Advertisement

The Behavioral Sciences in the Study of Conflict

  • Carey B. Joynt
  • Percy E. Corbett

Abstract

No account of theoretical attempts to explain the phenomena of international politics can be thought even partially adequate unless it takes into account the behavioral approach to the subject. There are, of course, enormous differences of opinion about exactly what the term “behavioral” means with the result that supporters and opponents of the movement all too often are engaged in a dispute about the meaning of words with the end product consisting largely of a sophisticated muddle in which key issues are blurred or even lost altogether. Excessive claims are made—“all segments of political science can be treated behaviorally”1—which in turn call forth sharp rebuttals and denials.2 It is all great fun for the participants but when the smoke of battle has cleared away, exactly what has been learned?

Keywords

Behavioral Science Crisis Management World Politics International Politics Probability Preference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    R. A. Dahl, “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest,” American Political Science Review, vol. 55 (1961), pp. 763–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. W. Kim, “The Limits of Behavioral Explanation in Politics,” The Canadian journal of Economics and Political Science vol. 31 (1965), PP. 315–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 4.
    Susan D. Jones and J. David Singer, Beyond Conjecture in International Politics (Itasca, Illinois, 1972).Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    This point is made with clarity and force by Herbert Kelman (ed.), International Behavior, a Social-Psychological Analysis (New York, 1965), P.31.Google Scholar
  5. 17.
    A classic book which contains all these methodological examples is Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among.Nations, 5th ed. (New York, 1973).Google Scholar
  6. 23.
    M. G. Preston and P. Baratta, “An Experimental Study of the Auction-Value of an Uncertain Outcome,” American Journal of Psychology, vol. 61 (1948), pp. 183–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 24.
    Dean G. Pruitt, “Pattern and Level of Risk in Gambling Decisions,” Psychological Review, vol. 69 (1962), pp. 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 26.
    Paul Slovic, “Assessment of Risk Taking Behavior,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 61 (1964), pp. 220–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 29.
    J. Cohen and M. Hansel, Risk and Gambling (New York, 1956). The authors suggest that the estimate of risk is directly proportionate to the level of fear.Google Scholar
  10. 30.
    Carey B. Joynt, “The Anatomy of Crisis,” The Year Book of World Affairs 1974 (London, 1974), pp. 15–22.Google Scholar
  11. 31.
    Coral Bell, The Convention of Crisis (London, 1971), p. 17.Google Scholar
  12. 37.
    Lee M. F. Ashley Montagu (ed.), Man and Aggression (London, 1968).Google Scholar
  13. 48.
    Bert R. Brown, “Reflections on Missing the Broadside of a Barn,” The journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 9 (no. 4), 1973, pp. 450–58;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. B. Brown and J. Rubin, The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation (New York, 1973)Google Scholar
  15. Roger Fisher (ed.), International Conflict and Behavioral Science (New York, 1964), pp. 91–109.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Carey B. Joynt and Percy E. Corbett 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carey B. Joynt
  • Percy E. Corbett

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations