The Rational-Cognitive Debate and Poliheuristic Theory
It is commonly assumed that the validity of any theory should be judged against some or all of the following requirements and evaluating criteria: (1) descriptive accuracy; (2) internal logical coherence; and (3) predictive accuracy. In the rational-cognitive debate in international relations, cognitive psychologists tend to stress the importance of descriptive accuracy, while rational choice theorists emphasize the internal logical coherence and high predictive power. These different views correspond to the commonly shared beliefs about the relative performance of the two approaches. It is generally believed that cognitive approaches outperform rational choice in their empirical descriptions, while the rational choice theory tends to be more successful in meeting the other two requirements.
KeywordsForeign Policy Rational Choice Hard Core Rational Choice Theory Cognitive Approach
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. The War Trap. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and David Lalman. 1992. War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Friedman, Milton. 1953. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Mintz, Alex, and Nehemia Geva. 1997. “The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making.” In Decision Making on War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate, ed. Nehemia Geva and Alex Mintz. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 81–101.Google Scholar
- Morrow, James D. 1997. “A Rational Choice Approach to International Conflict.” In Decision Making on War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate, ed. Nehemia Geva and Alex Mintz. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 11–31.Google Scholar
- Stein, Janice Gross, and David A. Welch. 1997. “Rational and Psychological Approaches to the Study of International Conflict: Comparative Strengths and Weaknesses.” In Decision Making on War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate, ed. Nehemia Geva and Alex Mintz. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 51–77.Google Scholar
- Yee, Albert S. 1997. “Thick Rationality and the Missing ‘Brute Facts’: The Limits of Rationalist Incorporation of Norms and Ideas.” American Journal of Political Science 59:1001–1039.Google Scholar