The Influence of Advisers on Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Study
Abstract
The influence of advisers on foreign policy processes and choice and on how decision strategies affect foreign policy outcomes are examined. Using the poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making and process-tracing techniques in an experimental setting, the effects of the presence of advisers on strategy selection and choice and the influence of strategy selection on choice in a foreign policy scenario are tested. The findings show that decision makers are highly sensitive to and cognizant of the political ramifications of their decisions. Specifically, political information and advice influenced information processing and foreign policy choices. The findings have significant implications for the study of foreign policy decision making and the understanding of real-world foreign policy decisions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The rational choice principle that governs EBDM assumes that policy makers have the required cognitive abilities and knowledge to interpret, process, understand, and determine the validity of scientific evidence relevant to policy decisions.
“The rational choice principle that governs EBDM assumes that policy makers have the required cognitive abilities and knowledge to interpret, process, understand, and determine the validity of scientific evidence relevant to policy decisions [2,16,33,45].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [2]
Cognitive processing research has identified both bounded rationality and 'satisficing' as limitations to complex cognitive processing.
“For example, cognitive processing research has identified both bounded rationality and 'satisficing' as limitations to complex cognitive processing [2,15,44,46-50].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [2]
Decision makers spend considerable time and energy on a policy decision when linked to recent dramatic events profiled in the media.
“This example highlights the observation that decision makers spend considerable time and energy on a policy decision when linked to recent dramatic events profiled in the media [2,3,5].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [2]
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524 · see citing works
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341 · Cited by 6,544 · see citing works
Adaptive strategy selection in decision making.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534 · Cited by 1,955 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001 · Cited by 1,011 · see citing works
McCaughey, D., & Bruning, N. S. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-39 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
- Authors
- REDD, S. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
- Corresponding author
- REDD, STEVEN B.
- Venue
- Journal of Conflict Resolution
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 335-364
- ISSN
- 0022-0027 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8766
- OpenAlex
- W2122401478
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 33.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Conflict Resolution (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
- Keywords
- foreign policy decision-making, advisors, foreign policy advice, poliheuristic theory, decision strategies, strategy selection, foreign policy choice, political information, information processing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
