Misperceptions In Foreign Policymaking

The Sino-indian Conflict 1959-1962

Yaacov Y.I. Vertzberger

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429725906
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

In this case study of the Sino-Indian conflict between 1959 and 1962, the author explores the attitudes that shaped India's policy toward China and traces the network of misunderstandings that led to a war unwanted by both sides.

1
Misperceptions: Sources and Processes—A Theory

The Critical Assumptions

This chapter presents a theory that deals with the dynamics—the sources and the processes—of misperceptions in international politics. The theory is holistic, in the sense suggested by Diesing: that is, “composed of several relatively independent loosely linked parts, rather than that of deduction from a few basic postulates…. When a theory is applied to a case, each section illuminates a different aspect of the case so that the whole theory together gives many-sided illuminations and guidance to case studies and comparisons” (1971, 222). The choice of a holistic approach, rather than any other, was dictated by the complex and multifaceted nature of the phenomenon of misperception in foreign policymaking. This theoretical framework, then, provides the guidelines for both describing and explaining the case study.

The process of decisionmaking can roughly be divided into three stages. In the first, information from the environment is accumulated and processed. In the second, this information serves as a basis for the evaluation of alternatives perceived by the policymaker as relevant to the situation; a particular alternative is then chosen. In the third stage, the decision is implemented. Thus, the first stage, the definition of the situation, becomes the critical one, as it forms the basis of the entire process. A distorted image of reality may engender a situation in which the decisionmaking process and its results will be far less than optimal, with all the ramifications for those involved; hence, the importance of understanding the dynamics of misperception.

Misperception as a phenomenon is not exclusive to the area of foreign policy. But the international scene and the realm of relations among nations, as we shall discover, do facilitate the creation of conditions under which misperceptions are formed and maintained. The special relevance of the subject to this specific human field of action also stems from the particularly grave implications that misperceptions may have in the area of foreign policy, due to the high price they exact in human, material, and moral terms. This price is paid by the nation, the collective, in its entirety, in contrast to misperceptions in daily life by which the individual, or at most a few people, suffers the consequences. Moreover, in the international arena, interdependence being one of its characteristics, the implications of misperceptions go far beyond national boundaries to influence the lives of other nations as well. Thus, even if some leaders are especially adept at adopting a realistic view and perception of reality, they might still fall victim to the consequences of perceptual fallacies that occur beyond their own national borders.

Figure 1.1. Environment-Decision Nexus

In this book the term perception is defined as being composed of two elements: a dynamic one—the process of becoming cognizant of the environment and its evaluation; and the other, a static one—the cognitive, evaluative, and affective consciousness of the stimuli flowing from the environment—in other words, the final product of the process, namely, the image¹ formed at the end (Krech and Crutchfield, 1971).

Misperception, then, is bidimensional: it includes the process by which a distorted perception of reality is formed as well as the specific content of the distorted image. In operational terms, a misperception is seen as a gap between the real environment and the psychological one of the policymaker. In other words, we are dealing with the cognitive connections between the decisionmaker and his environment, which are at the same time the mediating factors between the environment and the decision. The relationship is shown in Fig. 1.1.

The perception of the environment influences the decision, the results of which serve as input to the change in the environment, but which are also constrained by the limitations imposed by the environment. The new environment serves as input for a new process of decisionmaking through the intervening variable of the perception, and so on.²

The critical assumptions at the basis of this study follow:

1. There are two realities: objective and subjective. The objective reality is a yardstick against which the perception of the policymaker can be measured and the degree of distortion and incompatibility determined.

2. Perceptual processes of political leaders are of particular interest because of their important consequences and because they are more susceptible to distortions due to the nature of leadership roles and the patterns of interaction resulting from them.³

3. The quality of the decision is determined to a large extent by the size of the gap between the image and reality. All else being constant, there is an inverse relationship between the quality of the decision and the size of the perceptual gap.

4. Despite what was noted in assumption 3, considering that international relations are based on interaction, the probability that a decision based on a balanced and undistorted perception will be optimal is conditional also on the perception of the opponent. However, a necessary, though not sufficient, condition is that the perceptual system forming the basis of the actor’s decisions must be as accurate as possible.

5. The degree of inefficiency of any decisionmaking system is to a large extent a function not only of the amount of the perceptual distortion at the point of departure but also of the policymaker’s ability to adjust over time.

6. No decisionmaking system is immune by nature⁴ from mis-perceptions, and there is no such thing as absolute immunity. Thus, the process of decisionmaking in the political sphere is at best one of limited rationality.

The theoretical framework based on these assumptions and presented in this chapter deals with the presentation of a typology describing the main patterns of misperceptions and the patterns of possible adjustment. In addition, an attempt has been made to present an interdisciplinary, multivariable, integrative explanation of the phenomenon and its dynamics. The explanatory variables are the nature of the information and the rules for its processing, the personalities of the decisionmakers, organizational processes, group dynamics, and national culture. As we shall see, these variables cover the three levels of analysis of the individual, the state, and the international system. Moreover, I have attempted to state the background conditions determining the nature and direction of the influence of the above-mentioned variables on the perceptual process. Thus, it is my intention to suggest a systematic, conceptual framework that will further an understanding of the investigated phenomenon.

Two aspects should be emphasized: first, the investigated phenomenon comprises not the whole process of decisionmaking but only the stage of the flow of stimuli from the environment to the cognitive system of the policymakers, their absorption, and their processing into a consolidated definition of the situation that encourages the preference of this or that action orientation. The evaluation of the situation includes the situation’s description and the environment in which the policymaker acts, the apprehended alternatives, and the possible anticipated outcomes of each alternative.

Secondly, we are not interested in situations in which erroneous conceptions are formed due to a lack of relevant information.⁵ From an intellectual point of view, these situations are uninteresting for one concerned with the processing and managing of information. For that reason, this study, both in its theoretical and in its empirical parts, concentrates on those situations in which the misperceptions cannot be accounted for as resulting from lack of information. Specifically, the concern is with situations in which the decisionmaker in a particular political system has available information of a quantity and quality sufficient to provide a suitable image but still chooses an erroneous situation definition.

The Real and Psychological Environments: Dimensions and Content

What are the dimensions and content of the real and the psychological environments? The definition of these criteria is crucial, as the gap between the two environments has been defined as an indicator with which to test the degree of misperception.

Let us begin with the presentation of the dimensions of the real environment, keeping in mind that the term real environment includes the totality of conditions and factors that could be relevant to the behavior of the State and that define the constraints within which the policymaker is bound.

In general terms, one can define six dimensions that determine the framework of limitations dictated by the environment.⁶

1. The Ecological Dimension (in the narrow sense): limitations to behavior resulting from geographical, topographical, and climatic elements.

2. The Organizational Dimension: the organizational structure of the environment. This dimension deals with questions such as: How many poles has the global system? What international organizations exist? What are the areas of their activity? What is the degree of their influence? The answers to these and other questions set the limitations resulting from the organizational content of the environment.

3. The Reinforcement Dimensions (Reward and Punishment): What are the reinforcements that the environment provides for different forms of behavior? For example, is an aggressive state punished (or sanctioned) by international organizations? Or is aggression received complacently by nations not directly harmed by it? The existence or nonexistence of reinforcement may in itself act as a limitation on certain kinds of behavior.

4. The Normative Dimension: The system of values, beliefs, norms, and dominant aspirations may act as a limitation on behavior that contradicts that system. Significantly, this normative dimension may also contribute to, or be part of, the reinforcement dimension of the environment, as a factor encouraging or deterring certain kinds of behavior.

5. The Commitment Dimension: with reference to behavioral patterns to which an actor is bound by being part of or related to specific political entities. Thus, partnership within an alliance demands certain types of behavior toward the partner, and a different sort toward those outside the alliance. Membership in an organization such as the United Nations, for example, demands, at least nominally, the adoption of specific standards, and any deviation from them requires explanation or self-justification.

6. The Power Dimension: The components of power (economic, military, and so on) may determine which kinds of behavior are possible and which are not.

How the policymaker perceives these dimensions is of crucial importance, as it affects the choice of behavior and, once a policy is chosen, how it fits the set of real or illusory limitations.

The ability of the actor to respond to these limitations, that is, to change them, is dependent on the following factors:

1. The power of the actor in question. Super powers have fewer environmental limitations, and their ability to mould the environment, or parts of it, is greater than that of smaller states.

2. The nature and quality of a said behavior. The effect of large-scale war on the environment is often greater than that of diplomatic moves, in terms of changing the structure of the environmental balance of constraints.

3. The nature and quality of the various elements comprising the environment. There are some elements in the environment that are more flexible than others and that, as a result, allow for more deviations from the limitations set at a given time. There are other more rigid elements as well, which dictate very difficult or unchangeable limitations over a foreseeable period. For example, if we examine the current global system, we find that the nuclear military power balance between the two super powers dictates the limitations defined earlier as rigid, and it does not seem that they can be changed in the near future. For such change would necessitate that one of the super powers achieve a significant technological breakthrough, of a kind that would guarantee it first-strike capability and the ability to survive any counterattack. On the other hand, there is a still more flexible aspect of the nuclear nature of the global system, namely, the number of nations having a nuclear military option. That number has changed over time.

If we summarize the three factors, we could say that the implications of the reciprocal relations between the environment and the actor are a function of the actor’s attributes, the attributes of his acts, and the nature of the relevant environmental attributes. An understanding of these factors is crucially important in the actor’s estimation of the extent to which he can change the environment or to which he can prevent it from becoming an obstacle in the implementation of his decision and goal achievement.

The psychological environment is a reflection of reality in the policymaker’s mind, but it is also functional:

Perceiving is goal-directed behavior. The goal of perception, in its broadest sense, is the construction of a meaningful behavioral environment—an environment congruent with “reality” on the one hand and the needs and the disposition of the organism on the other (Postman and Bruner, 1948, 314).

Thus, in order for the psychological environment to perform efficiently and thereby satisfy the policymaker’s basic needs, it may at times be oversimplified or distorted.

The perceptual totality is made up of two layers: one of background attributes, and the other containing the definition of the specific contents of the environment. There is an interaction and reciprocal influence within and between the layers. This interface, as we shall see, is an important source of misperceptions, as the final concept is an outcome of the mutual relations between these two layers. Moreover, the interaction between the first layer and the second necessarily dictates the nature of the dynamics in the conceptual system. This point will be enlarged upon later in our discussion.

The first layer includes the following elements:⁷

• The spatial factor, which determines the actor’s definition of his own locale. For example, do Israeli policymakers see Israel as belonging to Asia or to Europe? Do Indian policymakers perceive India as part of the developing nations?
• The temporal factor, which determines how each actor sees time and its implications for his behavior. Is the passage of time perceived as neutral, as acting against, or as acting in his favor? Does he estimate that he has much time in which to make a choice or does he feel that he is pressured for time?
• The interaction factor, which determines the basic perception of the mutual relations between the actor and his environment, such as the extent to which the international environment is one of constant struggle, hostile or friendly, changeable or fixed. This factor, of course, determines conclusions and anticipations as to the results of alternatives modes of behavior.⁸
• The affective factor, which determines the feelings of the actor toward the object of perception.
• The value factor, which determines the hierarchy of values used to evaluate the object of perception. This hierarchy falls along a scale ranging from what is morally good to what is morally bad.⁹
• The individual-public factor, which determines the extent to which the individual’s perception is shared by the collective to which he belongs.¹⁰
• The level-of-uncertainty factor, which determines the degree of the actor’s faith in his perception, which in turn determines how resistant his perception is to change.
• The consciousness factor, which determines to what degree there are elements in the image of which the individual is not wholly conscious. The greater the number of such elements, the more difficult it is to prevent or correct perceptual distortion.
• The internalization-externalization factor, which determines whether the image is concerned with the self or with others.

There may certainly be connections and mutual influences and reinforcements among the various dimensions of the image.¹¹ Thus, for example, the affective factor, the estimation of a certain object as liked or disliked, may be influenced by the ethical factor. It might also be that the degree of uncertainty may be influenced by the individual-public factor, that is, by the extent to which the image is supported by the identical images of others.

As for the specific contents of the envir...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Dedication
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• 1 Misperceptions: Sources and Processes—A Theory
• 2 The Issue
• 3 The Global International Environment
• 4 The Regional Environment
• 5 The Internal Environment
• 6 The Bilateral Environment
• 7 The Perceptual Framework: An Overview and Some Puzzles
• 8 Information: Type, Flow, and Handling
• 9 The Impact of Cultural, Social, and National Attributes
• 10 Nehru’s Personality
• 11 Interpersonal and Interorganizational Relations
• 12 Theory and the Case Study
• Statistical Appendix
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index