IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v59y2005i01p77-106_05.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rationality and Psychology in International Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Mercer, Jonathan

Abstract

The ubiquitous yet inaccurate belief in international relations scholarship that cognitive biases and emotion cause only mistakes distorts the field's understanding of the relationship between rationality and psychology in three ways. If psychology explains only mistakes (or deviations from rationality), then (1) rationality must be free of psychology; (2) psychological explanations require rational baselines; and (3) psychology cannot explain accurate judgments. This view of the relationship between rationality and psychology is coherent and logical, but wrong. Although undermining one of these three beliefs is sufficient to undermine the others, I address each belief—or myth—in turn. The point is not that psychological models should replace rational models, but that no single approach has a lock on understanding rationality. In some important contexts (such as in strategic choice) or when using certain concepts (such as trust, identity, justice, or reputation), an explicitly psychological approach to rationality may beat a rationalist one.I thank Deborah Avant, James Caporaso, James Davis, Bryan Jones, Margaret Levi, Peter Liberman, Lisa Martin, Susan Peterson, Jason Scheideman, Jack Snyder, Michael Taylor, two anonymous reviewers, and especially Robert Jervis and Elizabeth Kier for their thoughtful comments and critiques. Jason Scheideman also helped with research assistance.

Suggested Citation

  • Mercer, Jonathan, 2005. "Rationality and Psychology in International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(1), pages 77-106, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:59:y:2005:i:01:p:77-106_05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818305050058/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maartje Weerdesteijn, 2015. "Stopping Mass Atrocities: Targeting the Dictator," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(3), pages 53-66.
    2. Kong, NGUYEN To Hong, 2021. "State-to-state Trust in Post-leadership Change: Case Study of China-Japan Relations, 2009-2019," OSF Preprints hdbcy, Center for Open Science.
    3. Richard Meissner, 2022. "eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape: research paradigms, theories and epistocrats," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 543-560, September.
    4. Joshua D. Kertzer, 2017. "Microfoundations in international relations," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(1), pages 81-97, January.
    5. Mai'a K. Davis Cross & Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski & Michal Natorski & Karolina Pomorska, 2017. "Trust and Decision-making in Times of Crisis: The EU's Response to the Events in Ukraine," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 54-70, January.
    6. repec:gig:joupla:v:1:y:2009:i:1:p:37-66 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Mohammed Yousef Mai, 2015. "Science Teachers' Attitudes towards Using ICT and Mobile Learning Technologies in Malaysian Schools," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 1, ejis_v1_i.
    8. Shuhei Kurizaki, 2016. "Signaling and perception in international crises: Two approaches," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(4), pages 625-654, October.
    9. Yao Zhang & Yushu Zhang & Yan Wu & Frank Krueger, 2023. "Default Matters in Trust and Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-21, January.

    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:cup:intorg:v:59:y:2005:i:01:p:77-106_05. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    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.