Decision-Making in U.S. Foreign Policy Crises: Presidential Leadership and Outcomes

• Author: Jonathan W. Keller,Yi Edward Yang,Patrick James
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211013893
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211013893

Political Research Quarterly

© 2021 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10659129211013893

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Overview

Scholars of foreign policy decision-making have argued

that international interactions ultimately are grounded in

people acting singly or in groups (Breuning 2007; Garrison

2010; Hudson 2005; Hudson and Vore 1995; Schafer and

Crichlow 2010). As a result, their theories and hypotheses

have introduced factors such as organizational processes,

bureaucratic politics, individual personality traits, cogni-

tive biases, and group dynamics to explain foreign policy

decisions. Reviews of this research, under the umbrella of

foreign policy analysis, confirm great accomplishments

(Hudson 2005, 2007; Neack, Hey, and Haney 1995).

Research on foreign policy decision-making, moreover,

increasingly is finding its way into the Global South as

well as more traditional locations in the Global North

(҉zdamar 2017; Özdamar and Canbolat 2018).

Unfortunately, data limitations prevent many valuable

foreign policy decision-making theories from being

tested rigorously and systematically compared with theo-

ries from alternative perspectives (e.g., theories that focus

on regime type or the structure of the international sys-

tem). Scholars, to remedy the preceding problem, must

undertake a rigorous and systematic effort to introduce,

conceptualize, and code foreign policy decision-making

variables across a large number of cases and integrate

these new variables into existing large-N data sets. For

reasons detailed below, the International Crisis Behavior

(ICB) Project data set is particularly well-suited to this

sort of data integration effort in the realm of foreign pol-

icy decision-making.

Given the priorities noted, the following research

question naturally assumes pride of place:

Research Question: When controlling for structural

or system-level variables, what value-added do deci-

sion-making variables provide in explaining the use of

violence in foreign policy crises?

0

13893PRQXXX10.1177/10659129211013893Political Research QuarterlyKeller et al.

2

021

1James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

2University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA

Corresponding Author:

Yi Edward Yang, Department of Political Science, James Madison

University, 91 East Grace Street, MSC 7705, Harrisonburg, VA 22807,

USA.

Email: yangyx@jmu.edu

Decision-Making in U.S. Foreign Policy

Crises: Presidential Leadership and

Outcomes

Jonathan W. Keller1, Yi Edward Yang1,

and Patrick James2

Abstract

Scholars of foreign policy decision-making have argued that international interactions ultimately are grounded in

people acting singly or in groups. Unfortunately, data limitations prevent many of these crucial foreign policy decision-

making theories from being rigorously tested and systematically compared with theories from alternative perspectives.

A promising approach to remedying this deficiency is the addition of decision-making variables to existing, large-N data

sets. In this study, we coded a series of foreign policy decision-making variables for all U.S. cases in the International

Crisis Behavior (ICB) data set, and examined how these decision-making variables compared with structural factors

in shaping crisis outcomes. The results reveal that when controlling for structural factors such as conflict setting and

power discrepancy, foreign policy decision-making variables related to leaders’ traits, advisory structure, and the

political context shaped the severity and centrality of violence employed by the United States. We conclude that

including decision-making variables alongside structural variables will enhance the quality of data analysis in the areas

of conflict studies and foreign policy analysis.

Keywords

U.S. foreign policy, decision-making, foreign policy, International Crisis Behavior

2022, Vol. 75(3) 562–575

Article