Role Dissonance in Foreign Policy: Russia, Power, and Intercountry Adoption

States often play multiple roles on the world stage, which need not fit together coherently. Moreover, foreign policy roles may be dissonant with one another: auxiliary roles may detract from the state's master role or status. What prompts decision makers to address role dissonance and role conflict? Building on earlier role theory research, we develop a framework that theorizes when and how role dissonance turns into conflict between a state's master and auxiliary foreign policy roles. We theorize that role conflict may be addressed through modification rather than abandonment of an auxiliary role. The theory is illustrated with a case study that traces Russia's attempt to reconcile dissonance between its major-power role and its auxiliary role as a sending country (in intercountry adoption). We show that the interplay between master and auxiliary roles is complex. States care about status but also address dissonant auxiliary roles and role conflict pragmatically.