Psychological tools are often used in the assessment of decision making and policy paradigm of politicians, diplomats and other key decision-makers in the government. So, the political psychology in its essence studies the foundations, dynamics, and outcomes of political behavior using cognitive and social explanations. This discipline engages in the understanding of why political leaders think and behave in a certain manner and the consequences that they unleash in international affairs.
Role of Ideology and its implications on
decision making:
To understand the psychological role,
we need to delve into the impact of ideologies and beliefs that nudge the
decision making in the international affairs. Ideologies are large, sprawling
and complex set of assumptions. People can believe in parts of them while
rejecting their other parts. An ideology is a perceptive or theory that aims to
improve society or so claims its adherents. Usually ideologies end in “isms”,
such as liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, or Islamic
fundamentalism. The opposite of Ideology is pragmatism – if it works, use it –
but there are a few pragmatic politicians in the world. If you look closely,
you will find that their pragmatism is in the world, also one would find their
pragmatism is in the service of an ideological view point. Sometimes however,
ideology is simply a mask for pragmatic self interest. But, can foreign policy
in International affairs be ideological? Yes, provided that the cost doesn’t get
too high. When it does, ideology goes on the back burner or even out of the
window. A new regime can start off intensely ideological, determined to spread
its doctrine around the globe, but when it encounters resistance and threats to
its existence, it usually tones down its ideology. Sometimes it might become
completely pragmatic and even betrays its ideology.
It’s a stark reality that humans don’t
have time or capacity to be fully rational. Many economic and political
theorists assume that national decision makers are utility maximizing rational
thinkers. Many leaders commit a mistake in comparing situations to the past
circumstances that might not necessarily be accurate. Many political arguments
involve a deep sense of belief overkill. Belief overkill involves a tendency to
bring all arguments into line with a favored conclusion. Multiple non logically
connected reasons for believing so deeply in something that it leads to
contributing in over confidence, lack of a plan B, creating clashes between
statesmen from which we can ascertain that an internalized argument is directly
proportional to unrelated reasoning. This is the main contributor to the
tendency of a difficulty to emphasize the opposing side. Leaders need to
believe in their decisions in order to sell them to others so that they have
made their choice, making it an emotional endeavor instead of a rational one.
Decisions are also made because of the socio-cultural and economic background
of the political leaders where the interplay of dimensions of political
populism, classist elitism and power ecosystem are constantly revisited both by
the leadership and the state establishment. Moreover the ability to conflict
information increases with experiences and education as we see what we expect
because our brain discounts almost everything else.
Cognitive Psychology and International
Relations
This gives us an understanding as to what
elements of perception, understanding, and decision making are hard wired into
the human brain? How do these characteristics shape the way we understand the
world? What are the most relevant insights to apply in International Relations?
And lastly what sort of the world that these attributes produce.
We need to understand that in human
cognition, which represents the Individual sense and perception of the world,
the reception of information with is processing plays a primary role in the
development of perceptions and viewpoints. At a later stage the processing of
Information leads to engaging in action. This whole phenomenon provides a very
different understanding than the way that we typically talk about individual
decision making in International relations.
a) Individual level of analysis (also known as
first image)
Ø Deals with assumptions of dispassionate rationality.
Ø Aims for Utility Maximization
b) Cognitive Psychology from a political
perspective
Ø Psychological perspective demonstrates an
increased understanding of human cognition which categorically says that the
constructs made with emotions ideological conundrum is fictional.
Ø Emotional responses such as fear and disgust
are bound up with how we know and understand the world.
Ø Most of the times it is observed that reason
and emotion are diametrically opposite to each other, only with a rare
combination of pragmatism and observed realism, leaders tend to make an
appropriate decision.
In international relations the
following three cognitive psychological concepts are used to understand and
decode the behavioral aspects of political leadership across the world.
1) The conformation bias:
Ø Human beings inhabit a world view and
interpret the reality through that world view. We combat against ignoring or
resisting the information which does not correspond to any prior experience or
any exposure to the world view.
Ø Before we even start to interrogate the
evidence, we would subconsciously be driven or determined to distrust the
evidence.
Ø Human brain would immediately set to work in
trying to destroy and discredit the information which is contrarian to our
inherent beliefs and preconceived assumptions about a phenomenon.
Ø This doesn’t happen because of ignorance or lack
of education, but due the development of identity driven structures and
ideological construct.
Ø Ability
to resist conflicting information increases with experience and education.
Ø We visualize what we expect because our brain
discounts what we do not do.
2) Fundamental attribution error:
Ø One’s interpretation of an ally’s actions
differs from their interpretation of an adversary’s actions. For example if
country X provides humanitarian aid towards country Y, our reactions towards
allies and adversaries would be different.
·
Towards ally:
Normal for their character, genuinely driven towards their purpose.
·
Towards
adversary: Attempts would be made to categorize the action as one with an ulterior
motive or purpose.
Ø We judge someone’s behavior, not in the
context of their situation, but their moral character in relation to us.
3) Prospect theory:
A tolerance
for risk is based on one’s perception of a given situation. When things are
going well, leaders are more averse to making risks, but when things are going
badly, leaders are more likely to pursue risky strategies that have a much
higher likelihood of loss. Which means that policy making and political
decision making can be influenced more towards national power consolidation
rather than considerations for national interests.
Perceptual Model and International Relations
The perceptual model revolves in three
human dimensions such as *Perception *Identity and *communication. This
model provides for a basis of the psychological construct of nationalism nation
state and national identity. The Questions that perceptual model tries
to address are, how does a man form his perceptions of the external world and
how do his perceptions affect his behavior? The model by which these questions
are based on the following set of premises. Some of the premises are quite generally
accepted; some are at this stage, merely hypothesis; and some are definitional.
1) Individual patterns of behavior are based on
Individual perceptions of the external world, which are largely learned.
2) Because of the biological and experimental
differences, no two individuals can perceive the external world identically.
3) The greater the biological and experiential
differences between the individuals, the more disparate their perceptions are
likely to be. Conversely, the more similar the biological and experiential
background, the more similar their perceptions are likely to be.
4) A perceptual group may be defined as a number
of individuals, who perceive some aspect of the external world more or less
similarly, but who do not communicate this similarity of the perception among
themselves.
5) A number of people who perceive some aspect of
the external world more or less similarly, and recognize and communicate this
similarity of perception, may be termed as an identity group.
6) Other things being equal, the higher the
degree of similarity of perception that exists among a number of individuals;
·
The easier
communication among them is likely to be;
·
The more
communication among them is likely to occur;
·
The more likely
it is that their similarity of perception will be recognized – that an identity
group will form.
7) Ease of communication allows for a constant
increase in the degree of similarity of perception through feedback mechanism. This
in turn allows for still further ease of communication. Thus, there tends to be
a constant reinforcement of group identity. Conversely, where there is little
or no communication among individuals there tends to be a decrease in
similarity of perception, which in turn tends to make further communication
more difficult.
8) The greater the number and intensity of
perceptual groups individuals share – the more overlapping of important
perceptual groups that exists among a number of a high degree of group
identity.
9) A pattern of perceptions and behavior that is accepted
and expected by an identity group is called a culture. Since, by definition,
each identity group has its own pattern of behavior norms, and its own language
or code (understood most clearly by members of that group) each group is said
to be have its own culture.
10) Since communication tends to be easiest among
individuals who identify most closely with each other and among most difficult individuals
who perceive more or less dissimilarly, this tends to reinforce and exacerbate
awareness of group differences. Any “we” ( identity group) comes into much
sharper focus when juxtaposed against any “they” ( a different identity group)
11) To the
degree that the people who inhabit a particular territory share some similarity
of perception as subjects of that specific legal entity, they can be considered
members of the perceptual group called the “state”.
12) In those cases where there is a high degree of
similarity of perception among the members of the state, and that similarity of
perception is communicated among themselves, the state (perceptual group) is
also a “Nation” (identity group).
13) A nation may be defined as a number of people
( usually large ) who share and communicate a high degree of similarity of
perceptions with regard to the symbols of either an existing state, or of a
state they feel should exist.
14) An individual must invariably be a member of a
myriad of different perceptual and identity groups simultaneously. However, he
shares a higher degree of similarity of perception and a higher degree of group
identity, with some than with others. Consciously or otherwise, he gives his
various group identities a rank ordering. That ranking is what commonly
referred to as a “value system”. Each individual’s rank order is unique and varies,
within narrow limits, from situation to situation.
15) Some Identities are clearly more important to behavior
than others. Because of this, it is useful to differentiate among primary,
secondary, and tertiary identities. Although the ranking of these identities
can and does change with time and circumstances, to understand individual behavior
at any given moment, it is important to know which identities primary and which
are only secondary or tertiary.
16) It often happens that Individual and group
have internalized elements of several different elements, even conflicting,
value systems simultaneously. They are able to survive and function under this
condition primarily because:
·
They are able to
identify in different degrees – and at different levels of consciousness – with
each of the value systems and;
·
Most
simultaneously held group identities only rarely come into direct conscious
conflict.
17) When
two equally valued identities do come into direct conflict, a high degree of anxiety
(conscious or otherwise) may result.
18) In order to alleviate that anxiety, the
individual or group often seeks some third identity which can accommodate, neutralize,
rationalize, and or synthesize these conflicting value systems.
19) Because environmental and biological factors
are ever changing, perceptions, attitudes, values and identities are ever
changing. Consequently, new perceptual and existing groups are constantly in a
state of flux.
Critical thinking and decision making approach
applied to political psychology
This is a method of approaching a
question that allows us to carefully deconstruct a situation, reveal its hidden
issues such as bias and manipulation and make the best decision from the available
choices. A political leader who uses critical thinking subjects all available options
to scrutiny and skepticism, using the tools at their disposal, they will eliminate
everything but the most useful and reliable information.
There are many different ways of approaching
critical thinking, but the analysis of political psychology, the following five
step process can help us solve a number of problems;
1) Formulating the question (in other words
knowing what we are looking for) : the reasons and factors involved in the
situation, promises, hopes, results and goal orientated success; de constructed
with rationality to delve into the integrities and intricacies of the subject
matter. Having clarity in the political objectives is very important in this
state.
2) Gathering the Information: Information
gathering through expert advice and testimony of scholars and politicians
becomes important at this stage. This would lead to the decision makers to
consider and weigh different options, moving the top policy makers closer to
the decision that would help them in meeting their prospective goal.
3) Application of Information: in the situation
of making a decision, the policy makers should introspect, what concepts are at
work? What are the existing assumptions in front of us? Is our interpretation
of the existing information logically sound? And finally is the available
evidence logical enough for us to consider making a decision.
4) Considerations of Implications: Before making
the decision, a clear cut assessment of tactical and strategic consequences
must be made. The assessment of cost-benefit analysis of the implication of
decisions must be taken into consideration. In cases of national security war
gaming the situations becomes important and the security establishment must
always critically think about the worst case scenario. Most crucially the
unintended consequences must be kept in back of the mind.
5) Exploring other’s point of view: exploring the
full spectrum of viewpoints might explain why some policies that don’t seem
valid oneself might appeal to others. This will allow the political leaders to
explore the alternatives, evaluate their own choices and ultimately helps you
to make more informed decisions.
The critical thinking approach would not
eradicate difficult decisions in national or international politics. But it can
help the decision makers to increase the number of positive choices we make. The
critical thinking can give us tools to sift through a sea of information and
find what we are looking for.
Finally it’s an imperative to mention
the fact that tools of psychology might not be able to resolve the complexities
involved in international and national politics, but it provides models and structures
that help us decode the ambiguous and chaotic issues in world politics. The pathways
provided by psychological approaches enable us in dissecting through the human behavioral
patterns which reflects in political action and results in policy making
paradigms.
Comments
Post a Comment