FOUR A Cognitive Approach to the Study of Foreign Policy Jerel A. Rosati, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA @ Editors’ Introduction In this chapter Jerel Rosati introduces the role of cognitive studies in foreign policy analysis. As Rosati illustrates, cognitive analyses consider the role of policymakers’ beliefs and images and are pre- sent in both the first and second generations of foreign policy analysts. Indeed. much of what this chapter discusses can be found in literature focusing on the “individual” level of foreign policy analysis. Rosati makes explicit the changes occurring in cognitive siudies throughout the evolution of foreign policy analysis and emphasizes the contributions of recent. second-generation. cogni- tive studies. This chapter complements the following chapter by Keith Shimko, which looks specifically at the metaphors (a cognitive concept) leaders use in developing foreign policy. In considering the role of cognitive sources of foreign policy, can you think ef any modern examples of foreign policy makers whose beliefs and images influenced foreign policy? For example, would President Clinton's belief system have led him to a different policy in the Gulf War than the one pursued by President Bush? What type of belief system might have been behind Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's decision to invade Kuwait? Consider your own belief system. Hour would it influence your foreign policy actions if you were a policymaker? How important are cognitive factors as compared to other sources of foreign policy (e.g.. bureaucratic. domestic political, systemic)? 1 How do policymakers view the world? What affects the beliefs and images of polis makers over time? What impact do the beliefs of policymakers have on foreign policy making and the practice of foreign policy? These are the kinds of questions about the ole of cognition that interest many students of foreign policy and are addressed in their scholarship, hence contributing to knowledge and understanding about the for- mulation and conduct of foreign policy. Although the value of a cognitive approach should be obvious, it has not always received the attention it deserves in the study of foreign policy.!50 Second-Generation Foreign Policy Analysis Traditionally, foreign policy has been explained from a rational actor perspec- tive common to the realist and power politics tradition. The assumption has been that governments, and their political leaders, think and act in a rational manner in their quest for power and order. Such rationality assumes that individuals perceive the world accurately and arrive at decisions through an open intellectual proces: goals are ordered, a search is made for relevant information, a wide range of alterna- tives is considered, and the option that maximizes the benefits while minimizing the costs is selected, Since policymakers act rationally in pursuit of power and order, there is no need to delve into their psychological predispositions or closely examine the governmental policymaking process. Instead, one should focus on how the inter- national system constrains foreign policy action, treat the government as a rational actor, and speak in terms of an overriding shared national interest in the making of foreign policy. A cognitive approach challenges much of Western thought and practice premised on the assumption of individual rationality (see Allison 1971, 10-38; Simon 1957b; Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin 1962; Steinbruner 1974, 2546). Where the rational actor perspective assumes individual open-mindedness and adaptability to changes in the environment, a cognitive approach posits that individuals tend to be much more closed-minded due to their beliefs and the wav they process informa- tion—thus, they tend to resist adapting to changes in the environment. A cognitive perspective emphasizes the importance of examining the individuals involved in the policymaking process, for they are likely to view their environment differently. This approach has grown in visibility, prominence, and sophistication since the 1950s as social scientists have attempted to be more systematic in identify major patterns of foreign policy. This chapter is organized along three lines so the reader can arrive ata better understanding of the development of a cognitive approach and its relevance for con- tributing to an understanding of the theory and practice of foreign policy. First, a brief history of the evolution of political psychology and its impact on a cognitive approach to the study of foreign policy is provided. Second, a number of significant ng and explaining research programs and individual studies are highlighted to illustrate different cogni- tive approaches to the study of foreign policy. Finally, an assessment is made of what has been learned by a cognitive approach to foreign policy over the past few decades and what issues require future attention. Together, this should provide the basis for clarifying how a cognitive approach can contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics of foreign policy. @ The Political Psychological Study of Beliefs and Foreign Policy Scholars and individuals have been interested in examining the beliefs of individuals and the workings of the human mind throughout the ages. Yet it was not until the 1930s, with the development of psychology as a discipline of study, that systematic efforts to apply psychological approaches to the study of politics and international relations really began. The evolution of political psychology and its relevance to inter- national relations and foreign policy is marked by three distinct periods. With each new period the political psychological study of beliefs has grown tremendously inA Cognitive Approach to the Study of Foreign Policy 51 sophistication and has contributed to a powerful understanding of the theory and practice of foreign policy.? Early Efforts Early efforts were made beginning in the 1930s and continuing through the early 1950s to apply explicitly psychological concepts to the study of politics, especially the nature of war and peace. Most of this research focused on national stereotypes, atti- tudes toward war, and public opinion on foreign policy issues (Kelman 1965; Klineberg 1950; Pear 1950). Unfortunately, while most of these early efforts were made by scholars and individuals who were well versed in psychology, they usually lacked a strong foundation in the study of international relations and world politics. This was best exemplified by the studies on individual irregularities and pathologies that were directly projected onto the nation-state, the “war begins in the minds of men” approach, and national character studies of the war proneness of different soci- eties. This well-intentioned effort by many psychologists to apply different psycho- logical concepts and knowledge about the individual “directly” to the complex arena of the state and world politics was not well received by students of international rela- tions {see Holsti 1976, 16-20; Jervis 1976, 3-10). Most international relations scholars found these studies unrealistic and believed they were not relevant to the study of foreign policy and world politics (see, e.g., Waltz 1959}. The problem was clearly stated by Herbert Kelman in International Behavior: A Social-Psychological Analysis: “Only if we know where and how these individuals fit into the larger process, and under what circumstances they operate, are we able to offer a relevant psychological analysis” (1963, 6). Clearly, until political psychology was well grounded in politics and international relations such studies would likely remain naive and simpli Although the initial effort to incorporate psychological approaches into the analysis of international behavior failed to influence the field, some scholars began to question the lack of psychological input into the study of international relations and foreign policy. Quincy Wright, in his magnum opus, The Study of International Relations, proposed that psychology belongs at the “core” of the discipline: “International relations cannot, therefore, be confined to intergovernmental relations and conclusions based on the assumption that they |i.e., psychological studies] fai provide an adequate foundation for prediction and control. The minds of individuals who constitute the world’s population, the influences that affect them, and the influ- ences they exert, both domestic and foreign, must be taken into account by examining their minds” (1955, 433). The First Generation of Scholarship Beginning in the mid-1950s, the contribution of psychological approaches to the study of international relations grew in importance due to the interaction of the “peace research” movement and the “behavioral” revolution in the social sciences (sce Kelman 1965b; Kelman and Bloom 1973). A number of psychologists, sociolo- gists, economists, anthropologists, and other scientists became interested in applying