This manuscript addresses an important empirical regularity: Why are revolutionary leaders more likely to initiate conflict? With the goal of explaining this regularity, I offer an identity-driven model of decision making that can explain why certain leaders are more likely to take risky gambles. Broadly, this manuscript provides a different model of decision making that emphasizes emotion and identity as key to explain decision making. I offer a plausibility probe of the identity-driven model with four in-depth case studies: The initiation of the Iran-Iraq War, the initiation of the Gulf War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the start of the Korean War. I use the congruence method and process tracing to test the plausibility probe. I find strong support in two cases—the initiation of the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War—and mixed support for the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Korean War.
Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:uoregon.edu/oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/24192 |
Date | 11 January 2019 |
Creators | Van Orden, Patrick |
Contributors | Vu, Tuong |
Publisher | University of Oregon |
Source Sets | University of Oregon |
Language | en_US |
Detected Language | English |
Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
Rights | Creative Commons BY 4.0-US |
Page generated in 0.0014 seconds