Editing International relations theory (section)

==Psychological approaches to international relations==
Psychological approaches to international relations focus on the impact of cognition and emotion on world politics. Through the analysis of political decision making, scholars have examined a broad spectrum of issues ranging from nuclear strategy and nuclear proliferation to deterrence, reassurance, signaling, and bargaining, as well as conflict management and conflict resolution.<ref>For overviews, see, for example, Goldgeier, J.M., and P. E. Tetlock (2001). "Psychology and International Relations", ''Annual Review of Political Science'', vol. 4, pp. 67-92; Janice Gross Stein (2013). "Psychological Explanations of International Decision Making and Collective Behavior", in ''Handbook of International Relations'', edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons, 2nd ed. New York: Sage, pp. 195-219.</ref>

In the 1970s, scholars of world politics started drawing on new research in cognitive psychology to explain decisions to cooperate or compete in international relations. Cognitive psychology had assigned cognition a central role in the explanation of human decision-making. It found that people's behavior often deviates from the expectations of the traditional rational choice model. To explain these deviations, cognitive psychologists developed several concepts and theories. These include theories of misperception, the importance of beliefs and schemas in information processing, and the use of analogies and heuristics in interpreting information, among others.

Scholars of international relations took up these insights and applied them to issues in world politics. For example, [[Robert Jervis]] identified patterns of leaders' misperception in historical cases that led to unwanted escalation, failures of deterrence, and the outbreak of war.<ref>Jervis, Robert (1976). ''Perception and Misperception in International Politics''. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</ref> Deborah Welch Larson and [[Rose McDermott]] have referred to belief systems and schemas as central drivers of information processing and foreign policy decision-making.<ref>Larson, Deborah Welch (1994). "The Role of Belief Systems and Schemas in Foreign Policy Decision-Making". ''Political Psychology'', 15(1), pp. 17–33; Rose McDermott (2002). "Arms Control and the First Reagan Administration: Belief-Systems and Policy Choices", ''Journal of Cold War Studies'', 4(4), pp. 29–59.</ref> [[Keren Yarhi-Milo]] has investigated how policy-makers rely on cognitive shortcuts called "heuristics" when they assess the intentions of their adversaries.<ref>Yarhi-Milo, Keren (2014). ''Knowing the Adversary: Leaders, Intelligence, and Assessment of Intentions in International Relations''. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</ref>

In addition to cognitive psychology, social psychology has long inspired research in international relations. Social psychologists have identified a fundamental human need for identity – the way in which a person or a group is, or wishes to be known by others. The resulting identity formation dynamics can contribute to conflicts between and among groups. Scholars of international relations have drawn on insights in social psychology to explore the dynamics of conflict among and between groups as well as processes of conflict management and resolution.<ref>See, for example, Harff, Barbara and Ted Robert Gurr (1988). "Toward Empirical Theory of Genocides and Politicides: Identification and Measurement of Cases since 1945", ''International Studies Quarterly'', 32, pp. 359–371; t'Hart, Paul, Erik K. Stern, and Bengt Sundelius (1997). "Foreign Policy Making at the Top: Political Group Dynamics", in Paul t'Hart, Erik K. Stern and Bengt Sundelius, eds., ''Beyond Group Think: Political Group Dynamics and Foreign Policy Making''. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, pp. 3–34.</ref>

More recently, scholars of international relations have started drawing on emotion research in psychology to shed light on issues in world politics. Research in psychology suggests that affect and emotions are core drivers in decision making and behavior. This has significant consequences for our understanding of foreign policy, escalation to war, conflict resolution, and numerous other issues in world politics. For example, Rose McDermott and Jonathan Mercer were among the first to use these new findings to argue that affective experience can have adaptive functions by facilitating quick and effective decision-making.<ref>McDermott, Rose, "The Feeling of Rationality: The Meaning of Neuroscientific Advances for Political Science", ''Perspectives on Politics'' 2(4) (2004), pp. 691–706; Jonathan Mercer (2005). "Rationality and Psychology in International Politics", ''International Organization'' 59(1), pp. 77–106.</ref> Thomas Dolan has drawn on affective intelligence theory to show that some emotional responses leaders may have to new events during wartime, such as joy or anxiety, tend to bring about change in their approaches to war, while others, like contentment or frustration, are prone to produce resistance to change.<ref>Dolan, Thomas M. (2016). "Go Big or Go Home? Positive Emotions and Responses to Wartime Success", ''International Studies Quarterly'', 60(2), pp. 230–42; Thomas M. Dolan (2016). "Emotion and Strategic Learning in War", ''Foreign Policy Analysis'', 12(4), pp. 571–90.</ref> Combining insights from experimental psychology and the sociology of emotions, [[Robin Markwica]] has developed "[[emotional choice theory]]" as an alternative model to rational choice theory and constructivist perspectives.<ref>Markwica, Robin (2018). ''Emotional Choices: How the Logic of Affect Shapes Coercive Diplomacy''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref>

Evolutionary perspectives, such as from [[evolutionary psychology]], have been argued to help explain many features of international relations.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=McDermott|first1=Rose|last2=Davenport|first2=Christian|date=2017-01-25|title=Toward an Evolutionary Theory of International Relations|journal=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics|url=https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-294|language=en|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.294|isbn=9780190228637}}</ref> Humans in the ancestral environment did not live in states and likely rarely had interactions with groups outside of a very local area. However, a variety of evolved psychological mechanisms, in particular those for dealing with inter group interactions, are argued to influence current international relations. These include evolved mechanisms for social exchange, cheating and detecting cheating, status conflicts, leadership, [[ingroup and outgroup]] distinction and biases, coalitions, and violence.