Emotion and Strategy in the Korean War

  title={Emotion and Strategy in the Korean War},
  author={John A. Mercer},
  journal={International Organization},
  pages={221 - 252}
  • J. Mercer
  • Published 1 April 2013
  • Psychology
  • International Organization
Abstract What makes a diplomatic or military signal credible? In strategic settings where deception is possible, rational actors' interpretations rely on their beliefs, intuition, and imagination—they rely on emotion. Two properties of emotion—as an assimilation mechanism and its use as evidence—are key to addressing four strategic problems. First, emotion explains why actors worry needlessly about their reputations. Second, emotion is important to understanding costly signals. Third, emotion… 
Emotions and the communication of intentions in face-to-face diplomacy
Countries often seek to resolve their disputes through negotiations. However, diplomats meeting face to face are under the incentives both to cooperate by revealing one’s preferences and to compete
Go Big or Go Home? Positive Emotions and Responses to Wartime Success
Military successes present war leaders with a choice between maintaining their existing aims and strategy and changing one or the other to extend their gains or make the war cheaper. “Staying the
Reputation and Status as Motives for War
Justifications for war often invoke reputational or social aspirations: the need to protect national honor, status, reputation for resolve, credibility, and respect. Studies of these motives struggle
Reputation Matters: Evidence From the Korean War*
Both sides in the Korean War calculated their adversary's military power and diplomatic resolve by studying their enemy's past behavior in addition to their enemy's current military posture and
Affective Politics after 9/11
Abstract Affect and emotion are key elements of our lived experience as human beings but currently play little role in how we theorize actorhood in international relations. We offer six amendments
Theorizing emotions in world politics
Emotions play an increasingly important role in international relations research. This essay briefly surveys the development of the respective debates and then offers a path forward. The key
Norms, perverse effects, and torture
If torture is both ethically odious and usually ineffective as an interrogation method, why have states, especially democratic ones, practiced it? This paper develops a theoretical response to this
Believing This and Alieving That: Theorizing Affect and Intuitions in International Politics
Rationalist models of decision making typically follow the general form of desire + belief = action. But determining an actor's beliefs and desires often proves challenging. One set of theories turns
Public attribution as a regulator of emotion
Debates about attribution in security and strategic studies often focus on the technical feasibility of the process at the expense of its political utility. The purpose of this paper is to draw
Painful Words: The Effect of Battlefield Activity on Conflict Negotiation Behavior
  • Eric Min
  • Sociology
    Journal of Conflict Resolution
  • 2022
How does battlefield activity affect belligerents’ behavior during wartime negotiations? While scholars have studied when and why warring parties choose to negotiate, few insights explain what


“(Mis)interpreting Threats: A Case Study of the Korean War”
During the fall of 1950, many American national security officials concluded that the Chinese Communists would refrain from undertaking full-scale intervention in the Korean War. Contrary to most
Perception and misperception in international politics
This study of perception and misperception in foreign policy was a landmark in the application of cognitive psychology to political decision making. The New York Times called it, in an article
Rationality and Psychology in International Politics
  • J. Mercer
  • Psychology
    International Organization
  • 2005
The ubiquitous yet inaccurate belief in international relations scholarship that cognitive biases and emotion cause only mistakes distorts the field's understanding of the relationship between
Rationalist explanations for war
  • J. Fearon
  • Economics
    International Organization
  • 1995
Realist and other scholars commonly hold that rationally led states can and sometimes do fight when no peaceful bargains exist that both would prefer to war. Against this view, I show that under very
International crises are modeled as a political “war of attrition†in which state leaders choose at each moment whether to attack, back down, or escalate. A leader who backs down suffers audience
Fear no more: emotions and world politics
Abstract Although emotions play a significant role in world politics they have so far received surprisingly little attention by International Relations scholars. Numerous authors have emphasised this
Arms and Influence
Traditionally, Americans have viewed war as an alternative to diplomacy, and military strategy as the science of victory. Today, however, in our world of nuclear weapons, military power is not so
Feelings and Emotions: Emotions and Rationality
The issue of emotion versus rationality is intertwined with the more traditional issue of passion versus reason. This chapter discusses the impact of emotion on impartial reasoning and then considers
Traditional arguments that link credibility to a reputation for resolve, power, or strength are contrasted with amodel that posits that credibility arises from the expectation of future, continued
The Feeling of Rationality: The Meaning of Neuroscientific Advances for Political Science
Recent advances in the neurosciences offer a wealth of new information about how the brain works, and how the body and mind interact. These findings offer important and surprising implications for