The research in international relations suggests emotions and emotional responses can promote confrontation – or cooperation.
If you’ve watched one of Donald Trump’s rallies, you’ve seen how often he seems angry. Although there is no evidence at all for his accusations, he regularly rails against Kamala Harris for having turned America into a hellish landscape over the last few years, and warns of even worse to come if she is elected president.
In other words, he’s very emotional.
That leads to two questions: First, as a presidential candidate, does it matter if Trump is genuinely emotional or just acting? Second, if he is genuinely emotional, how would this affect his foreign policy should he be elected president?
The answer to the first question is that it does not. Whether an act or a true emotion – or both– the research suggests the effect is the same. But on the second question, yes, it matters a great deal to foreign policy.
Emotions can be useful for decision-making
Being emotional isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Emotions are not more or less likely to undermine good decision-making, or lead to problematic decisions, than cognitive processes. In fact, our ability to think “rationally” is much more circumscribed than commonly thought. Emotional decision-making, for instance, can help us avoid risky behavior.
And there is plenty of evidence that non-emotional psychological processes shape decision-making in negative ways. Examples include misperceptions of others’ intentions; using analogies to assume that two events are the same and require the same policy response, when in fact they are very different; and “groupthink,” the shrinking of policy options because small-group dynamics promote an unhealthy emphasis on unanimity rather than a variety of policy options.
Defining emotions in international relations
Scholars have, over the last 25 years, developed a large body of literature on how emotions matter for international relations. There is little consensus, though, on what emotions are, or how they matter. Many of us instinctively “feel” that emotions matter – how often do we lash out in anger, run away in shame, behave optimistically out of joy? In studying international relations, it’s important to carefully trace the emergence of emotions, their influence on decision-making, and their effects. Understanding the role of emotions will help observers better explain the motivations for and influences on foreign policy decisions. And this clarity also helps policymakers prepare for their interactions with leaders and officials from other countries.
Drawing from biology, neural science, psychology, and sociology, political scientists disagree over whether emotions emerge from biological imperatives, neural patterns, cognitive processes, or social–cultural environments. Depending on the source of the emotion, there may be different types of policy outcomes.
Scholars have also studied the many different facets of emotions. There are discrete emotions, like anger, fear, or pride. There are valence feelings like affect that serve as broad constraints on decision-making, pushing leaders to see their actions on a spectrum from good to bad. Also in the mix are emotion-adjacent feeling states like Schadenfreude and nostalgia.
Emotions are one tool of foreign policy
This lack of consensus hasn’t prevented the development of research that explores the role of emotions under various conditions. In world affairs, emotional states matter in one of two ways. One, emotions are instrumental tools that diplomats and others actively use to promote their country’s interests around the world. Two, emotions can also be unintentional consequences of external or internal stimuli that then shape how leaders make decisions, and the resulting policy outcomes.
Research suggests that emotions can serve as important tools in a diplomat’s toolkit. Public statements, speeches, and interviews are all ways that officials can tell observers exactly how they feel. The display of emotions conveys a specific meaning about how that feeling represents their country’s priorities.
Diplomats and other spokespersons can display particular emotions as a direct means of communication. To show anger, for example, an individual might shout, bang their fist on the table, or impatiently shift their body back and forth in their seats. All of these actions tell those in the room how the individual feels, and that any policy reaction might be conditioned on that feeling.
Anger sends a clear message
During the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1995-1996, China used language that showed the Americans how emotional they were about the possibility that Taiwan might declare itself a separate country from China. The purposeful use of angry language was combined with belligerent military maneuvers that in the end helped convince U.S. officials they needed to reinforce their support for the One China policy. This move, in turn, allowed China to back down from threats against Taiwan.
The face-to-face interactions that are the foundation for relationships between countries also means that government officials are up close to their counterparts from other countries, able to see how they react to proposals or people.
Some research has demonstrated that during social contact, the neurons in our brains serve as signaling mechanisms to our counterparts. The neurons can prompt us to mirror each other, as we process and simulate each other’s physical actions. This leads to empathy that can facilitate cooperative behavior.
The nature of the relationship between countries can also affect leaders’ emotions. One study has shown, for example, that during periods of cooperation between Bolivia and Chile, leaders’ emotions were different than during periods of intense rivalry. This can reinforce or change existing foreign policy.
How emotional reactions shape foreign policy decision-making
Emotions don’t exist in a vacuum. The national, local, and historical context helps determine how they matter. Government officials are normally steeped in their country’s cultural practices. Often, these practices are rooted in collective memories of past glories and traumas. In this way, history and culture can provide ready-made decision-making maps.
For example, where collective memories of past trauma suffuse a country’s cultural practices, they may constrain decision-makers or push them to specific policy responses. Israel’s reaction to the Oct. 7, 2023, attack is one example of this. Revenge is a common theme in Israel’s use of force to respond to provocations and threats, but it has also been used to explain the humiliation in America’s reaction to the 9/11 attacks.
Other research has shown how changing interpretations of collective memories can prompt new emotional reactions that open up possibilities for new identities and foreign policy priorities. As Serbia, Croatia, and Lithuania sought to join the European Union in the 2000s, E.U. officials told them to adapt to western European memories of the Holocaust. These memories served to hold countries accountable for the crimes they committed against the Jewish people.
But western European perspectives of the Holocaust clashed with those of eastern European countries, where many citizens had joined the murder of the Jews. This triggered widespread anxiety in Serbia, Croatia, and Lithuania. Instead of remembering their role in the Holocaust, these countries sought to absolve themselves of responsibility by glorifying the violence committed by fascist groups against Communists as an alternate form of resistance. This contributed to the legitimization of fascist ideas, and to the electoral successes of right-wing parties and individuals.
Trump’s emotions will likely guide his foreign policy
The diversity of research on emotions in international affairs provides several ways to consider how leaders make foreign policy. Thinking of Donald Trump again, this research suggests that if he does become president, his penchant for anger and resentment will guide how he acts toward other leaders. This would undoubtedly weaken the successful practice of U.S. foreign policy and, thus, America’s position in the world.
When faced with negative comments about him or when events portray him as inferior to his rivals, Trump tends to react immediately and with anger, without careful deliberation. This indicates that if American allies move in directions that he opposes – favoring environmental or economic cooperation, for instance – Trump’s emotional reactions could cause serious damage to America’s relationships with its partners and friends.
Brent E. Sasley is a 2024-2025 Good Authority fellow.
The post In foreign policy, leaders’ emotions matter a great deal appeared first on Good Authority.