Cognitive Biases About Violence as a Negotiating Tactic
Interesting paper: Max Abrahms, “The Credibility Paradox: Violence as a Double-Edged Sword in International Politics,” International Studies Quarterly, 2013:
Abstract: Implicit in the rationalist literature on bargaining over the last half-century is the political utility of violence. Given our anarchical international system populated with egoistic actors, violence is thought to promote concessions by lending credibility to their threats. From the vantage of bargaining theory, then, empirical research on terrorism poses a puzzle. For non-state actors, terrorism signals a credible threat in comparison to less extreme tactical alternatives. In recent years, however, a spate of studies across disciplines and methodologies has nonetheless found that neither escalating to terrorism nor with terrorism encourages government concessions. In fact, perpetrating terrorist acts reportedly lowers the likelihood of government compliance, particularly as the civilian casualties rise. The apparent tendency for this extreme form of violence to impede concessions challenges the external validity of bargaining theory, as traditionally understood. In this study, I propose and test an important psychological refinement to the standard rationalist narrative. Via an experiment on a national sample of adults, I find evidence of a newfound cognitive heuristic undermining the coercive logic of escalation enshrined in bargaining theory. Due to this oversight, mainstream bargaining theory overestimates the political utility of violence, particularly as an instrument of coercion.
TheDoctor • October 25, 2013 7:19 AM
Easy answer:
There are two forms of terrorism
– “grassroot” terrorism
– (foreign) state sponsored terrorism
The first are in most cases freedom fighters (for their people), and terrorists (for the oppressor). The wiser of this type fight against the leaders/police/military and at maximum agaist the economic base of the oppressor.
The latter fight against the population because this in itself as well as the (over)reaction of the state disrupts the fabric of the state they are attacking. So the real goal is not the frontline cause these terrorist are fighting for but the hidden cause of the sponsoring state to disrupt their enemy.