Third Annual Jervis Conference Brings Together Leaders in Political Science, Psychology of International Relations, and Neuroscience

The Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, along with multiple cosponsors, hosted “Directions Forward for Psychology in International Relations: The Third Annual Conference in Honor of Robert Jervis” on January 30-31, convening top scholars, experts, and former US State Department officials to honor the late Columbia University political scientist Robert Jervis, a leader in the study of the psychology of international relations. The conference featured panel discussions and workshops that examined a range of topics, including how advancements in neuroscience and the psychology of emotions can improve our understanding of timely concerns such as nuclear deterrence, military escalation risks, and peace negotiations. 

Many of the speakers were former students and colleagues of Jervis who reflected on his profound impact on their research. SIPA Dean Keren Yarhi-Milo shared that she was “a proud student of Jervis,” and recalled how his work on state image and leader misperception shaped her own work. 

The first day’s panels delved into how political psychology shapes leaders’ decisions. Former US policymakers shared their experiences, illustrating the challenges leaders face in decision-making and how perceptions influence policy decisions. Former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and SIPA professor Victoria Nuland discussed the psychological considerations in shaping foreign policy. As a key figure in the US response to the Ukraine crisis, she explained how the US declassified intelligence about Russia’s 2021 invasion to alter European perceptions and help build trust with US allies on the continent. 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke with Yarhi-Milo in a fireside chat hosted by the Institute of Global Politics (IGP). Clinton, IGP Faculty Advisory Board Chair and SIPA professor, reflected on the psychological dynamics of interacting with adversaries, such as Russian president Vladimir Putin. She recalled how frequent, direct engagements with Putin were crucial in giving her a greater depth of information to explain his decisions and better understand the complexities of his motivations. 

The conference’s second day featured a series of workshops with scholars, experts, and policymakers. One workshop focused on “unresolved conceptual issues in the psychology of international relations,” touching on groupthink versus individual decision-making in foreign policy. In another workshop, panelists discussed using cognitive psychology, biology, and social psychology to develop a more comprehensive understanding of political dynamics on the global stage. 

In a workshop centered on the interplay among reputation, status, and morality in international relations, participants spoke about the importance of understanding how moral psychology shapes perceptions of credibility, resolve, and the dynamics of conflict and cooperation. Brian Rathbun, a political scientist at the University of Toronto, argued that human morality is essential for social cooperation, but can also “give rise to in-group loyalty and the moral condemnation” of perceived adversaries. This moral framing, he suggested, contributes to the longevity of conflicts as leaders struggle to reason with those they deem immoral.

A later panel probed the role of emotions in shaping political processes and outcomes. Speakers shared personal anecdotes about the mobilizing power of emotions, with Roger Petersen, the Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science Emeritus at MIT, recounting his experience in Lithuania during the Soviet crackdown in 1991. However, the panelists also acknowledged the limitations of relying solely on emotions, emphasizing that emotions may play a crucial role in the initial stages of political mobilization, but require additional organizational support to sustain long-term movements.

A final workshop explored the intersections between neuroscience and the field of international relations, which featured Dr. Daphna Shohamy, director and CEO of Columbia’s Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute and Marika Landau-Wells, a social scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies the effects of cognitive processes on political behavior. Landau-Wells discussed her research on threat perception, advocating for a brain-based perspective. 

Shohami discussed how advances in brain imaging technology have challenged traditional views of cognition and emotion as separate systems, showing their integrated and interactive nature. This shift, she said, has important implications for understanding human behavior and decision-making in international relations. 

Landau-Wells and Shohami noted the challenges and opportunities in connecting the disciplines of neuroscience and international relations, stressing that as the fields continue to evolve, finding new ways to leverage interdisciplinary insights will be crucial. Reflecting on the difficulty of meaningful collaboration among scholars of psychology, political science, and neuroscience, Shohami said: "It's really difficult, but I think seeing the legacy of Bob Jervis, it's also really, really worth it, [as it brings a new lens and a new way of thinking]."

“Directions Forward for Psychology in International Relations: The Third Annual Conference in Honor of Robert Jervis” on January 30-31 was sponsored by The Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies (SIWPS) and the Institute of Global Politics (IGP) at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs; the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISERP) at Columbia University; the Institute of Political Science and Policy at the University of St. Gallen; and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto. Columbia University Seminars was also a sponsor for the second day of the conference.