A Psychotherapist’s View of Decision-Making: Implications for Peaceful Negotiations



The potential value of nurturing an ongoing Socratic dialogue between political leaders and “experts” in the fields of decision-making and cognitive behavioral therapy is explored. It is proposed that a decision-making consultant, who uses evidence-based interventions and strategies, can educate and inform political leaders on a preventative basis. These techniques would include establishing, maintaining, and monitoring the quality of the consultative relationship; conducting psychoeducation about possible cognitive errors or “thinking traps” that may inadvertently contribute to choosing violent options; employing motivational interviewing procedures; and teaching decision-making skills such as employing and conducting barrier analyses (possible influence of sacred values).


Political Leader Cognitive Error Peace Negotiation Faulty Cognitive Process Negotiation Position 


  1. Aquilar, F., & Galluccio, M. (2008). Psychological processes in international negotiations: Theoretical and practical perspectives. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aquilar, F., & Galluccio, M. (2011). Psychological and political strategies for peace negotiations. A cognitive approach. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atran, S., & Axelrod, R. (2008). Reframing sacred values. Negotiation Journal, 24, 224–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, J. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, A. T. (1999). Prisoners of hate. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  6. Dallaire, R. (2003). Shake hands with the devil: The failure of humanity in Rwanda. Toronto: Random House Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the Middle East, the schoolyard, the racial divide, and will power. American Psychologist, 67, 614–622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellis, A. (1992). Rational emotive approaches to peace. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 6, 79–104.Google Scholar
  9. Faure, G. O. (2011). Escalation of images in international conflicts. In F. Aquilar & M. Galluccio (Eds.), Psychological and political strategies for peace negotiation (pp. 99–115). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galluccio, M. (2011). Transformational leadership for peace negotiation. In F. Aquilar & M. Galluccio (Eds.), Psychological and political strategies for peace negotiations. A cognitive approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Gawande, A. (2009). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
  12. Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., Shikaki, K., Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 7357–7360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ginges, J., Atran, S., Sachdeva, S., & Medin, D. (2011). Psychology out of the laboratory: The challenge of violent extremism. American Psychologist, 66, 507–519.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halperin, E., Russell, A., Trzesniewski, K., Gross, J. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2011). Promoting the Middle East peace process by changing beliefs about group malleability. Science, 333, 1767–1769.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janis, I. L. (1982). Group think: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  16. Janis, I. L. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1987). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kelman, H. C. (2002). Interactive problem solving: Informal mediation by the scholar-practitioner. In J. Bercovitch (Ed.), Studies in international mediation (pp. 167–193). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  20. Kremenyuk, V. (Ed.). (2002). International negotiation (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Meichenbaum, D. (2007). Stress inoculation training: A preventative and treatment approach. In P. M. Lehrer, R. I. Woolfolk, & W. E. Sime (Eds.), Principles and practice of stress management (pp. 497–518). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  22. Meichenbaum, D. (2011). Ways to improve political decision-making: Negotiating errors to be avoided. In F. Aguilar & M. Galluccio (Eds.), Psychological and political strategies for peace negotiations: A cognitive approach (pp. 87–98). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meichenbaum, D. (2012). Roadmap to resilience: A guide for military, trauma victims and their families. Clearwater, FL: Institute Press.Google Scholar
  24. Pruitt, D. G. (2011). Communication preliminary to negotiation in intractable conflict. In F. Aquilar & M. Galluccio (Eds.), Psychological and political strategies for peace negotiation (pp. 117–129). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2002). Why smart people can be so stupid. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Tetlock, P., Kristal, O., Elson, S., Green, M., & Lerner, J. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo tradeoffs, forbidden base rates and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853–870.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Thompson, L. L. (Ed.). (2006). Negotiation theory and research. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.The Melissa Institute for Violence PreventionMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations