Cognitive mapping as a technique for supporting international negotiation

This article explores the use of cognitive mapping as a tool for supporting international negotiation. Cognitive mapping was developed from the research tradition in cognitive psychology that was pioneered by Heider, congruity theory and attribution theory. Applied to political analysis, the technique can be used to represent causal and quasi-causal thinking about a specific policy area. Cognitive maps can be hand-drawn, or, in the case of maps consisting of more than 25 concepts, machine-generated for detailed and systematic analysis. Regardless of the format, cognitive maps can be examined to determine the most central concepts, the explanation of a problem in terms of its root causes and potential consequences, the use of evidence, such as historical analogies, internal consistency, and perceived consequences of policy proposals. Although the technique was designed to represent the views of individuals, cognitive maps can be aggregated to study collective decision-making. Applied to international negotiation, the technique can be employed as a substance-focused tool to represent and integrate knowledge about a specific policy area for use by negotiators. As a process-oriented tool, the technique can be used to help negotiators understand better their own assumptions about a problem, the viewpoints of other parties to the negotiations, and the ways others see their own position. In this mode, the technique has promise for promoting convergence of views and negotiated agreements.

[1]  Michael J. Shapiro,et al.  Cognitive Process and Foreign Policy Decision-Making , 1973 .

[2]  Michael J. Shapiro,et al.  A Cognitive Process Model of Foreign Policy Decision-Making , 1976 .

[3]  Michael J. Shapiro,et al.  The October WarChanges in Cognitive Orientation, Toward the Middle East Conflict , 1979 .

[4]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  A Cognitive Analysis of Japan's 1941 Decision for War , 1980 .

[5]  Daniel Heradstveit.  The Arab-Israeli conflict : psychological obstacles to peace , 1983 .

[6]  Michael J. Shapiro,et al.  Cognition and International Negotiation: The Historical Recovery of Discursive Space , 1987 .

[7]  R. Jervis.  Perception and misperception in international politics , 1976 .

[8]  Michael J. Shapiro,et al.  A Cognitive Model of Decision-making: Application to Norwegian Oil Policy , 1978 .

[9]  Dale T. Miller.  Ego involvement and attributions for success and failure. , 1976 .

[10]  Origins of Containment: A Psychological Explanation , 1985 .

[11]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. , 1978 .

[12]  C. Osgood,et al.  The Measurement of Meaning , 1958 .

[13]  Robert A. Reiser,et al.  Group Cognition , 1988 .

[14]  Yaacov Y. I. Vertzberger.  The World in Their Minds: Information Processing, Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decisionmaking , 1990 .

[15]  F. Harary,et al.  STRUCTURAL BALANCE: A GENERALIZATION OF HEIDER'S THEORY1 , 1977 .

[16]  G. Kelly.  The Psychology of Personal Constructs , 2020 .

[17]  V. Sergeev,et al.  Interdependence in a Crisis Situation , 1990 .

[18]  Michael J. Shapiro,et al.  A Discursive Practices Approach to Collective Decision-Making , 1988 .

[19]  F. Heider.  Attitudes and cognitive organization. , 1946, The Journal of psychology.

[20]  E. Tolman.  Cognitive maps in rats and men. , 1948, Psychological review.

[21]  Robert Axelrod,et al.  Argumentation in Foreign Policy Settings , 1977 .

[22]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[23]  G. W. Bradley.  Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. , 1978 .