We often assume that the decision to go to war is a carefully calculated process – one in which political leaders methodically weigh the risks and benefits before taking escalatory action. However, this belief is not supported by cognitive science and is becoming increasingly outdated.
UC Berkeley Political Science Assistant Professor Marika Landau-Wells is working to change that perception. Her research integrates psychology into our understanding of decision making, particularly as it relates to war, conflict and foreign policy, in order to update outdated models.
In her paper “Building from the Brain: Advancing the Study of Threat Perception in International Relations,” published in Cambridge University Press, Landau-Wells challenges the idea that foreign policy decisions, including the decision to go to war, are always mathematically rational.
“Weighing human lives isn’t the only calculation that poses a challenge to traditional modes of foreign policy,” said Landau-Wells. “The possibility of losing symbolically important territory and landmarks, of losing status and reputation, are all harms taken into consideration. However, it’s hard – maybe impossible – to place a monetary value on them.”
Research in neuroscience suggests that the human brain does not process these harms as straightforward costs in a way that facilitates rational calculation, according to Landau-Wells. Her study has implications for how people think about war and how the decision to go to war is made: if not in a quantifiable way, then how?
“My paper doesn’t answer that second set of questions, but rather suggests that we should stop relying on the old model. It suggests new ways to approach these problems,” Landau-Wells said.
One way she proposes approaching those questions is by reevaluating theories in political science by using cognitive science as a means of explanation. She uses threat perception, or how we perceive dangerous people or situations, as an example of how decisions made in foreign policy are underpinned by complex cognitive processes as opposed to simple calculations.
While threat perception is a key idea in international relations theory, its psychological effects are poorly understood. To address this, Landau-Wells uses political coercion as an example of how threat perception impacts behavior. Researchers have long struggled to understand why countries refuse to back down in the face of threats, but her study attributes this to basic social intuition.
“If somebody tries to coerce you to do something you don’t want to do, there’s a chance you will interpret that as hostile and react badly,” she said. “That response has some basis in how we respond when people intend to hurt us.”
Everyday social interactions mirror this idea. For example, in a playground setting, children learn the difference between someone hurting them by accident and a bully hurting them on purpose, Landau-Wells explained. They respond to accidents by accepting the situation or asking for an apology. When faced with bullying, however, they stand up for themselves.
This reflects a broader pattern in social cognition – when we feel that others want to hurt us, we interpret the situation as a threat and respond accordingly. Such reactions are fairly intuitive in our social lives, but leaders of countries behave similarly when pressured by coercive threats, explained Landau-Wells. As a result, coercion in foreign policy is often far less effective than traditionally assumed.
To test and capture these cognitive processes, Landau-Wells used neuroimaging data to test old models of international relations theory. She examined theories that treat conflict decision-making like equations and theories that assume political coercion is effective. In analyzing data from over 500 studies with more than 11,000 participants, she found that these assumptions did not align with existing evidence on how the brain responds to threats.
“There’s something pleasing about the idea that people make weighty political decisions in a rational manner. But those assumptions have been shown to be weak, and we need to update those models,” said Landau-Wells.
While Landau-Wells’ article doesn’t come to a concrete conclusion on how weighty political decisions are made, her research suggests that they stem from complex cognitive processes rather than mathematical calculations. In challenging long-standing assumptions in international relations and foreign policy, Landau-Wells’ work opens the door for more research into the psychological factors that influence foreign policy.