This paper extrapolates the extent to which political psychology, with special reference to cognitive biases and motivated reasoning, transforms the foreign policy decision makers' ability to signal resolution during international crises. Based on the theoretical contributions from Jervis, Kahneman, and Mercer, the paper investigates how various psychological factors, such as the emotional association with prior beliefs and distortions such as overconfidence, can have a strong influence on communication between adversaries. By making use of a qualitative and interpretive framework, the paper develops strong psychological insights into the theories of international relations by making a strong challenge to the premises of the rationalist bargaining model. The paper concludes by analyzing the limitations of rationalist models and the utmost need to integrate psychological variables into the study of strategic communication.