Lesson Report:
# Title
**Perceived Cost, Strategic Commitment, and Early Signaling Models in IR Case Studies**
This session focused on helping students move beyond simply asking “what happens next?” and instead analyze international actors through the lens of **cost** and, more specifically, **perceived cost**. The class combined a conceptual mini-lecture, repeated worked examples, and a whiteboard group activity in which students began mapping outcomes, actions, and the costs of acting or not acting for their own case studies.
—
# Attendance
– **Absences mentioned:** 0
– **Students named absent:** None mentioned in the transcript
– Note: The transcript does not provide a full attendance roll, only that no absences were explicitly recorded.
—
# Topics Covered
## 1. Opening framing: end-of-term timeline and objective for the day
– Instructor opened by noting the late start and reminding the class that there are roughly **29 days left of classes**, framing the urgency of the remaining work.
– The day’s main objective was stated clearly: students should leave class better able to **think in terms of costs** when analyzing international relations.
– Instructor emphasized that asking only “what will happen next?” is too broad and often unproductive; instead, students should ask:
– what the possible outcomes are,
– what actions are available to a particular actor,
– and what that actor believes the costs of acting or not acting will be.
## 2. Review of previous assignment: listing possible outcomes from the dependent variable
– Instructor reminded students of the task assigned at the end of Tuesday’s class:
– identify the **possible outcomes** of the next action that an actor might take from the dependent variable.
– Students were asked to pull up their work and prepare to use it in class.
– An **uncertain student** asked whether **positive outcomes** could be included in their list.
– Instructor confirmed that yes, positive outcomes can and should be considered; outcomes are not limited to negative consequences.
## 3. Standardizing language: defining “cost” and “perceived cost”
– Before continuing with student cases, instructor paused to standardize class vocabulary.
– Core term introduced/reinforced: **cost**.
– Instructor stressed that what matters analytically is **not objective cost alone**, but **perceived cost**:
– actors do not always respond to reality as it objectively is,
– they respond to what they **believe** the costs will be.
– An **uncertain student** raised confusion about whether “cost” meant only money.
– Instructor clarified that **cost is broader than monetary/economic cost** and can include:
– political cost,
– human cost,
– time,
– reputation/face,
– sacrifice more generally.
– Instructor emphasized that:
– objective cost and perceived cost may align,
– but they do not have to,
– and for prediction purposes, **perceived cost is usually more important** than objective cost.
## 4. Worked example: the two-truck / “boys in the trucks” scenario
– Instructor revisited the recurring simplified game-theory-style example involving two truck drivers heading toward each other:
– one driver identified as **Temir**,
– the other as **Ataybek**.
– Purpose of the example:
– simplify decision-making,
– isolate costs,
– show how perceived cost changes likely outcomes.
### 4a. Listing the possible outcomes
– Students recalled the four general outcomes in the scenario:
– **both stop / both pull over**,
– **Temir pulls over**,
– **Ataybek pulls over**,
– **both crash**.
– Instructor noted that reality would contain more nuance, but these four are sufficient for modeling.
### 4b. Focusing on one actor: Temir’s available actions
– Instructor narrowed the analysis to one actor: **Temir**.
– Temir’s available actions were simplified to:
– **pull over**,
– **keep going**.
– Instructor then asked students to evaluate **costs of acting and not acting** for each.
### 4c. Costs attached to pulling over
– Students and instructor identified that if Temir **pulls over**, one immediate cost is:
– **loss of time**.
– Instructor elaborated that as a truck driver, time likely affects income/productivity, since delivery work may be tied to loads completed.
– When discussing the cost of **not** pulling over, students identified:
– risk of **crash**,
– vehicle damage,
– financial loss,
– injury,
– death.
– **Baktybekov Azamat Baktybekovich** specifically contributed the point that there is a **human/health cost**, including injury or death.
– Instructor reinforced this by explaining that a collision involving heavy trucks could easily be fatal.
### 4d. Costs attached to keeping going
– Students then analyzed the alternative action: **keep going**.
– Cost of **continuing forward**:
– potential accident,
– vehicle damage,
– injury,
– death.
– Cost of **not continuing forward**:
– effectively stopping/losing time,
– disruption,
– possible crash risk depending on how stopping occurs.
### 4e. Ranking likely and ideal outcomes
– Instructor asked students which option appeared **most costly** and which appeared **least costly**.
– An **uncertain student** suggested that simply stopping in the middle of the road might be among the most costly options because:
– it can still lead to collision,
– and even in the best case wastes time.
– Class consensus under the simplified model:
– **least costly** = pulling over,
– **most ideal** in pure self-interest = keeping going *if the other person yields*,
– but because both actors face similar incentives, the **most likely outcome** is that **both pull over**.
– **Baktybekov Azamat Baktybekovich** also agreed with the instructor’s point that the model is simplified but still useful for illustrating strategic reasoning.
## 5. Strategic commitment and visibility: the steering-wheel example
– Instructor then introduced a variation that changes the cost structure:
– Ataybek rips out the truck’s steering wheel and throws it out the window in full view of Temir.
– Purpose of this example:
– demonstrate how **commitment** changes an opponent’s calculation,
– show that what matters is not just the actual situation but whether the opponent can **see and understand** the commitment.
– Instructor explained that by visibly eliminating his own ability to turn, Ataybek makes the cost of “not continuing” effectively **infinite** for himself.
– Because Temir now knows Ataybek cannot change course, Temir’s own cost calculation changes:
– Temir becomes much more likely to pull over.
– Instructor contrasted this with a hidden commitment:
– if Ataybek removed the steering wheel but Temir could not see it,
– Temir’s perceived costs would remain unchanged.
– Main takeaway:
– **visible commitment alters perceived cost**,
– and therefore alters likely behavior.
## 6. Real-world application I: China–Taiwan naval drills and the EEZ
– Instructor shifted from the truck analogy to a real-world example involving **China and Taiwan**.
– Taiwan’s surrounding waters were discussed in terms of the **exclusive economic zone (EEZ)** and sovereignty.
– Scenario described:
– China sends naval vessels very close to Taiwan’s waters,
– sometimes even crossing slightly into them.
– Instructor asked why China would do this if the costs appear high.
– Students and instructor identified the possible worst outcomes for China if Taiwan were to respond forcefully:
– boats could be captured,
– boats could be attacked,
– China could lose equipment and personnel,
– China could lose face/reputation,
– escalation could force a broader military response or war.
– Instructor then unpacked the strategic logic:
– China continues these actions not because the costs are objectively low,
– but because China believes Taiwan sees the cost of responding as **extremely high**.
– Since Taiwan understands that attacking or seizing a Chinese vessel could trigger major escalation or war, China expects Taiwan to hesitate.
– Therefore, from China’s perspective:
– the perceived cost of sending the ship is low,
– because the perceived cost to Taiwan of enforcing its rights is high.
– This example deepened the earlier lesson by adding a second layer:
– actors try to anticipate **what the other side thinks**.
## 7. Real-world application II: U.S.–Iran rhetoric and deterrence through uncertainty
– Instructor revisited the **U.S.–Iran** case from the perspective of Iran.
– Scenario described:
– U.S. political leadership publicly entertains the possibility of a ground invasion of Iran.
– Iran publicly responds in a provocative way, effectively saying: **“come do it.”**
– Instructor asked why Iran would appear to invite invasion if an invasion would be extremely costly.
– The answer given:
– Iran’s goal is not to welcome invasion,
– but to **raise the perceived cost of invasion in American minds**.
– Instructor explained that:
– the U.S. would invade only if it believed costs were sufficiently low relative to not invading,
– therefore Iran’s strategy is to increase uncertainty and danger in that calculation.
– By publicly appearing ready and defiant, Iran attempts to make American planners think:
– invasion might succeed,
– but there is also a serious chance of a costly quagmire, severe casualties, or a long-term entanglement.
– Instructor used probabilistic language to illustrate the point:
– even a smaller chance of disastrous failure can change the decision calculus.
– Main analytical lesson:
– actors seek to **raise the opponent’s perception of cost**,
– not necessarily by changing reality dramatically, but by shaping expectations.
## 8. Transition to student case studies: whiteboard group activity
– With roughly 20 minutes left, instructor moved students into **case-study groups** at the whiteboards.
– Group topics mentioned:
– **U.S.–Iran**
– **China–Taiwan**
– **Greenland**
– Instructor clarified the sequence students should follow for the exercise.
### 8a. Activity instructions
Students were told to:
– work with their case-study group,
– make sure they are using the **same dependent variable**,
– focus on **one actor’s perspective**,
– identify that actor’s **ultimate goal**,
– list possible **outcomes**,
– then list the **actions** the actor could take to reach those outcomes,
– then evaluate the **costs of acting and not acting** for each action/outcome pair.
### 8b. Clarification on outcomes vs. actions
– During the setup, an **uncertain student** asked whether actions and outcomes were the same.
– Instructor clarified:
– first list the **outcomes**,
– then separately list the **actions** needed to move toward those outcomes.
– Instructor thanked the student for the clarification and adjusted the instructions accordingly.
### 8c. Clarification on judging likelihood
– An **uncertain student** asked whether groups should already assess the **likelihood** of the outcomes.
– Instructor said that likelihood did **not** need to be judged immediately;
– instead, the class would use the cost analysis as the basis for that assessment later.
## 9. In-class group work and instructor circulation
– Students worked on the boards while the instructor circulated and checked progress.
– Instructor reiterated that the goal was not perfection, but getting into the right **strategic headspace** for future modeling.
– The class worked under time pressure.
– By the end:
– **China–Taiwan** appeared finished,
– **U.S.–Greenland / Greenland** appeared finished,
– **U.S.–Iran** was still incomplete and had “a lot of things to write.”
– Instructor pushed the unfinished group to at least complete costs for one or two actions before time ran out.
– Because there was not enough time for presentations, instructor decided to:
– **take photos of the whiteboards**,
– and **project them at the start of Tuesday’s class** for continuation.
## 10. Closing: next class and reading
– A student asked whether the unfinished board work should be completed at home.
– The transcript contains a **slightly unclear exchange** about this, but the instructor appears to lean toward **not requiring completion at home**.
– Instructor closed by explaining that the next class would begin by revisiting the cost analyses from the boards.
– Tuesday’s lesson will then move into **signaling**:
– defined here as showing an adversary what one is capable of doing.
– Instructor also stated that there would be **a little reading on signaling over the weekend**.
– Class dismissed with a reminder that Tuesday would build directly on today’s cost-analysis work.
—
# Student Tracker
– **Baktybekov Azamat Baktybekovich** — Contributed to the truck-cost example by identifying health/injury/death as relevant costs and supported the conclusion that, in the simplified model, both actors would likely pull over.
– **Uncertain student** — Asked whether positive outcomes could be included in the outcome lists; prompted confirmation that outcomes can be positive as well as negative.
– **Uncertain student** — Prompted clarification that “cost” is not limited to monetary cost and can include political, human, and other forms of sacrifice.
– **Uncertain student** — Argued that stopping in the middle of the road could be especially costly because it still risks collision while also wasting time.
– **Uncertain student** — Clarified during activity setup that outcomes and actions should be listed separately, improving the group instructions.
– **Uncertain student** — Asked whether groups should assess likelihood immediately and later asked about whether unfinished action/cost work should be completed at home.
—
# Actionable Items
## High urgency / For next class
– Project the photos of the group whiteboards at the start of Tuesday’s class.
– Resume the **costs of acting vs. not acting** exercise, especially for the unfinished **U.S.–Iran** group.
– Continue from cost analysis into the next concept: **signaling**.
– Use the completed cost frameworks to begin assessing **which outcomes are most likely**.
## Medium urgency / Course management
– Confirm the homework expectation for unfinished board work; the transcript contains a brief unclear exchange about whether students should finish remaining actions/costs outside class.
– Make sure each group preserves the same **dependent variable** and **single-actor perspective** when continuing next class.
– Reinforce the distinction between **outcomes** and **actions**, since this required clarification during the activity.
## Lower urgency / Materials and follow-up
– Distribute or remind students about the **weekend reading on signaling**.
– Consider revisiting the “perceived cost vs. objective cost” distinction briefly next class, since it is foundational to the upcoming signaling discussion.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Complete your case-study cost analysis
You will finish the case-study framework you began in class so that you can apply today’s main idea: predicting what an actor will do by analyzing the perceived costs of acting and not acting. This prepares you for Tuesday’s discussion, when you will return to your cost analysis and use it to build predictions about your case.
Instructions:
1. Return to your case study and make sure you are working with the same dependent variable your group used in class.
2. Choose the single actor whose perspective you are analyzing. Focus only on that actor’s decision-making process.
3. Write down that actor’s ultimate goal in the conflict or situation. In class, this was described as the actor’s ideal outcome.
4. Make a list of the possible outcomes that actor could pursue or that could result from the situation.
5. For each outcome, list the specific action or actions the actor could take to move toward that outcome.
6. For each action, identify the cost of acting. Remember that “cost” does not only mean money. Include any relevant political, military, human, reputational, strategic, or time-related costs.
7. For each action, also identify the cost of not acting.
8. As you complete your list, focus on perceived cost, not just objective cost. Ask yourself what the actor thinks the cost will be, since that was the key concept emphasized in class.
9. If helpful, use the examples from class to guide your thinking:
1. pulling over versus continuing in the truck example,
2. China’s naval drills near Taiwan,
3. Iran’s attempt to raise the perceived cost of U.S. invasion.
10. Review your completed chart or notes and consider which option appears least costly and which appears most costly from your actor’s perspective.
11. Bring your finished analysis to class on Tuesday, since class will begin by going over your costs.
ASSIGNMENT #2: Read on signaling
You will complete the assigned reading on signaling so that you can connect today’s discussion of costs and perceived costs to the next concept in the unit: how actors try to show an adversary what they are capable of doing. This reading will help you understand how signaling shapes the choices actors make in international relations.
Instructions:
1. Complete the assigned reading on signaling over the weekend before Tuesday’s class.
2. As you read, pay attention to the definition of signaling as it was introduced in class: showing your adversary what you are capable of doing.
3. Look for ways signaling affects perceived cost. Ask yourself how an actor tries to make an opponent believe that a certain action will be costly.
4. Connect the reading to today’s examples:
1. the truck driver throwing out the steering wheel,
2. China’s actions near Taiwan,
3. Iran’s public statements about a possible invasion.
5. While reading, note at least a few examples or ideas that show how signaling can change an opponent’s calculations.
6. Come to class on Tuesday prepared to discuss how signaling and cost analysis work together to help predict what an actor is likely to do next.