University of Pretoria

Department of Political Sciences

Research Proposal

Name: Ciaran Burks

Student Number: 14179084

Contact Number: 083 417 6894

Email: u14179084@tuks.co.za

Postal Address: 167 Chenin Close, Val de Vie Estate, Paarl, Western Cape

Degree: MA International Relations

Supervisor: Dr Robin Bourgeois

Co-supervisor: Dr John Kotsopoulos

Title: Specifying (Mis)Behaviour and Bias: A Review of the Literature on Behavioural International
Relations
Contents
1. Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Identification of the Research Theme............................................................................................. 3

3. Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 4

3.1 The Behavioural Revolution in International Relations: A Historical Narrative...................... 5

3.2 Rebirth of the Behavioural Revolution in IR: Current State and Future Promise ................... 7

4. Formulation and Demarcation of the Research Problem ............................................................... 9

5. Methodology................................................................................................................................. 10

5.1 Literature review method ........................................................................................................... 10

5.2 Case study method ..................................................................................................................... 13

6. Research Structure........................................................................................................................ 15

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 17
 1. Abstract
This study will present a comprehensive review of the literature on Behavioural International Relations
(BIR), beginning almost 70 years ago. The following review traces the roots of a “behavioural
revolution” within the political sciences, the subsequent rebellion against it, and its more recent re-
emergence. The following analysis strictly defines what constitutes the sub-field of BIR. It illustrates
the need for its existence as a research field within the discipline of IR. This is done in order to facilitate
the argument that the paper makes for the usefulness and pertinence of research in BIR. After making
a comprehensive case for the usefulness of BIR as a research field, the study presents two case studies.
These provide a tangible exposition of how using BIR theory can aid us in both understanding and
specifying (mis)behaviour and bias in actors within IR. The cases demonstrate that behaviour that has
been historically seen as inexplicable or bizarre is fairly congruent with a deeper understanding of the
human decision-making process. By illustrating that human decision makers act in some predictably
biased ways, this paper explores the possibility of more correctly specifying what we classify as
behaviour or misbehaviour. The study shows how past events that have been considered the result of
“misbehaviour” are simply biased human cognitive processes playing themselves out. This
demonstrates the opportunity for more accurately defining baseline behaviour. From this baseline,
true anomalies can be examined, improving the productivity of the research agenda in IR.

2. Identification of the Research Theme

Political science is perhaps unique in its theoretical nature. For as long as the discipline has existed, it
has eluded theoretical uniformity (Berkenpas, 2016). Inherently, the units of study in political sciences
– states, political elites and systems of governments, among others – are phenomena in flux. Objects
of political study both influence and are influenced by the people that surround and study them. The
fluctuating nature of these units of analysis necessitates a simultaneous (re)evaluation of existing
theories and practice in order to keep up with these complex actors and outcomes. The lack of
theoretical uniformity in political science provides both challenges and opportunities. The principal
theoretic approaches in International Relations (IR) remain largely polarised, especially when one
examines them in broad terms (Slaughter, 2011). The theoretical approach of BIR presents an
opportunity to consolidate this polarisation. It promises to build a useful analytical bridge between
traditional theories in IR, using a multi-disciplinary approach (James, 2007).

Disturbingly it is plausible that, given the evidence, political specialists are as good at predicting future
political outcomes as political novices. That is to say, neither are very good at predicting the future
(Tetlock, 2005). Other studies by Hafner-Burton, et al. (2013 & 2017), Mintz & DeRouen Jr (2010),
Stein (2017)and many many others indicate the same problems with forecasting political outcomes.
They support the postulate that current predictive models are neither theoretically nor empirically
developed enough. Apparent anomalies in International Relations, ranging from the onset of conflict
in Iraq by the United States of America to Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, abound. How do scholars
attempt to explain apparent lapses in rational decision making and the failure of policymakers and
leaders to weigh relatively clear costs and benefits and make predictable decisions? International
Relations theory has a tradition in the rationalist school of thought. Standard models, positing states
as actors in the international arena are the norm for International Relations scholars. Rationalist
approaches to explaining and predicting the actions of states focus heavily on principles of benefit,
cost and expected utility. Such rationalist theory often fails to acknowledge certain pertinent realities
of the human decision-making process, namely, that these processes are often subconscious and
irrational. There is a solution to this problem (James, 2007).

Behaviour-focused studies in International Relations offer plausible explanations for difficult-to-

explain occurrences. Work by Hafner-Burton, et al. (2013) and Kertzer & Tingley (2018) trace the roots
and growth of a two decade “behavioural revolution” in the field of International Relations. These
authors demonstrate that there exists a school of thought that is shifting away from essentially
paradigmatic frameworks for analysis. While the shift is not enormous, there seems to be some
movement away from the previously central focus of interstate war and their causes into more
multifaceted approaches to contemporary problems. It is a shame that this approach to analysing
political realities is not widely considered – sometimes not even acknowledged – in IR textbooks,
lecture halls, or the IR literature. In fact, there is very limited academic literature concerning
“Behavioural International Relations”, and thus an opportunity to comprehensively document its
contribution to IR as a whole, and to determine its status, utility and future possibilities.

3. Literature Review
This literature review is organised into two broad sections.
Firstly, it addresses seminal and summary papers that discuss and trace the debate on the
“behavioural revolution” in the political sciences. The review focuses on the various views on the
existence and relevance of this movement and the implications it has had for contemporary study.
The narrative of this behavioural revolution constitutes a significant part of the identity of political
science scholars in the 21st century. Additionally, the first section will illustrate some of the gaps in
traditional IR theory and the need for BIR in our analysis of phenomena in International Relations.

Secondly, the review will address more recent developments and contributions to the field of
Behavioural International Relations (BIR). This section will include what the consensus is on the
definition, contributions, challenges and possibilities of BIR at the present time.

3.1 The Behavioural Revolution in International Relations: A Historical Narrative

The great complexity of the human choice environment, the inability of people to possess full
information and the role of values and individual (therefore variable) experience are usually
overlooked in developing ‘rationalistic’ models of probable outcomes, making them poor predictors
of behaviour (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). People, both political elites and the public, routinely make
choices that are sub-optimal economically or politically speaking. Instead of being “reliably rational”,
people are more accurately described as “reliably irrational”.

Social scientists of the early 20th century largely considered human agents near-perfect in their rational
decision making. Models of human behaviour assumed we possess unbounded rationality. More
recently however, these models have been questioned and these assumptions have been widely
dismissed. The concept of bounded rationality now permeates new theories of human behaviour.
Research has expanded into finance, game theory, international political economy, political science,
behavioural international relations and other fields (Stein, 2017).

Before we discuss the “behavioural revolution” in IR, we need to clarify what we mean by the term
behavioural. Behaviouralism, sometimes referred to in the literature as Behaviourism, signifies – in
this essay – an analytical and methodological approach in IR. This approach focuses on a more
scientific approach to political analysis. According to Wogu (2013), following Easton (1962), it consists
of some major doctrines. Very briefly they are:

i) There exists certain observable (and predictable) political behaviours which can be
expressed accurately in theory
ii) These theoretical statements can be observed and therefore verified of falsified
iii) There exist academically acceptable (and unacceptable) methodological means for
recording, acquiring and interpreting data
 iv) A minimum level of objectivity should be maintained
v) There should be a close, tangible relationship between research, theory and practical
problem-solving in the real world.
vi) The political sciences should integrate with and permeate into other social sciences.

Essentially, the approach is multi-disciplinary. While it uses and is informed by theoretical insights and
may, at times, concern itself with the purely theoretical, it often uses empirical (usually
psychologically-based) research to inform its worldview. By nature, the behavioural approach seeks
to create bridges between disciplines to in order to create insights which are both verifiable and
complex (Mintz, 2007)

It is useful to group the behavioural revolution into 3 categories. My narrative groups the behavioural
revolution into its emergence, the subsequent significant rejection of positivist approaches and then
its climb back up to the annals of scholarly study.

The 1950s and 1960s represent the birth of political science as a modern social science (Berkenpas,
2016). Wogu (2013) notes that Behaviouralism was developed primarily through American Political
authors including David B. Truman, Robert Dahl, Evron M. Kirkpatrick, Charles E. Merriam and David
Easton. Easton (1968) makes the assertion that “political science in mid twentieth century is a
discipline in search of its identity” and that the behavioural approach to political science is a
manifestation of the attempt to solve this identity crises with an autonomous and independent
theoretical structure. This identity crisis is ongoing, and it is unlikely and undesirable that there will
ever be a homogenous theoretical approach to the study of political phenomena. The claim of BIR, its
goal, is not to dispense with these different views, but rather to synthesise them. Its aim is to provide
a view that simultaneously incorporates different theoretical approaches while creating a new lens
for its analysis. This new analysis, according to Easton (1962), provides the opportunity to build a
general political theory that is – as opposed to traditional historicist theory – able to formulate and
test hypotheses in the here and now.

Robert Dahl (1961) summarises his hope for the behavioural approach in political science. He asserts
that “unless the study of politics generates and is guided by broad, bold, even if highly vulnerable
general theories, it is headed for the ultimate disaster of triviality.” For Dahl, the injection of a spirit
of empirical inquiry had, and has today, the potential to permanently alter the study of polities, and
ensure its continuing relevance for scholars and policymakers.

Behaviouralism, after the 1960s, was heavily critiqued (Berkenpas, 2016). It was criticised for its lack
of historical appreciation, philosophical concerns and imagination. Authors noted the largely positivist
approach of Behaviouralism opened it up to the same critiques as positivism. These claims were
deflected, because, as will become increasingly clear, Behaviouralism is not positivism, though it
adopts some of its (especially methodological) approaches. The claim that behavioural approaches
tends towards “mindless empiricism” because of its scientific mindset was also a reason for the anti-
behaviouralist school of thought. Another concern, related to the above, is that, since behavioural
approaches requires some level of empirical focus, it is concerned mainly with easily observable
phenomena (Wogu, 2013). This is an important claim, and one that will be addressed in the study
later. It is a claim advocates of BIR should be aware of, because if studies focus on convenience
samples or easily measurable phenomena at the expense of more complex processes, there remains
the risk of BIR being marginalised and becoming irrelevant for the most important international
developments.

The anti-behavioural movement in the 1970s and the abandonment of positivist approaches was
aided by an ironic twist. The preceding behavioural movement of the 1960s created its own
theoretical space. As a result, the behavioural movement became increasingly marginalised from
mainstream political theory. This was exacerbated by the tendency for behavioural scholars to
communicate only with themselves and by the efforts anti-behavioural school of thought.

3.2 Rebirth of the Behavioural Revolution in IR: Current State and Future Promise
Hafner-Burton et al. (2012) trace the more recent rebirth of the behavioural revolution. It is relatively
widely accepted that work by Tversky & Kahneman (1974) got the behavioural ball re-rolling in
earnest. This rebirth has, arguably, piggybacked onto the fields of behavioural economics and
psychology. Interestingly, under Kahneman, there is growing consensus among a relatively simple, 2
stage-model of cognition, that permeates many theoretical approaches in behavioural studies across
the social sciences. Importantly, there are also new insights from neurological sciences, which ground
behavioural studies in observable, replicable phenomena.

In a seminal work for the field of BIR, Alex Mintz (2007) positions “Behavioral IR as a Subfield of
International Relations”. In a round-table in 2006, at the annual meeting of the International Studies
Association, scholars discussed the core ideas for a new subfield in IR. Mintz notes the deviations in
observed behaviour from “traditional analytic, rational, expected utility model of choice”, including
biases like framing effects, heuristic bias, emotional effects on decision making and many others.
Mintz also begins defining the subfield by listing six characteristics of BIR, its relevant actors, concepts,
levels of analysis, methods and questions of interest. The following analysis will make extensive use
of these concepts to define what constitutes BIR and inform the entire paper. Mintz makes some
important insights into what BIR can offer the field, and notes that “Behavioral IR is concerned with
how cognitive limitations, psychological factors, and susceptibility to biases affect IR…and
therefore…enrich understanding of international politics.”

As a result of the same 2006 meeting of the International Studies Association, Patrick James and
Stephen G. Walker present important introductory papers addressing BIR as a new sub-field of IR.
Both authors show optimism in the promises of Behavioural International Relations. James suggests
some practical next steps in the development of the field, as well as issues and considerations
concerning BIR. Walker presents BIR as a “case of arrested development”, and notes that as the
analysis of international politics becomes more complex and informed, “the explanatory and
predictive power of IR theory may significantly increase.”

Hafner-Burton, et al. (2013) present an interesting avenue for study in their paper “The Cognitive
Revolution and the Political Psychology of Elite Decision Making”. They investigate the particular biases
likely to be exhibited by elite decision makers. The authors also provide compelling explanations,
through the varying experience of US political elites in the early 2000s, of the observable shift in United
States “crisis signalling. Essentially, the study provides compelling reason to further investigate specific
attributes of individual decision-makers, one avenue this paper will explore.

Stein (2017) also discusses the cognitive turn in IR, and specifically, the obstacles to its diffusion. Stein
focuses on how, after the work of influential authors like Tversky & Kahneman, the 1980s and 1990s
produces renewed interest in the place of psychology in IR. Scholars began to explore the relevance
of identified patterns of behaviour that proved to systematically deviate from some rational choice
models. Specifically, there was work on the impact of loss aversion and deterrence theory, error in
probability forecasting and crisis escalation. Early scholarship seemed to acknowledge the relevance
of psychological bias and its role in IR and questions of international security. Stein argues that its lack
of diffusion may be explained by the lack of appropriate scope conditions. As a result, it became
difficult to know which theories to use in which empirical reality and marginalised the use of relevant
theories due to the arising ambiguity. Stein, in line with the aims of this paper, aims to move beyond
the debate of “rational choice versus psychology” and instead asks: “Under what conditions are
decision makers likely to be rational and when are they likely to behave in ways that behavioral
theories expect?” This approach is likely to make the research agenda much more productive by
creating clearer scope conditions for the use of BIR theory.

Kertzer & Tingley (2018) outline, using a data driven analysis, the issues that scholars in IR are, and are
not, engaged in. They take stock of the most engaging contemporary scholarly work, including a
renewed interest in emotional decision making and “hot cognition”, a greater appreciation for
psychologically-informed literature on the state and role of public opinion and the rise and integration
of evolutionary and biological approaches in IR. They (empirically) confirm the renewed relevance
and utility of the theoretical philosophy and interest of BIR.

This short literature review is an extremely concise summary of the history, state and promise of BIR.
It focuses only on the most convenient texts in the fields of, inter alia, IR, BIR, political psychology,
behavioural political science and cognitive psychology. Much is left out of this analysis, as it focuses
only on creating a broad-strokes view of the topic.

4. Formulation and Demarcation of the Research Problem

The overall aim of this narrative review is quite simple. Firstly, is will aim to trace the origins and
evolution of a “behavioural revolution” in International Relations. This includes the birth, death and
subsequent rebirth of the behavioural approach in IR. The aim of this contextualisation is to aid
readers in a deeper understanding of the shortcomings of previous theory, the importance of
contemporary research in the field, and the opportunities for improvements upon it. Then, using a
number of case studies, the review will aim to show – tangibly – that there is indeed a strong argument
for rethinking how we, as scholars of IR, analyse (ir)rationality and the (mis)behaviour of significant
actors in the field, including both states and individuals. In order to complete this task, the analysis
will aim to answer the main question:

What are the main contributions of the literature of Behavioural International Relations?

Related sub-questions include:

How is Behavioural International Relations defined in the contemporary literature? What evidence is
there for the necessity of such a subfield in International Relations? How can further research in the
field contribute to the scientific understanding of decision making in International Relations?

The answers to these questions will synthesise an appropriate discussion on the title; Specifying
(Mis)Behaviour and Bias: A Review of the Literature on Behavioural International Relations. By
answering the research questions posed above, it should be possible to make a convincing argument
for the historical error of our specification of “rational, normal, expected or standard” behaviour in IR.
It should become clear that we can, with insights gained from BIR, more correctly specify how actors
make decisions, more accurately identify truly anomalous behaviour (and analyse it in order to gain
ever deeper understanding) and create more effective predictive models or theories.

This review will attempt to piece together work that is generally considered unconnected as well as
show the progressive coherence of certain elements of behavioural research and the accumulation of
knowledge and consensus on key issues. More tangibly, it will incorporate, by using various databases
and the bibliographies of important articles, as much of the relevant literature as possible. I will aim
to trace the development of behavioural studies within International Relations from their roots and
create an accessible snapshot into the state of the field at the present moment. I will also show that
there are significant gaps, challenges and opportunities facing both this review and the field in general.

5. Methodology
5.1 Literature review method
Bryman (2012), building upon work by Golden-Biddle and Locke (2007), makes the argument that
literature reviews based on qualitative research should develop a coherent narrative. The aim of the
following study will be to create such a narrative, in the sense that it will present relevant literature in
order to convey a specific idea.

Bryman (2012) outlines different types of literature reviews. Firstly, the author refers to the systematic
review – a review that aims to be scientific and transparent, in order to eliminate bias and provide a
clear trail of the reviewers’ decisions, procedures and conclusions. A meta-analysis, in the vocabulary
of Bryman, refers to a systematic review of only quantitative studies. Conversely, a meta-ethnography,
refers to the synthesis of qualitative findings, of which there is not currently a widespread
methodology among scholars.

Secondly, Bryman (2012) refers to a research project he calls a narrative review, which aims primarily
to “enrich human discourse by generating understanding rather than accumulating knowledge”. This
type of literature review is both more common and more suited for studies in IR than the formerly
mentioned. My approach here will, therefore, be primarily “narrative” in nature, since the link
between theory and research will be inductive rather than deductive. It will however, be useful here
to incorporate systematic review practices, as Bryman calls them, into this narrative review.

By way of summary then, and drawing on the aforementioned work and the research of Pare, et al.
(2014), this review will aim to position itself as a narrative review with a number of systematic review
methods. The distinguishing factors of this (hybrid) type of review are categorised by: i) the goal of
summarising prior knowledge and contributing towards new theoretical perspectives ii) a fairly broad
research question, iii) a comprehensive search strategy, iv) explicit study selection and v) the use of a
narrative synthesis and case studies to create an insightful perspective on the relevant issues.

More concretely, the stated research question will guide the review significantly in order to keep it
focused and relatively specific. The literature review will be specified in a manner that affords it
replicability. As such it will make use of a number of key search terms (which will be explicitly stated)
and more than one online database. Quality appraisal as well as content relevance (informed partly
by the search criteria) will be used as a criterion for selecting relevant literature, though most of the
relevant articles will have been published in journals with peer-revision.

Hopefully, my review will provide readers with intuitive access, by way of comprehensive summary,
to a wide range of meaningful research in the fields of, inter alia, Behavioural Economics, Behavioural
International Relations, International Political Economy and Psychology. The extensive literature
review will incorporate appropriate, robust, meaningful and valid research and summarise it into a
coherent narrative.

In order to guide the process of amalgamating the relevant literature, I will use a process outlined by
Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2014). These authors outline a “hermeneutic approach” for conducting
literature reviews. Below is a figure extracted from Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, illustrating the two
“hermeneutic circles” that the authors describe in some detail. This process will aid and inform the
methodological process underpinning this literature review.

Figure 1: The two relevant hermeneutic circles in a literature review

Source: Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2014)

In order to make the study manageable, I outlined the criteria for selection for the included literature
in this review. The criteria were adapted from the framework provided by Mints (2007), which outlines
what BIR consists of.

1) Study focuses on less than rational/suboptimal decision making of relevant political entities,
listed in 3).
2) Focuses both on the process and outcome of the decision-making process.
3) Focuses on judgements and choices of (a) world leaders; (b) business, political, and military
elites; (c) international organizations; (d) domestic agencies; (e) nations; (f) bureaucracies; (g)
the enemy; (h) groups, (i) coalitions; (j) alliances; (k) parties; (l) political candidates; or (m) the
public. Importantly, the focus of the process of decision making when dealing with groups of
people remains with the individual. Individual bias is assumed to affect outcomes even when
the decision making is done in a group.
4) Method must include at least one of the following methods: (a) experiments ("pencil and
paper" and computerized), (b) computational modelling, (c) simulations, (d) behavioural-
experimental game theory, (e) spatial modelling, (f) statistical analyses, (g) comparative case
studies, (h) surveys, (i) content analysis, or (j) elite interview
5) Question of interest must include (a) war initiation, escalation, and termination decisions; (b)
terrorist decision making; (c) strategic surprise; (d) peace agreements; (e) mediation; (f)
international trade, finance, and foreign aid decisions; (g) environmental issues; (h) bargaining
and negotiation; (i) deterrence; (j) diversionary uses of force; or (k) the democratic peace
6) This review will focus on recent literature. Seminal literature and comprehensive reviews
tracing the roots and initial growth of behavioural international relations will be included.
However, besides these highly significant texts, only literature published after 1990 will be
included.

The search concepts guide the selection process by sieving out irrelevant literature. Articles bearing
no clear resemblance with the search concepts will be excluded from the literature review.

Table 1: Search concepts, ranked in order of importance:

Search Concept 1 Search Concept 2 Search Concept 3

Behavioural studies International Relations Elites
 Behavioural science Political Sciences Executives

Psychological studies Social Sciences Leaders

Cognitive studies Nations
Behavioural economics Organisations
Systems

Table 2: Comprehensive list of search terms and relevant results

Operator/s Phrase 1 Operator/s Phrase 2 Relevant articles

identified *
“Behavioural International 17
Relations”
“Behavioural IR” 13
allintitle: Behavioural AND International Relations 8
allintitle: Behavioural AND Political Science 4
allintitle: Behavioural AND IR 1
allintitle: Behaviouralism ** AND Political 8
allintitle: Behaviouralism AND Politics 1
allintitle: Behavioural AND Political Psychology 1
allintitle: Behavioural AND Politics 6
allintitle: Cognitive AND International Relations 1
allintitle: Cognitive AND IR 1
allintitle: Cognitive AND Political Psychology 2
allintitle: Cognitive AND Politics 3
allintitle: Political psychology AND International relations 4

Number of articles identified by hand searching bibliographies of important texts:

TOTAL: 70
*Articles searched in order of table, if the same article was identified in more than one search, it was attributed to belonging to the 1st
category it was found in.
**The literature does not distinguish clearly between the terms “Behaviouralism” and “Behaviourism” and therefore both terms were
used in the above searches.

Note all searches include both the United Kingdom (UK) and American spelling of the word: Behaviour
I.e. The phrase “Behavioural International Relations” was searched using [“Behavioural International
Relations” OR “Behavioral International Relations”]

5.2 Case study method

I will be making use of case studies to apply a BIR-theoretical lens to contemporary examples in order
to showcase its utility. Though they are challenged by some controversy, case studies are a useful tool
for analysis in BIR. Johansson (2003) points out that a major feature of the case study as a method its
effort to illuminate an event from numerous angles. It seeks to triangulate its analysis, to seek the
truth (or as close an approximation as possible) of a phenomenon, by combining relevant
methodologies. Inasmuch as the case study integrates various different research strategies in its
formulation, it might be said to represent a meta-method. In this regard, it fits the objectives and
theoretical philosophy of BIR extraordinarily well.

Figure 2: Conceptual framework for case study method

Source: Johansson (2003)

Yin (1984), a well-known pioneer of the rigorous use of case studies, asserts that case studies
represent “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life
context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which
multiple sources of evidence are used.”

The design of the case study is an important step in providing a robust foundation for its use in any
academic context. My analysis will make use of a single-case design. It seeks to apply a theoretical lens
to the analysis of specific events. This design, though interesting and potential insightful, has some
drawbacks. In order to ensure the validity of its conclusions, the study must be scrutinised using other
methodological tools too (Zainal, 2007).

Yin (1984) groups case studies according to their objectives into three categories. They include: i)
exploratory, ii) descriptive and iii) explanatory case studies. My review will make use explanatory case
studies. As such, they will seek to examine data at both a general and profound level, in order to
explain the trends (or lack thereof) in the data. In the case of this review, these cases will demonstrate
the relevance of BIR theory by showing its applicability (hopefully) to IR phenomena. This type of case
study is used to investigate phenomena in intricate and multivariate cases.

In line with Ying (1984), I will aim to construct a case study analysis that passes the four commonly
identified tests for acceptable methodological inquiry. These four tests include: a) Constructional
validity, b) Internal validity, c) External validity and d) Reliability. These concepts will be explored at
greater length in the full analysis. The various advantages and disadvantages of small n-studies will
also be explored in the full analysis.

Table 3: Tactics in designing a valid case study

Phase of research in which

Test Case Study Tactic
tactic occurs
Data collection
- Multiple sources of
evidence
Data collection
Construct Validity - Establish chain of evidence
- Key informants review
Composition
case study report

- Pattern-matching
Internal Validity - Explanation-building Data analysis
- Time-series analysis

External Validity - Use replication logic Research Design

- Use case study protocol

Reliability - Develop case study Data collection
database
Source: Adapted from Yin (1984)

6. Research Structure
Chapter 1 will provide a historical narrative of the behavioural revolution in the social (especially
political) sciences. It will trace the revolution in terms of its most influential authors and note the main
features of the revolution, indicating their impact on the identity of contemporary scholars. It will also
analyse the extent to which such a narrative is a construct that is convenient to analyses such as these
and note its own shortcomings and ability to give a completely accurate view of the state of the field
at the time. The chapter will then address the reasons for the largely abandoned positivist approach
after the 1960s. It will attempt to provide some philosophical insight into how we might learn form
the past as scholars to prevent the same marginalisation from occurring in the field in the future.

Chapter 2 will then analyse what I term the “rebirth of the behavioural method in International
Relations”. This section will analyse the literature post-1990 in a very comprehensive manner. Around
one hundred academic texts will be analysed in order to give readers intuitive access to the literature
on Behavioural International Relations. It will also justify its inclusion of certain texts and the exclusion
of others. Though there is no comprehensive organisation synthesising and arranging work in the field
of BIR, it will indicate a renewed interest in the concepts and methods of behavioural studies. This will
create the basis for the following discussion of the pertinence of the field. Chapter 2 will be the longest
and most comprehensive of the chapters, attempting to synthesise and incorporate research from
different disciplines in a new, insightful and meaningful way. Hopefully, this will create a framework
from which we can assess the main research question: What are the main contributions of the
literature of Behavioural International Relations?

Chapter 3 will assess how successful chapter 2 was in addressing the research question. It will critically
evaluate the analysis and show its success and shortcomings. It will aim to tell the story of BIR, so to
speak, and showcase its utility in a manner consistent with its methodological philosophy.

Chapter 4 will make use of the new contributions illustrated in the previous chapters. In an attempt
to create an elegant and persuasive argument, it will draw on aforementioned discussion to produce
a convincing case study. This case will be analysed using the analytic toolkit identified as being specific
to BIR and demonstrate its applicability to events in International Relations. This chapter, in an
attempt to be self-aware, will then contrast its conclusions against other academic literature which
examines the same case from a different analytical standpoint. It will then attempt to judge the validity
of the different conclusions and attempt to measure the validity of the conclusion drawn using a
uniquely BIR approach. This will either validate or undermine the relevance of BIR theory.

Chapter 5 will be critical of the entire study and note its gaps. It will address some of the shortcomings
with counter-arguments or acknowledgements. It will also clearly illustrate the areas in which future
research seems likely to be most productive.
Bibliography
Andreoni, J., 1995. Cooperation in Public-Goods Experiments: Kindness or Confusion?. The American
Economic Review, 85(4), pp. 891-904.

Ardanaz, M., Murillo, M. V. & Pinto, P. M., 2013. Sensitivity to Issue Framing on Trade Policy
Preferences: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. International Organisation , 67(2), pp. 411-437.

Axelrod, R. & Hamilton, W. D., 1981. The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), pp. 1390-1396.

Berkenpas, J. R., 2016. The Behavioral Revolution in Contemporary Political Science: Narrative,
Identity, Practice, Michigan: Western Michigan University.

Boell, S. K. & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., 2014. A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature Reviews
and Literature Searches. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(12), pp. 257-
286.

Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Coller, M. & Williams, M. B., 1999. Eliciting Individual Discount Rates. Experimental Economics, 2(1),
pp. 107-127.

Debs, A. & Goemans, H. E., 2010. Regime Type, the Fate of Leaders, and War. American Political
Science Review, 104(3), pp. 430-445.

DellaVigna, S., 2009. Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field. Journal of Economic
Literature, 47(2), pp. 315-372.

Edelstein, D. M., 2002. Managing uncertainty: Beliefs about intentions and the rise of great powers.
Security Studies, 12(1), pp. 1-40.

Engelmann, D. & Strobel, M., 2004. Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple
Distribution Experiments. The American Economic Review, 94(4), pp. 857-869.

Farnham, B., 1994. Avoiding Losses/Taking Risks: Prospect Theory and International Conflict. 1st ed.
Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Fehr, E. & Camerer, C. F., 2007. Social neuroeconomics: the neural circuitry of social preferences.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(10), pp. 419-427.

Golden-Biddle, K. & Locke, K. D., 2007. Composing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. London: Sage
Publications.
Haas, M., 2016. International Relations Theory: Competing Empirical Paradigms. 1 ed. New York:
Lexington Books.

Hafner-Burton, E. M., Haggard, S., Lake, D. A. & Victor, D. G., 2017. The Behavioral Revolution and
International Relations. International Organisation, 71(1), pp. 1-31.

Hafner-Burton, E. M., Hughes, D. A. & Victor, D. G., 2013. The Cognitive Revolution and the Political
Psychology of Elite Decision Making. Perspectives on Politics, 11(2), pp. 368-386.

James, P., 2007. Behavioral IR: Practical Suggestions. International Studies Review, 9(1), pp. 162-165.

Johansson, R., 2003. Case Study Methodology, Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology .

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A., 2013. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Handbook of
the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making, 4(1), pp. 99-127.

Katz, J., 2015. A Theory of Qualitative Methodology: The Social System of Analytic Fieldwork.
Méthod(e)s, 1(1 & 2), pp. 131-146.

Kertzer, J. D. & Tingley, D., 2018. Political Psychology in International Relations: Beyond the Paradigms.
Annual Review of Political Science , 21(1), pp. 1-23.

Kertzer, J. D. & Tingley, D., 2018. Political Psychology in International Relations: Beyond the Paradigms.
Annual Review of Political Science, 21(1), pp. 1-23.

Laibson, D., 1997. Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2),
pp. 443-477.

Lopez, A. C., McDermott, R. & Peterson, M. B., 2011. States in Mind: Evolution, Coalitional Psychology,
and International Politics. International Security, 36(2), pp. 48-83.

Mintz, A., 2007. Behavioral IR as a Subfield of International Relations. International Studies Review,
9(1), pp. 157-162.

Mintz, A. & DeRouen Jr, K., 2010. Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. 1 ed. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Ogawa, R. T. & Malen, B., 1991. Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures: Applying the
Exploratory Case Study Method. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), pp. 1-16.

O'Reilly, K. P., 2014. Nuclear Proliferation and the Psychology of Political Leadership: Beliefs,
Motivations and Perceptions. 1 ed. New York and London: Routledge.
Pare´, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M. & Kitsiou, S., 2014. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A
typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(1), pp. 183-199.

Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M. & Kitsiou, S., 2015. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A
typology of literature reviews. Information & Management , 52(1), pp. 183-199.

Puchala, D. J., 2003. Theory and History in International Relations. 1 ed. New York and London:
Routledge.

Slaughter, A.-M., 2011. International Relations, Principal Theories. In: R. Wolfrum, ed. Max Planck
Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Smith, S., Dunne, T. & Hadfield, A., 2016. Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.

Stein, J. G., 2017. The Micro-Foundations of International Relations Theory: Psychology and Behavioral
Economics. International Organization , 71(1), pp. 249-263.

Tetlock, P. E., 2005. Expert Political Judgement. 1 ed. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D., 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science,
185(4157), pp. 1124-1131.

Walker, S. G., 2007. Back to the Future? Behavioral IR as a Case of Arrested Development. International
Studies Review, 9(1), pp. 165-170.

Walt, S. M., 1998. International relations: One world, many theories. Foreign Policy, Issue 110, pp. 29-
35.

Waltz, K., 1959. Man, the State and War: a Theoretical Analysis. New York and London: Columbia
University Press.

Wogu, I. A. P., 2013. Behaviouralism As An Approach To Contemporary Political Analysis: An Appraisal.

International Journal of Education and Research, 1(12), pp. 1-12.

Yin, R. K., 1984. THE CASE STUDY AS A RESEARCH STRATEGY . In: Case Study Research Design and
Methods. London: Sage Publications , pp. 1-28.

Zainal, Z., 2007. Case study as a research method. s.l.:Jurnal Kemanusiaan .

Zimbardo, P. G. & Boyd, J. N., 1999. Putting Time in Perspective: A Valid, Reliable Individual-Differences
Metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 77(6), pp. 1271-1288.