Reported are results from two runs of the simulation "Bureaucratic Bargaining," developed to help students understand the inherent tension between roles and belief systems in American foreign policy decision making. To determine their belief systems, 165 students enrolled in an introductory international relations course were tested with a simplified version of the Holsti-Rosenau belief system questionnaire. Students were then divided into three types of teams: (1) conformist (belief systems were in harmony with role expectations of the team); (2) nonconformist (belief systems were in conflict with their bureaucratic mission); and (3) mixed. In all groups, the major decision was on whether or not to intervene in a civil war in the Philippines. As students negotiated with one another to arrive at a team policy, it was evident that role was more potent than beliefs in decision making. Feedback from students, obtained from debriefing sessions following the two runs and written essays they were asked to prepare, indicated that the simulation has potential as a teaching tool. Included in the appendices are the belief system questionnaire and the instructor's manual to the game. (RM)