Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Change Preferences
Sign In
X (Twitter)
When do self-oriented credibility concerns emerge in foreign policy decision making? And how do they limit or alter policymakers’ options? Though credibility is a ubiquitous buzzword in U.S. foreign relations, scholars have until recently lacked the tools to systematically theorize and analyze the conditions under which credibility concerns become salient for policymakers or how cognitive biases shape the scope or severity of these concerns. While historical episodes such as the Vietnam War offer evidence that credibility concerns both drove U.S. officials toward initial escalation and shaped their strategies for pulling out, there has been little research on when and how self-oriented credibility concerns manifest outside of high-stakes bargaining settings. Scholars have vigorously debated how states and leaders draw conclusions about others’ credi- bility, but have rarely probed how actors make these inferences about themselves – suggesting that credibility matters, yet offering sparse guidance on when, to and about whom, or how these concerns may flow through to policy choices. Building on the psychology of self-assessment, I theorize that self-oriented credibility concerns are both a subjective judgment about one’s ability to maintain commitments and a cognitive shortcut for focusing attention. In combination, this leads decision makers to take perceived threats to credibility seriously while unmooring their assessments from factors that theoretically contribute to credibility, such as demonstrated capabilities and communicated interests. Using text analysis of archival data from the U.S. State Department, I explore the underlying determinants of these self-perceptions. And in a case study of the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction (MBFR) negotiations, I show how self-oriented credibility concerns limited U.S. decision makers’ options in practice.