• Home
  • About RSIS
    • Introduction
    • Building the Foundations
    • Welcome Message
    • Board of Governors
    • Staff Profiles
      • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
      • Dean’s Office
      • Management
      • Distinguished Fellows
      • Faculty and Research
      • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
      • Visiting Fellows
      • Adjunct Fellows
      • Administrative Staff
    • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
    • RSIS Endowment Fund
    • Endowed Professorships
    • Career Opportunities
    • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
    • Research Centres
      • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
      • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
      • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • About RSIS
      • Introduction
      • Building the Foundations
      • Welcome Message
      • Board of Governors
      • Staff Profiles
        • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
        • Dean’s Office
        • Management
        • Distinguished Fellows
        • Faculty and Research
        • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
        • Visiting Fellows
        • Adjunct Fellows
        • Administrative Staff
      • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
      • RSIS Endowment Fund
      • Endowed Professorships
      • Career Opportunities
      • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
      • Research Centres
        • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
        • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
        • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
    RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
    instagram instagram rsis.sg
      RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO13102 | Iran’s Nuclear Behaviour: A Behavioural Science Perspective
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO13102 | Iran’s Nuclear Behaviour: A Behavioural Science Perspective
    Teo Chang Hang

    28 May 2013

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Synopsis

    With no agreement in sight between the international community and Iran on its nuclear programme and time running out on a peaceful resolution to the issue, behavioural science can lend useful insights to better understand the choices made by key decision-makers and inform the deliberation of policymakers.

    Commentary

    TIME IS running out on a peaceful resolution to Iran’s nuclear issue, with no agreement in sight between the international community and Iran on its nuclear programme and Israel agitating for military action. Amid this pressing environment behavioural science can lend useful insights to better understand the choices made by key decision-makers and to inform the deliberations and responses of policymakers.

    Behavioural scientists have identified two related phenomena in this regard – loss aversion and risk aversion. Loss aversion, first raised in a 1979 study by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, refers to the phenomenon whereby people prefer avoiding losses to winning gains of similar magnitude. The tendency to avert losses means that convincing Tehran’s policymakers to disarm after acquiring a nuclear weapon would constitute a more difficult task than preventing them from acquiring a nuclear weapon in the first place.

    Encouraging risk aversion or risk seeking?

    It is instructive that with the sole exception of South Africa, no country has ever given up nuclear weapons after having developed them. This is consistent with the endowment effect, in which one values a good that one owns more than the same good that one does not own; as well as the status quo bias, in which decision-makers disproportionately tend to adhere to the status quo alternative.

    In the same study, Kahneman and Tversky also discussed how we are psychologically predisposed to risk aversion in the domain of gains and risk seeking in the domain of losses. Through this lens, does the international community want to induce in Iran’s leaders a risk- averse or a risk-seeking mentality? It follows that the various punitive sanctions that have been imposed on Iran may well have the undesired effect of making them more risk-seeking.

    After the February 2013 talks in Kazakhstan, a group of lawmakers in Washington announced new legislation to tighten United States sanctions on Iran. The US and the international community should exercise caution in imposing sanctions to avoid increasing the risk-seeking behaviour that this is likely to generate in Tehran.

    The same psychological disposition of risk aversion may also inform the way the international community’s policymakers frame the tradeoffs for Iran’s decision-makers. With a greater aversion to a loss than a propensity for the same magnitude of gains, it might be more effective for future concessions to be framed as “it’s yours, but you lose it if you violate the terms of the agreement” rather than “it’s yours, if you follow the terms”.

    Behavioural science explanation of Iran’s nuclear desire

    In looking at how behavioural science explains Iran’s desire for a nuclear programme, the ultimatum game shows the lengths that actors go, even to the detriment of their own wellbeing, to enforce a sense of fairness. Fairness is one of the justifications Iran uses in support of its nuclear programme – it has consistently claimed its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. And if it were seeking nuclear weapons, fairness would certainly be a key rationale, given that Israel is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

    The notion of fairness has further implications. There is little doubt that if Iran does acquire nuclear capabilities, its adversaries in the region would clamour for the same, in the name of their own security and nuclear parity. Like the price-taker in the ultimatum game, other actors in the region might act punitively – perhaps even against their own self-interest – in the name of fairness. In considering its own nuclear programme, Tehran would do well to take note of the volatility it would bring about in its neighbourhood.

    It cannot discount the possibility of its own acquisition causing the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the region or other dangerous retaliatory responses on the part of other regional players.

    ‘More may be better’

    Political commentators such as Kenneth Waltz have suggested that nuclear weapons foster stability, and that “more may be better”. Not so when behavioural science finds that decision- makers committed to a course of action tend to continue this commitment beyond the bounds of rationality. More nuclear weapons just means that more cool heads – those that recognise and are able to act against this natural tendency to escalate – are needed to limit nuclear escalation. Unfortunately, it also means a lower threshold for strategic nuclear over-escalation.

    Making a rare venture into international politics, Kahneman, a psychologist by vocation, in 2006 explained in Foreign Policy from a behavioural science perspective why hawks tend to dominate the doves in decision-making. Even if this will not put an end to the world’s crises, he expressed hope that understanding the biases in decision-making would at least level the playing field between the hawks and the doves.

    On the Iran nuclear issue I echo an analogous hope that behavioural science can at least nudge policymakers to great understanding of Iran’s decision-making, and ultimately to better-informed responses and policies.

    About the Author

    Teo Chang Hang is an Edward S Mason Fellow in Public Policy and Management completing the mid-career Master in Public Administration programme at the Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government. Teo was previously Assistant Director (Special Projects) in the Ministry of Defence, Singapore and Lieutenant-Colonel in the Republic of Singapore Air Force. This article first appeared in the Fletcher Forum of World Affairs.

    Categories: Commentaries /

    Last updated on 18/09/2014

    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Synopsis

    With no agreement in sight between the international community and Iran on its nuclear programme and time running out on a peaceful resolution to the issue, behavioural science can lend useful insights to better understand the choices made by key decision-makers and inform the deliberation of policymakers.

    Commentary

    TIME IS running out on a peaceful resolution to Iran’s nuclear issue, with no agreement in sight between the international community and Iran on its nuclear programme and Israel agitating for military action. Amid this pressing environment behavioural science can lend useful insights to better understand the choices made by key decision-makers and to inform the deliberations and responses of policymakers.

    Behavioural scientists have identified two related phenomena in this regard – loss aversion and risk aversion. Loss aversion, first raised in a 1979 study by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, refers to the phenomenon whereby people prefer avoiding losses to winning gains of similar magnitude. The tendency to avert losses means that convincing Tehran’s policymakers to disarm after acquiring a nuclear weapon would constitute a more difficult task than preventing them from acquiring a nuclear weapon in the first place.

    Encouraging risk aversion or risk seeking?

    It is instructive that with the sole exception of South Africa, no country has ever given up nuclear weapons after having developed them. This is consistent with the endowment effect, in which one values a good that one owns more than the same good that one does not own; as well as the status quo bias, in which decision-makers disproportionately tend to adhere to the status quo alternative.

    In the same study, Kahneman and Tversky also discussed how we are psychologically predisposed to risk aversion in the domain of gains and risk seeking in the domain of losses. Through this lens, does the international community want to induce in Iran’s leaders a risk- averse or a risk-seeking mentality? It follows that the various punitive sanctions that have been imposed on Iran may well have the undesired effect of making them more risk-seeking.

    After the February 2013 talks in Kazakhstan, a group of lawmakers in Washington announced new legislation to tighten United States sanctions on Iran. The US and the international community should exercise caution in imposing sanctions to avoid increasing the risk-seeking behaviour that this is likely to generate in Tehran.

    The same psychological disposition of risk aversion may also inform the way the international community’s policymakers frame the tradeoffs for Iran’s decision-makers. With a greater aversion to a loss than a propensity for the same magnitude of gains, it might be more effective for future concessions to be framed as “it’s yours, but you lose it if you violate the terms of the agreement” rather than “it’s yours, if you follow the terms”.

    Behavioural science explanation of Iran’s nuclear desire

    In looking at how behavioural science explains Iran’s desire for a nuclear programme, the ultimatum game shows the lengths that actors go, even to the detriment of their own wellbeing, to enforce a sense of fairness. Fairness is one of the justifications Iran uses in support of its nuclear programme – it has consistently claimed its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. And if it were seeking nuclear weapons, fairness would certainly be a key rationale, given that Israel is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

    The notion of fairness has further implications. There is little doubt that if Iran does acquire nuclear capabilities, its adversaries in the region would clamour for the same, in the name of their own security and nuclear parity. Like the price-taker in the ultimatum game, other actors in the region might act punitively – perhaps even against their own self-interest – in the name of fairness. In considering its own nuclear programme, Tehran would do well to take note of the volatility it would bring about in its neighbourhood.

    It cannot discount the possibility of its own acquisition causing the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the region or other dangerous retaliatory responses on the part of other regional players.

    ‘More may be better’

    Political commentators such as Kenneth Waltz have suggested that nuclear weapons foster stability, and that “more may be better”. Not so when behavioural science finds that decision- makers committed to a course of action tend to continue this commitment beyond the bounds of rationality. More nuclear weapons just means that more cool heads – those that recognise and are able to act against this natural tendency to escalate – are needed to limit nuclear escalation. Unfortunately, it also means a lower threshold for strategic nuclear over-escalation.

    Making a rare venture into international politics, Kahneman, a psychologist by vocation, in 2006 explained in Foreign Policy from a behavioural science perspective why hawks tend to dominate the doves in decision-making. Even if this will not put an end to the world’s crises, he expressed hope that understanding the biases in decision-making would at least level the playing field between the hawks and the doves.

    On the Iran nuclear issue I echo an analogous hope that behavioural science can at least nudge policymakers to great understanding of Iran’s decision-making, and ultimately to better-informed responses and policies.

    About the Author

    Teo Chang Hang is an Edward S Mason Fellow in Public Policy and Management completing the mid-career Master in Public Administration programme at the Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government. Teo was previously Assistant Director (Special Projects) in the Ministry of Defence, Singapore and Lieutenant-Colonel in the Republic of Singapore Air Force. This article first appeared in the Fletcher Forum of World Affairs.

    Categories: Commentaries

    Last updated on 18/09/2014

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
    OK
    Latest Book
    CO13102 | Iran’s Nuclear Behaviour: A Behavioural Science Perspective

    Synopsis

    With no agreement in sight between the international community and Iran on its nuclear programme and time running out on ...
    more info