There are always crises in International Relations, but let’s be honest and blunt: the international system is pretty messed up right now, even more so than usual.

Regional wars featuring great powers and their proxies, threatening to escalate into global conflict. Political and economic crises are rippling through countries across the world, including within great power countries. Escalating climate change impacts, both a problem and mitigation/adaptation pathways that few states seem serious about taking responsibility for. Information warfare and the end of truth, making it difficult to know what’s real.

In the global family of sovereign states, the kids aren’t doing too well. Let’s extend that family metaphor a little, to imagine states as individual people, so we might diagnose why they’re not playing well together. Is there anything about their political and strategic cultures that contributes to conflict dynamics?

In this article I present a structured learning activity that offers students of International Relations and Comparative Politics an innovative metaphorical framework to evaluate state behaviour. By anthropomorphising states and applying psychological diagnostic categories, students explore the political and strategic cultures of various countries, while critically examining the strengths and more importantly the limitations of this metaphorical approach. I also provide a psychological evaluation case study of an anthropomorphised Australia, to model what students might come up with in their initial preparatory notes for this activity.

The activity is structured across three phases—preparation through readings and a ChatGPT-based case study evaluation, in-class small-group discussions to compare findings, and a reflective blog post integrating theoretical insights.

The point of this exercise is not complete accuracy. Nor is it to quibble over the problems in equating the behaviour of states with the behaviour of individual people. The rationale is to use each psychological evaluation case study to view state behaviour from a different perspective and to use this as a prompt for critical discussion. It’s a process to help students move beyond national generalisations in search of deeper truths about each state and the international system that can be further interrogated more systematically.

This is to be approached with curiosity, a critical mind, conscious reflection (especially about one’s own country), and perhaps a sprinkle of good humour.

States are not people; they are orders of magnitude more complex. Scholars such as Waltz (1979) and Mearsheimer (2001) argue that states function in an anarchic international system, driven not by individual preferences but by the structural imperatives of survival and power accumulation. Unlike individuals, whose behaviours are often shaped by psychological or moral considerations (Jervis 1976), states must prioritise strategic interests to navigate systemic constraints, a point echoed by Bull (1977) in his discussion of the balance of power.

Anthropomorphising states as people has been scrutinised as a strategy because it risks reifying states as unitary actors, neglecting the influence of internal stakeholder competition on state decision-making (Campbell 1998). Despite these critiques, the anthropomorphic metaphor persists in realist and neoclassical realist literature (Mearsheimer 2001; Schweller 2006), where the state-as-actor framework aids in theorizing strategic decision-making under conditions of anarchy.

In a classic study that all IR students should read, Allison and Zelikow (1999) illustrate through the Cuban Missile Crisis that state decisions often result from bureaucratic processes and organisational dynamics rather than coherent, unified agency akin to individual decision-making. The inherently abstract nature of state behaviour, highlighted by (Starbuck 1982), demonstrates that ideological constructs rather than individual rationality often drive state actions, making such comparisons problematic.

The application of anthropomorphic language, while rhetorically powerful, can obscure the complex interplay of domestic political processes and international norms that influence state action (Wendt 1999). Constructivist scholars, such as Finnemore and Sikkink (1998), further critique the individual-state analogy, highlighting that state behaviour is deeply embedded in social structures and ideational frameworks that differ fundamentally from personal motivations. Katzenstein (1996) and Finnemore (2003) further challenged this approach by emphasising the socially constructed nature of state interests, shaped through transnational norms rather than inherent cultural traits.

Therefore, treating states as if they exhibit human-like behaviours neglects the multiplicity of actors, interests, and structural determinants that shape their actions, a conceptual reductionism that risks distorting analyses of international politics.

What if we pretended that states were people?

That’s not to say that psychology has no place in International Relations. Recent interdisciplinary contributions (Hopf 2010) suggest that while anthropomorphism simplifies complex intra-state dynamics, it’s nonetheless a useful heuristic for integrating cultural and strategic analysis in IR.

Psychology can provide valuable insights into how perception, emotion, and cognitive biases influence International Relations, particularly in areas such as decision-making, conflict escalation, and diplomacy. Jervis (1976) highlights that psychological frameworks can help explain misperceptions and errors in judgement by state leaders, which often lead to unintended conflicts or crises, as demonstrated by the security dilemma dynamics outlined in his work. Lebow (2020) argues that understanding the emotional drivers behind state actions, such as fear or pride, sheds light on how leaders frame threats and opportunities within international systems.

By applying psychological theories, scholars such as Mercer (2005) emphasise the role of emotions in shaping strategic behaviour, particularly in contexts where rational actor models fall short in explaining seemingly irrational state actions, such as overcommitment in unwinnable wars.

Prospect theory, advanced by Kahneman and Tversky (1979), has also been adapted to International Relations to illustrate how state leaders exhibit risk-averse or risk-seeking behaviour depending on their framing of gains and losses, a pattern observable in cases such as nuclear brinkmanship during the Cold War (McDermott 2009). Furthermore, George and Smoke (1974) argue that psychological models enhance understanding of deterrence dynamics by accounting for the role of credibility and perceptions of resolve in shaping adversaries’ expectations.

The anthropomorphising states as analytical entities in political culture and strategic culture scholarship has also drawn both theoretical support, particularly as scholars debate its utility and limitations in interpreting state behaviour. Political culture often invokes metaphors that implicitly humanise states, attributing them with collective identities and preferences, which subsequently shape strategic orientations (Almond and Verba 1989). Huntington (1997) expanded on this by associating civilisations with coherent cultural essences that guide state behaviour.

Similarly, the concept of strategic culture, originating in Snyder’s (1977) seminal report for RAND Corporation, integrates these anthropomorphic tendencies by characterising states as agents with enduring preferences shaped by historical and cultural legacies, which Gray (1981) argued effectively encapsulate the complex interaction between national identity and strategic choice.

Qualified endorsements and very reasonable objections notwithstanding, what if we pretended that states were like people anyway? Theoretical fidelity need not be an obstacle to creative play, if the process of creative play leads back eventually to deeper theoretical understanding. Developing a psychological profile of a state, as a metaphor, can help students of International Relations grasp the collective identities, behavioural tendencies, and decision-making patterns of states in a way that synthesises domestic and international influences (Marks 2018).

Scholars like Wendt (1999) argue that the metaphor of state personality allows for a deeper engagement with how collective identity and interests are socially constructed, shaped by both historical experiences and normative environments. For instance, profiling a state as “paranoid” or “confident” metaphorically captures how its history of conflict or alliance influences its strategic behaviour, as seen in Kagan’s (2003) analysis of post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy through the lens of confidence and hegemony. Similarly, scholars such as Herrmann and Fischerkeller (1995) argue that this metaphorical approach can spotlight the cultural and ideological factors that distinguish a state’s behavioural repertoire.

Moreover, metaphorical state profiling aids in predicting how states might respond under pressure by borrowing from psychological constructs such as resilience or insecurity. For example, Bially Mattern (2005) employs the metaphor of “ontological security” to explain how states seek to maintain a stable sense of identity, even when this quest leads to irrational or aggressive actions. This metaphorical framing is particularly valuable in understanding revisionist states or those undergoing rapid political transformation, where conventional frameworks of rationality fail to capture the underlying dynamics.

By extending psychological metaphors to states, scholars are also able to connect individual-level phenomena, such as leadership styles or political narratives, with broader systemic outcomes, enriching the study of international relations through a lens that combines empirical and interpretive insights (Welch 2016).

Think of using the state anthropomorphism as a thought activity, as an initial step on the road toward systematic investigation using other theories of state behaviour. As a thought activity, it raises interesting issues about political and strategic cultures for students to uncover and ultimately shows them why state anthropomorphism as an explanation (as opposed to a metaphor) for state behaviour is problematic.

Understand political and strategic cultures: Through the diagnostic framework, students learn about the key characteristics of case study countries.

Develop comparative analysis skills: Students compare and contrast political and strategic cultures across countries.

Encourage deeper investigation: The activity prompts further study of specific traits identified during the evaluation.

Critical thinking: Students examine the limits of using psychological metaphors in International Relations.

Creative thinking: The thought experiment encourages innovative perspectives on state behaviour.

Assigned readings: Students should complete the following readings prior to class:

• A reading each on the political and strategic cultures of your chosen case study countries.
• Articles or chapters on state behaviour in International Relations (see Reference List below).
• A short handout to psychological concepts and diagnostic categories.

Pre-class ChatGPT task: Use ChatGPT to provide a “psychological evaluation” of three case study countries.

Please perform your analysis of three case studies, choosing one great power, one middle power, and one small state.

Copy the output and highlight areas you agree or disagree with (to be compared and discussed in class). Supplement the evaluation with evidence from the set readings.

ChatGPT Prompt: You are an expert in the fields of Psychology, Psychiatry, and International Relations. Your task is to perform a full psychological evaluation of [INSERT CASE STUDY STATE HERE], as if it were a person. Base your evaluation on the following diagnostic categories:

• General presentation.
• Developmental history.
• Key personality traits.
• Relationships with others.
• Cognitive patterns.
• Emotional regulation.
• Interpersonal dynamics.
• Personal strengths.
• Personal challenges.

Compile notes: On the basis of your findings on these diagnostic categories, make “therapeutic recommendations” that would improve the mental health and well-being of the personified state.

General presentation: Students should evaluate how the state appears as a whole, considering its international identity, global reputation, and the external perception of its political and strategic culture. This might include its alignment with global norms, its diplomatic demeanour, and its projected stability or volatility.

Developmental history: Students should explore the historical trajectory of the state, including its formation, significant conflicts, colonial or imperial legacies, and critical socio-political transformations. Focus on how historical events shape its current behaviour and strategic priorities.

Key personality traits: Evaluate the state’s defining characteristics, such as assertiveness, caution, adaptability, or ideological rigidity. Consider how these traits manifest in policy choices, governance style, and its role in the international system.

Relationships with others: Analyse the state’s alliances, rivalries, and dependencies, considering its bilateral and multilateral engagements. Pay attention to recurring patterns, such as collaboration or confrontation, and the underlying drivers of these relationships.

Cognitive patterns: Assess the state’s decision-making processes, including its ideological frameworks, prioritisation of goals, and responsiveness to external stimuli. Consider the interplay between rational calculations, cultural influences, and institutional constraints.

Emotional regulation: Examine how the state manages internal and external crises, balancing impulses such as aggression, resilience, or withdrawal. Analyse its ability to maintain stability and avoid erratic behaviour in challenging circumstances.

Interpersonal dynamics: Consider the state’s internal cohesion and external interactions, focusing on the dynamics between governing institutions, public sentiment, and international partnerships. Explore whether the state is cooperative or conflict-prone in its engagements.

Personal strengths: Highlight the state’s assets, such as economic power, military capability, cultural influence, or diplomatic skill. Evaluate how these strengths are leveraged to enhance its position and pursue strategic goals.

Personal challenges: Identify the state’s vulnerabilities, such as political instability, economic dependency, or security threats. Analyse how these challenges constrain its behaviour and shape its interactions with other states.

Group formation: Divide students into groups of 3-4, ensuring diversity in the selected case study countries within each group.

Discussion prompts: Groups discuss the following…

• Share your case study country’s psychological evaluation.
• Compare the key personality traits, developmental histories, and interpersonal dynamics of your case study countries. What patterns or differences emerge?
• Reflect critically:

1. What insights does the psychological metaphor reveal about state behaviour?
2. What are the limits and drawbacks of this approach?
3. How might this metaphor misrepresent or oversimplify state behaviour?
   d. Collaboratively brainstorm therapeutic recommendations for improving the international system’s “mental health.”

Instructor-led debrief: Each group shares key points from their discussion with the class. The instructor facilitates a dialogue about broader implications, reflecting on the pro’s and con’s of anthropomorphising analysis of state behaviour.

Writing prompt: Write a 1,000-word report reflecting on your experience with this activity. Address the following:

• Summarise key findings from your psychological evaluation of your case study country.
• Compare its political and strategic culture with other case study countries discussed in your group.
• Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of anthropomorphising state behaviour as a metaphor.
• Draw on insights from set readings and at least two additional academic sources.

Make sure to balance your creativity with analytical rigour, grounding your reflections in empirical evidence and theoretical insights.

Assessment criteria:

• Clarity and coherence of arguments.
• Engagement with the diagnostic framework and case study.
• Use of academic sources to support insights.
• Reflection on critical and creative thinking processes.

Australia, personified, presents as a pragmatic and approachable individual with a strong sense of self-reliance and adaptability. They appear laid-back on the surface, often exuding a sense of egalitarianism and friendliness. However, deeper layers reveal a person grappling with identity, historical guilt, and conflicting priorities between loyalty to allies and independent decision-making.

The metaphorical presentation of Australia as pragmatic and approachable yet grappling with identity and conflicting priorities aligns with IR analyses of middle-power behaviour. Further investigation could explore Australia’s dual identity as both a Western ally and an independent regional actor, particularly through the lens of middle-power theory (Cooper et al 1993). Constructivist IR frameworks (Wendt 1999) could also investigate how Australia’s self-perception as a “friendly” actor shapes its diplomatic strategies and global reputation, especially in balancing loyalty to powerful allies and regional leadership.

This individual has a colonial origin, heavily influenced by their “parent figures” (the United Kingdom) and later by a strong alliance with the United States. Their early years involved a struggle for identity, eventually leading to independence, though traces of their colonial past remain evident. Relationships with Indigenous Peoples, characterised by dispossession and exclusion, have left unresolved tensions and guilt, shaping their internal psyche.

Australia’s developmental history as a colonial state and its subsequent alliances with the United Kingdom and the United States highlights themes of dependency and alliance theory (Walt 1987). Future research could examine how these historical ties continue to inform Australia’s strategic alignments and its role in the US-led liberal international order. Additionally, Australia’s troubled relationship with Indigenous Australians invites analysis through post-colonial IR theories (Inayatullah & Blaney 2004), particularly in understanding how domestic historical legacies shape its credibility in promoting human rights and reconciliation within international forums.

This individual generally maintains emotional composure, rarely exhibiting extremes. However, they can appear emotionally detached in addressing sensitive issues, particularly regarding their historical legacy and their relationship with Indigenous Australians. This detachment may serve as a defence mechanism to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths.

The portrayal of Australia as emotionally composed but occasionally detached invites further analysis of how national identity and historical legacies influence its behaviour in crises. From an IR perspective, this could be examined through ontological security theory (Bially Mattern 2005), exploring how Australia seeks to maintain a stable self-image despite challenges such as climate-related vulnerabilities or geopolitical shifts in the Indo-Pacific. The emotional detachment regarding sensitive issues, such as Indigenous reconciliation, may also affect Australia’s ability to lead by example in global human rights discourse, undermining its normative power (Manners 2002).

Internally, this person manages a diverse and multicultural household. They are generally inclusive but occasionally struggle with systemic inequities and integrating differing perspectives. Externally, they are viewed as reliable and cooperative, though their occasional reluctance to take bold stances can lead to perceptions of complacency.

Australia’s external reliability and internal diversity align with debates in IR on soft power and normative influence. Future research could explore how Australia’s multiculturalism enhances or hinders its ability to position itself as a global mediator or bridge-builder in forums such as the United Nations. Regional dynamics, particularly with Pacific and Southeast Asian neighbours, could be analysed within the context of Australia’s evolving role as a stabiliser and security provider in the Indo-Pacific (Bisley 2020). However, its reluctance to take bold stances could be interrogated as a potential weakness in establishing regional leadership, especially in competition with China’s growing influence.

Australia’s pragmatic diplomacy and strong resource management are areas where IR scholars could examine its contributions to global governance and economic stability. The nation’s approachable and cooperative style could also be studied within the framework of multilateralism, assessing how these traits facilitate Australia’s participation in coalitions and international institutions (Ravenhill 2001).

The challenges highlighted in this case study reflect enduring IR debates about dependency, autonomy, and normative leadership. Australia’s struggles with Indigenous reconciliation could be explored in terms of their impact on its international legitimacy as a promoter of human rights (Brysk 2009). Similarly, its over-reliance on the US for security and leadership on climate change could be critiqued through dependency theory, raising questions about its capacity for strategic independence in an increasingly multipolar world (Acharya 2014).

Each recommendation corresponds to IR strategies for enhancing Australia’s autonomy and leadership. Confidence-building could be framed within debates on middle-power diplomacy, exploring how Australia might assert itself in the Indo-Pacific without alienating larger powers (Beeson 2011). Values alignment therapy aligns with discussions on norm entrepreneurship, suggesting that Australia could strengthen its international standing by committing to clear, consistent policies on climate change and human rights (Finnemore & Sikkink 1998). Cultural competency training, meanwhile, could be analysed as a soft power strategy, leveraging reconciliation efforts to bolster Australia’s credibility as a global advocate for equity and inclusion.