Preview

Международная аналитика

Расширенный поиск

Идеи и методы когнитивной науки в исследованиях международных отношений и внешней политики

https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2024-15-2-146-162

Аннотация

В исследованиях международных отношений наблюдается ренессанс интереса к изучению моделей принятия решений, связанных с влиянием индивидуальных и групповых акторов и проистекающей из этого необходимостью понимания их глубинной психологии, характера их стимулов и мотиваций. Подобные исследования актуализируют применение поведенческих и когнитивной наук в сфере международных отношений и внешней политики, побуждают к адаптации методологии профильных дисциплин к решению сложных общественно-политических проблем. Настоящая обзорная статья – попытка инвентаризации ключевых тем и литературы в данной области, а также демонстрация прикладного применения существующих теорий для анализа актуальных политических сюжетов.

Об авторах

М. А. Сучков
МГИМО МИД России
Россия

Максим Александрович Сучков, к. полит. н., доцент кафедры прикладного анализа международных проблем, директор ИМИ МГИМО МИД России

119454, Москва, пр. Вернадского, 76.



А. А. Байков
МГИМО МИД России
Россия

Андрей Анатольевич Байков, к.полит.н., доцент кафедры прикладного анализа международных проблем, проректор по научной работе МГИМО МИД России

119454, Москва, пр. Вернадского, 76.



Список литературы

1. Знаменская, И.И., Александров, Ю.И. Отношение к «чужим» при стрессе разного генеза // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Психология. 2016. №3. С. 159–167. https://doi.org/10.21638/1701/spbu16.2016.314.

2. Журавлева, В.И. Россия и США как значимые Другие в национальных дискурсах идентичности // Международная аналитика. 2024; 15 (1): 20–45. https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2024-15-1-20-45.

3. Паршин, П.Б. Исследовательские практики, предмет и методы политической лингвистики // Scripta linguisticae applicatae. Проблемы прикладной лингвистики / под ред. А.И. Новикова. М.: «Азбуковник», 2001. С. 181–208.

4. Allison, Graham. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971. Axelrod, Robert. Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton University Press, 1976.

5. Beasley, Ryan, Kaarbo, Juliet, Hermann, Charles, and Margaret Hermann. “People and Processes in Foreign Policymaking: Insights from Comparative Case Studies.” International Studies Review 3, no. 2 (2001): 217–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00238.

6. Bless, Herbert. “The Interplay of Affect and Cognition: The Mediating Role of General Knowledge Structures.” In Feeling and Thinking: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition, edited by J.P. Forgas, Cambridge University Press (2000): 201–222.

7. Etheredge, Lloyd. Can Governments Learn? American Foreign Policy and Central American Revolutions. New York: Pergamon, 1985.

8. Essays on Neuroscience and Political Theory: Thinking the Body Politics, edited by F. Vander Valk, 2012.

9. Holsti, Ole. “Cognitive Process Approaches to Decision-Making: Foreign Policy Actors Viewed Psychologically.” American Behavioral Scientist 20, no. 1 (1976): 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427602000103.

10. Connolly, William. Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed. University of Minnesota Press, 2002.

11. D’Aoust, Anne-Marie. “Ties that Bind? Engaging Emotions, Governmentality and Neoliberalism: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Global Society 28, no. 3 (2014): 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2014.900743.

12. Jervis, Robert. How Statesmen Think: The Psychology of International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017.

13. Jervis, Robert. “Understanding Beliefs.” Political Psychology 27, no. 5 (2006): 641–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00527.x.

14. Herrmann, Richard, and Jong Kun Choi. “From Prediction to Learning: Opening Experts’ Minds to Unfolding History.” International Security 31, no. 4 (2007): 132–161.

15. Herrmann, Richard. “Analyzing Soviet Images of the United States: A Psychological Theory and Empirical Study.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 29. no. 4 (1985): 665–697.

16. Holmes, Marcus. “International Politics at the Brain’s Edge: Social Neuroscience and a New ‘Via Media’.” International Studies Perspectives 15, no. 2 (2014): 209–228.

17. Horowitz, Michael, and Allan Stam. “How Prior Military Experience Influences the Future Militarized Behavior of Leaders.” International Organization 68, no. 3 (2014): 527–559. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081834000046.

18. Hudson, Valerie. “Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor–specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations.” Foreign Policy Analysis 1, no. 1 (2005): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2005.00001.x.

19. Kahan, Dan, Braman, Donald, Gastil, John, Slovic, Paul, and C.K. Mertz. “Culture and Identity – Protective Cognition: Explaining the White–Male Effect in Risk Perception.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4, no. 3 (2007): 465–505 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17401461.2007.00097.x.

20. Larson, Deborah. “The Role of Belief Systems and Schemas in Foreign Policy Decision-Making.” Political Psychology 15, no. 1 (1994): 17–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791437.

21. Lasswell, Harold. Psychopathology and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930.

22. Levy, Jack. “Psychology and Foreign-Policy Decision-Making.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, edited by Leonie Huddy, David Sears, Jack Levy, 301–333, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

23. Levy, Jack. “Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield.” International Organization 48, no. 2 (1994): 279–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300028198.

24. Lieberman, Matthew. Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. New York: Crown Press, 2013.

25. Lord, Charles, Ross, Lee, and Mark Lepper. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, no. 11 (1979): 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.37.11.2098.

26. Massumi, Brian. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke University Press, 2002.

27. McDermott, Rose. “The Feeling of Rationality: The Meaning of Neuroscientific Advances for Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 2, no. 4 (2004): 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592704040459.

28. Minz, Alex. Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making. IDC Herzliya, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07848-3_1.

29. Nam, Tek-Jin, and Jong-Hoon Lee. “Understanding the Relation Between Emotion and Physical Movements.” International Journal of Affective Engineering 13, no. 3 (2014): 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5057/ijae.13.217.

30. Panksepp, Jaak. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. Oxford University Press, 2004.

31. Panksepp, Jaak, and Lucy Biven. The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotion. W.W. Norton & Company, 2012.

32. Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature. New York: Viking, 2011.

33. Renée, Jeffery. “The Promise and Problems of the Neuroscientific Approach to Emotions.” International Theory 6, no. 3 (2014): 584–589. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971914000311.

34. Robertson, Roby. “Small Group Decision Making: The Uncertain Role of Information in Reducing Uncertainty.” Political Behavior 2, no. 2 (1980): 163–188.

35. Rosati, Jerel. “The Power of Human Cognition in the Study of World Politics.” International Studies Review 2, no. 3 (2000): 45–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00215.

36. Sharot, Tali. “The Optimism Bias.” Current Biology 21, no. 23 (2021): R941-R945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030.

37. Simon, Herbert. “Theories of Bounded Rationality.” In Decision and Organization, edited by C.B. McGuire and Roy Radner, 161–176. North-Holland Publishing Company, 1972.

38. Stenner, Karen. The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

39. Tooby, John, and Leda Cosmides. “Groups in Mind: The Coalitional Roots of War and Morality.” In Human Morality and Sociality: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Henrik Høgh-Olesen, 91–234. Palgrave-Macmillan, 2010.

40. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211, no. 4481 (1981): 453–458.

41. Vertzberger, Yaacov. The World in Their minds: Information Processing, Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decision-Making. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.

42. Waltz, Kenneth. Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959.


Рецензия

Для цитирования:


Сучков М.А., Байков А.А. Идеи и методы когнитивной науки в исследованиях международных отношений и внешней политики. Международная аналитика. 2024;15(2):146-162. https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2024-15-2-146-162

For citation:


Suchkov M.A., Baykov A.A. Ideas and Methods of Cognitive Science in the Studies of International Relations and Foreign Policy. Journal of International Analytics. 2024;15(2):146-162. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2024-15-2-146-162

Просмотров: 499


Creative Commons License
Контент доступен под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2587-8476 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9633 (Online)