Deborah Larson: A Leading Voice in Political Psychology and Foreign Policy Analysis
Deborah Welch Larson is a distinguished professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Her professorship in the Department is supported by the International Studies and Overseas Programs administration at UCLA, highlighting the global significance of her work. Larson's research delves into the intricate intersection of psychology and international relations, offering valuable insights into foreign policy decision-making and the dynamics of global politics.
Academic Background and Research Focus
Larson received her Ph.D. from Stanford University, a foundation upon which she has built a prolific and impactful career. Her research interests are centered on several key areas:
- The role of status concerns in influencing foreign policy: Larson examines how a nation's desire for recognition and standing on the world stage shapes its foreign policy choices.
- Trust: She investigates the critical role of trust (or the lack thereof) in international relations, particularly in the context of conflict and cooperation.
- The use of psychology to explain American foreign policy decision-making: Larson applies psychological theories and frameworks to understand the cognitive processes and biases that influence policymakers.
She is currently developing a framework for evaluating the quality of political judgments in the profoundly uncertain international environment.
Key Publications and Contributions
Larson's scholarship has significantly contributed to the fields of political science and international relations. Her publications include several influential books:
- Origins of Containment: A Psychological Explanation (Princeton University Press, 1985): This book explores the psychological underpinnings of the United States' Cold War policy of containment towards the Soviet Union.
- Anatomy of Mistrust: US-Soviet Relations during the Cold War (Cornell University Press, 1997): This work examines the dynamics of mistrust that characterized US-Soviet relations during the Cold War, analyzing the psychological and political factors that prevented the two superpowers from reaching agreements in the early Cold War.
- Status and World Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2014) (co-edited with T. V. Paul and William Wohlforth): This co-edited volume explores the multifaceted ways in which status concerns shape international politics, examining how states seek, maintain, and challenge their positions in the global hierarchy. That book continues to provoke scholarly interest and was featured at a 2011 conference of political scientists and historians at the Woodrow Wilson Center and in a subsequent edited volume by Stanford University Press, Trust but Verify (2016).
- Quest for Status: Chinese and Russian Foreign Policy (Yale University Press, 2019), with Alexei Shevchenko: In this recent work, Larson and Shevchenko employ social identity theory from social psychology to explain how China and Russia have used various strategies of emulation, competition, and creativity to gain recognition from other countries and thus validate their respective identities.
Teaching and Mentorship
In addition to her research, Professor Larson is also a dedicated teacher and mentor. She teaches a graduate seminar on the making of American foreign policy, providing advanced students with a deep understanding of the factors that shape US foreign policy decisions. She also offers undergraduates lectures on foreign policy and peace and war, introducing them to the fundamental concepts and debates in the field of international relations.
Read also: UCLA vs. Illinois: Basketball History
Focus on Autocratic Regimes and Conflict
Recent scholarship has emphasized variation in militarized interstate dispute (MIDs) propensity across authoritarian regime type. There is little agreement, however, on what structural features make some autocracies more or less pacific. To address this puzzle, this article examines the dyadic interaction between different autocratic types. Using recently updated data, I find that conflict between party-dominant regimes occurs as frequently as democratic dyads. Furthermore, whereas previous work situations decreased MID propensity in the context of audience costs, I find evidence for deeper institutionalized structural causes. As with autocracies more broadly, coup risk plagues the stability and future of party-dominant regimes. Unlike other autocracies, these regimes mitigate such risks by relying on cooptation, legitimization, and power-sharing agreements. I argue that these same mechanisms that make commitments between the dictator and regime insiders credible do so also for agreements between party-dominant regimes. I support this hypothesis quantitatively by in-country regime-type variation.
Read also: Navigating Tech Breadth at UCLA
Read also: Understanding UCLA Counselors
tags: #deborah #larson #ucla #research
