IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v33y1989i4p652-675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive Heuristics and American Security Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Nancy Kanwisher

    (University of California, Berkeley)

Abstract

Flawed arguments often recur in debates on U.S. security policy long after their weaknesses have been exposed. In this article I argue that certain political misconceptions and fallacies resist counterargument because they are reinforced by particular reasoning shortcuts known as “cognitive heuristics.†Although heuristics save time and mental work, they can lead to error because they are based on violable assumptions. I discuss seven different cognitive heuristics and the particular security fallacies they perpetuate — from the domino theory to the idea that deterrence requires force matching. Finally, the scope and limitations of such psychological explanations will be discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Nancy Kanwisher, 1989. "Cognitive Heuristics and American Security Policy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(4), pages 652-675, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:33:y:1989:i:4:p:652-675
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002789033004004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002789033004004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002789033004004?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. Quattrone, George A. & Tversky, Amos, 1988. "Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(3), pages 719-736, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kuperman, Ranan, 2011. "Coping with Conflict:A Dynamic Decision Making Perspective," NEPS Working Papers 3/2011, Network of European Peace Scientists.

    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. Hibbs, Douglas A, Jr, 2000. "Bread and Peace Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 104(1-2), pages 149-180, July.
    2. Frank R. Baumgartner & Christine Mahoney, 2008. "Forum Section: The Two Faces of Framing," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 435-449, September.
    3. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    4. 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.
    5. Eiichi Tomiura & Banri Ito & Hiroshi Mukunoki & Ryuhei Wakasugi, 2016. "Individual Characteristics, Behavioral Biases, and Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey in Japan," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1081-1095, November.
    6. 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.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:173-182 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Salvatore Greco & Fabio Rindone, 2014. "The bipolar Choquet integral representation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 1-29, June.
    9. Mark I. Lichbach, 1994. "Rethinking Rationality and Rebellion," Rationality and Society, , vol. 6(1), pages 8-39, January.
    10. Paul A. Kowert & Margaret G. Hermann, 1997. "Who Takes Risks?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(5), pages 611-637, October.
    11. Vladimir Maltsev, 2024. "Religious reforms and large-scale rebellions (via the case of the Honganji sect of the True Pure Land Buddhism)," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 200(3), pages 589-601, September.
    12. Tobias Mutter & Dennis Kundisch, 2014. "Goals as Reference Points: Empirical Evidence from a Virtual Reward System," Working Papers Dissertations 19, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    13. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
    14. Paul K. Huth, 1990. "The Extended Deterrent Value of Nuclear Weapons," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(2), pages 270-290, June.
    15. Dhami, Sanjit & Al-Nowaihi, Ali, 2010. "Optimal taxation in the presence of tax evasion: Expected utility versus prospect theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 313-337, August.
    16. Heribert Gierl & Hans Höser, 2002. "Der Reihenfolgeeffekt auf Präferenzen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 3-18, February.
    17. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno & Hilken, Katharina, 2015. "Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 360-374.
    18. Vincenzo Carrieri & Maria De Paola & Francesca Gioia, 2021. "The health-economy trade-off during the Covid-19 pandemic: Communication matters," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-25, September.
    19. Sanjit Dhami & ali al-Nowaihi, 2012. "Evidential equilibria in static games," Discussion Papers in Economics 12/15, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    20. Stuart Elaine Macdonald & George Rabinowitz, 1993. "Direction and Uncertainty in a Model of Issue Voting," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 5(1), pages 61-87, January.
    21. Anna Katharina Spälti & Mark J. Brandt & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2017. "Memory retrieval processes help explain the incumbency advantage," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(2), pages 173-182, March.

    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:33:y:1989:i:4:p:652-675. 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.