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1991.

Barbara Farnham, “Roosevelt and the Munich Crisis: Insights from Prospect Theory,” Political Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1992.

Rose McDermott, “Prospect Theory in International Relations: The Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission,” in Barbara Farnham (ed) Avoiding Losses/Taking Risks: Prospect Theory in International Conflict (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1994).

Luis Schenoni, Sean Braniff, and Jorge Battaglino, “Was the Malvinas/Falklands a Diversionary War? A Prospect-Theory Reinterpretation of Argentina’s Decline,” Security Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2020.

Adam Lenton, “Why Didn’t Ukraine Fight for Crimea? Evidence from Declassified National Security and Defense Council Proceedings,” Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 69. No. 2, 2022.

Week 8, October 15 (Group Exercise on US Syria Policy)

Learning from Our Mistakes? Or Learning the Wrong Lessons?

Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), Ch. 6.

Philip Tetlock, “Learning in US and Soviet Foreign Policy: In Search of an Elusive Concept,” in Philip Tetlock (ed.) Learning in US and Soviet Foreign Policy (Routledge, 2019).

Yuen Foong Khong, Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), Chapters 1 and 2.

Stephen Dyson and Thomas Preston, “Individual Characteristics of Political Leaders and the Use of Analogy in Foreign Policy Decision Making,” Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2006.

Ben Rhodes, “Inside the White House During the Syria ‘Red Line’ Crisis,” The Atlantic, 3 June 2018.

Week 9, October 22

Who Leads Matters I: Beliefs and Cognitive Structures

Re-skim Hermann and Hagan from Week 1, “Leadership Matters.”

Jonathan Renshon, “Stability and Change in Belief Systems: The Operational Code of George W. Bush,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 52, No. 6, 2008.

Janice Gross Stein, “Political Learning by Doing: Gorbachev as Uncommitted Thinker and Motivated Learner,” International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 2, 1994.

Elizabeth N. Saunders, “Transformative Choices: Leaders and the Origins of Intervention Strategy,” International Security, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2009.

Stephen Dyson, “Cognitive Style and Foreign Policy: Margaret Thatcher’s Black-and-White Thinking,” International Political Science Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2009.

Jonathan Keller, “Constraint Respecters, Constraint Challengers, and Crisis Decision-Making in Democracies: A Case Study of Analysis of Kennedy versus Reagan,” Political Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 6, 2005.

Week 10, October 29

Who Leads Matters II: Personality and Leadership Style

Thomas Preston, “The President’s Inner Circle: Personality and Leadership Style in Foreign policy Decision-Making,” Ch. 7 in Presidential Power, 2000.

Maryann Gallagher and Susan Allen, “Presidential Personality: Not Just a Nuisance,” Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2014.

Dan McAdams, “The Mind of Donald Trump,” The Atlantic, June 2016: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/.

Consuelo Thiers and Leslie Wehner, “The Personality Traits of Populist Leaders and Their Foreign Policies: Hugo Chavez and Donald Trump,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 2022.

Shin Yon Kim, “Presidential Personality and Foreign Policy Decision-Making: The Sunshine Policy under Kim Dae-Jong,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 96, No. 3, 2023.

Stephen Dyson, “Personality and Foreign Policy: Tony Blair’s Iraq Decisions,” Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2006.

Week 11, November 5

Who Leads Matters, Interrupted: FPDM in the AI and Autonomous Tech Era

Zed Tarar, “An AI Primer for Policy Professionals,” The Foreign Policy Journal, June 2024: https://afsa.org/ai-primer-policy-professionals.

Evanna Hu, “AI Disruption and Responsible Use in Diplomacy,” The Foreign Policy Journal, June 2024: https://afsa.org/ai-disruption-and-responsible-use-diplomacy.

Paula Osborn, “Toward Data-Informed Multilateral Diplomacy,” The Foreign Policy Journal, June 2024: https://afsa.org/toward-data-informed-multilateral-diplomacy.

James Johnson, “Delegating Strategic Decision-Making to Machines: Dr. Strangelove Redux?” Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2022.

Erik Lin-Greenberg, “Allies and Artificial Intelligence: Obstacles to Operations and Decision-Making,” Texas National Security Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020.

Michael Horowitz and Lauren Kahn, “Bending the Automation Bias Curve: A Study of Human- and AI-Based Decision Making in National Security Contexts, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 2, 2024.

Jacquelyn Schneider and Julia Macdonald, “Why Troops Don’t Trust Drones,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 20, 2017.

Week 12, November 12

Roles and Identities in FPDM

Muzafer Sherif, “Experiments in Group Conflict,” Scientific American, Vol. 195, 5, 1956.

Amy Catalinac, “Identity Theory and Foreign Policy: Explaining Japan’s Responses to the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 US War in Iraq,” Politics and Policy, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2007.

Lisel Hintz, “‘Take It Outside!’ National Identity Contestation in the Foreign Policy Arena,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2016.

Kornely Kakachia and Salome Minesasvhili, “Identity Politics: Exploring Georgian Foreign Policy Behavior,” Journal of Eurasian Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2015.

Catarina Kinnvall, “Populism, Ontological Insecurity, and Hindutva: Modi and the Masculinization of Indian Politics,” in Ontological Insecurities and the Politics of Contemporary Populism, 2023.

Sylvia Bashevkin, “Introduction,” Women as Foreign Policy Leaders: National Security and Gender Politics in Superpower America (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Week 13, November 19

Testing Your Knowledge: Iraq 2003 Case Study Workshop

NOTE: Ahead of group presentations, students will prepare one and skim two of these articles

Andrew Flibbert, “The Road to Baghdad: Ideas and Intellectuals in Explanations of the Iraq War,” Security Studies, Vol. 15, 2006.

Chaim Kaufmann, “Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: The Selling of the Iraq War,” International Security, Vol. 29, Summer 2004.

David Patrick Houghton, “Invading and Occupying Iraq: Some Insights from Political Psychology,” Peace and Conflict, Vol. 14, 2008.

Steve Yetiv, “The Invasion of Iraq: A War of Overconfidence,” Ch. 4 in National Security through a Cockeyed Lens (Baltimore, MD: JHU Press, 2013).

David Mitchell and Tansa George Massoud, “Anatomy of Failure: Bush’s Decision-Making Process and the Iraq War,” Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 5, 2009.

Andrew Payne, “Presidents, Politics, and Military Strategy: Electoral Constraints During the Iraq War,” International Security, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2020.

Dina Badie, “Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror: Explaining US Policy Shift Toward Iraq,” Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2010.

Final projects due Sunday December 8 by 10pm ET