Poliheuristic theory (PH) bridges the gap between cognitive and rational theories of decision making. PH postulates a two-stage decision process. During the first stage, the set of possible options is reduced by applying a “noncompensatory principle” to eliminate any alternative with an unacceptable return on a critical, typically political, decision dimension. Once the choice set has been reduced to alternatives that are acceptable to the decision maker, the process moves to a second stage, during which the decision maker uses more analytic processing in an attempt to minimize risks and maximize benefits. In this article, the author applies poliheuristic theory to individual, sequential, and interactive decision settings. Subsequent articles in this issue offer theoretical extensions and multiple tests of the theory using multiple methods (formal, statistical, experimental).
Astorino-Courtois, Allison , and Brittani Trusty. 2000. Degrees of difficulty: The effect of Israeli policy shifts on Syrian peace decisions. Journal of Conflict Resolution44 (3): 359-377.
2.
Beach, L. R. , and T. R. Mitchell. 1978. A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review3: 439-449.
3.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce , and David Lalman. 1992. War and reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
Christensen, Eben J. , and Steven B. Redd. 2004. Bureaucrats vs. the ballot box in foreign policy decision making: An experimental analysis of the bureaucratic politics model and the poliheuristic theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution48(1): 69-90.
5.
Clare, Joseph . 2003. Loss aversion and patterns of Israeli-Palestinian interactions: A noncompensatory perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, February, Portland, OR.
6.
Dacey, Raymond , and Lisa J. Carlson. 2004. Traditional decision analysis and the poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making. Journal of Conflict Resolution48(1): 38-55.
7.
DeRouen, Karl . 2001. Politics, economics, and presidential use of force decision making. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
8.
DeRouen, Karl . 2003. The decision not to use force at Dien Bien Phu. In Integrating cognitive and rational theories of foreign policy decision making, edited by Alex Mintz, 11-28. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
DeRouen, Karl , and Christopher Sprecher. 2004. Initial crisis reaction and polihueristic theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution48(1): 56-68.
10.
Eisenband, Dori . 2003. Application of the poliheuristic theory of decision to the political negotiation process. Paper presented at the conference on the Nexus Between Domestic and International Relations, March, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
11.
Goertz, Gary . 2004. Constraints, compromises, and decision making. Journal of Conflict Resolution48(1): 14-37.
12.
Maoz, Zeev , Alex Mintz, T. Clifton Morgan, Glenn Palmer, and Richard Stoll, eds. Forthcoming. Multiple paths to knowledge: Methodology in international relations. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
13.
Mintz, Alex . 1993. The decision to attack Iraq: A noncompensatory theory of decision making. Journal of Conflict Resolution37(4): 595-618.
14.
Mintz, Alex . 1995. The “noncompensatory principle” of coalition formation. Journal of Theoretical Politics7(3): 335-349.
15.
Mintz, Alex . 2000. The poliheuristic theory of decision. Mimeo.
16.
Mintz, Alex . 2003. The method-of-analysis problem in international relations. Photocopy, United Nations Studies, Yale University.
17.
Mintz, Alex . 2004. Foreign policy decision making in familiar and unfamiliar settings: An experimental study of high-ranking military officers. Journal of Conflict Resolution48(1): 91-104.
18.
Mintz, Alex , and Allison Astorino-Courtois. 2001. Simulating decision processes: Expanding the poliheuristic theory to model n-person strategic interactions in international relations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, February, Chicago.
19.
Mintz, Alex , and Nehemia Geva. 1993. Why don’t democracies fight each other? An experimental study. Journal of Conflict Resolution37:484-503.
20.
Mintz, Alex , and Nehemia Geva. 1997. The poliheuristic theory of decision. In Decision making on war and peace: The cognitiverational debate, edited by N. Geva and A. Mintz, 81-101. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
21.
Mintz, Alex , and Nehemia Geva. 1998. A prospect based analysis of war termination. In New directions in the study of international conflict, crisis, and war, edited by F. Harvey and B. Mor. New York: Macmillan.
22.
Mintz, Alex , Nehemia Geva, and Karl DeRouen. 1994. Mathematical models of foreign policy decision making: Compensatory vs. noncompensatory. Synthese100:441-460.
23.
Mintz, Alex , Nehemia Geva, Steven Redd, and Amy Carnes. 1997. The effect of dynamic and static choice sets on political decision making: An analysis using the decision board platform. American Political Science Review91 (3): 553-566.
24.
Mintz, Alex , and Shaul Mishal. 2003. Decision matrixes and outcomes: Explaining Arafat and Sharon’s policy alternatives and dimensions during the intifada. Paper presented at the Gilman Conference on New Directions in International Relations, February, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
25.
Morrow, James . 1997. A rational choice approach to international conflict. In Decision making on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate, edited by N. Geva and A. Mintz, 11-32. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
26.
Ostrom, Charles , and Brian Job. 1986. The president and the political use of force. American Political Science Review80 (2): 541-566.
27.
Payne, John W. , James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson. 1993. The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Redd, Steven B. 2000. The effect of advisors on strategy and choice in foreign policy decision making. Ph.D. diss., Political Science, Texas A&M University.
29.
Redd, Steven B.2003. The poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making: Experimental evidence. In Integrating cognitive and rational theories of foreign policy decision making, edited by Alex Mintz, 101-126. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
Russett, Bruce M. , and Gad Barzilai. 1992. The political economy of military action: The U.S. and Israel. In The political economy of military spending in the United States, edited by A. Mintz. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
31.
Sathasivam, Kanishkan . 2003. “No other choice”: Pakistan’s decision to test the bomb. In Integrating cognitive and rational theories of foreign policy decision making, edited by A. Mintz, 55-76. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
Stern, Eric . 2004. Contextualizing and critiquing the poliheuristic theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution48(1): 105-126.
33.
Stoll, Richard . Forthcoming. Conclusion. In Multiple paths to knowledge: Methodology in international relations, edited by Z. Maoz, A. Mintz, T. C. Morgan, G. Palmer, and R. Stoll. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
34.
Taylor-Robinson, Michelle , and Steven B. Redd. 2003. Framing and the poliheuristic theory of decision. In Integrating cognitive and rational theories of foreign policy decision making, edited by A. Mintz, 77-100. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
Tetlock, Philip E.1992. The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In Advances in experimental social psychology, edited by M. P. Zanna, 331-376. San Diego: Academic Press.
36.
Yang, Yi . 2003. Learning in N-adic strategic interactions: The U.S.-China-India case. Paper presented at the regional graduate student conference, Program in Foreign Policy Decision Making, March, TexasA&M University, College Station, TX.
