Free Paper Example: The Role of Psychology in International Relations

Introduction

Psychology is an essential science in the social sciences, especially in International Relations due to its object of study, which is the behavior and minds of human beings and sometimes other beings. It seeks to explain, clarify, interpret, implement, and analyze the facts inherent to human behavior and mental processes. Psychology is important in explaining different processes behind decision making, political behaviour and attitudes, and the relation between individuals. Regarding internal relations, psychology is important in foreign policy analysis, mass and public opinion, and foreign policy decision making. The question that this paper wants to address is, “What is the role of psychology in international relations?” In response to the question, this essay argues that psychology is still an understated subject in the international relations field and it needs to be given more attention as it enhances the success of such relations.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The use of psychological theories in international relations began to take shape in the development of political science before and after the First World War. However, since the 1960s and 1970s, political psychology, as an independent discipline, has been widely used and developed in both domestic and international politics (Shannon and Paul 33). For example, mainstream neorealism is the application of microeconomic theories, the core of international relations psychology. Before and after World War II, the first major debate on international relations theory ended with the full victory of realism. Realistic international relations theory became the mainstream paradigm of western international relations analysis after World War II. This is the theoretical background for the rise and development of psychology and cognitive theory in international relations research.

Generally speaking, since the 1980s, empirical research in cognitive and psychology theory research has increased, which is manifested in the basic analysis paradigms established before, such as opcodes, cognitive maps, imagery, and other empirical research in the field of international relations (Lopez et al., 53). The research on image theory mainly focuses on the field of international conflicts and wars. Generally speaking, the image includes self-image, other-image, and multi-subject image. The essence is the process of an individual's perception of self, others, and self-perception of others. In the study of international relations, the study of imagery includes "enemy image" and "the mirror image" (Kertzer and Dustin 327). This theory explains the perception of the hostile parties between the United States and the Soviet Union, that is, both sides have a perceptual model of "inherent-bad-faith", no matter what kind of friendly behavior the other party makes. It is difficult to change the inherent image of "evil enemy".

After the Cold War, the study of imagery was further enriched and detailed, and developed into five strategic interactive images: enemy, ally, degenerate, imperialist, and colony (Jervis 45). This kind of perceptual research beyond the image of a single enemy is of great significance to the theory of international relations: the resulting close to psycho-social-economic-political theory is a supplement to the mainstream international relations theory.

In the study of the theory of behaviorism, Kertzer and Dustin (325) point out several roles that psychology can take in the course of international relations. First, psychology helps the technicians of this branch of knowledge to have bases on behavior, thus ensuring the ability to interact with different personalities. Secondly, it helps the scholar in this area to learn about laws, principles, and norms, that govern the behavior of individuals, with their differences and beliefs (Jervis 28). Third, psychology being the science of the study of the mind and behavior creates in this technician the skills (knowing how to do) the knowledge (knowing) and attitudes (knowing how to be and be), towards different individuals. Fourth, it helps social science scholars to get to know themselves, which opens up the possibility of getting to know others better.

The influence of psychological factors in international and foreign policy can be divided into two major components - the individual character traits decisions of individuals and collective features of the psychology of society as a whole. In the first case, it is about the influence on the foreign policy of ideas, manias, and characters of individual, but influential political figures (McDermott 17). Striking examples, in this case, are Hitler and Napoleon, Bismarck and the Emperor Justinian. When assessing the importance of the influence of individual character traits of a leader on foreign policy, the question naturally arises of the extent to which a person who has achieved power (or a group of persons) is the bearer of the dominant ideological, political and social trends of his society and era.

The collective driving forces of foreign policy include such phenomena of collective psychology as a post-imperial syndrome and victim syndrome, geopolitical identity, national myths, and historical narratives accepted by society, foreign policy traditions based on habits and ideals developed over time (Erisen 21). One such manifestation can act as messianism, which consists in the desire for ideological and cultural-political expansion in the form of familiarizing other societies with their values, considered as universal, or the vicissitudes of the formation and development of collective identity, when a society is forced to seek its place in the world, facing hostile ideologies and alien narratives (McDermott 39). All these phenomena, taking possession of the mass consciousness, form the political culture of the ruling classes and public opinion, which puts pressure on the government, thereby setting a certain framework for foreign policy behavior.

Taking into account the tendencies rooted in the mass unconscious towards a certain perception and relaying of information, it becomes clear that the influence on the adoption of foreign policy decisions is exerted by the narratives widespread in public opinion and the prevailing ideological framework for comprehending reality (Lopez et al., 55). Vivid examples of this process are the foreign policy courses of the USSR and the United States during the Cold War when decisions in the field of international relations were often made not based on pragmatic national interests but following the logic of an ideologically colored perception of the world, which allowed the Third World countries to receive substantial material help from two rival superpowers.

A core assumption of psychology in international politics is that individuals are important actors in diplomatic decision-making and state behavior, humans are rational actors, and human rationality is limited by cognitive abilities and environmental influences (Shannon and Paul 49). The status and role of individuals in international relations is a question of levels of analysis. The system theory represented by neo-realism emphasizes the role of system structure and believes that individuals and countries are only "passive" policy executors, not "active" actors (Jervis 55). This kind of system structure decision or restriction theory cannot provide a good explanation for the different policies and strategies of different countries under the pressure of the same international structure. From this point of view, individuals are not billiard balls.

Because different people’s cognitive abilities, perceptual processes, personality characteristics, motivation, and affective factors are very different, the relationship between individual cognitive variables and policy behavior correlates. The role of factors at the individual level must be considered comprehensively with variables at other levels to effectively analyze their role (Erisen 25). In different policy environments, the role of individual cognitive factors is not the same. For example, when the bureaucratic system domestic politics, and other environmental constraints are under great pressure, the role of individual cognitive variables is correspondingly reduced; conversely, the role of individual perception, belief system, and personality increases. In this way, one can know that the individual has an important position in international politics, but the exploration of the role of physiological and cognitive psychological factors at the individual level must be based on relevant assumptions about other variables.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be noted that psychology is essential in international relations since its technicians or actors are related to each other through oral, ideological, or even strategic contact. The discipline of international relations has used other sciences since its inception due to the complexity of its object of study. The help of psychology has proved to be very useful in explaining group behavior, particularly in conflict analysis. It helps them develop psychic and mental capacities to deal with different individuals, in decision making, in the approach and relationship with external agents. Psychology enhances success of international relationships and it is time countries delved more into the topic.

Works Cited

Erisen, Elif. "An Introduction to Political Psychology for International Relations Scholars." Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs 17.3 (2012): 9-28.

Jervis, Robert. How statesmen think: The psychology of international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017.

Kertzer, Joshua D., and Dustin Tingley. "Political psychology in international relations: beyond the paradigms." Annual Review of Political Science 21 (2018): 319-339.

Lopez, Anthony C., Rose McDermott, and Michael Bang Petersen. "States in mind: Evolution, coalitional psychology, and international politics." International Security 36.2 (2011): 48-83.

McDermott, Rose. Political psychology in international relations. University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Shannon, Vaughn P., and Paul A. Kowert, eds. Psychology and constructivism in international relations: An ideational alliance. University of Michigan Press, 2012.