Following START: Risk Acceptance and the 1991–1992 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives

Fuhrmann, Matthew; Early, Bryan R.

doi:10.1111/j.1743-8594.2007.00056.x

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The key contention of prospect theory is that individuals making decisions in the domain of losses tend to be more risk acceptant, while they tend to be more risk averse in the domain of gains. While the use of prospect theory has gained a lot of traction in the study of political behavior and foreign policy (e.g., Berejikian, ; Fuhrmann & Early, ; Levy, ; McDermott, ; McDermott et al., ), it is not necessary to adopt all of the assumptions and attendant complexities of prospect theory to invoke the insights provided by loss aversion . Indeed, the more narrowly focused neuroscientific research agenda on loss aversion provides a more detailed, nuanced understanding of how loss aversion affects human decision making than prospect theory does.…”

Section: Loss Aversion and Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loss Aversion and Foreign Policy Resolve

Berejikian¹,

Early

2013

Political Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article draws upon recent findings from the field of neuroscience to explore how loss aversion affects foreign policy resolve. We theorize that U.S. policy makers are more resolute in pursuing preventive policies that seek to avoid losses than they are in pursuing promotive policies that seek to acquire new gains. To test our theory, we conduct the first large‐n analysis of foreign policy hypotheses derived from the neuroscience of loss aversion using data from 100 cases of U.S.‐initiated Section 301 trade disputes. The results provide strong support for the loss‐aversion‐based theory, revealing that American policy makers are willing to fight harder and hold out longer in trade disputes with preventive objectives than they are in cases with promotive ones. Our study demonstrates that hypotheses derived from neuroscientific findings can be tested using large‐n techniques in study of foreign policy, revealing a new avenue of inquiry within the field.

show abstract

Section: Loss Aversion and Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loss Aversion and Foreign Policy Resolve

Berejikian¹,

Early

2013

Political Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Opposing leaders will have a more difficult time predicting exactly where the brink is for risk-acceptant leaders than for their risk-averse counterparts. Engaging in brinksmanship can give leaders bargaining power, but it also increases 11 For an excellent example of diplomatic risk-taking, see Fuhrmann and Early's (2008) analysis of George H.W. Bush's launching of the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiative.…”

Section: Taking Risks By Using Forcementioning

confidence: 99%

“… For an excellent example of diplomatic risk‐taking, see Fuhrmann and Early's () analysis of George H.W. Bush's launching of the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiative. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Presidential Personality: Not Just a Nuisance

Gallagher

Allen

2013

Foreign Policy Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few systematic studies of US uses of force treat the inherent attributes of presidents as the key causal factors; nonetheless, the fact that individual leaders matter is evident to the public, the media, and foreign policymakers in other countries. This study advances the development of First Image explanations of conflict by empirically investigating the relationship between presidential personality and the variation surrounding foreign policy decision making. The importance of this type of variance has been understudied in international relations, and the consistency of leaders' policy decisions has important strategic implications for interstate conflict. Relying on Big Five measures of US presidents' personality traits, we find that leaders who have a high tendency toward Excitement Seeking are more likely to use force to carry out their foreign policy objectives, while those who are more Open to Action exhibit a greater variance around their foreign policy decision making. In sum, the personality traits of individual leaders influence not only the choices they make, but the consistency of their choices, which has important consequences for US foreign policy.

show abstract

“…While often thought of as the study of an actor’s decision‐making process or outcome (which is a rich theoretical literature within foreign policy), the foreign policy approach is applicable to more than decision‐making alone. It emphasizes the players, processes, outputs, and outcomes and offers the ability to connect international and domestic politics to understand topics such as arms control (Fuhrmann and Early 2008), conflict duration (Bennett and Stam 2006), economic statecraft (Allen 2008), environmental policy (Below 2008), ethnic conflict (James and Ozdamar 2009), foreign aid (Diven 2009), international drug enforcement (Bartilow and Eom 2009), trade protectionism (Thies and Porche 2007), and the use of military force (Brule 2008) to name just a few. The theoretical and methodological approaches used in foreign policy analysis are as varied as the substantive questions asked.…”

Section: Research Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Note from the Editors

Drury

Caprioli

Huelsemeyer³

et al. 2010

Foreign Policy Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foreign Policy Analysis published its first issue in 2005. Although the modern study of foreign policy has been around for decades and has become quite advanced both theoretically and empirically, there was no publication outlet focused specifically on this approach to understanding International Relations (IR). For the past 5 years, FPA has published articles utilizing an actor-or agent-specific focus, thereby creating a publication that both enhances our understanding of foreign policy and broadens that understanding to the study of IR more generally.This issue constitutes the first for which we as editors played a dominant role in reviewing and selecting the articles. The articles appearing in this issue reflect our hope for a strong, diverse, and integrated approach to the study of foreign policy. Our primary goal as editors is to further the successes of FPA by: (1) continuing the rich tradition that concentrates on decision-making analyses and (2) broadening the reach of the journal to include foreign policy research that uses different theoretical perspectives, different substantive foci, comparative and non-US cases, and, of course, diverse methodological approaches. By drawing together different approaches and substantive issues, we hope that the study of Ó

show abstract

Following START: Risk Acceptance and the 1991–1992 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives

Cited by 10 publications

References 52 publications

Loss Aversion and Foreign Policy Resolve

Loss Aversion and Foreign Policy Resolve

Presidential Personality: Not Just a Nuisance

Note from the Editors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About