Search results

Students of political psychology have long shown an interest in exploring how analogical reasoning affects decision‐making. However, the existing literature on analogical reasoning has remained within the rationalist explanatory framework by assuming that an actor's interests can be deduced from that actor's position in a certain material structure, thus treating those interests as unaffected by the process of analogical reasoning. This assumption unduly restricts the role that analogies may play. Analogies can do more than simply allow decision‐makers to figure out what specific policies will advance their preexisting interests—they can also determine the interests themselves. To demonstrate the benefits of moving the analogical literature beyond rationalism, this article explores the Reagan administration's policy toward American hostages in Lebanon, which culminated in the Iran‐Contra scandal.

Comparing present and past situations by means of historical analogy is prevalent in political and public discourses. But when researching this phenomenon, scientists often use reception paradigms, where they ask people which past event is most applicable to a current situation or issue. In these paradigms, analogies are treated as unequivocal—rather than flexible—in their meanings. In this paper, we use a production paradigm to examine why European citizens (in France, Belgium, and Germany) selected historical analogies and justified their meanings following the two 2015 terrorist attacks in France. We find that most participants tend to mention a relatively small number of past events, characterized by similarities in time (recent), space (geographically close) and type (terrorist attacks) with the current attacks. However, a multiple correspondence analysis indicates that, even when they overwhelmingly agree about the relevance of a particular event (the attacks of September 11th 2001) for the present situation, participants confer widely varying—even conflicting—meanings to the "same" analogy, which align with different socio-political attitudes. We suggest that these variations do not just represent the emphasis that different participants place on particular sets of similarities between the past and the present attacks: They also embody specific, and conflicting, stances on salient and controversial issues surrounding the topic of contemporary terrorism (e.g., why were 'we' attacked, who deserves to be grieved, how should the government respond). Results are discussed in light of the literature on social representations of both history and terrorism.

Comparing present and past situations by means of historical analogy is prevalent in political and public discourses. But when researching this phenomenon, scientists often use reception paradigms, where they ask people which past event is most applicable to a current situation or issue. In these paradigms, analogies are treated as unequivocal—rather than flexible—in their meanings. In this paper, we use a production paradigm to examine why European citizens (in France, Belgium, and Germany) selected historical analogies and justified their meanings following the two 2015 terrorist attacks in France. We find that most participants tend to mention a relatively small number of past events, characterized by similarities in time (recent), space (geographically close) and type (terrorist attacks) with the current attacks. However, a multiple correspondence analysis indicates that, even when they overwhelmingly agree about the relevance of a particular event (the attacks of September 11th 2001) for the present situation, participants confer widely varying—even conflicting—meanings to the "same" analogy, which align with different socio-political attitudes. We suggest that these variations do not just represent the emphasis that different participants place on particular sets of similarities between the past and the present attacks: They also embody specific, and conflicting, stances on salient and controversial issues surrounding the topic of contemporary terrorism (e.g., why were 'we' attacked, who deserves to be grieved, how should the government respond). Results are discussed in light of the literature on social representations of both history and terrorism. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

Despite the scope of the threat they pose to Mexico's security, violent drug-trafficking organizations are not well understood, and optimal strategies to combat them have not been identified. While there is no perfectly analogous case to Mexico's current security situation, historical case studies may offer lessons for policymakers as they cope with challenges related to violence and corruption in that country.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

"The Role of Analogies in Crisis Decision Making" published on by Oxford University Press.