Description
This paper explores how experiencing anger or fear affects foreign policy decision-making under uncertainty. The behavioral turn in IR has expanded our understanding of how heuristics and biases affect decision-making. However, the discipline has lagged in studying the pervasive influence of emotions. Research in cognitive psychology shows that emotions influence decisions by shaping the content of thought, the depth of thought, and goal activation. The Appraisal Tendency Framework (ATF) contends that different emotions affect appraisals of certainty, control, and responsibility in different ways. These appraisals in turn affect risk perceptions and decisions. This paper tests the ATF’s predictions concerning the effects of fear and anger by comparing John F. Kennedy’s deliberations during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and Richard Nixon’s decision-making preceding the US’ invasion of Cambodia in 1970. Consistent with the ATF’s predictions concerning fear, I find that Kennedy and his advisors were more willing to acknowledge uncertainty, viewed the events as unpredictable, and saw greater risk. In contrast, Nixon’s decision-making demonstrates greater certainty and control regarding the causes and consequences of events, lower risk perception, and unsystematic information processing. These findings provide important insights into how discrete emotions affect the cognitive aspects of deliberation and judgment.
