pol 1300 exam 2 - psychology, terrorism, conflict

rationalist theories

assume actors rationally respond to incentives

allows us to isolate effect of environment/constraints

strategic interaction 

psychology

but people aren’t perfectly rational

• non rational decisions can still be predictable 

Rational vs psychological decision making

Rationally:

• should take coin flip when im giving you money

• but accept sure thing when im taking your money

• but most people choose the opposite

Prospect Theory

decision making under risk and uncertainty

• importance of “reference points” ( status quo or current expectations)

• risk preferences when facing gains/loses ( gaining feels better than to loose something)

Reference Points and Risk Acceptance (psychological baseline)

losses hurt more than gains benefit

gains: risk avoidant

losses: risk acceptant

“Normalizing” Gains and Losses — how do baselines change?

• gains normalized quicker than losses

• states’ baselines often differ, persistently

• states can “feel” losses for years - you don’t normalize it, very slowly

cognitive dissonance 

when ur actions aren’t consistent with your beliefs ( this is why people resist evidence that goes against their beliefs) — no consistency in thoughts and actions — leads to distress

cognitive consistency

harmony between thoughts and actions, desired state

Analogies

reasoning through historical example

• importance of “formative” events ( major experiences that shape events, beliefs)

• major lessons color interpretation of later events

• problem: they’re often widly inappropriate analogies

what is terrorism 

• use/threat of violence 

• targets civilians - not against military

• carried out by non-state actor 

Terrorism as Coercion - Role of Threats

to change behavior

indiscriminate/random violence ( targeting civilians) - even if the threat is never carried out the fear of the possibility could still change behavior 

• compellence: terror continues until demands are met 

Extremist Vs Terrorism:

tactics vs preferances:

• terrorism: tactic often used to pursue extremist goals

• extremist: preferences on fringe of political spectrum (can have extremist goals but not engage in terrorism)

Why resort to terrorism?

Lack of broad support: normal strategies unsuccessful, 

status quo very harmful, given extreme preferences

psychology: dehumanization, short time horizons ( want immediate results)

Is terrorism rational? Def of rational

• efficient means to achieve given ends

• rationality does not refer to goals

• self sacrifice does not equal irrational 

• but terrorism is a highly costly strategy 

• > delegitimization (portraying a gov, group politically illegitimate, they have no right to exist)

• > provocation “Do something so the enemy overreacts, making them look bad and rallying more support for us.” (ragebait)

Does terrorism work, and how would we know?

• can measure success in various ways ( Al-Queda had very big ambitious goals- scared US but did not achieve everything else)

• success in leaders and people who carried out the mission pov’s

• what’s the baseline?

observation & inference

what we can directly measure and infer based on our data

causal v descriptive inference

“did x cause y?” vs “what is happening”

experimental v observational data

controls the treatment vs not tweaking it just observing it

correlation vs causality

two things happen, but there not related vs x directly causes y 

threats to causal inferences

• omitted variables

• sampling bias

• selection bias

terrorism and selection effects

terrorism is negatively correlated with success

• but does terrorism cause failure

• or are failing groups more likely to adopt terrorist attacks

• most likely both

Rebel Group’s Goals - Types of Civil War

• separatist: create new state ( sometimes get resources from other nations)

• Irredentist: join an existing state

• Revolutionary: impose new gov 

Causes: there are many

security dilemma 

• erosion of state authority 

• uncertainty and competition for resources 

Bargaining

• fighting is costly

• intense uncertainty of power, resolve

• dynamic problem ( committment problems bc there could be a shift in power where one state becomes really powerful)

what factors lead to civil war?

Regime Type

Contagion (spill over effect)

Policy failure ( bad gov)

economic growth/development ( fewer resources to compete over)

natural forces

Ethnic Conflict: distinct from other civil wars

• ethnicity is not immutable ( what counts as an ethnicity is not universal)

• components of ethnicity can be central to identity

• can make ethnic conflicts more violent

• more prone to human rights violations

When and how do ethnic cleavages ( division) matter? 

Violation in ethnic “salience”

• ethnic entrepreneurs ( political leaders using ethnicity to gain power)

Ethnic Strucuture

• homogenous ( not enough ethnic diversity like Japan where everyone is the same)

• polarized ( small # of large groups — 50/50 each ethnic group — will believe they have the authority to the entire country

• fragmented ( if every ethnic group is small they won’t think they have a claim on the entire country)

Why do civil wars last longer than interstate wars?

more difficult to solve bc #1) commitment problems 

commitment problems 

agreements often require rebels to lay down their arms

• but this leaves them extremely vulnerable

• how does govt commit to not taking advantage of this vulnerability?

• often requires outside intervention like peacekeepers, observers,