Krieg & Frieden
Da die Prädiktion von Krieg und Frieden einen wesentlichen Schwerpunkt unserer Forschung darstellt, werden im folgenden die neuesten Resultate unserer Arbeit vorgestellt (Olbrich & Hergovich, 2001).
A Neural Net for Predicting
War and Peace.
OLBRICH, & A. HERGOVICH,
Department of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria
Since 1945 the international system has changed in a significant manner. After WWII a bipolar world system emerged with two antagonistic super powers, which enlarged their hegemonic influence in the 1950's and 1960's. The decolonialization brought a third power to the system. The states of the Third World and the non-aligned countries resist the superpowers' hegemonic attraction. The rise of this third power strengthens the international and regional organisations (e.g.. U.N.; Rosenau, 1990). After the end of the Cold War and/or beginning of the U.S.S.R's decay these organisations have grown to the most important dispute resolution entities. Today dispute resolution competence is distributed on a wide range of states and institutions. The complex system needs higher analytical abilities. Changes in subsystems have to be analysed and their implications for politics predicted. “Perhaps the most glaring paradox in the current era is that the need for co-ordinated problem-solving on a global scale - in matters of security, economics, and ecology - is arguably greater than ever before, at the same time that global institutional capabilities are diminishing and 'central guidance' mechanisms seem less feasible than in previous historical periods” (Rochester, 1990, p. 141). The prediction of conflicts and also the resolution of disputes are difficult in a complex world.
measurement of integrative complexity assesses the degree to which a person is
found to differentiate and integrate argumentation in information processing.
According to the cognitive manager model it is preferable to gear one’s
efforts to perform the tasks of differentiation and integration so as to adjust
to situational requirements. Complex strategies are often more costly than
simpler ones in both time and effort, and may divert attention and resources
from crucial to trivial information.
measured integrative complexity on a seven-point scale. It depends on the
differentiation and the integration of facts into the problem-solving process.
High integrative problem solvers consider many facts for their decisions
and try to satisfy all conflict parties. On the other hand low integrative
decision makers know the facts but do not have the ability of making conclusions.
Tetlock and Ramirez (1977) analysed speeches of Near-East diplomats at the
General Assembly of the UN. They also found that the integrative complexity
decreases before militarised disputes. Allies change in their complexity of
arguments, as well. The U.S. complexity correlates with the Israeli complexity.
Suedfeld, Tetlock and Ramirez suppose that the fate of
Israel influences the hegemonic structure of the super power. In contrast
no correlation was found between the Arab states and the former USSR. A
plausible interpretation is that the USSR has no concerns or interests in this
Social Identity Theory
and Turner (1986) proposed the social identity theory (SIT). All individuals
strive to achieve a positive social identity, which is based on favorable
comparisons that can be made between the ingroup and relevant outgroups. For a
positive social identity the in-group must be perceived as positively
differentiated or distinct from the relevant outgroups. When the social identity
is unsatisfactory for the individuals, they will strive to leave the ingroup and
join a positively distinct outgroup. Another possible way is to make the
existing ingroup more positively distinct.
(1994) found, that opposite argumentation and opposition in general are not
perceived in the beginning of war and crises. The groups (in-group and out-group)
tend to be homogenous. The evaluation of ingroup and its leader get more
positive. The outgroup and its leader get negatively evaluated.
pressure may lead to Groupthink (Janis, 1982). Groupthink refers to a
deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgement that
results from in-group pressures. Three conditions must be satisfied for
defective group behaviour: (1) a high homogeneity of group members, (2) a
provocative situation (value threat to group), and (3) low self-esteem of group
members. The cohesive group members desire unanimous agreement but other
antecedents relate to basic structural faults in the group (lack of impartial
leadership and to the immediate decision-making context, external threats and
temporarily decreased self-esteem strengthen the tendency for biased discussion
and consideration of objectives and alternative solutions. The advice of experts
outside the group not to threat the weak group opinion remains unheard.
questionnaire (22 items) was constructed on the basis of these three
psychological theories (Integrative Complexity-Scale, Social Identity-Scale,
time-span 1946-1990 was divided in half-year-terms. Each term was evaluated as
peace or war. 130 articles (Newsweek, Time), which were published in this time
period and 62 speeches (Inaugural addresses, State of the Union) were analysed
by trained subjects.
two discriminant analysis were conducted.
a second step the data were fed into a three-layered Feedforward Neural Net. The
input layer consists of 22 neurons (every neuron represents one item of the
questionaire). 10 neurons form the hidden layer and in the output layer 2
neurons represent the warlike and peaceful states. Training is based on the
Backpropagation algorithm and is performed 1.000 times to maximize the
discriminant validity, i. E. to minimize the predictive error. Figure 1
illustrates the design of the neural net.
1. The design of the Neural net
I. L., Mann, L. (1977). Decision
making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment.
New York: Free Press.
I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd
ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rochester, J. M. (1990).
Global policy and the
future of the United Nations. Journal of Peace Research, 27, 141-154.
J. N. (1990). Turbulence
in World Politics.
New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
P., Tetlock, P. E., & Ramirez, C. (1977). War, peace and integrative
complexity: UN speeches on the Middle East problem, 1947-1976. Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 21, 427-442.
H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The
social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel and W. G, Austin (eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
P. E. (1985). Integrative complexity of American and Soviet foreign policy
rhetoric: A time-series analysis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1565-1585.
Wagner, U. (1994). Eine
sozialpsychologische Analyse von Intergruppenbeziehungen. Göttingen: