Unpacking Rationality in Security Studies: Beyond Expected Utility and Towards Enriched Understanding of Strategic Decision-Making
Abstract
The concept of rationality is foundational to the study of international security, often serving as a primary lens through which to analyze state behavior and strategic choices. While expected utility theory has provided a powerful framework for understanding rational decision-making, its limitations in capturing the complexities of real-world security dilemmas have become increasingly apparent. This article critically examines the prevailing definitions of rationality within security studies, particularly the dominance of expected utility theory, and advocates for a more nuanced, theory-driven approach to understanding strategic choices. Through a detailed re-examination of the Vietnam War, this analysis demonstrates how adherence to a narrow definition of rationality can obscure critical insights into policy failures and successes. By integrating insights from behavioral economics, cognitive psychology, and historical analysis, this paper argues for an enriched understanding of rationality that acknowledges the influence of uncertainty, cognitive biases, and the evolving nature of information in strategic environments.
Keywords
Rationality, Security Studies, Expected Utility TheoryHow to Cite
Downloads
References
Achen, Christopher H. 2024. “Realism and Rationality.” Critical Review 36(4), https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2024.2440198.
Betts, Richard K. 2000. “Is Strategy an Illusion?” International Security 25(2): 5-50.
Chang, Welton, Eva Chen, Barbara A. Mellers, and Philip E. Tetlock. 2016. “Developing Expert Political Judgment.” Judgment and Decision Making 11(5): 509-526.
Connable, Ben. 2012. Embracing the Fog of War: Assessment and Metrics in Counterinsurgency. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
De Finetti, Bruno. 1931. “Probabilism,” English translation in Erkenntnis 1989(31): 169-223.
Dhami, Mandeep K. and David R. Mandel. 2021. “Words or Numbers? Communicating Probability in Intelligence Analysis.” American Psychologist 76(3): 549-560.
Friedman, Jeffrey A. 2019. War and Chance: Assessing Uncertainty in International Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, Jeffrey A., Joshua D. Baker, Barbara A. Mellers, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2018. “The Value of Precision in Geopolitical Forecasting.” International Studies Quarterly 62(2): 410-422.
Friedman, Jeffrey A., Jennifer S. Lerner, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2018. “Behavioral Consequences of Probabilistic Precision.” International Organization 71(4): 803-826.
Friedman, Jeffrey A. and Richard Zeckhauser. 2019. “Analytic Confidence and Political Decision-Making: Theoretical Principles and Experimental Evidence from National Security Officials.” Political Psychology 39(5): 1069-1086.
Gelb, Leslie with Richard K. Betts. 1979. The Irony of Vietnam: The System Worked. Washington: Brookings Institution.
Gillies, Donald. 2000. Philosophical Theories of Probability. London: Routledge.
Glaser, Charles. 2010. Rational Theory of International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Stephan Haggard, David A. Lake, and David G. Victor. 2017. “The Behavioral Revolution and International Relations.” International Organization 71(S): S1-S31.
Jeffrey, Richard. 1992. Probability and the Art of Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jervis, Robert. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J. and Lucia A. Seybert. 2017. Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kent, Sherman. 1964. “Words of Estimative Probability.” Studies in Intelligence 8(4): 49-65.
Kydd, Andrew H. 2024. “Realism and Rational Choice.” Critical Review 36(4), https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2025.2450140.
Mandel, David R. and Alan Barnes. 2014. “Accuracy of Forecasts in Strategic Intelligence.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(30): 10984-10989.
Mattis, James N. 2008. “USJCOM Commander’s Guidance for Effects-Based Operations.” Parameters 38(3): 18-25.
McNamara, Robert S. with Brian VanDeMark. 1997. In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. New York: Times Books.
Mearsheimer, John J. and Sebastian Rosato. 2023. How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mellers, Barbara A., Eric Stone, Terry Murray, Angela Minster, Nick Rohrbaugh, Michael Bishop, Eva Chen, Joshua Baker, Yuan Hou, Michael Horowitz, Lyle Unger, and Philip Tetlock. 2015. “Identifying and Cultivating Superforecasters as a Method of Improving Probabilistic Predictions.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(3): 267-281.
Miller, Nicholas L. 2022. “Learning to Predict Proliferation.” International Organization 76(2): 487-507.
National Intelligence Council. 2005. Estimative Products on Vietnam, 1948-1975. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Pratt, John W., Howard Raiffa, and Robert Schlaiffer. 1995. Introduction to Statistical Decision Theory. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Raiffa, Howard. 1968. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ramsey, Frank P. 1926. “Truth and Probability” reprinted in H. E. Kyburg and H. E. Smokler (eds.), Studies in Subjective Probability (New York: Wiley, 1964): 61-92.
Rathbun, Brian C. 2019. Reasoning of State: Realists, Romantics, and Rationality in International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Satopää, Ville A., Jonathan Baron, Dean P. Foster, Barbara A. Mellers, Philip E. Tetlock, and Lyle H. Ungar. 2014. “Combining Multiple Probability Predictions Using a Simple Logit Model.” International Journal of Forecasting 30: 344-356.
Copyright (c) 2025 Dr. Emily Harper (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
