There’s a moment in every poker game when players stop trying to win and start trying not to lose. They hoard chips, avoid risks, and eye every opponent with suspicion. Psychologists call this “scarcity mindset.” Economists call it “loss aversion.” History calls it the prelude to disaster.
We’re watching this unfold on the global stage right now.
Canada’s recent pivot toward “strategic autonomy” — building fortress economies, diversifying away from traditional allies, preparing for a world of fluid coalitions rather than stable partnerships — reflects a broader trend. Nations worldwide are choosing self-sufficiency over interdependence, viewing every relationship through the lens of potential betrayal.
The reasoning seems sound: protect yourself before others hurt you. But decades of research in social psychology and behavioural economics reveal a troubling truth: this defensive crouch doesn’t prevent conflict. It guarantees it.
The science of self-fulfilling prophecies
In 1968, Robert Rosenthal demonstrated what psychologists now call the Pygmalion Effect: teachers, told certain students were “intellectual bloomers”, saw those students actually perform better — not because the students changed, but because the teachers’ expectations altered their behaviour in subtle, powerful ways.
The same mechanism works in reverse. When we expect betrayal, we create it.
Research by economist Ernst Fehr shows that in trust games, players who anticipate defection are significantly more likely to defect first — even when cooperation would benefit both parties. Their defensive behaviour triggers the very betrayal they feared. Neuroscience reveals why: our brains process anticipated threats similarly to real ones, triggering identical stress responses and defensive reactions.
Apply this to international relations. When Canada builds a “fortress economy” assuming American unreliability, it reduces U.S. incentives to remain reliable. When China stockpiles resources expecting Western containment, it validates Western fears of Chinese aggression. Each defensive measure confirms others’ suspicions, ratcheting tensions upward in a spiral social psychologists call “reactive devaluation.”
We’re not preparing for conflict. We’re creating it.
The vulnerability advantage
This seems to contradict everything we know about survival. Is protecting yourself rational?
Here’s where behavioural economics offers a counterintuitive insight: vulnerability, strategically deployed, can be your greatest strength. Game theorist Robert Axelrod’s famous computer tournaments testing cooperation strategies revealed that “Tit for Tat”— starting with trust and only retaliating after betrayal — consistently outperformed more defensive strategies. But even more interesting was what happened when he added communication: strategies that signaled intentions and maintained some openness even after defection performed better still.
The reason relates to what economists call “credible commitment.” When you maintain vulnerability — genuine interdependence that makes betrayal costly to yourself — you signal that cooperation isn’t just rhetoric. You’ve put skin in the game.
Consider the European Union’s original architecture. By intertwining coal and steel industries — the sinews of war — nations made conflict literally unthinkable. Germany couldn’t attack France without crippling itself. This wasn’t weakness. It was the strongest possible guarantee of peace.
Four actions for a connected future
So how do we escape the trust paradox when current global trends point toward fragmentation? Research suggests four actionable interventions.
1. Create costly cooperation signals
Behavioural economics shows that cheap talk fails; costly signals succeed. Nations must go beyond treaties and create genuine mutual dependencies in areas that matter: joint research facilities for pandemic prevention, integrated renewable energy grids, shared AI safety protocols. When backing out would genuinely hurt you, partners believe your commitment. Instead of diversifying away from allies, deepen integration in select strategic areas where mutual vulnerability becomes mutual insurance.
2. Build transparent feedback mechanisms
Social psychology research on conflict de-escalation consistently shows that misunderstanding drives most conflicts — but only when parties lack correction mechanisms. Create institutional channels for real-time clarification of intentions. This means regular, mandatory consultations on policy changes affecting partners, with built-in waiting periods before implementation. When the EU requires regulatory impact assessments on partner nations, it reduces reactive devaluation by helping others understand reasoning, not just outcomes.
3. Invest in cross-cultural empathy infrastructure
Neuroscience reveals that our brains process in-group and out-group members differently — but that these categories are remarkably fluid. Contact theory research by Gordon Allport shows that sustained, equal-status interaction dramatically reduces prejudice. Nations should fund massive expansion of exchange programmes, sister-city initiatives, and collaborative projects involving ordinary citizens, not just elites. When Canadians and Americans work together on local environmental projects, abstract geopolitical tensions matter less than concrete shared interests.
4. Reframe national success metrics
Behavioural economics demonstrates that humans optimize for what they measure. Currently, nations measure success through relative gains: GDP growth versus competitors, military capability ratios, resource control. This creates zero-sum thinking. Instead, adopt metrics emphasizing absolute wellbeing: citizen health outcomes, environmental sustainability, innovation rates, social trust levels. When success means your people thriving — regardless of how others fare — cooperation becomes attractive rather than threatening.
The flourishing choice
Human flourishing research consistently shows that wellbeing correlates more with relationship quality than material wealth. The same holds for nations. The most secure, prosperous countries aren’t those with the highest walls or biggest armies, but those embedded in dense networks of mutually beneficial relationships.
We face a choice masquerading as inevitability. Current trends toward strategic autonomy and fortress economies feel like prudent responses to a dangerous world. But social psychology and behavioural economics reveal them as dangerous responses to a world we’re making more dangerous through our very caution.
The paradox of trust is that it requires risk.
